This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

भारतको राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

:

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

नई दिल्ली , जून 21 जून 27 , 2009 , शनिवार/ज्येष्ठ 31 - आषाढ़6, 1931 NEW DELHI , JUNE 21-JUNE 27 , 2009, SATURDAY/JYAISTHA 31- ASADHA 6, 1931 सं. 26 ] No. 26]

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

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

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

विधि और न्याय मंत्रालय

Additional Solicitor General of India in the High Court of Madras at Chennai w.e.f. 6-6-2009 (ΑΝ) .

[F. No. 18(4)/2008 -Judl . ] (विधि कार्य विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 15 जून , 2009

M.A. KHAN YUSUFI , Jt . Secy. & Legal Adviser

नई दिल्ली, 15 जून , 2009

1 .

का.आ. 1763.-राष्ट्रपति , श्री एम. रवीन्द्रन , वरिष्ठ अधि वक्ता का दिनांक 6 जून , 2009 ( अपराह्न ) से चैन्ने स्थित मद्रास उच्च न्यायालय में भारत के अपर महासालिसिटर के पद से त्यागपत्र स्वीकार करते हैं ।

[फा. सं. 18 ( 4 )/2008-न्यायिक ]

एम. ए. खां यूसुफी, संयुक्त सचिव एवं विधि सलाहकार

का.आ. 1764.-राष्ट्रपति, दिनांक 10 जून , 2009 (अपराह) से श्री के. पी. पाठक, वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता का भारत के उच्चतम न्यायालय में भारत के अपर महासालिसिटर के पद से त्यागपत्र स्वीकार करते हैं ।

[फा. सं. 18 (5 )/2004-न्यायिक ] MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

एम. ए. खां यूसुफी, संयुक्त सचिव एवं विधि सलाहकार (Department of Legal Affairs)

New Delhi , the 15th June, 2009 New Delhi , the 15th June , 2009

S.O. 1764. The President is pleased to accept the resignation of Shri K.P. Pathak, Senior Advocate as S.O. 1763. The President is pleased to accept the resignation of Shri M. Ravindran , Senior Advocate as

(3639)

2205 G1/2009 3640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 18th June, 2009 Additional Solicitor General of India in the Supreme Court ofIndia w.e.f. 10-6-2009(ΑΝ).

[F. No. 18(5)/2004-Judl . ] M. A. KHAN YUSUFI , Jt. Secy. & Legal Adviser

S.O.1767 -The President is pleased to accept the resignation of Dr. Ashok Nigam, Senior Advocate as Additional Solicitor General of India, Allahabad w.e.f. 17-6-2009 (ΑΝ).

[F. No. 18(7)/2005-Judi . ] M. A. KHAN YUSUFI, Jt . Secy. & Legal Adviser

लय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

जयपुर , 10 जून , 2009

नई दिल्ली, 15 जून , 2009 का.आ. 1765.-राष्ट्रपति, श्री पराग पी. त्रिपाठी , वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता का दिनांक 6 जून , 2009 ( अपराह ) से भारत के उच्चतम न्यायालय में भारत के अपर महासालिसिटर के पद से त्यागपत्र स्वीकार करते हैं ।

सं. 02/2009-10

[फा. सं. 18 (8) /2007-न्यायिक] एम.ए. खां यूसुफी, संयुक्त सचिव एवं विधि सलाहकार

New Delhi , the 15th June, 2009 S.O. 1765.- The President is pleased to accept the resignation of Shri Parag P. Tripathi , Senior Advocate as Additional Solicitor General of India in the Supreme Court ofIndia w.e.f. 6-6-2009 (ΑΝ).

का. मा. 1768. आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23सी ) की उप - धारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एत‌द्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2007-08 एवं आने के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से "इडियन इन्सट्‌यूट ऑफ हैल्प मैनेजमेंट रिसर्च, जबपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं ।

[F. No. 18(8)/2007-Judl .] M. A. KHAN YUSUFI , Jt . Secy. & Legal Adviser

बसते कि समिति आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आनकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उपखण्ड ( 23सी ) की उप- कारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[क्रमांक: मुआ/अआआ ( मु.)/क्य/10( 23सी)

(vi)/09-10/867 ]

बी. एस. ढिल्लों, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त नई दिल्ली , 15 जून , 2009 का.आ. 1766.-राष्ट्रपति, श्री मोहन पारासरन , वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता का दिनांक 5 जून , 2009 ( अपराह ) से भारत के उच्यतम न्यायालय में भारत के अपर महासालिसिटर के पद से त्यागपत्र स्वीकार करते हैं ।

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

[फा. सं. 18(9)/2004-न्यायिक ] एम. ए. खां यूसुफी, संयुक्त सचिव एवं विधि सलाहकार

Jaipur, the 10th June, 2009 No. 62/2009-10

New Delhi , the 15th June , 2009 S.O.1766 . The President is pleased to accept the resignation of Shri Mohan Parasaran, Senior Advocate as Additional Solicitor General of India in the Supreme Court ofIndiaw.e.f. 5-6-2009 (ΑΝ).

S.O. 1768. In exercise of the powers confiared by sub-clause(vi) ofclause (23C) ofSection 10 of the Income- taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA ofthe Income- tex Randes, 1962the ChiefCommissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Indian Institute ofHealth Management Research, Jaipur" for the purpose of said section forthe A.Yrs. 2007-08& owwards.

[F. No. 18(9)/2004-Judl . ] M. A. KHAN YUSUFI , Jt . Secy. & Legal Adviser

नई दिल्ली , 18 जून , 2009

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

[No.CCIT/JPR/Addl . CIT ( Hiqrs )/ 10(23C)( vi)/2009-10/867] B. S. DHILLON , Chief Commissioner of Income- tax

परमाणु उर्जा विश्चाग

का.आ. 1767.-राष्ट्रपति , दिनांक 17 जून , 2009 ( अपसह) से डा. अशोक निगम , वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता का भारत के अपर महासालिसिटर, इलाहाबाद के पद से त्यागपत्र स्वीकार करते हैं ।

मुंबई , 11 जून , 2009

[फा. सं. 18(7) /2005-न्याविक ]

एम. ए. खां यूसुफी, संयुक्त सचिव एवं विधि सलाहकार

का.आ. 1769. केन्द्रीय सरकार , सरकारी परिसर ( अप्राधिकृत अविनोनियों की नेपाली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3641

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, परमाणु उर्जा विभाग , भारत सरकार , भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खंड 3 , उप-खंड ( ii ) में प्रकाशित , दिनांक 3-12-1993 के का. आ. सं. 588 की अधिसूचना में निम्नलिखित संशोधन और करती है ।

उक्त अधिसूचना में दी गई सारणी के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित सारणी रखी जाएगी , अर्थात्:-

सारणी

सरकारी परिसर अधिकारी का पदनाम

(1)

(2) अपर प्रबंधक ( प्रशासन ) , ( नरवापहाड़ परियोजना , यूरेनियम कारपरोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड, पी.ओ. नरवापहाड़, जिला : सिंहभूम ( पूर्व ) , झारखंड

यूरेनियम कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड, पी.ओ. नरवापहाड़, जिला : सिंहभूम (पूर्व) , झारखंड के स्वामित्व वाले अथवा उनके द्वारा पट्टे पर लिए गये परिसर और जो नरवापहाड़ परियोजना के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में है ।

[फा. सं. 10/8 (5 ) /2009-पीएसयू]

लतिका गोयल , उप सचिव टिप्पणी: मूल अधिसूचना, दि. 26 फरवरी , 1994 को भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में दिनांक 3 दिसम्बर, 1993 की अधिसूचना सं. एसओ 588 द्वारा प्रकाशित हुई थी और बाद में दिनांक 11-5-1999 की अधिसूचना सं. सा.आ.1383 तथा दिनांक 31-10-2003 की अधिसूचना सं एसा आ. 3195 द्वारा संशोधित की गई थी । DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY Mumbai , the 11th June, 2009

S.O. 1769.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section3 ofthe Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ), the Central Government hereby makes the following further amendments in the notification of the Government of India in the Department. ofAtomic Energy, published in the Gazette of India, Part- II, Section 3, Sub -section ( ii) vide number S.O. 588 dated the 3rd December , 1993 namely :-

Inthe said notification, for the Table, the following Table shall be substituted, namely :- TABLE

Designation of the Officer (1)

Public Premises (2)

AdditionalManager (Adminis- tration) ,Narwapahar Project, Uranium Corporation of India Limited, P.O. Narwapahar, District : Singhbhum ( East) , Jharkhand.

Premises belonging to or taken on lease for the Uranium Corporation of India Limited, P.O. Narwapahar , District: Singhbhum (East), Jharkhand and which are under the administrative control ofat Narwapahar Project.

[F. No. 10/8(5)/2009 -PSU]

LATHIKA GOEL, Dy . Secy.

Note : The Principal Notification was published in the Gazette of India, Part II , Section 3 , Sub- section (ii) , dated February26, 1994 vide Notification No.S.O. 588 dated the December 3 , 1993 and was subsequently amended by Notification No. 1383 dated 11-5-1999 and Notification No. S. Ο . 3195 dated31-10-2003 .

स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1770.- भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " नागपुर विश्वविद्यालय, नागपुर " और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के बाद " प्रवर आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , (सम विश्वविद्यालय ) लोनी , महाराष्ट्र " को जोड़ा जाएगा और " ग्रामीण चिकित्सा कालेज , लोनी, महाराष्ट्र " के सामने शीर्षक " मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " [ इसके आगे स्तम्भ ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत और शीर्षक " पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण " [ इसके आगे स्तम्भ ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ] के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित को रखा जाएगा , अर्थात्:-

मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता

(2)

आयुर्विज्ञान और शल्य विज्ञान स्नातक

संवेदनाहरण डिप्लोमा

शिशुस्वास्थ्यडिप्लोमा

निदान विकृति विज्ञान डिप्लोमा

पंजीयकरण के लिए संक्षेपण

(3)

एम बी बी एस ( यदि दिसम्बर , 2008 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

डी. ए . ( यदि जून , 2007 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो )

डी. सी. एच. ( यदि जून , 2007 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो )

डी. सी. पी. ( यदि जून , 2007 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) 3642

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

(3)

प्रसूति और स्त्री रोग विज्ञान डिप्लोमा

डी. जी. ओ. ( यदि जून , 2007 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) .

नेत्र विज्ञान डिप्लोमा

डी. ओ. ( यदि जून , 2007 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) विकलांग विज्ञान डिप्लोमा

डी. आर्थो. ( यदि जून , 2007 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) विकिरण निदान डिप्लोमा

डी. एम. आर. डी. ( यदि जून , 2007 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो ) डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( संवेदनाहरण विज्ञान)

एम. डी. ( एनेस्थे) ( यदि मई , 2008 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन (न्याय चिकित्सा)

एम. डी. (न्याथ चिकित्सा ) ( यदि मई , 2008 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( सामान्य चिकित्सा)

एम. डी. (जन. मेडि) ( बदि मई , 2008 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( सूक्ष्म जीव विज्ञान)

एम. डी. ( सूक्ष्म जीव विज्ञान ) ( यदि मई , 2008 को या इसके बाद प्रदान कीगई हो)

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( प्रसूति और स्त्री रोग विज्ञान )

एम. डी. ( आक्ट एंड गावणी ) ( यदि मई , 2008 को या इसके बाद प्रदान कीगई हो)

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन ( बाल चिकित्सा)

एम. एस ( कल चिकित्सा ) ( यदि मई , 2008 को या इसके बाद प्रदान कीगई हो)

डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन (विकृति विज्ञान )

एम. डी. ( वैध ) ( यदि मई , 2008 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन (विकिरण निदान)

एम. डी. ( आर डी) ( बदि मई , 2008 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो) डाक्टर आफ मेडिसिन (सामाजिक एवं निवारक आयुर्विज्ञान एवं एम. डी. ( एस पी एम/कम्यू मेडि) ( यदि मई , 2008 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

समुदाय चिकित्सा)

शल्य क्रिया निष्णात ( शरीर रचना विज्ञान )

एम. एस ( शरीर रचना विज्ञान ) ( यदि मई , 2008 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

शल्य क्रिया निष्णात ( सामान्य सर्जरी )

एम. एस ( जन. सर्ज. ) ( यदि मई, 2008 को या इसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो)

[फा. सं. यू. 120/ 12/21 /2008 - एम ई ( पी- II) ]

के. वी. एस. राव , उप सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(DepartmentofHealth and FamilyWelfare)

New Delhi , the 16th June, 2009

S.O. 1770. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (2) ofthe Section 11 ofthe Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956), the Central Government, after consulting the Medical Council of India, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

1 In the said First Schedule after "Nagpur University, Nagpur" and entries relating thereto "Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences ( Deemed University) , Loni , Maharashtra" shall be added and against "Rural Medical College, Loni , Maharashtra" under the heading 'Recognized Medical Qualification ' [ hereinafter referred to as column (2) ] , and under the heading "Abbreviation for Registration" (hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted namely:-

Recognized Medical Qualification

Abbreviation for Registration

(2)

(3)

Bachelor ofMedicine & Bachelor of Surgery

MBBS(when granted on or after December 2008) Diploma in Anesthesia

D.A. (when granted on or after June, 2007)

Diploma inChildHealth

D.C.H. (when granted on or after June , 2007)

Diploma in Clinical Pathology

D.C.P. (when granted on or after June, 2007) 3643 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 27, 2009/ आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

(3)

(2)

D.G.O. (whengranted on or after June, 2007)

Diploma in Obstetrics & Gynaecology

D.O. (whengranted on or after June , 2007)

Diploma in Ophthalmology

D. Ortho (when granted on or after June, 2007)

Diploma in Orthopaedics

D.M.R.D. (whengranted on or after June , 2007)

Diploma in Radio-Diagnosis

M.D. (Anaesth . ) (when granted on or after May, 2008) Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesiology )

M.D. (For . Med. ) (when granted on or after May, 2008) Doctor ofMedicine (Forensic Medicine)

M.D. (Gen. Med. ) (when granted on or after May , 2008 ) Doctor ofMedicine (General Medicine)

M.D. (Mic . Bio. ) (when granted on or after May, 2008).

Doctor ofMedicine (Microbiology)

M.D. (Obst & Gynae. ) (when granted on or after May, 2008) Doctor ofMedicine (Obstetrics & Gynaecology)

M.D. (Paed. ) (when granted on or after May, 2008) Doctor ofMedicine (Paediatrics)

M.D. (Path. ) (when granted on or after May, 2008 ) Doctor ofMedicine (Pathology)

M.D. (R.D.) (when granted on or after May, 2008) Doctor ofMedicine (Radio Diagnosis)

M.D. (S.P.M./Comm.Med. ) (when granted on or after May, Doctor ofMedicine (Social & Preventive Medicine/

2008)

CommunityMedicine)

M.S. (Anat. ) (when granted on or after May, 2008) Master of Surgery (Anatomy)

M.S. (Gen. Surg. ) (when granted on or after May , 2008 ) Master of Surgery (General Surgery)

[F. No. U. 12012/21 /2008-ME (P -II)] K. V. S. RAO , Dy. Secy.

उपभोक्ता मामले, खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय (उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

रसायन और उर्वरक मंत्रालय (उर्वरक विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2009

नई दिल्ली, 9 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1772.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (कों) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

का.आ. 1771.-केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा " संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग " नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4) के अनुसरण में रसायन एवं उर्वरक मंत्रालय , उर्वरक विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन एफएसीटी के पालक्काडु क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय/कृषि सेवा केन्द्र, जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक अर्थात्लगभग शत -प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है ।

संशोधन की संख्या

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

और तिथि

[सं. ई-11011/4/2008 -हिन्दी] सतीश चंद्र, संयुक्त सचिव

मानक की संख्या सं और वर्ष

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

MINISTRY OF CHEMICALS AND FERTILIZERS (Department of Fertilizers)

5जून , 2009

संशोधन संख्या 10,मई, 2009

1. आई एस 13849: 1993

NewDelhi , the 2nd June, 2009

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

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ] S.O. 1771.-In pursuance of sub-Rule (4) of the Rule 10 ofthe Official Language "Use for official purposes of the Union" Rule, 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the office of The Fertilisers and Chemicals Travancore Ltd. , Palakkadu Regional Office /Krishi Sewa Kendra under the administrative control ofthe Ministry of Chemicals and Fertilizers, Department of Fertilizers whereof more than 80 % i.e. about 100% staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi .

ए. के. सैनी , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल

इंजीनियरी ) [No. E- 11011/4/2008-Hindi ] SATISH CHANDRA, Jt. Secy.

3644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of ConsumerAffairs) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS New Delhi, the 9th June, 2009 S.O. 1772. In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub-rale(1) ofRule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl . No.

No. and year of the Indian Standards

No. and year of the amend- ment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

1. IS13849 : Amendment 5June,2009 1993

No. 10,May,2009

Copyofthis 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.

[Ref: CED/Gazette] A. K. SAINI , Sc . ' F' & Head (Civil Engg.) नईदिल्ली, 15 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1773.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक में संशोधन किया गया है :

अनुसूची

क्रम

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 15th June, 2009

S.O. 1773. In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub-rule (1) of Rule 7ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schodule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and year of the amend ment

No. and year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

1. IS459:1992 3May,2009 25May,2009

2. IS14062: 2000 3 May, 2009 26May,2009

3. IS14871: 2000 1 May, 2009 04.June,2009

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

[Ref: CED/Gazette]

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

नई दिल्ली, 15 जून , 2009

का. आर. 1774.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियन ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक म्यूरो एक्यूहास अभिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक में संतोषन किल्क गक है :

अनुसूची

संतोभित भारतीय

क्रम

सं. मानक की संख्या

सं.

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

( 1) ( 2)

(3)

(4) 1. आई एस 459 : 1992 3 मई , 2009 25 मई, 2009 2.

3 मई , 2009 26 मई,2009 आई एस 14862: 2000

3. आई एस 14871 : 2000 1 मई, 2009 04 जून , 2009 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 , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

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

संशोधनलागू होने की तिथि

और वर्च

(1) (2)

(4)

(3)

1. आई एस 459 : 1992

25 मई, 2009

3 मई, 2009

26मई, 2009

2. आई एस 14862: 2000 3 मई, 2009

1 मई , 2009

आई एस 14871 : 2000

04जून, 2009

う इन संशोधनों की प्रतियों भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली , कोरमा , चीन , चेन्नई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदावाद , मंगलौर , मोनार कोर गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, नानपुर, पटका, पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्न हैं ।

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ]

ए. के. सैनी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) 3645 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़6, 1931

NewDelhi , the 15th June , 2009

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

S.O. 1774.- In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub-rule (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau ofIndian Standards hereby notifies the amendment to the Indian Standard, particulars ofwhich is given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ]

ए. के. सैनी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) Sl. No.

No.and year of the amend ment

No. and year of the Indian Standards

Date fromwhich the amendment shall have effect

(1)

(4)

(2)

(3)

New Delhi , the 16th June , 2009 1. IS459: 1992 3rdMay, 2009 25th May, 2009

2. IS 14862: 2000 3rd May, 2009 26th May,2009

1st May, 2009 04th June, 2009

3. IS14871 : 2000

S.O. 1775 -In pursuance of clause (b) of Sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of whichare given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Copy ofthis 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.

[Ref: CED/Gazette]

Sl. No.

No. and year of the Indian Standards

No. and year ofthe amend- ment

Date fromwhich the amendment shall have effect A. K. SAINI, Sc . 'F' & Head (Civil Engg.)

नई दिल्ली, 16 जून , 2009

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

10thJune,2009

IS2878 : 2004

Amendment No.6May,2009

का.आ. 1775.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय. मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक (कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

क्रम संशोधित भारतीय सं. मानक की संख्या औरवर्ष

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

Copyofthis 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.

10जून, 2009

[Ref:CED/Gazette] 1. आई एस 2878 : 2004

संशोधन संख्या 6मई , 2009

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

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1776.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) के उप-विनियम (6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/स्थगित कर दिया गया है: -

अनुसूची

लाइसेंस संख्या लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

रद्द करने की तिथि

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत बस्तु/ प्रक्रम सबंद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या सीएम/एल

1. 7371373

म. मा. 4250 : 1980

20090309 कंचन इंटरनेशनल लिमिटेड , यूनिट 3 ,

9-10, सोमनाथ इंडस्ट्रियल को. ऑ. घरेलूविद्युत खाद्य मिक्सर

सोसायटी , सोमनाथ डेअरी के सामने , ( द्रवीकृत और ग्राइण्डर )

सोमनाथ रोड, दाभेल, दीव दमण-39621 3646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या सीएम/एल

2 7852591

पवन अप्लायंसेस , गोडाउन सं. 9 , के. वी. कंपाउण्ड, टी जे रोड , स्वॉन मिल के सामने, शिवरी , मुम्बई-400015

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम सबंद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

20090317 भ. मा. 4250 : 1980

मिक्सर (द्रवीकृत और ग्राइण्डर ) ।

[संख्या सीएमडी/ 13 : 13 ]

पी. के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi , the 18th June, 2009

S.O. 1776. In pursuance ofSub- regulation (6) ofthe Regulation 5 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences , particulars ofwhich are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Licence No.

Sl . No.

Name and Address ofthe Licensee

7371373

Kanchan International Ltd. , (Unit 3), 9-10, Somnath Industrial Co-operative Society, Opposite Somnath Dairy Farm, Somnath Road, DabhelDaman & Diu-396210 2.

7852591 PavanAppliances Godown No. 9, K. V. Compound , T. J. Road, Opp. SwanMill, Sewree, Mumbai -400015

Cancellation Indian Standards covered bythe licence cancelled/ suspension

20090309 Liquidizer and Grinder only, Single Phase, 230VAC, 50 HZ, 550W, on time 30 Minutes , Class 1 appliances

20090317 500W, 230V, 50 Hz, Class 1 domestic electric food mixer with 1 litre liquidizer , 75ml grinder, and30 min, Class H insulated motor

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

नईदिल्ली, 18 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1777.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम, 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं : -

अनुसूची लाइसेंस

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता संख्या

क्रम संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि, वर्ष/माह

20-4-2009

1. 7932185

मैसर्स एसार स्टील लिमिटेड, 27 , को एम. , सूरत हजीरा रोड , पो. ओ . हजीरा , सूरत 394270 2. 7931082 20-4-2009 मैसर्स जे. के. लक्ष्मी सीमेंट लिमिटेड , गाँव मोती बोयन , ताल्लुका कलोल उतर गुजरात , डिस्ट्रिक्ट गांधीनगर

28-4-2009

3. 7938706

मैसर्स जे . के. लक्ष्मी सीमेंट लिमिटेड, गांव मोती बोयन , ताल्लुका कलोल , उतर गुजरात , डिस्ट्रिक्ट गांधीनगर

भा. मा . भाग अनु, वर्ष भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

सख्या

कार्बन स्टील कास्ट बिलैट,

2001 2831

इनगोट , किलैट, ब्लूम तथा स्लैब फार रिरोलिंग इंटू लो टैन्साईल स्टकचर्ल स्टील

12269 1987 53 ग्रेड ऑडिनरी पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट

1489 1 1991 पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट पार्ट 1 , फलाबश्श बेसड

[संख्या सी एम डी. / 13 : 11 ]

पी. के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर) 3647

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 18th June, 2009

S.O. 1777.-In pursuance of sub -regulation (5 ) of the regulation 4 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule :

SCHEDULE

Licence Grant Date

No.

Sl. No.

Name and Address of the party

20-4-2009 Essar Steel Ltd

1. 7932185

27 Km, Surat-Hazira Road, P.O. Hazira, Dist Surat 394270 20-4-2009

2. 7931082

Cement

JK Laxmi Cement Ltd. Village-Moti Bhoyan, Taluka- Kalol (N.G. ) Dist Gandhinagar 28-4-2009

3. 7938706

JK Laxmi Cement Ltd. Village-Moti Bhoyan , Taluka- Kalol (N.G.) Dist Gandhinagar

Part Sec Year ISNo.

Title ofthe Standard

2001 2831

Carbon Steel Cast Billet

Slabs for Rerolling into Low Tensile Structural Steel Ignots, Billets , Blooms and

1987 12269

53Grade Ordinary Portland

1991 14809 1

Portland pozzolana cement

Part - 1 Flyash based

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

नई दिल्ली, 18 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1778.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम ( 4 ) के उप नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं:-

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता चालूतिथि

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम सं

अप्रैल 2009

1-4-2009

1. 3015129

मैसर्स टोटल वीनर्जी बिटुमेन इंडिया प्रा. लि. सिंगारी रेलवे स्टेशन के पास , ग्राम सिंगारी , तह. रोहट, रोहट , जालौर राष्ट्रीय राजमार्ग , प्लाट नं. 177/5 ,पाली 306 421 , राजस्थान

2. 3015028 8-4-2009 मैसर्स सेटेलाइट केबल्स प्रा. लि. एफ 626 , रीको औद्योगिक एरिया , फेज 1 , भिवाडी, जिला अलवर 301 019 , राजस्थान

17-4-2009

3.. 3016434

मैसर्स बोराना इंडस्ट्रीज ई 39 , बासनी II फेज , जोधपुर-342 005 राजस्थान

17-4-2009

4. 3016838

मैसर्स बच्चूलाल एण्ड सन्स, भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक व संबंधित्त भारतीय मानक

8887:2004

बिटुमेन इमल्शन फार रोड्स

(काटीयोनीक टाईप)

694:1990 :

पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड केबल्स

13592: 1992

यूपीवीसी पाईप्स फार सोईल व वेस्ट डिस्चार्ज सिस्टमस

1417:1999

हाल मार्किंग ऑफ गोल्ड ज्वेलरी

बजाजा बाजार , अलवर 301 001 , राजस्थान

17-4-2009

5. 3017537

मैसर्स प्रताप इलेक्ट्रीक मोटर्स, 104, औद्योगिक एरिया , झोटवाडा, जिला जयपुर 302012 , राजस्थान 23-4-2009 मैसर्स राधारानी वायर प्रोडक्ट,.

6. 3017840

ए-406 सी, रोड नं. 14 , विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक एरिया , जयपुर 302013 , राजस्थान 24-4-2009

7. 3018539

मैसर्स बालाजी इंडस्ट्रीज ,

एच 2/543 - ए- एमजीसी, सांगरीया, जिला जोधपुर, राजस्थान 2205 G1 /09-2

9471( भाग 5 ): 1980

मोडयूलर लोवर लिम्ब आर्थोटीक कम्पोनेंट-ज्वाइंट यूनिट नी

6003:1983

इन्डेन्टेड वायर फार प्री-कास्ट कंक्रीट 9974( भाग 1) : 1981

हाई प्रेसर सोडियम वोपार लेम्प्स

[संख्या सीएमडी/ 13 : 11 ] पी. के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक ( मुहर ) 3648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

[PART IISEC. 3(ii) ]

NewDelhi, the 18th June,2009

S.O. 1778.-In pursuance ofsub -regulation (5) ofthe regulation 4ofthe Durere of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988, of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in thefollowing schedule:

SCHULE

Name and Address of the Licensee

Operative Date

Sl. No.

Licence No. (CM/L )

(1) (2)

(4)

April2009

(1) (2)

(3)

(4) 1 3015129

1-4-2009

M/s. Total Vinergy Bitumet India Pvt. Lal, Near Singhari Railway Station Vilt Singh , Tehsil :Rohat Near Rohat-Jalore Highway, PlotNo. 177/5 Pali-306421 (Pajasth

2 3015028

8-4-2009

M/s. Satellite Cables Private Limited, F-626, RICO Industrial Area Pham -1, Bhiwadi-301019 Distt.Alwar

3 3016434

17-4-2009

Article/Process Coveredby the licences and the relevant IS:Designation

(5)

3067:2004 Bit Emolsion for Konds (Costinoвіс Туре)

694:1990 PVC Imeinted Cables

M/s . Borana Industries,

E-39, Daani II Phase Jodhpur-34286

(Rajasthan)

4 3016838

17-4-2009

13592:1992 UPVCPipes for Soil and Waste, Discharge Systems

M/s. Bachu Lal and Sons,

BajajaBazar Alwer-301001 (Pugnat

5 3017537

17-4-2009

1417:199 Hollmaking ofGold Jewellery

M/s . PratapElectric Motors,

104, Industrial Area, Rotman,

302012 (Rajasthan)

6 3017840 23-4-2009 M/s. Radha Rani Wive Products, A-406(C), Road No. 4,Vilmale- Industrial AreaJaipur-300013 (Rajnatham)

7 3018539 24-4-2009

9471 (Put5):1900 Modulur LowerLimb Orthotic Components- Joint Unit, Knee

1 6048:1943 Indented Wire for Prestressed Concrete

M/s. Balaji Industries,

H-2/543-A-M.G.C. Sangawin,Distt.

Jodhpur (Rajasthan)

9974(Part 1): 1981 High Pressure Sodium Vapour Lamps

[No. CMD/13 : 11 ] P. K. GAMBHIR, Dy. Director General (Marks) [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

3649

भारत काराजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़6, 1931

नईदिल्ली , 18 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1779.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम (4 ) के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय भानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गएहैं:-

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

स्वीकृत करने की तिथिवर्ष/माह

क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या

4 2

2009-03-09

1. 7914688

आर आर केबल लिमिटेड सर्वे सं. 142/2 , मधुबन दानी रोड, सिलवासा , दादरा और नगर हवेली-396240 2 7915488 2009-03-18 अॅनसन इलेक्ट्रो मेकॅनिकल वकर्स , आगाडी इंडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट , खोत रोड, शेड सं. 5 और 6 , सुभाष नगर , जोगेश्वरी-पूर्व, मुंबई-60

2009-03-23

3. 7915993

कोंकण टेक्नो सर्विसेसे प्लाट सं. डी-53 , एम आय डी सी , मालेगाँव नासिक , सिन्नर -422113

2009-03-23

4. 7915892

कोंकण टेक्नो सर्विसेसे प्लाट सं. डी-53 , एम आय डी सी , मालेगांव नासिक , सिन्नर-422113

2009-03-31

5. 7917896

एस टी आय इंडस्ट्रीज , यूनिट नं. डी/ ग्राउंडफ्‌लोअर , पार्थ इडस्ट्रियल इस्टेट, सर्वे सं. 203/2/2 दादरा नगर-396 210

2009-03-31

6. 7920986

कोंकण टेक्नो सर्विसेसे प्लाट सं. डी-53 , एम आय डी सी, मालेगांव नासिक, सिन्नर-422 113

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक भा मा भाग अनु वर्ष

7 8 9 5

9857

वेल्डिगकेबल

1990

1994 खुले कूप सबमरसीबल पम्प 14220

1984 इलेक्ट्रानिक टाइप फन 11037

:1984

रेग्यूरेटस

2005 250 वोल्ट और रेटित धारिता 1293 16एम्पीयर्स तक के प्लग और साकेट आउटलेटस

694 1990 1100 वो तक एवं सहित कार्यकारी वोल्टता के लिए पी बी सी रोधित केबल

1997

3854

घरेलू और समान कार्यों के लिए स्विचे विशिष्टि

[संख्या सी एम डी/ 13: 11 ] पी. के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक (मुहर) 3650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

NewDelhi , the 18th June,2009

S.O. 1779.-In pursuance of sub- regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedule:-

SCHEDULE

Title of the standards ISNo. Part Sec. Year Sl. No.

Licence No.

Grant Date

Name and Address of the party

(5)

(1) (2)

(4)

(3)

(6) (7) (8) (9) 1. 7914688 2009-03-09

9857

1990

WoldingCables- Specification

R. R. Kabel Limited, Survey No. 142/2 , Madhuban Dani Road, Silvassa Dadra andNagar Haveli-396240

2. 7915488 2009-03-18

14220

1994

Openwell Submersible Pumpeets-Specification

Ansons Electro Mechanical Works Agadi Indl . Estate, Khot Road, Shed No. 5& 6, Subash Nagar, Jogeshvari (E) , Mumbai -60

2009-03-23

3. 7915993

11037

1984

Electronic type fan regulators

Konkan Techno Services , Plot No. D-53 , M.I.D.C. , Malegaon, Nashik, Sinnar-422 113

2009-03-23

4. 7915892

2005

1293

Plugs and socket outlets of250 volts and rated current up to 16 amperes

Konkan Techno Services Plot No.D-53 , M.I.D.C. , Malegaon, Nashik, Sinnar- 422113

5. 7917896 2009-03-31

1990

694

PVC Insulated cables for working voltages up to and including 1100V

STI Industries , Unit No. D/ Ground Floor, Parth Indl . Estate, SurveyNo. 203/2/2 DadraNagar-396210

6. 7920986 2009-03-31

1997

Switches for domestic and 3854 similarpurposes

Konkan Techno Services , Plot No. D-53 , M.I.D.C. , Malegaon, Nashik , Sinnar- 422113

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ]

P. K. GAMBHIR, Dy . Director General (Marks) 3651

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

पैट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 19 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1780.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में रमन मंडी से हरियाणा राज्य में बहादुरगढ़ तक , पेट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा ' जी जी एस और उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना ' के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का 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 हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री प्रहलाद सिंह, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , ( हरियाणा ) , हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , गुरू गोबिन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी उत्पाद निष्क्रमण परियोजना , एस सी एफ नं. - 29 , सैक्टर-6 , बहादुरगढ़ -124507, हरियाणा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य : हरियाणा

जिला : झज्जर

तहसील : बहादुरगढ़

क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

मुस्ततिल संख्या

खसरा/ किला संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

(7)

(6)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

गग्ना

1. लोहारहेडी

12/1

28.

19/2

23/1

20.

24/1 3652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AME 27, 20NAMADA6, 1931 (1)

24/2

4/1

15/1

15/2

6/1

19/1

19/2

19/3

22/1

4/1

4/2

16 Past Sec. 3 (6)

10 00

25 00

25 14

67 01

01 12

65 00

50 02

27 11

89 00

75 04

30 01

26 12

14 06

57 07

84 09

36 06

07 04

04 06

07 03

03 02

78 00

25 14

42 00

25 00

25 09

86 11

13 02

77 01

57 05

56 07

84 05

56 12

90 02

53 मन जून 27, 2009/6, 1931

(5)

(3)

(4)

117

119

128

343

345

880 2. दहकोरा

25/1

25/2

3653 (6)

(7) 00

50 12

65 03

34 08

25 05

81 01.

51 00

50 00

50 02

53 01

01 01

50 00

25 12

39 09

28 03

39 00

25 02

10 09

14 00

75 00

66 13

27 02

60 08

39 07

08 06

07 12

90 04

30 07

33 00

50 12

39 02

27 02

78 07

33 3654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

6/1

6/2

1/1

1/2

1/4

14/1

14/2

1/1

1/2

9/1

9/2

10/1

3/2

00 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] (6)

(7) 11

13 00

25 00

25 01

01 00

25 01

14 12.

85 03

28 12

90 05

56 08

09 01

01 12

90 00

25 10

37 02

89 11

01 01

39 12

85 08.

53 02

55 05

81 12

90 00

36 09

79 12

14 00

25 01

63 11

13 11 3655

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

[चन - खण्ड 3(ii)]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

146

147

153

166/2

174

178

179

330

331

332

344

347

361

430

3. आसौदा सिवान

6/1

9/1

9/2

22/1

2/1

10-

2/2

3/1

3/2

9 2205 G1 /09-3

(7)

(6)

(5)

27 00

50 00

75 75 00 00 00

00.

77 00

75 00

09 00

56 00

25.

78 00

57 00

85 00

00 3656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

24/2

126

279

280

281

282

240

4. आसौदा टोडरान

241

242

243

244

247

248

249

250

318

गग्ता

गग्ना

338/1

340

348

351

352

353

356

360

362

363

367

377

378

408

409

410

411

412

00 [Part II Sec. 3 (ii) ]

(7) (6)

07 06

06 05

25 00

27.

27 01

62 07

70 12

35 06

27 01

54 02

27 01

16 10

27 01

94 27

32 20

81 03

27 01

62 07

97 13

54 02

24 15

27 01

:16

24 15 3657 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

(7)

(5)

(6)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

417

418

426

427

428

429

01.

432

572

588

589

590

591

592

00 .

593

641

00:

642

[फा. सं. आर-31015/13/2009- ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 19th June , 2009

S. O. 1780.- 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 conferredby 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;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of 3658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/AMMADA 6, 1931

[Part II Sec. 3 ) Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the gerneral 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

Tehsil : BAHADURGARH

District: JHAJJAR

State: HARYANA

Area

Nameof Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Are

Khaera / Killa No. Hectare

Square Metre (1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

1. LOHARHERI

CartTrack 00

12/1

19/2

23/1

24/1

24/2

4/1

15/1

15/2

6/1

04 3659

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 27, 2009/ ढ़ 6, 1931

3 (ii) ]

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

19/1

19/2

19/3

22/1

4/1

4/2

117

119

128

343

345

880

2. DHAKAURA

13 (6)

(7)

07 06

03 02

25 00

42. 14

25 00

86 09

13 11

77. 01

57 06

56 07

56 05

53 02

65 12

34 08

25 00

81 05

51 01

50 00

50 02

53 01

77 01

01 02

27 00

25 00

39 12 3660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931 (1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(5)

00.

25/1

25/2

6/1

6/2

1/1

1/2

1/4

00 [Part II-Sec. 3( ii) ] (6)

(7) 09

36 03

28 12

39 00-

25 02

27 09

10 12

14 00

75 00

75 13

66 02

27 08

60 12

39 07

08. 06

07 12

90 04

30 07

33 00

50 12

39 02

27 02

78 07

33 11

13 00

25 00

25 01

01 00

25 01

01 12

14 08

85 03

28 12

90 05

09 08 3661

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(7)

(6)

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

14/1

14/2

12 39

1/1

1/2

9/1

00 .

9/2

10/1

09-

3/2

25.

146

147 .

153

166/2

174

00 3662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 200MAMADA 6, 1931

(2)

(3)

(1)

178

179

330

331

332

344

347

361

430

3. ASAUDA SEWAN

6/1

9/1

9/2

22/1

2/1

2/2

3/1

3/2

[Part II Sec. 3 ( )]

(7) (5) (6)

75 00

01 00

75 00

30 00

87 00

38 00

62 00

56 00

33 00

78 00

57 00

02 00

11-

38 00

01 00

75 00

01 00

53 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3663

भारत का राजपत्र : जूम 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

(2)

(5)

(3)

(4) (1)

24/2

126.

279

280

281

282

240

4. ASAUDHA TODRAN

241

242

243

244

247

248

249

250

318

CartTrack

CartTrack 00

338/1

340

348

351

352

353

356

360

362

363

367

377

378

408

409 2205 GI/094

(7) (6)

83 06

07 06

90 05

07 06

25 00

02 02

26 01

50 00

01 01

27 07

62 10

43 02

54 01

43 11

70 12

35 06

27 01

62 07

27 01

16 10

27 03

81 27

32 20

81 03

27 07

97 97 13

97 -13

54 02

24 15 3664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 200WASHADA 6, 1931

[Part II-Sec. 3(i )

(2)

(9)

(7)

(s)

410

411

412

417

418

426

427

428

429

432

572

588

589

590

591

592

593

-16

641

642

F.Ne. R-31015/13/28 -OR-R]

A. GOSWAME, Under Secy का. भा. 1781.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोक हित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाव राज्य में ग्मन मंडी मे हरियाणा राज्य में यहादुरगढ़ तक , पेट्रोलियम तेल के परिवहन के लिए हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोम्शन लिमिटेड द्वारा 'जी जी एस आर उत्पादन परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन विछाई जानी चाहिए; और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन किये के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उक्न भूमि में, जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूचि में वर्णित है और जिममें पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने का प्रश्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः अव, केन्द्रीय सरकार, कैोलियन 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, 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 जिसको भारत के गजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलव्ध कग दी जाती हैं, इक्कीम दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन किनने के संबंध में श्री प्रहलाद सिंह , सक्षम प्राधिकारी (हरियाणा) , हिन्दुम्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉफरिशन लिमिटेड , गुरूगोविन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी उत्पाद निधाण परियोजना, एस मी एफ नं . 29, मैक्टर 6 मार्केट, वहादुरगढ़ - 124507, हरियाणा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 3665 [ बात - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आधाड़ 6, 1931

अनुसूची

तहसील: सिरसा

जिला: सिरसा

राज्य: हरियाणा

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

मुस्ततिल संख्या

हदबस्त संख्या

खसरा / किला संख्या हेक्टेयर

वर्गमीटर

एयर

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5) (6) (7) 168

39 1. सूरतिया

7 .

14/1

14/2

16/1

16/2

16/3

20/1

20/2

12 90

00-

नहर

00 3666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

सडक

24/1

22/1

11/2

12/2

19/1

19/2

00 [Part II-Sec. 3(ii) ] (6) (7) 03

79 12

14 10

62 00

25 11

63 03

28 12

39 07

84 05

06 11

63 02

78 09

10 01

01 01

01 09

61 11

63 12

65 02

78 11

63 12

39 12

90 00

25 05

06 00

25 01

51 12

65 03

79 06

57 03

28 02

02 10

62 00

25 07

08 05

81 3667

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

1/2

2/1

2/2

2/3

3/1

3/2

8/1

8/2

8/3

मडक

19/1

19/2

100

124

(7) (5) (6)

25 00

54 00

57 00

86 00

27 00

25 00

63 00

31 00

28 00

57 00

90 00

83 00

62 00

34 00

08 3668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JAME 27, 300MADA6, 3951

124

125

127

128

9/1

9/2

156

2/1

221

271

273

209

00 00

25 12

65 01

77 11

38 10

12 00

25 02

02 10

12 02

02 04

55 10

62 01

77 13

91 00

25 11

63 03

54 00

25 06

07 09

36 07

08 08

60 13

15 02

78 01

01 14

42 00

25 00

75 05

31 01

01 02

27 03

03 00

50 [भाग - खण्ड3 (ii)]

3669

27, 2009/ आषाढ़6,1931

(5)

294

295

308

309

533

722

729

745

325

00 2. सिंघपुस

(7) (6)

75 01

25 00

03 03

26 01

01 02

53 00

75 06

21/1

21/2

00.

6/1

6/2

11/2

20 05

81 02

78 11

38 00

25 02

78 07

59 14.

26 01

40 00

50 02

53 14

16 03

28 02

27 04

80 10

87 00

25 05

06 10

37 01

77 00

30 04

40 00

50 3670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

5/1

5/2

1/2

2/1

2/2

19/1

19/2

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]

(7)

(6)

(5)

34 00

25 00

59 00

75 00

86 00

87 00

91 00

51 00

90 00

83 00

55 00

83 00

63 00

02 00

91 00

03 00

78 00

06 00

62 00 3671

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(2)

(4) (1)

(3)

100

101

112

113

18/3

18/4

23/1 2205 G1/09-5

(5)

(7)

(6)

30 00

16 00

78 00

42 00

50 00

59 00

25 00

14 00

89 00

31 00

55 00

25 00

02 00

57 00

84 00

00 3672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931

(2)

(3)

(4)

23/2

113

117

21/2

118

16/2

119

6/1

131

14/1

14/2

132

165

166

168

[Part II-Sec . 3( ii) ] (5) (6) (7)

63 00

25 00

28 00

54 00

25 00

38. 00

81 00

90 00

26 00

16 00

08 00

84 00

54 00

51 00

50 00

85 00

54 00

27 00

02 3673 भारत का राजपत्र : जूम 27, 2009/ आषाढ़ 6, 1931.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(7)

(6)

(4)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(1)

170

02 78

171

752

01.

754

767

769

794

[फा. सं. आर-31015/ 14/2009- ओ.आर.- II ]

ए.गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 19th June , 2009

S. O. 1781.- 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;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein or laying of the pipeline under the land , to 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 .

3674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )]

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : SIRSA

District: SIRSA

State : HARYANA

Area

Nameof Village

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Are

Hectare

Square Metre

(3)

(1)

(5) (6)

(7)

(2)

(4)

168

39 1. SURTIYA

14/1

14/2

16/1

16/2

16/3

20/1

20/2

Canal

13 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(5)

(3)

(4)

(2)

3675

(7) (6)

14 12

25 00

63 11

28 03

39 12

06 05

Road

`00

24/1

22/1

11/2

12/2

19/1

19/2

63 11

78 02

10 09

01 01

63 11

65 12

78 02

63 11

39 12

90 12

06 05

51 01

79 03

57 06

28 03

02 02

62 10

25 00

81 05 3676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASHADA6, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1/2

2/1

2/2

2/3

3/1

3/2

8/1

8/2

8/3

Road

19/1

19/2

100

124

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ] (5) (6) (7) 00

25 00

54 00

57 00

86 00

89 00

50 00

14 00

27 00

26 00

25 00

12 00

27 00

63 00

51 00

12 00

31 00

28 00

57 00

25 00

90 00

57 00

25 00

62 00

75 00

30 00

34 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3677

भारत का राजपत्र जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

(1)

(4)

(5)

(2)

(3)

124

125

127.

128

9/1

9/2

156

2/1

221

271

273

289 (6) (7) 00

25 12

65 01

77 11

12 10

25 02

02 10

02 02

62 10

77 01

91 00

25 11

63 03

54 00

07 06

36 07

60 08

15 02

78. 01

01 14

42 00

25 00

31 05

01 01

27 03

03 00

50 3678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6,1931

(2)

(4)

(3)

294

295

308

309

533

722

729

745

325

2. SINGHPURA

21/1

21/2

6/1

6/2

11/2

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)]

(7) (5) (6)

75 00

03 00

26 00

53 00

00-

32 00

81 00

78 00

25 00

78 00

59 00

26 00

40 00

50 00

53 00

16 00

27 00

80 00

87 00

06 00

77 00

25 00

40 00

50 00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/ आषाढ़ 6, 1931

(2)

(3)

(4)

5/1

5/2

1/2

2/1

2/2

19/1

19/2

20 2205 G1/09-6

3679 (5) (6) (7) 00

34 00

89 00

25 00

59 00

75 00

04 00

87 00

51 00

09 00

90 00

25 00

03 00

83 00

56 00

25 00

63 00

02 00

91 00

78 00

06 00

10 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931

3680

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

100

101

112

113

18/3

18/4

23/1

[Part II-Sec . 3(ii )]

(7)

(6)

(5)

30 00

51 00

42 00

90 00

59 00

75 00

83 00

14 00

89 00

85 00

31 00

56 00

25 00

66 00

57 00

75 00

01 00

66 00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931-

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

113

23/2

117

21/2

118

16/2

119

6/1

131

14/1

14/2

132

165

166

168

3681 (5)

(7)

(6)

63 00

36 00

25 00

28 00

54 00

38 00

62 00

27 00

91 00

81 00

90 00

85 00

16 00

25 00

14 00

62 00

01 00

91 00

51 00

50 00

27 00

02-

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

3682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931

(6) (7)

(5)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

170

171

752

754

767

769

794

[F. No. R-31015/14/2009- O.R. -II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy

नई दिल्ली, 19 जून , 2009

का. आ. 1782. - 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 हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरशन लिमिटेड द्वारा 'जी जी एस आर उत्पाद निप्कमण परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु एक पाइपलाइन विछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त भूमि में , जो इम अधिसूचना से संलग्न 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 ) द्वाग प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करत हुए , उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोपणा करती है;

कोई भी व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है , उम तारीख मे जिमको 'भाग्त के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ माधारण जनता को उपलव्ध कग दी जाती हैं . इक्कीम दिन के भीतर उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछान के संबंध में श्री प्रहलाद सिंह , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , ( हरियाणा ) , हिन्दुग्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोग्शन लिमिटेड, गुरु गोविन्द सिंह रिफाइनरी उत्पाद निप्कमण परियोजना , एम मी एफ नं . 29, मैक्टर 6 मार्केट. वहादुरगढ़ 124507. हरियाणा को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 3683 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

अनुसूची

राज्य : हरियाणा तहसील : रतिया

जिला: फतेहाबाद

क्षेत्रफल गाँव का नाम

वर्गमीटर

हदबस्त संख्या

खसरा/ किला संख्या हेक्टेयर

मुस्ततिल संख्या

एयर

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

(5) (6) (7)

109

30 1. साहरन

7/1

7/2

108

2. मंढ

00 3684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931

(5)

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

104

115

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

(7) (6)

12 10

33 11

13 01

01 02

53 05

63 11

09 08

38 11

28 03

75 00

16 14

38 11

78 02

86 09

25 00

63 11

50 00

61 09

26 11

07 06

79 12

90 01

26 13

91 00

50 04

61 09 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3685

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

118

119

128

129

134

(7) (6)

85 05

81 12

90 00

50 01

51 13

66 00

62 10

04 08

85 05

56 04

55 13

75 13

1.2

65 3686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

140

141

12/1

12/2

13/1

147

7/2

148

150

158

166

170

173

190

251

253

254

263 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ] (6)

(7)

07 06

60 08

62 10

07 06

33 07

50 12

77 01

27 02

81 05

89 00

36 09

03 03

14 12

51 01

87 10

89 11

01 01

75 00

83 06

02 02

75 01

30 04

27 02

51 01.

75 00 [भाग -खण्ड (

3687

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

104

3. हडौली

2.1

139

22/1

140

142

8/1

8/2

15.

143

21/1

174:

21/2

राम्ता 2205 G1/097

(5)

(9)

(7) 00

90 00

04 00

38 00

38 .00

60 00

87 00

04 00

255

25 00

79 00

25 00

87 00

42. 00:

84 00

000 3688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

175

9/2

24/2

176

183

184

208

00 [Part II Sec . 3 (ii) ]

(7) (6)

54 03

42 14

13 11

60 08

03 14

16 03

28 00

25 09

36 09

28 04

55 14

42 03

12 10

38 00

2.5

79 03

42 00

25 03

61 09

38 11

55 10

12 05

06 00

25 03

42 14 3689

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(5)

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

208

209

220

221

241

22/1

242

6/2

14 (6)

(7) 00

25 11

61 09

77 01

87 10

37 10

78 02

66 13

50 00

42 14

57 07

27 02

62 10

25 14

25 00

60 08

39 01

26 00

53 02

38 11

7.8

13 11

25 00 3690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUЖЕ 27 , 2009/4ADA 6, 1931

(3)

(5)

(4)

242

253

271

272

200

14/1

1472

25/1

00 [Part I- Sec. ) ] (6) (7) 12

90 02

78 00

25 13

40 07

84 05

81 11

89 01

26 13

15 00

50 10

37 01

51 06

57 01

01 13

15 00

75 13

15 01

51 04

13 11

84 04

80 08

34 03

03 11

13 00

25 10

12 02

27 00

25 10

62 03

03 08

85 भारत का रानपत्र जून 27, 2009 माषाढ़ 6, 1931 [ खण्ड 3(ii)]

(3)

(5)

(2)

(4)

21/1

281

21/2

296

10/1

10/2

24/1

24/2

.00

304

00.

5/1

5/2

305

200

315

3/1

316

3/2

3691 (6)

(7) 01

01 02

78 14

16 00

40 13

50 00

50 05

56 07

84 01

51 11

63 00

25 11

13 03

03 03

03 02

27 08

34 08

85 04

55- 13

66 00

50 12

90 01

77 06

57 007

33 02

78 13

15 00

83 06

06 05

51 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6 , 1931 3692

(4)

(5)

(2)

(3)

(1 )

316

326

333

334

14/1

14/2

00 [Part II Sec . 3(ii) ]

(7) (6)

91 13

25 00

30 04

12 10

61 09

02 02

39.

57 06

33 07

65 12

26 01

50 00

84 07

30 04

56 05

66 13

85 08

31 05

66 13

10 09

02 02

65 12

15 00

25.

50 00

25 00

65 12

25 00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

3693

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

335

346

347.

7/1

7/2

440

441

445

451

452

457

458

466

482

486

493

496

502

503

504

1294

1311

1325

1326

1337

1346

1351 (6)

(7)

36 09

55 12

37 10

36 09

77 12

65 02

27 00

25 00

26 01

01 01

75.

75 00

75 04

03 03

07 06

75 01

77 01

27 02

53 04

55 02

27 00

25 01

26. 01

26 01 3694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 200 %ASIAKA 6, 1931

(2)

(3)

206

127

4. अहरवा

23/1

23/2

206

24/1

24/2

25/1

25/2

206

5/1

5/2

200

6/1

6/2

210

12/1

12/2

23/1

[Part II-Secc3 (

(7) (5) (6)

38 00

32 00

25 00

27 00

25 00

03.

31 00

06 00

01 00

12. 00

55 00

14 00

65 00

12.

00.

00:

06:

00.

75 00

00.

65 00

75 00

263 00

01 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27 , 2009/आषाड़ 6, 1931 [भाग -खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

210

25/1

230

231

22/1

232

16/1

16/2

1/1

233

1/2

9/2

10/1

15 2205G1/09-8

3695

(7) (6)

39 12

32 06

61 09

56 05

51 01

90 12

81 05

30 04.

31 05

39 12

14 12

03 03

50 00

27 02

39 12

90 12

86 09

50 00

75 00

04 04

27 02

12 10

27 02

63 11

25 00

01 01

13 11

39 12 3696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 200NARIADA 6, 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

234

5/1

5/2

245

2/1

2/2

4/1

4/2

246

247

7/1

7/2

248

00 [Part II Sec . 3 (ii) ] (6) (7) 07

08 00

75 00

25 00

25 02

78 06

83 01

51 10

12 12

39 12

14 07

84 03

79 00

25 02

27 1:2

39 09

61 02

78 12

39 12

39 09

61 01

26 10

62 01

83 12

39 11

39 [भाग I- खण्ड 3 ( i ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

(2)

(3)

(4) (5)

249

250

00.

251

22/1

253

3697 (6) (7) 12

39 07

33 04

04 12

39 12

39 08

34 01

77 00

75 07

33 12

63 11

25 04

30 11

13 11

38 12

39 06

83 06

57 04

80 00

25 06

365/1

310

319

321

333

334

342

351

352

354

370

00 05

06 05

06 09

86 06

07 02

02 00

75 03

79 00

75 00

75 01

26 05

06 3700

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931

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 : FATEHABAD

State: HARYANA Tehsil : RATIA

Area

Name of Village

Hectare

Hadbast No.

Mustatil No.

Khasra / Killa No.

Are

Square Metre

(6)

(2)

(7)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

30 109

1. SAHARAN

7/1

7/2

108

2. MADH

12 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

13.

104

115

3701

(7) (6)

12 10

33 07

13 11

01 01

53 02

56 05

63 11

09 03

54 11

38 06

28 03

16 14

78 02

86 09

25 00

63 11

1.1

13 00

61 09

26 11

07 06

79 03

26 01

91 13

55 04

61 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931 3702

(5)

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

118

119

128

129

134

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

(7) (6)

85 08

81 05

90 12

50 00

66 13

25 00

62 10

85 08

56 05

55 04

75 00

15 13

01 01

14 12

75 00

86 09

85 08

75 00

15 13

10 09

31 05

04 04

50 00

66 13.

51 01

65 12 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3703

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आपाय 6 , 1931

(2)

(4) (1)

(3)

(5)

140

141

12/1

12/2

13/1

147

7/2

148

150

158

166

170

173

190

251

253

254

263 2205G1/09-9

(6) (7) 06

60 08

62 10

07 06

50 00

65 01

77 02

81 05

89 00

36 09

03 12

51 01

50 00

87 10

89 01

75 00

56 05

02 02

75 00

26 01

30 07

27 02

75 00 3704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931 (1)

(3)

(4)

(2)

(5)

104

17 3.HAROLI

139

22/1

140

142

8/1

8/2

143

174

21/1

21/2

CartTrack [Part II-Sec.3(ii) ] (6) (7) 03

90 12

04 11

38 00

25 11

38 08

85 08

60 10

87 09

61 03

28 14

67 04

04 00

25 10

12 08

09 02

27 00

25 03

79 14

42 00

25 03

28 00

25 10

87 10

62 03

28 14

42 03

84 02

02 01

26 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/ आषाढ़ 6, 1931

(3)

(2)

(4) (5)

175

9/2

13.

24/2

176

183

184

208

3705 (6) (7) 00

25 03

42 14

13 11

60 03

03 14

16 03

28 00

25.

86 09

36 09

36 03

28 04

55 14

42 03

03 10

12 11

38 00

79 03

42 14

25 03

61 09

38 04

55 10

12 05

06 00

25 03

42 14 3706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ]

JUNE 27, 200 / ARHADA6, 1931

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

206

209

220

221

241

22/1

242

6/2

(6) (7) (5)

25 00

63 00

61 00

37 00

79 00

37 00

66 00

50 00

42 00

57 00

27 00

62 00

25 00

39 00

26 00

25 00

53 00

38 00

13 00

25 3707

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

242

253

271

272

280

14/1

14/2

25/1 (6) (7) 12

78 02

25 00

40 13

81 05

89 11

15 13

50 00

37 10

51 01

01 01

15. 13

75 00

15 13

30 04

13 11

84 07

34 08

03 03

13 11

25 00

12 10

27 02

62 10

85 08 3708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ARMADA6, 1931 (1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

21/1

281

21/2

296

10/1

10/2

24/1

24/2

304

5/1

5/2

305

315

316

3/1

3/2

00 [Part II-Sec.3 (i))

(7) (6)

01 02

78 14

16 00

40 13

50 00

56 07

51 01

63 00

25 11

13 03

03 03

03 02

34 08

85 08

55. 13

66 00

50 12

90 01

77 06

57 07

33 02

15 13

25 06

83 05

06 01

51 3709

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

316

326

333

334

14/1

14/2

16 (6) (7)

91 13

25 00

30 04

12 10

02 02

39 12

57 06

33 07

65 12

26 01

15 13

31 05

84 07

30 04

56 05

66 13

85 08

31 05

66 13

07 06

10 09

01 01

02 02

65 12

15 13

25 00

38 11

25 00

65 12

25 3710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ ASHADA 6, 1931

(3)

(2)

(1)

(5)

(4)

335

346

347

7/1

7/2

440

441

445

451

452

457

458

466

482

486

493

496

502

503

504

1294

1311

1325

1326

1337

1346

1351

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

(7) (6)

36 04

55 12

37 10

36 09

77 12

65 02

27 00

25 00

75 01

26 01

01 00

75 00

75 04

03 03

07 06

75 01

77 01

77 02

27 02

53 04

27 02

25 01

26 01

26 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

3711

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

(3)

(1)

(2)

(4)

205

4. AHEARWA

127

22.

23/1

23/2

206

24/1

24/2

25/1

25/2

208

5/1

5/2

209

6/1

6/2

210

12/1

12/2

23/1 2205 G1/09-10

(6)

(5)

(7) 00

38 00

27 00

25 00

31 00

06 00

84 00

01 00

12 00

07 00

65 00

39 00

60 00

09 00

31 00

07 00

65 00

06 00

26 00

63 00

00 3712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA6, 1931

(4)

(3)

(5)

(2)

(1)

210

25/1

230

231

22/1

232

16/1

16/2

1/1

233

1/2

9/2

10/1

15 [Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)] (6) (7)

39 12

32 06

61 09

56 01

90 12

30 04

31 05

39 12

14 12

03 03

50 02

27 12

39 12

90 09

50 00

75 00

04 04

27 02

63 11

25 00

01 01

13 11

39 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

(5)

234

5/1

5/2

245

2/1

2/2

4/1

4/2

246

\00

247

7/1

7/2

248

249

17-

3713 (6) (7) 07

08 00

75 00

25 00

25 02

83 06

51.

12 10

39 12

14 07

79. 03

27 02

61 09

78 02

39 12

61 09

26 01

62 10

01 01

83 06

39 12

13 11

39 12

33 07

04 04

39 12

34 08

77 01 3714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931

(3)

(4) (1)

(2)

(5)

250

251

22/1

253

365/1

310

319

321

333

334

342

351

352

354

370

140

5. SHEKHUPUR SOTAR

18/1

18/2

23/2

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

(7) (6)

75 07

33 12

63 11

25 00

30 04

13 11

38 12

39 06

57 06

80 04

25 06

06 05

86 09

07 06

02 02

75 00

79 00

75 00

26 01

06 05

65 12

06 05

50 00

32 06

38 00

39 12

25 06

13 11 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3715

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

13/1

13/2

148/1

24/1

6. PALSAR

24/2

(6)

(7) (5)

06 00

39 00

84 00

06 00

34 00.

25 00

90 00

63 00

07 00

25 00

75 00

14 00

39 00

01 00

26 00

79 00

66 00

77 00

[F. No. R-31015/15/2009-O.R. - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy 3716

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASHADA 6, 1931

नईदिल्ली, 19 जून , 2009

का. आ. 1783. - केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2702 तारीख 24 सितम्बर, 2008, जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 27 सितम्बर, 2008 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार संस्थापन से मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक कच्चे पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए वाडीनार- बीना पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत ओमान रिफाईनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 29 नवम्बर, 2008 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी :

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात, और यह समाधान हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निदेश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य: मध्यप्रदेश

जिला: गुना

तहसील: राधौगढ़

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क्र० ग्राम का नाम

0.334

161P

1. कजालिया

0.031

135

2. नलखेड़ा

[फा. सं . आर-31015/20/2009-ओ.आर.- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव 3717

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 19th June , 2009

S. O. 1783.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O.2702 dated the 24th September, 2008 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) , ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 27th September, 2008, the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land , specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of Crude Oil through Vadinar -Bina Crude Pipeline Project from Vadinar in the State of Gujrat to Dina in the State ofMadhya Pradesh by Bharat Oman Refineries Limited :

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 29 November , 2008 ;

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

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

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

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

SCHEDULE

DISTRICT : GUNA

STATE : MADHYA PRADESH TEHSIL : RAGHOGARH

AREA IN HECTARE NAME OF VILLAGE

SURVEY NO .

S.No.

0.334

161 मिन

1. KAJALIVA

0.031

135

2. NALKHEDA

[F. No. R-31015/20/2009- O.R. - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy 3718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASADHA 6 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 1 जून , 2009

2."Whether the action of the Management of Walani Mines of W.C.L. in not correcting the date of birth of Ch. Chhedilal Singh as 4-2-1954 is legal and Justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ? " का.आ. 1784. 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 नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 97/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/123/1998 - आईआर ( सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 1st June , 2009

S.O. 1784. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 97/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of W.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 1-6-2009 .

[No. L- 22012/ 123/ 1998- IR(C- II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. The Petitioner Lalazenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Unionhas raised the dispute in respect of Chhedilal Singh. It approached to this tribunal with the contentions that he is working at Walani Mines as Mining Mazdoor . The management on assumption recorded his date of birth as 3-4-1945 which is incorrect . As per school record ofAnand Sansacrit Jr. High School Bela Fattepur (U.P.) ; his date of birth is4-2-1954. The respondent ought to have recorded inthe record of Walani Coal Mines . The Petitioner issued two representations dated 3-4-1990 and 7-3-1997 , with certificates requesting the management to correct his date of birth . The management did not reply or corrected it. Hence he raised the present dispute . According to petitioner the joint bipartite committee had issued letter mentioning the method for correcting the date of birth. Similarly the management during the conciliation proceedings had agreed to verify the correctness of his date of birth recorded in school leaving certificate from the office of the principal Janata Inter Collage Chhenaleha (U.P. ) However though verified it has not taken any cognizance . Again according to him the date of birth in Form "B" is not recorded by him . It is recorded by some third person or by some clerk as routine and his signature was obtained . He prayed to record his date of birth as 3-4-1954 correcting the wrongly recorded as 3-4-1945 giving weight age to school leaving certificates . Accordingly he prayed for the same .

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

Case No. 97/2002

Date: 7-5-2009

The Mines Manager, WCL Western Coal Fields Ltd, Nagpur Area

PartyNo. 1

Jaripataka, Nagpur- 14

Versus

Secretary

Lalazenda Coal Mines Mazdoor Union

Qua. No. 7, Block No.7 , Chankapur Colony,

PO. Silwara, Taluka Saoner

PartyNo. 2

AWARD

4. The management appeared and filed its W.S. denying the contentions of the petitioner . Firstly according to it the dispute is belated because it is raised after about 10 years long silence . His date of birth was recorded long back in the year at the time of his appointment on 3-4-1975 . It is denying his date of birth is 4-2-1954 as per certificates.According to the management in the year 1987 the management of CIL/JBCCI had extended one time review ofthe recorded date of birth , date of appointments , home address name of the family members . etc. For correction of the records the service excerpts in quadruplicatewere prepared and supplied to the workmen with request to verify and suggests the changes if any. The excerpts were duly signed by the workman as called in case there is no change also . Where disputes were raised, and the changes were suggested by the workman were verified and settled . Thus the correction was made under one time review scheme . The service excerpts ofthe petitioner was verified in the year 1987 and after verifying the same it was corrected . Chhedilal the workman had signed it giving the date of birth as 3-4-1945 . Now the workman connot raise the dispute challenging the date of birth. He is estopped from raising the dispute in respect of similar issue of change of date of birth .The management The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdisputes between the mines manager , W.C.L. Western Coal Fields Ltd. Nagpur area Jaripataka , Nagpur- 14 Party No. 1 and Secretary Lalazenda Coal Mines Mazdoor UnionQua. No. 7 block No. 7 Chankapur Colony, P.O. Silwara, Taluka Saoner Party No.2, referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-22012/ 123/98 /1.R. (CM- II) date 10-2-99 under clause (d) ofsub- section( 1) and sub- section (2A) ofSection 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule:

3719 भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6 , 1931 ..

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

judgment of Hon'ble Division Bench of Mumbai High Court bench at Nagpur and stated that on this ground of inordinate deley only disputes is liable to be rejected. The facts of the case are Similar to the present case of the petitioner. In a cited case the date ofbirth was recorded 30 years before and confirmed on three occasions was challenged. The Hon'ble High Court rejected it on the ground of inordinate delay and as it was recorded in statutory register aş mines,Act in a Form " B" following the due procedure applicable in this regard. Hon'bleH. C. led down that it being statutory register its observance is necessary and refused to change the recorded date of birth and interfere in it.

has further denied that it has agreed during conciliation to verifycorrectness ofthe date ofbirth as recorded in school leaving certificate from the principal of Janata Inter College Chhenleha (U.P) however as the authority has suggested it has written letter to the Principle . But it has never agreed to correct the date ofbirth on verification ofthe certificate since the certificates were manipulated. It has further denied the allegations of petitioner that he has not stated the date of birth and it might have recorded and signed by some other person or clerk . It has pointed out that in the service record thumb impression is given by him instate ofsigning it though he was claiming as matriculated . There are no reasons for the management to manipulate his service record by obtaining the signature of some other person. The workman had given the chance to verify the service excerpts . He after verifying and accepting as correct the duly signed it.

5: It has specifically pleaded that at the time of appointment his date of birth and other details as stated by him were duly recorded in form "B" register of the Walani Mines . He had mentioned his date of birth as 3-4-1945 . It was recorded by him correctly in form "B " During 1987 extended one time review of the recorded date of birth home address names of parents by giving copies of the excerpts and were requested to suggest the change if there invariance . The petitioner has endorsed the date of birth recorded in Form "B " and signed the register maintained in Walani Mines . Thus according to it the claim has no substance and it be answered in the negative.

8. Here in the present case also the petitioner wants to change the date of birth after more than 20 years and certainly it is belated one . The petitioner himself gave his , date ofbirth as 3-4-1945 at the time of his appointment in Form " B" and signing it . Letter on at the time of one time . review as per circular I.I No. 76 of NCWA , though the petitioner had an opportunity given by the management didnot availed it contrarily he confirmed it as correct .When he had knowledge about the existence of the certificates why he has not produced to the management for their examination and ascertaining them ? He could have at list resisted the recorded date birth . This indicates that he was sure that the management will scrutinize closely and these documents will not stand in the scrutiny . He deliberately suppressed them. Thus the petitioner has raised the dispute after the considerable deley of more than 20 years. This itself indicates that he was satisfied with recorded date ofbirth in Form "B " and in view of the judgment of Division Bench of High Court the claim is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly I dismiss it and pass the negative Award. However I am giving my findings on merits also in case they are required in any proceedings or before any authority .

6. Heard Mr. Lahari Adv. for the petitioner andMr. Mehadia for the management . Perused all the documents filed by both the parties . On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted that the management during the conciliation proceedings in 1975 the management had agreed to verify his documents from the school records . In fact the management had never assured. Even the papers of the conciliations are clear enough to indicate that without accepting its correctness it agreed to verify the certificates from school record.

9. Now let us turn to the merits of the case of the petitioner. The petitioner wants to change the date ofbirth recorded as 3-4-1945 at the time ofhis appointment in the year 1975. As oral evidence the petitioner examined himself and the management examined the personal manager Sambhuddha Dasgupta. They both have stated as per their pleadings and offered for the cross -examinations. The petitioner placed reliance on the documents besides his own oral evidence . Those are- Identity card, letter by workman for supply of the information of date of birth , Leaving Certificate, Mark list. , Medical Examination Report and transfer certificate . On the basis of these documents he claims, his date of birth is 3-4-1954 as against the wrongly recorded 3-4-1945 and accordingly prayed to correct it . The management has denied all the documents and submitted that these are the false and bogus documents prepared by the petitioner after thought with the view to gain illegal benefits . As per service book his date of birth is mentioned as 3-4-1945 and he was 7. The counsel for the Management submitted that the petitioner Chhedilal wants the change the date ofbirth recorded in Form " B " a statutory register maintained by the mines on the basis of the declaration given by the workman at the time of his appointment . He was appointed on 3-4-1975 and by raising the dispute on 1-8-1997 he alleges it as wrong. The petitioner wants to change his date of birth recorded in the month of April 1975 on the ground that it was incorrectly recorded by raising the dispute on 1-8-1997 . The management submitted that the delay is inordinate and without any justification or reasons . He never explained giving plausible reasons for such inordinate deley. It is therefore belated. The counsel for management cited one case by filling the copy of the

2205 G1/09-11 3720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

like signature. It is doubtful as to who signed it . His name with designation is not written. It does not even disclose the name of the school from where he appeared for examination , it does not disclose the name of Anand Sanskrit Junior College Bela. The name of the school is mentioned Janata Inter College Chhiulaha Fatepur . It creats doubt.

appointed as casual labour on 3-4-1975 and was later on regularized on completing of240 days continuous service. It is a fact that certificates filed on record are not of the Board of Middle of Matriculation Board which are recognized and treated as authenticated proof of date of birth . Undisputedly he was never a regular student of any institution . He says that was private student . No doubt these documents do disclose the date ofbirth as 3-2-1954 however when and on what basis the entries are taken is not made clear . It is not the case that when he was 6 or 7 years old at the time of admission his father had stated the date ofbirth . The entries taken long back during the child hood of the student on the basis of extracts of record of Grampanchayat or entry taken by kotwal are treated as correct record because no body will predict and give false date ofbirth . Here the petitioner at the time of appointment gave his qualification as Matriculate which is absolutely false.He stated in cross -examination that he passed VIIIth standard in 1969 and failed in IX standard in 1993 , Despite his contention instate of signing service book, he gave thumb - impression for the reasons best known to him .

12. W5 is true Copy scholar's Register & Transfer Certificate form. It is not original though in the list of documents it is mentioned as original. It does not disclose Admission file member , Withdrawls file number or the transfer certificate file number. All these columns are blank. Below the signature who attested it the name of signatory is not mentioned . It discloses the date of admission 9-7-68 and date of removal 30-8-1968 . It means he was student just for few days . The name of the school which issued this transfer certificate is not appearing anywhere . It seems that he joined the services in the year 1975. He had passed 8th standard but the certificate of9th fail is of 1993. It means after joining and during the working as loader in the mines he continued his education . It is difficult tobelieve though he says that he appeared as private student. He has no where stated when he took admission to the school . In fact when the other party is alleging the documents as fabricated it necessary for the petitioner to examine the signatories of them. Unless they are examined and offered for the cross the documents cannot treated as proved. In my view they are unreliable. Thus the proof submitted for proving the date of birth as 4-2-1954 is not reliable at all . There is no substance in the claim on merits also. The claim deserves to be dismissed . Accordingly I dismiss it and pass the negative Award .

Nagpur

Date7-5-2009

A.N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1786. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 90/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/366/1999- आईआर( सी- I ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी 10. The medical certificate Ex . W7 which has been issued as he was referred for periodical examinations is on record and clinical age is mentioned in it which supports his claim . But it is of the medical officer of the mine . He was neither radiologist nor the petitioner was not referred for determining the age . This certificate of the medical officer of the mine issued after periodical check up can not be a proof of the date of birth . The other documents filed by the petitioner are not clear enough to establish their authenticity . It is pertinent to note that the management has refused to take the cognizance saying that they are bogus . In such circumstances the close scrutiny is necessary . The document Ex. W 1 is Identity card which does not disclose any date of birth . Ex . W2 is the representation made by the petitioner which has no relevance with correctness ofdate of birth . Ex . W3 leaving certificate of Anand Sanskrit Junior School Bela Gawai Fatehpur. It is dated 15-1-1003 as mentioned at the bottom. Date mentioned below the signature of the principal is invisible. No out word number registration number date of issuance form the office are mentioned. It is printed form but the name of the school is written in manuscript in a available place. It shows that he passed VIII standard in 1968 particularly on 20-6-1968 and on the very day left the school . The petitioner says that he failed in IX standard in 1993. It means he had registered his name for IX class . How he kept the leaving certificate of VIII standard with him. It was necessary to submit it at the time of admission in other school and if he left the education after unsuccessful attempt in other school he ought to have produced leaving certificate of that school.

New Delhi , the 2nd June , 2009 11. Similarly the W4 is a mark list dated 7-7-1993 . It bears the signature of checking clerk and inside the round seal in red ink there is signature or something is written

S.O. 1785. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 90/2000) 3721 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

नई दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2009.

ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum-Labour Court No. I, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009.

[No. L-20012/366/ 1999-IR(C-I)] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.आ. 1786. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी.सी.सी. एल.के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM LABOUR COURT NO. 1 , DHANBAD

[सं. एल -20012/252/1999-आईआर( सी-1) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी Inthe matter of reference U/ s 10(1 )(d) ofthe I.D.Act

Reference No. 90 of2000

NewDelhi, the 2nd June, 2009 Parties : Employers in relation to the management of B.C.C.L And Their Workman

Present: Sri H.M. Singh Presiding Officer APPEARANCES

S.O. 1786. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 42/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. I, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009.

Forthe Employers : None

Forthe workmen : Sri B.B. Pandey, Advocate

[No. L-20012/252/ 1999- IR( C- I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE :

State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT NO . 1 , DHANBAD Dated, the 1st May, 2009 AWARD

Inthe matter ofa reference U /s 10( 1 )( d)(2A) of the I.D.Act Reference No. 42 of2000

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of BaroraArea ofM/s . B.C.C.L

By order No. L-20012/366/99- (C - 1 ) , dated 2-2-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

And Their Workman

Present: Sri H.M. Singh, Presiding Officer APPEARANCES

"Whether the action of the management of Patherdih Colliery of M/ s . BCCL in not regularising Sri Ramawatar Chamar under grand Munshi w.e.f 1-1-1989 is justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman isentitled ? "

For the Employers : None

For the workmen : None

State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal

Dated, the 1st May, 2009 AWARD

2. On 13-2-2009 Sri B.B. Pandey, Advocate . Alongwith Sri Ramawatar Chamar , the concerned workman appeared and filed a petition dated 4-2-2009 praying that the case has already been settled with the management and such he does not intend to contest this case and has prayed for passing No Dispute Award .

3. In such circumstances , I render a ' No Dispute' Award in the present reference.

By Order No. L-20012/252/99-(C- I) dated 20-1-2000 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) ofsection 10 of Industrial H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer 3722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASADHA 6 , 1931

Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of BCCL Barora Area, in not providing employment to Sri Suresh Bhuia, dependent son of Sri Swroop Bhuia under para 942 ofNCWA IV.&V is just and proper? If not to what relief is the said depondent entitled ?" 2. 25-3-2004 was the date fixed for filing written statement by the workman/ sponsoring union . But no step has been taken inspite of notice sent on 4-2-2009 by Speed Post. It is clear from the record that the workman/ Sponsoring union is not interested to contest this case .

In view of such circumstances I pass a "No Dispute " Award in this case .

H.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1787. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी.सी.सी. एल.के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 196/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/355/ 1996- आई. आर. ( सी- I ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd June , 2009

S.O. 1787. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 196/ 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court No. I , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers, in relation tothemanagement ofBCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009 .

[No. L- 20012/355/ 1996- IR(C-I)]

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT( NO.1 ), DHANBAD Inthe matter ofreference U/ s 10(1 )(d)(2A) ofthe I.D.Act. Reference No. 196 of 1997

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of B.C.C.L.

And

Their Workman

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] Present:Sri H.M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

Forthe Employers

: Sri B. M. Prasad , Advocate Forthe workman :

Sri C. Prasad, Advocate State: Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

Dated, the 1st May, 2009

AWARD

By Order No. L- 20012/355 /96 - IR (Coal- I ) dated 20-11-1997. The Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d)ofSub-section ( 1 ) & Sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute foradjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the Union for the regularisation ofShri Azad Paswan, General Mazdoor asAttendance Clerk is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled ? " 2.On 27-3-2009 was the date fixed for filing notes of arguments . Sri C.Prasad , Advocate on behalf of the workman, appeared and filed a petition praying, for passing 'NoDispute Award' , concerned workman was also present.

3. In view of such submission made on behalf of the workman. I render a ' No Dispute ' Award in the present reference.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1786 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , भनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 138/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/87/1999- आईआर( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd June , 2009

S.O. 1788. In pursuance of Section 17, of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 138/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court No. I , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation 3723

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2009

tothe management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009.

[No. L-20012/87/1999- IR(C- I) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT (NO.1), DHANBAD

का.आ. 1789. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 191/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/307/1996-आईआर( सी-1 ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी Inthe matter ofreference U/s 10( 1 )(d)(2A) ofthe I.D.Act 1947 Reference No. 138 of 1999

New Delhi, the 2nd June , 2009 Parties : Employers in relation to the management ofKoyla Bhawan of M/s . B.C.C.L And Their Workman

Present : Sri Hari Mangal Singh Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

S.O. 1789. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 191 / 1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court No. I , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009.

For the Management : None

[No. L-20012/307/ 1996- IR(C -I) ] For the Union/workman : None

Industry: Coal

State : Jharkhand .

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

Dated, the 4th May, 2009

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT ( NO.1), DHANBAD AWARD

Inthe matter ofa reference U/s 10(1 ) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act Reference No. 191 of 1997.

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of GovindpurArea of M/ s.B.C.C . Ltd.

And

By Order No. L- 20012/ 87 /99 - IR (Coal- I ) dated 4-6-1999 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) ofSection 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

TheirWorkmen

SCHEDULE

Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES

Forthe Employers

Shri D.K. Verma , Advocate.

Forthe workmen :

" क्या यूनियन की मांग को सर्वश्री ज्ञानेश्वर महतो एवं श्री खुर्शीद अन्सारी का मूल वेतन उनके कनिष्ठ कर्मकार श्री सीताराम सिंह के समरूप निर्धारित किया जाए, मान्य है? यदि हां तो उक्त कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं तथा किस तारीख से ?"

Shri D. Mukherjee, Secretary , Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union

Industry: Coal

State : Jharkhand

Dated, the 1st May, 2009

AWARD

2. This case was received from the Ministry and registered on 15-6-1999 . This even on 12-2-2009 none appears from either side nor written statemant is filed on behalf of the sponsoring Union inspite of notices being sent by speed post . As such, it seems that neither the workman nor the sponsoring Union is interested to contest their case further.

Inview ofsuch circumstances , I pass the No Dispute Award in present reference case.

By Order No. L- 20012/ 307/ 96- IR (Coal - I) dated 7/10-11-1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub-scetion (1 ) and sub- section (2A) ofsection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer 3724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 27 , 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

[PART II Sec. 3( ii)]

APPEARANCES

None

For theManagement :

For theUnion

:None

State: Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal

"Whether the claim of the union that Shri Ashok Kumar Singh was engaged as Attendence Clerk and is eligible for his regularisation in that post is legal andjustified? If so, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled?"

Dated, the 5th May, 2009

AWARD

2.Shri D. Mukherjee, Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union appeared on 25-3-2009,alongwith the concerned workman and filed petition on behalf of the concerned workman praying that the concerned workman does not want to contest the case further . It appears from the petition that the management has got no objection.

By Order No. L- 20012/23 /99 - IR ( C - I ) dated 4-6-1999theContral 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:

SCHEDULE

3. Since the concerned workman/ sponsoring union wants to withdraw the case , I pass a ' No Dispute' Award inthe present reference case.

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नईदिल्ली, 2 जून , 2009

" क्या की.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंवतंत्र द्वारा श्री निवास बेलदार को दिनांक 30-6-1995 से सेवा निवृत किया जाना उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं ? " का.आ. 1790.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकारएवं बी.सी.सी. एल.के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 127/1999) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/23/1999-आईआर(सी-1 ) ]

After having received the Order No. L-20012/23/1999- IR(C-I) dated4-6-1999 the aforesaid reference from the Government of lindia, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute a reference case No. 127 of 1999was registered on 15-6-1999 but till 28-1-2009 none appears from either side inspite of notices being sent by speed post nor the written statement on behalf of the workman is filed till date . It seems that neither the workman nor the sponsoring Union is interested to contest their case further.

स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

In view of such circumstances , I Pass the ' No Dispute' Award in present reference case.

New Delhi , the 2nd June , 2009

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2009

S.O. 1790.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 127/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court No. I , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009.

[No. L-20012/23/1999- IR(C-I)] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

बार.आ. 1791 औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवंबी. सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अभिकरण नं. 1 , बनवार के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

[सं. एल-20012/422/1999- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT

New Delhi , the 2nd June, 2009 (NO. 1), DHANBAD

Inthe matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1 )( d) (2A) of the I. D. Act1947

Reference No. 127 of 1999

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of kusunda Area of M/ s.BCCL

AND

S.O. 1791.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref: No. 50/2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the IndustrialDispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCCL and their workman , which was receivedbytheCentral Government on 2-6-2009 .

Their Workman

Present : SHRI Hari Mangal SINGH, Presiding Officer

[No. L-20012/422/1999- IR(C- 1 ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer 3725 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़6 , 1931

ANNEXURE

New Delhi , the 2nd June, 2009 BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. I, DHANBAD

Inthematter ofa reference U/s . 10( 1)(d)(2A) of I.D.Act.

1974

Reference No. 50 of2000

S.O. 1792. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 165/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure inthe IndustrialDispute between the employers in relation tothemanagement ofBCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 2-6-2009.

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s. BCCL AND Their Workmen

Present : Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer

[No. L-20012/ 147/1999- IR(C-I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

APPEARANCES

: None

FortheEmployers

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1, DHANBAD For the Workmen

: None

State : Jharkhand .

Industry:Coal. Inthe matter ofa reference under section 10( 1 )( d)(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 Dated, the 7th May, 2009

Reference No. 165 of1999 AWARD

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of BaroraArea ofM/s . BCCL

AND Their Workman

By order No. L - 20012/422/ 99 - IR(C - I ) dated 21-1-2000 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 Industiral Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to thisTribunal .

Present : Shri H.M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

अनुसूची

Forthe Management : Sri B. M. Prasad, Advocate

For the Union/Workman : None

State: Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal .

Dated, the 7th May, 2009

" क्या बी.सी.सी.एल. , कुसुंदा क्षेत्र के प्रबंधन द्वारा श्री विश्वनाथ बाउरी को NCWA IV को धारा 2.11 के अंतर्गत SLU का अपग्रेडेशन न दिया जाना न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं तथा किस तारीख से ? "

AWARD

Thisreference case is of the year 2000 but even on 26-3-09 none appeared from the side ofthe workman inspite of notice sent by speed post on 4-2-2009. It appears that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case .

By order No. L - 20012/ 147 /99 - IR( C - I) dated 16-7-99/3-8-99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to thisTribunal .

In such circumstances, I render a 'No Dispute' award passed in the present reference case .

अनुसूची

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2009

" क्या मजदूर संघ की संघ की सूची में दिए गए 12 कर्मकारों को उनके वर्तमान वेतन ग्रेड को संशोधन करते हुए और टाइम से पदों पर जिन पर वे कार्यरत हैं नियमित न किया जाना उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं तथा किस तारीख से ? " का.आ. 1792. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी.सी.सी.. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 165/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

This case was receive from the Ministry and registered on 16/30-8-1999 . Sri Prasad Advocate files letter of authority on behalf of Management but none appears from workman. Inspite of notices being sent by speed post no one appears for the sponsoring union/workman nor any steps have been taken . It seem that neither the [सं. एल -20012/147/1999- आईआर( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी 3726

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

AWARD

workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest their case further.

In view of such circumstances , I Pass the 'No Dispute' award in the present reference case.

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

By Order No. L - 20012 / 77 / 99 - IR( C- I) dated 4-6-99 the Contral Government in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise ofthe power conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

नई दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2009

"Whether the action of management of Kusunda Area ofBCCL is not promoting Sri A. K. Singh CraneOpt. Dhansar KOCP. From Excuv . Gr . B to Excuv . Gr . A w.e.f. 7-8-1985 , the date on which has Junior Sri Shiv Jatan Singh was promoted, is correct ? Ifnot, what reliefthe concern workman is entitled?"

का.आ. 1793 -औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी. सीःसी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 136/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -20012/77/ 1999- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. On 12-2-2009 none appeared on behalf of the workman to file written statement inspite of notice being sentby speed post and the case relates to the year 1999 i.e. ten years old. It, appears that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case.

NewDelhi, the 2nd June, 2009

3. In such circumstances , I render a ' No Dispute ' award in present case.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2009

S.O. 1793.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 136/1999) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . BCCL and their workman , which wasreceived by the Central Government on 2-6-2009.

[No. L-20012/77/1999- IR(C-I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. I, DHANBAD

का.अ. 1794 औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी. सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मक्रारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनवाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 45/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Inthe matter of a reference U/ s . 10( 1 )(d)(2A) of 1. D. Act Reference No. 136 of1999

[सं. एल-20012/331/1999- आईआर( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी PARTIES : Employees in relation to the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. Ltd.

New Delhi , the 2nd June , 2009 AND

Their Workman

PRESENT : SHRI H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

: None

For the Employers

S.O. 1794.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 45/2000) oftheCentral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagerment of BCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009.

None

For the Workman

State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal.

[No. L-20012/331/ 1999- IR(C-I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer Dated, the 7th May, 2009 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3727.

भारत का राजपुत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOURCOURT Αφου (подом No. L, DHANBAD WOW In the matter ofa reference U/s.10( 1 )( d)(24) of 1.D.Act Reference No. 45 of 2000

Parties : Employer in relation to the management of

AND

Their Workman

Present : Shri H.M. Singh, PresidingOfficer

APPEARANCES

Forthe employers

Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate .

For the Workman

None

State: Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal Dated , the 5th May, 2009

AWARDS By Order No. L-20012/331 /99- IR(C- I) dated 20-1-2000 the Central Govemment in the Ministry of Labour has in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) ofSection 10 ofthe industiral Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunaletto ti manns अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 116/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार की 2-6-2009 की प्राप्त हुआ ongs sont 9005-1-854091-4-2 ) to lenteiga aw beed boardसे. एल-20012/07/1999-आईआर(सी ) ai mushow wortente डेस्क आधिकारी Thud nesutionNew Delhi , the 2nd June, 2009 SO1795In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 116/1999) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relationto the management of BCCL and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 2-6-2005.7

No.1-20012/07/ 1999-IR(C-DJ

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 the শিকার কত রাকাত TID.Act. 1947

GOOReferenceNo. 116 of1999

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of etas Jealgora Colliery ofMs. BOOLG Isizzubal 1181 of 1 ) biuras où seildvų voston Insmiovo AND -aus -terdit ishirubni inamovistas erit to (२९९ ) ni shuxsund ein ni Their Workman ой проб Present : ShriHati Mangui Singh , Presiding Onders

ICES 2005-0-2 по заетиτονο mi odred bevisst

NoneNo

For the Management the

None

FortheUnion

" क्याबी.सी.सी.एल. , ब्लाक II क्षेत्र के प्रबंधन तंत्र द्वारा श्री विश्वनाथ को आयु निर्धारण के लिए चिकित्सा बोर्ड न भेजा जाना ब्लाक जबकि उनके पहचान पत्र एवं सेवा उद्धरणों में दर्ज जन्म तारीख में स्पष्ट अपवाद है उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं तथा किस तारीख से ? "

25-3-09 was the date fixed for filing written statement by the concerned workman/ sponsorning union but none appeared to take any step inspite of notice sent by speed post on4-2-09 .

It appears from the record that this case is pending from filing of wirtten statement by the union with effect from 27-1-2000. It means that workman/ sponsoring union is not interested to contest the case ,

In such circumstances, I render a 'No Dispute' award passed in the present reference c

мастыня оf оf we H. MUSINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 2 जून, 2009

का.आ. 1795 औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी. सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 2205 Gi/09-12

State : Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal Dated, the 7th May,2009 ИЗ ЭТАЛОН By Order No : L-20012/07/ 99- IR (C- I) dated 4-6-1999 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 Industiral Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to thisTribunan nyo

अनुसूची

" क्या बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधन तंत्र द्वारा श्री मुवी ई- तुलसामा के आश्रितः पुत्र को स्वेच्छा सेवा निवृति योजना के अन्तर्गत नियुक्ति न देना न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार व उनके अश्रित किस राहत के पात्र हैं ? " After having received the Order No. L-20012/07/ 1999- IR(C-I) dt. 4-6-1999 the aforesaid reference from the [PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] 3728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009 /ASADHA 6, 1931

Dated, the 6th May, 2009 AWARDАНЯТЬНИЙ Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute a reference case No. 116 of 1999 wasregistered on 15-6-1999 but till 28-1-2009 . None appears from either side inspite of notices being sent by speed post nor the written statement on behalf ofthe workman is filed till date. It seems that neither the workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest their case further .

By order No. L-20012/205 / 99 - IR(C - I ) dated 10-11-99 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise ofthe 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 :

In view of such circumstances , I Pass the 'No Dispute' award in the present reference case.

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2009

"क्या बी.सी.सी.एल. , गोविन्दपुर क्षेत्र-III के प्रबंधन तंत्र द्वारा श्री कल्लु यादव को अण्डरग्राउन्ड मुन्सी के पद पर नियमित म किया जाना न्यायोचित है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस सहत के मात्र हैं तथा किस तारीख से ? "

का.आ. 1796 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 181/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -20012/205 / 1999 - आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी

2.It appears from the record that no written statement has been filed on behalf of the workman and the case is for the year 1999. However , notice was issued to the sponsoring union for their appearance and to file their written statement but even on 11-2-2009 neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union appeared to take any stop. It seems that none is interested to contest the case on behalf of the workman.edu New Delhi, the 2nd June, 2009

3. Under such circumstances , I render a "No Dispute award inthe present reference case, προάσειτελετέρια το

HM. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 2 जून 2009

S.Q. 1796 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 181 / 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BCCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 2-6-2009.

[No. L- 20012/205/1999-IR(C-1)]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

1797 गिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की चारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधितंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के दीप, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 125/1999 ) को प्रकरती है जो गोद्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. I, DHANBAD

[एल-20012/35/1999-आईभार( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी Inthematter ofa reference under section 10( 1 )( d)(2A) of the Industrial Disputés Act.

New Delhi , the 2nd June, 2009 theth. Reference No. 181 of1999

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Govindpur area of M/ s. B.C.C.L.

AND

Their Workmen

Present :: Shri H.M. Singh , PresidingOfficer

PPEARANCE

S.O. 1797.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government fhoroby publishes the award (Ref. No. 125/1999) ofthe Central Govwhrment Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Comet Dio , L, Dhanbed as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to themanagement ofM / s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009 Sri D.K. Verma, Advocate

For the employersrs

[No.L- 20012/33/1999- IR(C-4) ] None

Forthe Workmen

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

Industry : Coal

State : Jharkhand.

3729 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27 , 2009/आषाद 6 , 193ИТТIКАО ЗНТ

ANNEXURE

Government hereby publishes the 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. 125 of 1999

award (Ref. No. 177/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . BCCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Kusunda Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C.L. Lid.

קולוןכלעמל(הכל ]No: L- 20012/206/ 1999-IR (CT([ AND

Sি NEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

কি পরার পরিক

Their Workanent

we enec-a-s ANNEXURE

Present : Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

For the employers

- BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. I, DHANBAD Nones ambitiw of answ

For the Workmen

None

State : Jharkhand. ίσως αγένη και το weIndustry : Coal .

Inthe matter of a reference under section.10( 1 )( d)(2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Dated, the 6th May, 2009

how bomcanos

norokeference No. 177 of 1999 AWARD Imag

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Govindpur Area No. III ofM/s . B.C.C.LTD

ποιείνη οἱ εποχοlqms Their Workmann leitaubai adi sa By order No. E- 20012/ 35/ 99 - IR(C- I ) dated 4-6-99 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 industiral Disputes Act, 1947, referred the followingdispute for adjudication to this Tribunal ক ( ১ ) বক ( ৯০) )

Present ! SHRIH. M. SINGH , Presiding ofmeer di SRI SAHASRA APPEARANCES

For the employers Sri D. K. Verma, Advocate

For the Workmen ATALENone

State : Jharkhand.

Industry:Coal.

Dated, the 5th May, 2009 ТизминалоO JAST AWARD TO " क्या बी.सी.सी.एल., के प्रबंध तंत्र द्वारा श्री युसुफ मियांको ब्लैक स्मोंथ " के पद पर नियुक्त करने की अपेक्षा अन्य पद पर नियुक्तकिया जाना संदर्भ सं. 91/89 में सेटलमेंट एवार्ड दिनांक 17-3-94 का अतिक्रमण है यदि हो सो कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं ? तथा किस तारीख से ? "

By order No. L- 20012 / 206 / 99-1R( C - I ) dated 2. On 28-1-2009 None appeared from either side inspite of notices being sent by speed post nor the written statement on behalf of the workmen is has been filled. This case is pending since 15-6-1999 . It therefore appears that niether the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the cases commid Istarskut

3-11-09 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 no colgali : mitme

J006 AM A tugbrivoje tulori VI coll अनुसूची

3.Under such circumstances , I render a ' No Dispute' award in the present reference case ( CFICE

Enclose as above 24 почтов

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 2 जून, 2009 κακονισης :

"क्या बी.सी.सी.एल. , गोविन्दपुर क्षेत्र- III के प्रबंध तंत्र द्वारा श्री एम महतो को, जो कि लेपरोसी रोग से पीड़ित है, उनकी विकलांगता, निर्धारण के लिए चिकित्सा बोर्ड को न भेजा जाना न्यायोचित एवं नियमानुसार है ? यदि नहीं तोकर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं ?"

- का आर1798 औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 137/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त

2. It appears from the record that no written statement has been filed on behalf of the workmen and the rase is of the year 1999. However , notice was issued to the sponsoring union for their appearence and to file their written statement but even today neither any one appears nor any steps has been taken.

Inview ofsuch circumstances, it seems that none is interested to contest this is case and it is useless to keep हुआ था дии.Мангай : тизе [सं. एल-20012/ 206/ 1999- आईआर (सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd June ,2009

this case pending . In such circumstances , 1 render a No Dispute '

award in the present reference cases int

S.O. 1798 -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , thethe Central di to Ot anite ? lo (AH . M. SINGH , Presiding Officer [PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JUNE 27, 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

3730

नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2009

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudicationto this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the Management of Block IVProject ofGovindpur Area of M/ s . BCCL in notpromoting Sri Amrondra Dubey timely in proper Grades is justified and legal ? To what relief is the workmen concerned entitled and from what date?" का.आ. 1799.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं मै. बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में चीन सर औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/107/2008- आईकार( सी-1 ) ] स्नेहलतावास डेस्क अधिकारी

2. Shri D. Mukherjee, Secretary, Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union , appearing on behalf of the union on 27-3-2009 filed a petition praying for passing a 'No Dispute' Award in this reference since the concerned workmen wants to withdraw the case .

New Delhi , the 2nd June , 2009

3. In view of the prayer made on behalf of the concernedworkmen , I render a No Dispute ' Award in the present reference case .

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2009

S.O. 1799 In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/ 2009) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/ s. BCCL, and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 2-6-2009.

[No. L- 20012/107/2008- IR(C- I)] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का.मा. 1860 -औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं मैं. बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधन के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार मेवेति अनिल का नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं 32/1996 ) को अपरित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को हुआ था ।

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , DHANBAD

[सं. एल-20012/179/1995-आईआर ( सी- I) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी Inthe matter of a reference under Sec . 10( 1 )(d)(2A) of 1.

D.Act

NewDelhi , the 2nd June, 2009 Reference No. 10/2009

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Block IV Project of Govindpur Area of M/s . BCCL .

AND Their Workman

Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer

S.O. 1000 -in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/1996) ofthe Costal Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. I , Dhanbad, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the managerment of CCL and their workman , which was received bythe Central Government on 2-6-2009.

APPEARANCES

[No. L-20012/ 179/1995- IR(C-I)] None

For the Employers

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer Forthe Workman

D. Mukherjee Advocate/

ANNEXURE

SecretaryB.C.K.Ο

State: Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TREIBUNAL NO . 1 AT DHANBAD Dated, the 18th May , 2009

PRESENT: Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer AWARD

Inthe matter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)(d) of the L. D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 32 of1996

Parties : Employers in relation to the Management of Sarubera Colliery of M/s . CCL and their workman.

By order No. L-20012 / 107 /2008 - I.R. (CM-I ) dated 27-2-2009 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(if) ]

3731

भारत का राजपत्र जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931ESAD PHI

APPEARANCES G

on behalf of the workman Mr. U. N. Lal,

Advocate

On behalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma,

Spurlinco sit as Advocated

State : Jharkhand.Industry : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 11th May, 2009 on

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order Να. L-20012/179/95- IR(C- I), dated, the 26th July, 1996, w

Whether the action of the management of Sarubera Colliery ofM/s.BCCL.in terminating the farsérvices of Sh. Mukutdhari Prasad w.e.f: 24-3-1990 isjustified? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to? " amb nous ved barotte

concerned and the purported enquiry was neither fair, nor proper, nor reasonable , and also no opportunity was given to the concerned workman to defend his case . Subsequently when the concerned workman went to the office to joinduty, along with Medical Certificate hewas verbally told that his services had been terminated. This was on 18-5-1994. Immediately thereafter be applied for photo copy of relevant documents including Enquiry Report vide his application dated 18-5-1994. In spite of repeated verbal and written request these documents were not supplied to the concerned workman. Thereafter the concerned workman raised an, Industrial Dispute, on 18-9-1994 which resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication , It has been reiterated on behalf of the that the medical certificate for treatment from 9-5-1988 to 12-10-1988 during which period the workman concerned was advised bed rest, having been accepted, and the workman concerned having been allowed to join duty on. 2-2-1989, there did not exist any ground to allege absence from duty without any permission/ sanctioned leave from 9-5-1988. After submission of the Medical Certificate, the management took about 3 months time to allow the workman to join duty on 2-2-1989. Thus there were no absence from duty without reasonable cause or sanctioned leave from 9-5-1988 to 2-2-1989. Thereafter the concerned workman again fell ill and had to take leave we.f. 3-2-1989 and while on treatment and bed rest a so-called enquiry was fabricated and his services were terminated and even the termination order was not served on the workman concerned. It has therefore, been prayed by the concerned workman to answer the terms of reference in favour ofthe workman concerned holding that the action of the management of Sarubera Colliery of M/ s.BCCL . in terminating the services of the concerned workman w.e.f. 24-3-1990 is unjustified, unreasonable , illegal and to Award reinstatement of the concerned workman w.e.f. 24-3-1990 with continuity of service and back wages and all other service benefits .

3 In the Written Statement filed on behalf of the 2. In the Written Statement filed on behalf ofthe concerned workman it has been stated by him that the order ofreference was served on the workman under cover ofLetterNo. 1 (64)/94 dated 9-10-1996 through the Area Secretary, National Coal Workers Congress, Topa Colliery as the workman had come over to the colliery and was not available at his home address. Hence, there has beendelay in submitting the Written Statement . It has been stated on behalf of the concerned workman that he had to take leave on medical grounds and prolonged treatment and submitted medical certificate from time to time seeking leave. It has further been stated that a chargesheet dated: 6-6-1988 was served on the concerned workman alleging that he was absenting from duty without any permission/sanctioned leave from the competent authority since 9-51988/ 19-5-1988 . The factremains that the medical certificate for the period from 9-5-1988 to: 12-10-1988 was acceptedbythe Medical Board on or about 25-1-1989 which conglusively establish that the alleged absence without competent sanction is without any basis at all . However, the concerned workman submitted his explanation to the charges on 25-6-1988 denying the charges . It has been alleged that the concerned workman was not given any communication or information on the matter of alleged enquiry committee or any other proceedings after his reply to the charges . When the concerned workman reported for duty with medical certificate in support ofhis illness he was allowed tojoin duty on 2-2-1989. Therefore , there is no substance in the allegation or unauthorised or unentitled absence from duty either from 9-5-1988 or from 19-5-1988. The concerned workman has alleged that the purported enquiry was ordered or fabricated on the back of the workman

management it has been stated by them the present referernce is not legally maintainable. It has been stated by themthat the present reference is not legally maintainable. It has further been stated by them that the concerned workman Shri Mukutdhari Prasad was working as a Grade- II Clerk ofSarubera Colliery and he stated absenting from his duties w.e.f. 9-5-1988 without perilssion and without authorised leave and without justifiable cause . Even he did not inform the management the reason of his unauthorised absence from duty . Accordingly a chargesheet dated 6/ 13-6-1988 under the signature of the colliery manager of Sarubera Colliery was issued to the concerned workman. As the concerned workman was not found in the colliery, the said chargesheet was sent to him by registered post with A.D. It has been stated by the management that the concerned workman was given opportunity to submit his reply to the charges levelled [PART HSEC. 3(ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009 /ASADHA 6, 1931

3732

but they were returned back with the postal endorsement that the concerned workman is not residing at his resident village Pabra, P. O. Pabra District Hazaribagh though he hasgiven replyto the chargesheet on 6-6-1988 . It therefore shows that the concerned workman was very much aware about the absence of duties. He was found fit by the Chief Medical Officer on 25-1-1989 but even then he was not reporting for duty intentionally. It only shows that he got no interest in work. It appears from the records that chargesheet has been issued to him on 6-6-1988 regarding his absence from 9-5-1968. NA

8.As perevidence of MW- 1 R. D. Barnwal who has proved documents marked as Ext :M- 1 to M- 6 stated that chagssheet has been issued to the concerned workman under the signature of Mr. R. J. Singh . The concerned worlukan was served with the notice ofenquiry but inspite ofthe service of the notices he did not appear in the enquiry proceeding. Notice has also been sent by Regd. Post and lastly termination letter was sent vide Ext.M - 5 . The concerned workman after issuance of chargesheet had reported for duty. On his application he was allowed duty but inspite ofthe joining order he did not join duty.He was allowed by letter dated 2-2-89 but he did not report for duty. It shows that he had abandoned his duty.

against him but he did not submit any reply as a result of which the management appointed Shri C. D. Mahato , Safety Officer to hold the departmental enquiry relating to the chargesheet issued to the concerned workman by office order dated 29-9-1988. By the same office order he appointed Shri R. D. Burman , Senior Under Manager as management representative . The Enquiry Officer thereafter issued notices of enquiries fixing the date ofenquiry on 23-9-1989 and3-10-1989 and the notices of enquiries were sent to the concerned workman by registered post . Inspite of issuance ofnotices of enquiries the concerned workman neither attended the enquiry nor sent information relating to his inability to attend the enquiry fixed on those days . Thereafter the Enquiry Officer conducted the departmental enquiry ex parte and submitted his report holding that the concerned workman is guilty of the charges levelled against him. The management finding no response from the concerned workman terminated his service w.e.f. 24-3-1990by letter dated 26-12-1989. It has been alleged on behalf ofthe management that the concerned workman.did not bother from 9-5-1988 till 18-9-1994 and he raised the present industrial dispute after remaining absent for such apretty long period from 9-5-1988 to 18-9-1994. It has been stated by the management that as the concerned workman failed tojustified his unauthorised absence for such a long period without informing the management and without taking permission from the management, his case was not found fit for consideration for his re-employment and accordingly the demand raised by the concerned workman in the present reference was not acceded to. It has been prayed on behalf of the management to pass an Award rejecting the demand of the concerned workman .

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paras of each other's Written Statement.

9. Ld. Goummel for the management argued that he has not bothered to join duty and he raised industrial dispute in 1994 though he was terminated from24-3-90. It only shows that he was not interested to do the job . Management had tried to give opportunity to join but he was not joined. Ld Counsel for the workman argued that the concormed workman was attacked with Jaundice after fitness ofthe docter ofthe management but it is not beliable as he had not filed any medical certificate except the cortificate dated 12-10-1988 ofDr. S. K. Kamruddin , private prastitioner though there is arrangement of free hospital facilities ofthe management . He was very much aware of the above hospital facilities . When he was found fitby the MedicalOfficer ofthe management on 25-1-1989 he should have joined the service but even then he did not join the service it only shows that he was not at all interested to perform his duties .

5. Management in order to substantiate their case hasproduced Mr. R. D. Barnwal who has been examined as MW- 1. The documents on their behalf have been marked as Ext . M- 1 to M -6 on proof by MW- 1 . However, no evidence has been adduced on behalf of the concerned workman..

6. By order No. 44 dated 21-11-2008 it has been held by this Tribunal that the domestic enquiry conducted against the concerned workman by the Enquiry Officer was fair and proper .

10. In this respect Ld . Counsel for the management also argued that the concerned workman has not examined himself so that it may be proved that he was actually sick . He also referred to a decision reported in 2006 Lab . I.C. 2262 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following:-

"Industrial DisputesAct ( 14 of 1947) , S. 11 -A- Proportionally of punishment Misconduct Bus conductor nemained abusent not only for period of more than 3 years . But niso remained unauthorisedly absent on several occasions . Misconduct committed cannot be treated as minor. For running buses , service of conductor is imperative and no employer 7. In course of hearing or argument on merit Ld . Counsel for the workman submitted that the concerned workman was ill and enquiry was held not according to the rules and the concerned workman was terminated from service for no fault of his own. He was sick and anybody may become siek . In this respect Ed . Counsel for the management argued that he was dismissed as per order dated21/26-12-1989 from 24-3-1990. The letter of dismissal and notices of enquiry were sent to the concerned workman 3733

TBSAD BUT

भारत को राजपत्र: जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ⅲ) ]

inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelation to the management of M/s. E.C.L. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 2-6-2009 .

Les running a fleet of buses can allow an employee to remain absent for a long time, Punishment ofdismissal. Not disproportionate. Cannot be substituted with

sereinstatement iqari nainti gahoune sa

[No. L- 20012/21 / 1999- IR(C-I) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Ld . Counsel of the management also referred to another decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2008) 1: Supreme Court Cases (L & S) 164 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following ASTO

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1 ), DHANBAD

Inthe matter of a reference under Section 10(1 )(d) (2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reference No. 130 of 1999

シンズフリ MA at

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of war Mugma Area of M/ s . Ecuyomegamers wil o

10598-2001787 Their Workman

Present : Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

For the Management None, антийски

For the Union 源

mufioMisconduct-Absenteeism - Nature of, and appropriate punishment therefore -Habitual absenteeism, held amounts , to gross violation of discipline , Where the workman, who had been in the post found guilty of unauthorised absenteeism several times (15 times in this case) was in properly conducted departmental enquiry once again found guilty of unauthorised absence for a long period ( 105 days in this case) , held, his consequential dismissal from service ought not have beentreated to be harsh and interfered with by Labour Court/ High Court -Case law on scope of exercise ofpower under S. H - A Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 discussed- industrial Disputes Act, 1947- S. 11 - A and S. 10(4- A) ( as in force in Karnataka) . "

State : Jharkhanduan Industry: Coal

Dated, the 4th June , 2009190

OTO AWARD

11. In view of the facts , circumstances , evidence and case law discussed above , I hold that the management wasjustified in terminating the services of the concerned workman. Accordingly following Award is rendered

By order No. L - 20012 / 21 / 99 - IR ( C - I ) dated 4-6-1999 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -sec . ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the followingdispute for adjudication to thisTribunal:

The action of the management of Sarubera Colliery of M/s . C.C.L. in terminating the services of Sh . Mukutdhari Prasad w.e.f. 24-3-1990 is justified. ** Consequently , the concerned workman is not entitled toget any relief."

अनुसूची

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2009

का. आ. 1801

"क्या यूनियन की मांग कि श्री दगरणी महतो जो कि 150 HP हाउलेस्ट ओपरेट करते हैं को कैसे VI में वर्गीकृत किया जाए मान्य है ? यदि हां तो कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं तथा किसतारीख से

2.No one appears from either side inspite of notice being sent by speed post nor any steps have been taken on behalf of the sponsoring Union/workman.

-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं मै. ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 130/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था १०gn vedi al moduler ri te would 129019

In view of such circumstance it seems that neither the workman nor the Union is desire to contest this case. And as such, I pass the No Dispute Award in this present Reference case.

[सं. एल-20012/21/1999- आईआर (सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer New Delhi , the 2nd June , 2009

नई दिल्ली, 2 जून, 2009

10.का.आ: 1802 औद्योगिक विवादः अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं मै. सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध निवींजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बौच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवादद मेंमें केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक S.O. 1801. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref.No. 130/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure 3734

[PART II SEC. 3 (0)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JNE 27 , 2009 /ASADKA 61931

अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 169/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार, को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. This die was received from the Ministry and registuudion P-13-1999, Datovason 12-2-3009 none appears wut is filed on behalfof the sponsoring Union inspite of notices being sent by spoed post . It seems that neither the workman nor the sponsoring Union is interested to contest their case further.

..[सं. एल-20012/387/1999-आईआर( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 2nd June, 2009

In view of such circumstances I pass the NO DISPUTE Award in this present Reference caseless De

H.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2009

S.O. 1802.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 169/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.C.L. and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009 .

[No. L-20012/387/1999- IR(C- I) ]

का.आ. 1803. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की चाय 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सी.एफ.के के संनियोगकों और उनके कर्मकारों के कीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट अनिवारण में 1 , में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक संदर्भ संख्या 129/1999 ) को प्रणमसित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ THE SNEH LATA JAWAS, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

[सं. एल-20012/11/ 1999 -आईआर( सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1), DHANBAD

New Delhi, the 2nd June ,2009

Inthe matter ofa reference under Section 10( 1 )(d)( 2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

Reference No. 169 of1999

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Sayal Area of M/ s . CCL, AND Their Workman

8.0. 1003.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 129/ 1999) of the Contral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the menagement of C.C.L. and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 2-6-2009 .

Present : Shri Hari Mangal Singh , Presiding Officer

[No. L-20012/ 11 / 1999- IR( C-I) ] APPEARANCES

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk.Officer None

For the Management

ANNEXURE

For the Union/workman

None

State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( No. 1 ), DHANBAD Dated, the 4th May,2009

In the matter of a reference under Section 10( 1 )( d)(2A) of

the IDAct

AWARD

Reference No. 129 of1999

Parties:Employers in relation to the management of M/s . Cenital Coalfields Ltd.

AND

Their Workman

By order No. L - 20012/ 387/99 - I.R. ( C - I ) dated 14-10-1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferredby clause (d) of sub- section ( 1) and sub- sec . (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

SCHEDULE

Present : Shri M.M. Singh , PresidingOfficer

APPEARANCES

For the mplayers

: Shri D. K. Verma Advocate

For theWerkaman

None

"Whether the denial ofthe Mgt. ofC.C. Ltd. of SayalArea to give pay protection to Shri Ram Kinker Singh and 342 other . While regularising them is justifiedandproper? If so, to what reliefthe workman are entitled to?"

Industry: Coal .

3735 भारत का राजपत्र: जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़6, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

Dated, the 1st May, 2009

AWARD

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1), DHANBAD

Inthe matter of a reference under Sec . 10( 1 )(d)(2A) of the IDAct

Reference No. 85 of2006

By order No. L- 20012/ 11 / 99 - IR ( C - I ) dated 4-6-1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-sec . ( 1 ) and sub- sec . (2A) ofSection 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Khas Mahal Project ofM /s . C.C.L.

AND

Their Workman

"Whether the demand of National Coal Workers Congress before the C.C.L. Ranchi to pay promotional benefits , including monetary, to Shri S. C. Jha, Shri D. B. Jha, Shri B. N. Pandey and Shri P. Ray on their promotion vide order dated 8-5-1997 is justified ? If so what relief and from what date such benefits are payable? "

Present : Shri H.M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

Forthe employers :. Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate

D.Mukherjee Industry : Coal .

For the Workman State : Jharkhand.

Dated, the 1st May, 2009 2. The order of reference was received in this Tribunal on 15-6-1999. But none appeared on behalf of the workman to file written statement on behalf of the concerned workman. Therefore notice was sent by speed post on 12-1-2009 to the parties to file written statement on behalf ofthe workman . But till 13-2-2009 no written statement was filed. It seems that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring Union is interested to contest the case .

AWARD

3.Under such circumstances , I render a ' No Dispute ' Award in the present reference case .

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2009

By order No. L- 20012/ 39 /2006 - I.R. (CM - 1 ) dated 30-8-2006 the Central Government in the Ministry ofLabour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - sec . ( 1) and sub -sec. (2A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

SCHEDULE

का.आ. 1804. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 85/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/39/2006- आईआर ( सी- I ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the demand of Rashtriya Koyla Mazdoor Union from the management of C.C.L. Khas Mahal Project, the Sh . Suresh Kumar Tripathi Loading Clerk may be given proper placement in the seniority list and given promotion as Assistant Loading Inspector Justified ? If so to what relief isthe workman entitled and from what date ?" New Delhi , the 2nd June, 2009

2. Sri Gajendra Prasad Singh Joint Secretary , Rashtriya Koyala Mazdoor Union (B & K) appears on 13-3-2009 and filed a petition dated 12-3-2009.

3. It appears from his petition that the sponsoring Uniondoes not want to conteste the case further and prayed for passing a no dispute AWARD in this case .

S.O. 1804. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 85 / 2006) of the 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 to the management of C.C.L. and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009,

Inview ofthe above prayer I render a "No Dispute " Award in the present case .

[No. L -20012/39/2006- IR(C- I) ]

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

2205 G1/09-13 3736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] नई दिल्ली , 2 जून , 2009

Underground Loader and stopping him from work or in not giving employment to his dependent as per Para 9.4.0 of N.C.W.A. - V is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman or his dependent entitled?" का. आ. 1805.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण न . I, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 135/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/92/2001-आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd June , 2009

S. O. 1805.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 135/ 2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. I , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009 .

[No. L-200012/92/2001 - 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. 135 of 2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the mangement of Hariajam Colliery of Mugma Area of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

For theEmployers For the Workman

: Shri B. M. Prasad , Advocate : Shri S. N. Goswami , Advocate

State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal.

Dated , the 13th May, 2009

AWARD

2. Written Statement has been filed on behalf of the workman stating that Gohari Lal Ram is a permanent employee ofHariajam Colliery under Mugma, Area of M/s. E.C.L. working as Underground Loader having U/ MNO-831104. The concerned workman belongs to Harijan/ Scheduled Caste. Since the date of employment the concernedworkman has been performing his job of U/G. Loader of the Colliery continuously with unblemished record ofservice. On 2-8-1995 while the concerned workman was working in undergound of the colliery he received personal injury at about 11.45 A.M. due to fatal accident in mine, arising out of and in the course of his employement and sustained injury caused fracture RT/ leg & L/thigh and after prolonged treatment of colliery Hospital, he was declared medically unfit/disablement by the ApexMedical Board forundergroundjob and still the concerned workman is undergone treatment and cannot move without help of stick/LATHI. The management has intimated the report in Form - IV -A to the Coal Mines Welfare Commissioner , Dhanbad on 5-8-1995 by the Manager, Hariajam Colliery in respect of the fatal accident taken place in the colliery occurred and sustained injuries to Gohari Lal Ram , the concerned workman and Ganga Nahak, who died . The ApexMedical Board declared him disabled for underground job, therefore he was allowed for light duty on surface w.e.f. 12-7-1997 and the concerned workman was compelled todo thework for subsistence of the family member, because he is the only bread earner of the family for purpose ofthe tide over the distress for their livelihood . After sometime , the mangement stopped the work of light duty and deprieved the only source of livelihood leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood The concernedworkman made several representations to the management for providing light duty and the management neither made payment of compensation nor provided employment to his dependent as per para 9.4.0 of N.C.W.A.V. The concerned workman is legally entitled to get either light duty for the susbsistence of the family or one employment in his place to his dependent under the social security and for the welfare of the family due to the circumstances occurred accident and sustained permanent injury out of and in the course of his employment . It has been prayed that an award be passed infavour of the workman.

By Order No. L - 20012 / 92/ 2001 - C - I dated 18/24-5-2001 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 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management either in not providing light duty on surface to Sh . Gohari Lal Ram ,

3. Written Statment has been filed on behalf of management stating that the present reference is not legally mantainable . No right exists on any workman to demand for light duty under any provision of Certified Standing Order of NCWA . If any workman is unable to perform his normal duties , for whatsoever reason it may be , he cannot demand for light duty on the surface . Providing such [भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

3737

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़6, 1931

employment on compassionate ground is dependent purely on availability of light duties on the surface and that too, one can be provided light duty for temporary period only, as and when available . It has been stated that the the concerned workman was appointed as underground loader at Hariajam colliery on 11-12-72 . In the course of carrying on his duty in undergound mines, he met an accident on 2-3-95 and received injury on account of such accident . He was given specialised treatment by the management at their Sanctoria Hospital and he was discharged from the hospital after recovery on 17-11-95 . Не was paid full salary during the period of this treatment and all the medical expenses were borne by the company .

the management to consider his case on the basis of representation dated 22-11-99 served to the management by his advocate , Shri Mahesh Tewari . The management examined the representation and issued the letter dated 22-5-2001 to Sri Mahesh Tewari , Advocate , on his representation after disposing all the points in issue . It has been stated that the concerned workman after availing of the opportunity before the Hon'ble High Court approached the A.L.C. ( C) for making his reference to the Hob'ble Tribunal and the present reference has come for adjudication . It has also been stated that the concerned workman was never declared unfit for his original job by the ApexMedical Board and his service was not terminated on the ground of his medical unfitness , so the question of considering for employment of his dependent on compassionate ground did not and cannot arise. It has been submitted that the concerned workman cannot demand for employment ofhis dependent unless his service is terminated after declaring him medical unfit to perform his duties .

Asthe concerned workman himself responsible for not reporting for his duties even the Apex Medical Board declared him fit for his original job , he is to be blamed for remaining absent for his duties and the management is at liberty to take disciplinary action against him . It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to pass an award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have filed their repsective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statement .

5. The management has produced MW- 1 Prasant Kumar who has proved documents as Exts . M- 1 to M -5.

The concerned workman has produced WW- 1- Abdul Rahman who has proved documents Exts . W- 1 to W-3.

The concerned workman has produced himself as WW-2.

6. The main argument advanced on behalf of the concernedworkman that he became medically unfit due to accident on 2-8-1995 at about 11-45 AM and he received personal injures due to said fatal accident arising out of and in the couse ofhis employment . In this accident one of hisco-worker died and the concerned workman was badly sustained injury resulting his right leg and left thigh became fracture and he was admitted in colliery hospital and lastly he declared medically unfit for his undergroundjob by the Apex Medical Board and continued undergone treatment for more than five years , however, the concerned workman is alive , but cannot move without help of stick/Lathi . The management has report the fatal accident in form prescribed under Section 10 B (Rule - 11 ) of the Workmen's CompensationAct, 1923, by the Manager, Hariajam Colliery, who is the competent person in mines under the mines Act, 1952 in respect of sustained bodily injuries of the The concerned workman approached the management for providing him some light duty and on the recommendations of the medical authority , he was provided light duty on the surface for 3 months from 28-11-96 to 27-2-97. He was again provided light duty for another one month on the recommendation of the medicical authority from 23-2-97 to 27-3-97. The concerned workman was again provided light duty for a period of three months w.e.f. 14-7-97 on the basis of recommendations made by the Medical Board on 17-4-97 . He was again given light duty for a period of three months from 30-3-98 on the basis of recommendations made by the Apex Medical Board on 5-3-98. It has been stated that light duty could not be available on regular basis and after such difficulties, the management could arrange light duties for the concerned workman and he was provided light duties as and when the same could be made available . Such action of the management was purely on compassionate ground and no legal liability was existing on the management to provide such duty to him . The concerned workman was examined by the Medical Board on 20-8-98 for assessment of his disablement as per the provisions of Workmen's Compensation Act and payment of compensation to him as well as to find out his suitability for his original job . The said Medical Board declared him fit for his job and recommended six months disability compensation as per the provisions of Workman's Compensation Act . The concerned workman instructed to report for his original job and the management paid him the compensation amount as per the computation made by the Finance Department in accordance with the provisions of Workmen's CompensationAct. Thus the action of the management in providing him his original job after making necessary treatment bearing all expenses with payment of compensation to him and making him fit for his original job isbonafide justified . The concerned workman made a protest of incapable of performing his original job and abstrained from his duties and filed a writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court pyirang for direction to be issued to the management to provide him light duty on regular basis. While disposing the aforesaid writ petition being No. CWJC No. 63 of 2001 the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi passed an order dated 9-2-2001 by directing [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 3738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASADHA 6 , 1931

concerned workman . The management neither deposited the compensation amounts nor provided light duty for the welfare of the distress family members who were facing a lot of penury crisis due to said suddenly met an accident. The concerned workman made several representation to the management to mitigate the problem either providing employment his dependent as per the provisions under Para No. 9.4.0 of NCWA- V is in vague and operative as well as lawfully implementing in coal Industry/ CIL . 9.4.0 "Employment to one dependent of a workman who is permanently disabled in his place ."

(i) The disablement of the worker concerned should arise from injury or disease , be of a permanent nature resulting into loss of employment and it should be so certified by the Coal Company concerned.

sustained injuries of the concerned workman and due to said accident the right leg and right thigh of the concerned workman had been fractured. He also admitted that it is true that still he walks with the help of a stick and also stated that it is not mentioned in the said report that he was found to be fit for underground duty (Ext.M -4 ) and said that when a workman becomes disabled and declared unfit hisdependent is provided employment in his place . Under special security of Para 9.4.0 of NCWA - V is lawful applicable and the main object of the provisions is that "Employment to one dependent of a worker who is permanentlydisabled due to accident arising out of and in the course of his employment to provide employment to his dependent to mitigate the immediate hardship of the bread earner and to tide bread over the distress of penury crisis of the said victims family. The concerned workman has been superannuated from service of the company on attaining the age of 60 years w.e.f. 31-12-2003 during the pendency of the above reference . It has been argued by the workman that he was on surface duty of Category-V. since the date of his disablement due to sustained injury received arising out of and in the course ofhis employment caused by accident and to provide employment to his dependent as per the provisions of Para 9.4.0 of NCWA and compensation accordingly.

7. In this respect the management's counsel argued thatthe concerned workman was found fit by the Medical Board andwhen the concerned workman was found fit no question of giving employment to his dependent arises . Themanagement has referred Medical Board's report (Ext . M-1) in which the Medical Board has declared him fit for duty as General Mazdoor, Fitter helper on surface for three months. He was given light duty as per Ext . M - 2 for one month and as per Ext . M - 2/ 1 he was also given light duty for another one month and by Ext. M -2/2 he was given light duty for three months . As per Ext . M-4 he was found fit for duty on 18/ 19-9-98 . So when he was found fit and there was no medical report that he was unfit for duty, so no employment can be given by the management under the provision of Para 9.4.0 of NCWA- V . Ext . W-2 is the report sent to C.M.W.C. , Dhanbad by the Manager , Hariajam Colliery about the accident and Ext . W-2/ 1 was for joining service by the concerned workman after accident . The concerned workman has already superannuated. He (WW-2) has stated in cross - examination that he was not served with any paper by Medical Board to the effect that " I am not unfit for the original job . I am not termined on medical ground. It shows that he has got no paper granted by the Medical Board that he is unfit for original job . It shows that hewas fit for original job . So, there is no question of giving employment to his dependent.

8. In view of the discussions made above , I find that the action of the management is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

The managment deprived the concerned workman in neither providing light duty on surface with wage protection nor providing employment to his dependent under the provisions of Para 9.4.0 of NCWA - V nor deposited the compensation amount for payment him for "total disablement " as per the provisions of Sec . 4 ( 1 ) (b) of the Workmen's ' Compensation Act, 1923 , accordingly comes to Rs . 97.46 with interest thereon . Under Sect . 2 ( 1 ) oftheAct whether a workman incapaciteds of a temporary or parmanent nature for all work which he was capable of performing at the time the accident resulting in such disablement . The workman adduced two witnesses examined and exhibited document , maked as Ext . W- 1 is the representation sent to the management dated 25-9-98, Ext. W- 2 and W- 2/ 1 letters received from the management dated 5-8-95 and 16-10-2001 and Ext. W- 3 copy of injury report granted by Doctor . WW- 1 Abdul Rahaman , who was the Attendance Clerk if Hariajam colliery, stated that the concerned workman Gohari Lal Ram , under ground loader ofHariajam colliery was on duty on 2-8-95 and while on duty he met with an accident due to fallen proof and due this accident one workman died and concerned workman and others received injury and due that accident the upper portion of the left leg and right thigh of the concerned workman had been fractured. The concerned workman remained undergone treatment /medical treatment more than two years . He became quite incapable of working underground mine . Still the concerned workman walks with the help of stick . Despite of having become permanently disabled the dependent of the concerned workmanwas not provided employment by the management in place . The management has examined one witness as MW- 1 , who has stated in examination - in - chief that the concerned workman while was working as underground loader met with an accident and he proved document , Ext. M- 1 , medical report, Ext. M -2 letter of allowing duty on surface and Ext. M -2/2 respectively . Exts . M - 3 and M-4 are letters ofthe General Manager and Ex . M -4 and M - 5 are the order of Hon'ble High Court, Ranchi . During cross- examination MW - 1 admitted that the accident and

9. Accordingly, I render the following award- 3739

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication in this Tribunal:

The action ofthe management either in not providing light duty on surface to Sh . Gohari Lal Ram , Underground Loader and stopping him from work or in not giving employment to his dependent as per Para 9.4.0 of NCWA- V is justified andthe concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

"Whether the action of the Management of State Bank of India Muzaffarpur in transferring Sri P.K. Bhagat, Circle President of Union from Derbhanga to SiwanBazar amounts to violation ofthe provisions of Shastri Award (Para - 535) & unfair Labour Practice? If so to what reliefthe workman is entitled?" नई दिल्ली, 2 जून , 2009

2. This reference case was received in this Tribunal on 28-9-99 . But even on 19-2-09 neither concern workman nor responsoring union appeared and filed written statement on behalf of the concerned workman . It appears that neither the concerned workmen nor the sponsoring union is interested to contest the case .

का. आ. 1806. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंड़िया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 166/1999 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 2-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

3. In such circumstances I render "No dispute" Award in this case .

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer [सं. एल-12012/71/1999- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

नई दिल्ली, 3 जून , 2009

New Delhi , the 2nd June , 2009

का. आ. 1807. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ ट्रावन्सकोर 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 139/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । S. O. 1806. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 166/ 1999) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court , No. I , Dhanbad . as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workman, received by the Central Government on 2-6-2009.

[सं. एल-12012/437/2001-आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी [No. L- 12012/71/ 1999 - IR(B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

New Delhi , the 3rd June, 2009 ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s. 10 (1) (d) (2A) of L. D. Act

Reference No. 166/99

S.O. 1807. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 , of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 139/ 2001) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam , as shown in the Annexure in theIndustrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Travancore Ltd. and their workman , received by the Central Government on 3-6-2009.

Parties : Emeployers in relation to the management of M/s State Bank of India Muzaffarpur.

And

[No. L- 12012/437/2001 - IR(B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Their Workman .

Present: Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM APPEARANCES

: None

For the Employers

: None

For the Workman

Parties : Shri P. L. Norbert , B.A. LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Tuesday the 12th day ofMay, 2009)

State: Jharkhand.

Industry : Bank '

Passed on 5th May, 2009

I.D. 139 OF 2006 (I. D. 21/2002 of Industrial Tribunal , Kollam) AWARD

Workman : Shri . P. Raju , Maliyil Thekkathil, Vedakkumthala East P.O. , Karunagappally, Kollam-690 536 .

By Adv . Sri N. K. Karnis .

By Order No. L- 12012/71 /99 - IR (B -I) dated 7-9-99 the Central Government in the Ministry of Lobour has in exercise of the Powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( i) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the 3740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

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

HeadOffice,

TheManaging Director, State Bank ofTravancore, Poojappura, Trivandrum- 695012.

ByAdv. P. Ramakrishnan .

documents by the defence . The brother of the workman had remitted Rs . 20,000 without the knowledge of the workman. The service of the workman in the bank from 1992 without any complaint was not considered by the disciplinary authority. The punishment is harsh and excessive. The workman belongs to a schedule caste community. He has to look after wife, two daughters and aged and sick parents . The workman is entitled to be reinstated.

The case coimg up for final hearing on 6-5-2009, the Tribunal on 12-5-2009 passed the followingAward .

AWARD

Thisis a reference made by Central Government under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The reaference is:

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Travancore in relation to their KayamkulamBranch in dismissing Shri . P. Raju, Head Peon from service with effect from 8-2-2001 is justified? If not , what relief the workman concerned is entitiled?"

4. According to the management the workman has committed gross misconduct of fraudulent withdrawal of Rs .20,000 from the account of an NRE SB account holder . Since the explanation of the workman to the charge sheet was not satisfactory enquiry was ordered. The enquiry officer had given sufficient opportunity to the workman to cross examine witnesses and adduce defence evidence . Hewas given a copy of enquiry report and an opportunity to represent. Thereafter notice was given proposing punishment and giving him a personal hearing. However he did not avail the opportunity. Considering the gravity ofthemisconduct the workman was dismissed from service . Though the workman filed an appeal , he did not succeed. The management denies torture by police and obtainment of forced statement from the workman. The amount fraudulently withdrawn was made good by remitting Rs . 20,000. The workman was never victimised by the management . No criminal case was registered against the workman . The report is based on evidence . There is no irregularity or impropriety in the disciplinary proceedings .

5. In the light ofthe above contentions the following points arise for consideration .

1. Are the findings sustainable ?

2. Is the punishment proper ?

The evidence consists ofthe oral testimony of MW1 and documentary evidence of Ext . M1 enquiry file alone.

6. Point No. 1 : Charge sheet dated 14-12-1999 contains three charges.

(1) Surreptitious removel of cheque leaf from a cheque book issued to Smt . N. Vijayamma an NRE SB Acountholder.

2. Facts of the case in brief are as follows:- Shri P. Raju entered service in State Bank of Travancore in may 1992. He was Head Peon of Kayamkulam Branch in 1999. He was charge sheeted on 14-12-1999 for removing a leaf from cheque book issued to a customer and misusing that cheque leaf for withdrawing Rs . 20,000 from the account of the customer . When the customer's daughter approached with a cheque for withdrawing money there was no enough balance in the account . This was brought to the notice of the Manager and account was verified and the fraudulent withdrawal of Rs . 20,000 was detected . There is one more allegation that the worker had tampered with the address written on the cover enclosing cheque book to the account holder by altering the post box number . The cover containing the cheque book returned undelivered. The cover was opened by the Manager in the presence of staff and found that one of the cheque leaf was missing . After verifying records a memo was issued to the workman. It was followed by the charge sheet. The workman denied all the allegations against him . The management was not satisfied with the explanation of the workman and hence an enquiry was ordered . in the enquiry he was found guilty of all the charges . The disciplinary authority dismissed him from service . Hence the reference .

(2) Tampering with the address written on the cover containing cheque book sent to Smt . N. Vijayamma by altering postbox number by the workman.

(3) Fraudulent withdrawal of Rs . 20,000 from the account of Smt . N. Vijayamma by using the cheque leaf taken away from the cheque book .

3. According to the workman he was not committed any of the misconduct alleged against him. The Manager , who failed in his duty to verify the cheque presented for encashment, is trying to sherk his responsibility by imputing allegations to him. At the instance of the Manager Kayamkulam police took him into custody and brutally manhandled him and extracted a confession statement admitting the guilt . A farce of an enquiry was conducted. The Enquiry Officer did not comply with the principles of natural justice . No opportunity was given for cross examination of management witnesses and production of

7. The first charge is that the workman had removed stealthly a cheque leaf from the cheque book sent by post to overseas address of Smt . N. Vijayamma. In the explanation to charges the workman has denied the allegation . According to him he had nothing to do with the process of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

3741

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

suspension since September 1999. He was free to complain to higher officials of the bank or to police that an admission statement was obtained from him by threat and force . But hedid not do so. It is during domestic enquiry that such a contention was taken by the worker. It can be considered only as a subsequent through and therefore lacks bona fides . The natural reaction of person who happens to give a forced confession statement is to protest and complain as soon as he is out of the clutches of the persons who threatened him . That was not the behavior of the workman . Ext.PEX- 10 was given in the presence of 19 witnesses (staff ofthe bank) . Therefore there is no merit in the contention oftheworker that Ext. PEX- 10 is not a voluntary statement . The workman is pinned to the statement in Ext.PEX- 10 . The further contention of the learned counsel for the worker that the finding is entered merely on the strength of the confession statement is meritless as the evidence on the management side referred above will go to show that there are enough materials on record to prove the guilt of the workman that cheque leaf was removed by him.

8. It is next alleged that the cover containing cheque book addressed to Smt . N. Vijayamma was entrusted to the workman for sending it by post. But the workman altered the PostBoxNumber by inserting ' 1 ' before ' 49' and making it ' 149' . It was addressed to a gulf country. Naturally the cover was not delivered as the address was not proper and itreturned . The cover was opened in the presence of some ofthe staff. Ext . PEX- 14 is a statement prepared at the time the returned cover was opened and cheque book was verified and found to contain only 19 cheque leaves instead of20. In Ext . PEX - 10 the workman admits that a cheque leaf was taken away by him . In the explanation the workman has no case that the cover was not entrusted to him for sending it by post . He merely denies the process of issuing cheque book, entering them in registers and make it ready for despatch . The cheque leaf was misused for withdrawing Rs . 20,000 from the account of Smt . N. Vijayamma. Thus the circumstances and admission of the workman prove the case ofthe management that it is due to the manipulation of the address of the account holder that the cheque book could not be delivered. The finding of the Enquiry Officer therefore does not require any midification .

despatching the cheque book . PW2 Smt . R. Ambikakumari isthe typist clerk of Kayamkulam branch . She says that in Ext . PEX -3 cheque issued register the entry regarding despatch of the cheque book to Smt . N. Vijayamma, was made by her . She says that she had verified the cheque book at the time of despatch and there were 20 cheque leaf in the book . Ext . PEX-4 is NRE letters outward register. According to PW2 she had entered the details of cheque book in the register. She also says that she had written the adress of Smt . N. Vijayamma on the cover and then it was forwarded to the despatch section through the workman. She admits that Ext . PEX- 12 is the cover written by her and entrusted to the workman for taking it to the despatch section. When the cover containing the cheque book returned undelivered the cover was opened by the manager in the presence of staff including PW2 and she has signed as a witness in the statement prepared to that effect by the manager . PW4 Smt . M. A. Sujatha was the typist clerk of the branch at that time. According to her she had entered details of cheque book in SB ledger ( Ext.PEX- 2) . After verifying the cheque issued register Ext.PEX- 3 she had handed over the cover to the workman for despatch . At that time the cheque book and the cover were intact . She has also deposed that the workman was working in NRE section for the last two months . PW6 Smt . P. S. Geetha was the Head Clerk . According to her in Ext.PEX-4 outward register the concerned Sl . No. 206 was initialled by her. She had supervised the process of enclosing the cheque book in the cover and gumming it . This evidence of the management witnesses and documents are supplemented bythe confession statement of the workman (Ext.PEX- 10). He admits the guilt of having removed a cheque leaf from the cheque book. But it is contended by the learned counsel for the workman that the confession statement was obtained by force and threat while in the custody of the police. However admittedly no case was registered. But the workman contends that a complaint was filed by the Manager and he was taken into custody and brutally manhandled by the police . It has come out that the brother of workman was a Police Constable of the same police station . The possibility of manhandling the workman therefore is too remote . There is no evidence to show that either a case was registered or he was in the custody of the police . However PWI says that the workman had accompanied him to the police station, But he was made to stand outside the station while PW1 went into the cabin of Sub Inspector . But more than that there is no admission by any management witness that a case was registered or the workman was taken into custodyby the police . It is relevant tonote that the confession statement Ext.PEX- 10 was given on 16-09-1999 to the Chief Manager PWI ) . The charge sheet was issued on 14-12-1999 three months after Ext. PEX - 10 . A reply to the charge sheet was submitted by the workman on 24-12-1999. Now even a whisper is there in the reply that confession statement was obtained under threat orwhile in custody of the police . The workman was under

9. The 3rd charge is that on 13-09-1999 using a stolen cheque leaf the workman withdrew Rs . 20,000 from the account of Smt . N. Vijayamma. Ext . PEX- 9 is the cheque leaf. Cheque was written in favour of one T. Valsala forging the signature of NRE account holder Smt . N. Vijayamma. PW1 Chief Manager says that the handwriting in Ext. PEX- 9 is similar to the handwriting of the workman . T. Valsala was a part -time sweeper at that time . Ext . PEX- 13 is attendance register of part- time sweepers . Ext . PEX- 9 cheque was passed by PW5 Manager (R. Sivasankaran Nair) . According to him the cheque was brought by the workman. PW5 was told by the workman that the account holder was known to him. Therefore he did not verify the [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 3742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

APPENDIX

NIL

Witnesses for Workman

Witnesses for Management

V. Rajasekharan Nair .

MW1 12-1-2009 :

NIL

Exhibit for the Workman :

Exhibit for the Management

: Enquiry File.

नई दिल्ली, 3 जून , 2009

का. आ. 1806. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इन्ड बैंक हाऊसिंग लिमि. 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 120/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 3-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/343/99-आईआर ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 3rd June , 2009

specimen signature of the account holder while passing the cheque . Ext . PEX- 6 is the account opening form containing the specimen signature of Smt . N. Vijayamma. Ext. PEX-9 cheque contains a signature somewhat similar to the specimen signature though on close scrutiny it can be seen that they are not same . PW3 Smt . Susy John, clerk of NRE section says that the cheque was posted by her in Ext . PEX -2 NRE SB ledger . Then the cheque was entrusted to the workman for taking it to the Manager for passing the cheque . After the cheque was passed and got back a token was issued by her . She also says that she remembers to have issued the token to a lady. But she is not sure . However the workman in unequivocal terms admits in the confession statement that he had withdrawn Rs . 20,000 from the account of Smt . N. Vijayamma by using the cheque leaf taken away by him . Ext.PEX- 2 SB ledger sheet shows that on 13-09-1999 Rs . 20,000 was withdrawn from the account of Smt. N. Vijayamma. Exts.PEX - 7 and 8 are Manager's Cash Scroli and Cashiers Scroll dated 13-09-1999 showing the payment . The evidence thus go to show that the workman had fraudulently withdrawn Rs . 20,000 from the account of Smt . N. Vijayamma and is guilty.

10. Thus the findings on all the charges are recorded on the basis of the evidence as well as the confession statement of the workman and require no interference.

S. O. 1806. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 120/ 2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Ind. Bank Housing Ltd. and their workmen , received by the Central Governmenton 3-6-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/343/99- IR(B- I)] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

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

ANNEXURE Present: Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. , LL . B. , Presiding Officer (Tuesday the 19th day of May, 2009/29thVaisakha, 1931 ) I.D. 120/2006

(I.D.1/2000 ofLabour Court, Kollam)

APPEARANCE

Workman

11. Point No. 2 :-The punishment imposed is dismissal from service . Though he filed an appeal he did not succeed. The contention of the workman is that he is from a poor family and has to look after his wife, two daughters and aged and sick parents . He was in the service of the bank for nine years . The fact that he has to look after his family is no mitigating circumstance to reduce the punishment honesty and trustworthiness should be the hallmark of a bank employee who is dealing with public money. Unless the public has trust in a bank they may hesitate to approach . Therefore the management cannot take a lenient view when fraud is committed by an employee . Looked at that angle I don't think any leniency is to be shown in the matter of punishment . Hence I refrain from altering the punishment .

: Sri M. Sreekumar, T. K. Bhavanam , Parakanam, Pappanamcode P. O. , Thiruvananthapuram - 18 By Adv. Sri V. Pratapachandran.

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in imposing the punishment of dismissal from service is legal and justified and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

Management

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

: The Managing Director , Ind.BankHousing Ltd. , 31, Rajaji Salai, Madras-600 001 .

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 12th dayofMay, 2009.

This case coming up for heaaring on 18-5-2009 , thisTribunal -cum-Labour Court, on 19-5-2009 passed thefollowing.

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer 3743 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/ आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

APPENDIX

AWARD

Witness for the Workman Nil

Witness for the Management Nil

This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1)( d) of Industrial Disputes Act challenging the termination of service.

Exhibits for the Workman

W1 12-12-1996 Revision of salary.

W2 05-05-1997 MedicalCertificate.

W3 04-08-1997 Termination Order .

2. The case was referred initially to State Labour Court, Kollam and was transferred to this court in.2006. The parties entered appearance and filed their pleadings.

W4 07-09-1998 Letter to the Branch Manager

W5 Reply letter sent by the Branch Manager to the workman .

Exhibit for the Management Nil

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून , 2009

3.According to the workman , Sri M. Sreekumar , he wasemployed as Peon in Trivandrum Branch of Ind. Bank Housing Ltd. on 2-3-1994. He was working continuously since then. While so , he fell sick on 30-7-1997. He informed the Bank Manager about his illness . However on 4-8-1997 the management terminated his service . There is no allegation against him . He was neither given a show- cause notice nor an enquiry was conducted. The termination is illegal . He had worked more than 240 days continuously.

का. आ. 1809. 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 , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 127/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -22012/426/2003- आईआर(सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th June, 2009 4. According to the management the worker was engaged on contract basis to do the jobs of sub staff. Since the branch was small no full time sub - staff was required. The contract was for sweeping, providing drinking water , posting tapals etc. A substituted had to be provided in case ofhis absence . From 30-7-1997 he remained absent and no substitute was provided. This affected the smooth functioning of the branch . Hence the contract was terminatedby letter dated 4-8-1997 .He was not an employee ofthe management. He was only a contract worker. There is no illegality in terminating the contract . At any rate the Trivandurum branch was closed on 1-12-2005 . He is not entitled for any relief.

S. O. 1809.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 127/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on4-6-2009.

[No. L-22012/426/2003 - IR(CM- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 5. When the case came up for evidence the management remained absent and there was no representation . The reference was made in 1999. There is no point in keeping the case pending any more . The documents produced by the workman are marked as Exts . W 1 to 5.They prove the case of the workman . On the contrary the management has not produced any document . The service of the worker was terminated without notice or retrenchment compensation. Hence the termination is illegal and in violation of S -25 -F of I. D. Act .

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT LUCKNOW

Present : N. K. Purohit , Presiding Officer I. D. No. 127/2004

Ref. No. L- 22012/426/2003- IR (CM- II) dated: 8-11-2004 BETWEEN.

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of Sri M. Sreekumar w.e.f. 4-8-1997 is illegal and unjustified and he is entitled to be reinstated with back wages and other benefits .

The State Secretary ,

The award will come into force one month after its publication in the Official Gazette.

Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamachari Sangh , 5-6,Habibullah Estate, Hazratganj , Lucknow - 226 001 (Espousing case of Shri Saroj Kumar Singh) AND

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 19th day of May, 2009 .

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

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

2205 G1/09-14 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] 3744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

AWARD

28-5-2009

forallegedmisconduct of accepting BRL rice against the specification laid down by the Government of India for the year 2000-2001 and the workman was imposed a penalty of deduction by one stage in present time scale ofpay for oneyear vide impugned order dated 10-3-2003.

5. It has been submitted by the workman's union that the all the charge sheets , issued by the management ofFCIwere illegal, arbitrary, malafide, without jurisdiction andwere against the settled principles of principles of law.

1.By order No. L- 22012/426/2003 - IR (CM- II) dated 8-11-2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of1947) referred this Industrial Dispute between The State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karamachari Sangh, 5-6, Habibul Estate, Hazratganj , Lucknow (Espousing cause of Shri Saroj Kumar Singh) and the Sr. Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India, 5-6, Habibullah Estate , Hazratganj , Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

Further, it has been alleged by the workman's union that the management of FCI passed the impugned order dated4-5-2000 taking into consideration the report of enquiry officerwho found the charges to be partially proved against the workman and without considering the reply of the workman or evidence on record and the appeal filed against the impugned order is still pending.

"Kya prabandhan , Bharitya Khadya Nigam, Lucknow dwara karmkar Shri Saroj Kumar Singh, T.A. 1 ko dandadesh dinank 4-5-2000, 3-5-2003 avam 10-3-2003 ke dwara dand diya jana uchit tatha nayaysangat hai ? Yadi nahi, to karmakar kis anutosh ko pane ka adhikari hai?"

3. The admitted case of the parties is that the workman , Shri Saroj Kumar Singh was served upon three different charge sheets whereby he was charged with different charges and was punished with punishment orders dated4-5-2000, 5-5-2003 and 10-3-2003 .

4. The workman's union in its statement of claim has detailed the description ofcharges leveled against him vide different charge sheets and punishment order as under:

As regard impugned order dated 3-5-2003 , the workman's union has submitted that the charge sheet dated 24-1-2002 for storage loss was not suppoted with any evidence as there is no norm in FCI to decide the justification of storage loss . Also, the conditions that led to the storage loss , due to loss of moisture content, was the responsibility of the Quality Control Wing, to maintain the quality ofthe food grain and was beyond the control of the workman. Further it has submitted that the workman was not the custodian of the stock, therefore , he cannot be held responsible for storage loss . The workman's union has also pointed out that though the workman was charged for loss ofRs . 32,834.10 but was punished vide impugned order dated 3-5-2003 for recovery of Rs . 25,675.75 in as unjustified manner .

Asregard impugned order dated 10-3-2003 , the union has alleged that the reply of the workman has not been considered and the said order is illegal and arbitrary.

6. Accordingly the workman's union has prayed that the impugned order dated 4-5-2000, 3-5-2003 and 10-3-2003 may be set aside with all consequential benefits .

(i) It has been alleged that the workman was served upon charge sheet dated 11-2-1998 under Regulation 58 of the FCI ( Staff) Regulation , 1971 (hereinafter called as Regulation, 1971 ) whereby he was charged with accepting of BRL rice stocks at FSD Puranpur for his personal gain & replacement ofBRL rice stocks by good quality of rice stocks of9 stacks as against 31 BRL stacks , in contravention of the Regulation , 31 & 32 read with 32 (A) of FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971 and after conducting an enquiry into the charges the workman was punished with impugned order dated 4-5-2000, imposing a penalty of stoppage of 3 annual increments for the year 2001 to 2003 .

(ii) The workman was served upon another charge sheet dated 24-1-2002 for alleged storage loss amounting to Rs . 32,834.10 under Regulation , 60 of Staff Regulation , 1971 and passed the impugned order dated 3-5-2003 , imposing a penalty for recovery of Rs . 25,675.75 .

(!!!)

7.The management of FCI has disputed the claim of theworkman's union by filing its written statement wherein it has stated that it is incorrect to say that the impugned orders were passed without considering the reply of the workman or evidence on record in an arbitrary or malafied manner in disregard to the principles laid down by the law. The management has submitted that the impugned order dated4-5-2000 was outcome of the findings ofthe enquiry officer, who found the workman to be partially responsible for the alleged misconduct and the enquiry report was based on the evidence relied on before it . Contradicting the claim of the workman regarding non -disposal of his appeal against impugned order dated 4-5-2000 , the management has submitted that it has been disposed ofby Third charge sheet dated 8-1-2003 under Regulation, 60 of the Staff Regulation , 1971 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the Zonal Manager (North ) on 8-7-2004 whereby the Competent Authority has reduced the quantum of punishment to the stoppage of two increments without cumulative effect .

It has been reiterated by the FCI that the impugned order dated 3-5-2003 was passed after due consideration to the material available before it and it has been submitted thatthe workman with Quality Control Wing was custodian of the stock and accordingly was accountable for unreasonable loss . Thus , it has been submitted by the management of FCI that the workman was rightly charged and punished with the impugned order dated 3-5-2003 after complying with due formalities required by the principles ofnatural justice , which is reflected in the impugned order itself whereby the workman was punished for recorery of Rs. 25,675.75 only.

As regard impugned order dated 10-3-2003 , it has been submitted by the FCI that it has been passed after considering merit of the case, reply of the workman and natural aspect and there is nothing illegal in it.

8.According, the management of FCI has prayed that the claim ofthe workman's union is liable tobe rejected without any relief to it .

9. The union has filed rejoinder whereby it has only reiterated its averments in the statement of claim and has not introduced any new fact.

: 10. The parties submitted documentary evidence in support of their respective cases . During course of the proceedings the workman's union mentioned that it does not want to produce any witness in support of their case accordingly, the management of FCI also did not produce any witness in support of their averments .

11.Heard learned representatives of both the sides and perused relevant material on record.

Impungned order dated : 04-05-2000

12. The workman in his statement of claim has challenged the validity of impugned order dated 4-5-2000, imposing penalty of stoppage of three annual increments for year 2001 to 2003 with cumulative effect . It is evident from the pleadings of the both the sides that an appeal against the said impugned order before opposite party No. 1, filed by the workman has already been decided by the Zonal Manager vide its order dated 7-7-2004, whereby thepenalty imposed by the said impugned order has been reduced to two increments without cimulative effect . The learned representative on behalf of the workman has submitted that the workman is satisfied with the said appellate order and as such he submits that he does not press the question regarding justification of impugned orderdated4-5-2000 , therefore , there is no need to consider thejustification of said impugned order on merit .

3745-

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़6, 1931

Impugned Order dated: 3-5-2003:

13. Now the next question for consideration is whether order dated3-5-2003 imposing penalty of recovery ofRs. 25,675.75, is illegal or arbitrary ? In this regard both the sides have not adduced any oral evidence . The workman has produced copies of memo dated 24-1-2002 (6/43), reply ofthe charge sheet dated 28-2-2002 (6/45 ) and penalty order dated 3-5-2003 ( 6/46) . In rebuttal , the management has not filed any document relating to said impugned order.

14. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has challenged the impugned order dated 3-5-2003 on the ground that reply of the workman has not beenconsidered and the opposite party No. 1 has failed to give the basis on which it has come to conclusion that loss of food grain amounting to Rs . 7158.35 was justified and balanced loss ofRs . 25,675.75 was unjustified . He has further contended that finding is not on the issue as such there isviolation ofRegulation 60( 1 )(d) of Staff Regulations, 1971. He has further urged that no document has been referred in the charge sheet and findings are vague and without application of mind. He has also alleged that workman resumed his duty in FSD, Pilibhit on 1-4-97 and the stock was accepted in March, 97 prior to his joining Pilibhit depot as such acceptance of stock with high percentage of moisture in connivance with other staffdoes not arise. There is no finding in impugned order on this issue, therefore, the said order is arbitrary and illegal . In rebuttal , learned representative on behalf of the management has argued that due weightage has been given tothereplyof the workman together with period ofstorage, reduction of moisture and all other relevant material . The impugned order is legal and justified.

15.I have given my thoughtful consideration on the rival submissions of both the parties . The impugned order dated 3-5-2003, is as under :

"Whereas Shri S.K. Singh, T.A. 1 was given an opportunity to submit the representation against the saidMemorandum. He submitted his representation dated28-2-02.

The undersigned after careful and dispassionate examination of the representation submitted by the C.O. Charge sheet documents related to the case finds that the points of representation furnished by C.O. on abnormal storage loss in his Unit are not convincing. The undersigned after considering he reasons given by the C.O. for storage loss in his submission to charge sheet and also taking into account the driage due to reduction in moisture content, storage period etc. still finds that the loss to the tune of Rs . 25675.75 only in monetary value remained unjustified . These losses are due to carelessness and neglignece on part of said Shri S.K. Singh , TA 1. In my opinion penalty of recovery of Rs. 25675.75 ony will meet the ends ofjustice ." [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

3746

Impugned Order Dated 10-3-2003:

20.Vidememo dated 8-1-2003 (6/48 ) a statement of following alleged misconduct (6/49 ) was served upon the workman:

"The said Sri S.K. Singh, TAI while posted and functioning as such at FSD/RFC, Pilibit Godowns failed to maintain absolute integrity sincerity and devotion to duty and acted in a manner contrary to the conduct ofhonest, sincere and devoted employee ofthe Corporation by conducting the following misconduct detailed as under :-

the order of the Disciplinary Authority need not contain any reason at all . Whether there was application of mind

after recording a finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior . An order under said Regulation need not contain an elaborate reason . But that does not mean that or not can only be disclosed if reasons , which led to the

conclusions , are mentioned by such authority. Finding under said Regulation must contain some reason at least in

The Sri S. K. Singh, TAI while posted at FSD Pilibit during Kharif2000-2001 and was entrusted with the work of acceptance of levy rice being offered by StateGovernment for Central Pool . The Rice was to beaccepted strictly in conformity ofthe specification laid down by the Government of India for the year 2000-2001 but it was observed that Sri S.K. Singh TA Iwas negligent towards his duties and defying the specification accepted BRL Rice at FSD, Pilibit.

16. Upon a pserusal of the said impugned order it is evident that contention which has been raised by the workman in his reply has not been considered . The impugned order has been passed in a very casual manner. Regulation 60 is pertaining to procedure for imposing minor penalty of which clause ( 1) (d) envisages that no order imposing on a employee any of the penalties specified in clauses (i) to (iv) of Regulation 54 shall be made except brief, for his disagreement with the contentions in the reply ofthe workman. The purpose of disclosures of reason is that unless they are disclosed a workman cannot know whether the authority concerned has applied his mind to his reply. Also , giving reasons minimize chances of arbitrariness. It is also essential of rule of law and principles ofnaturaljustice.

The above is evident from the fact that R.O. Squad inspected the FSD/RFC Godwn Philibit during August 2001 andjointly drew 4 samples ofRice along withconcerned TAs . The same were got analyzedat District Lab. On 8-8-2001 and it was found that stocks stored in stack No. RFC3 /9 was having damage percentage of 2.2% against prescribed limit of 2%, The above fact shows that Sri S.K. Singh . TAI has acceptedBRLRice.

17. It iswell settled legal position that Tribunal would not interfere the findings of inquiry officer or Disciplinary Authority as matter of course . The Tribunal shall not sit as Appellate Authority over the orders of Disciplinary Authority and substitute its own conclusion in place of the conclusion by the Disciplinary Authority . But, this does notmean that in all circumstances the Tribunal cannot interfere.

Thus Sri S.K. Singh , TAI has contravened Regulation 31 & 32 read with 32- A of FCE (Staff) Regulations, 1971. "

21. Theworkman in his reply dated 21-1-2002 (6/50) stated that stock was accepted by him under strict supervision of four Asstt. Manager (QC) . The stock No. RFC/3/9 were built with 2898 SBT= 145 out of these bags onlytwo trucks ofrice being 480 SBT were received by the workman and the rest were acceptedby other TAs . He has further stated that samples were not analyzed at District lab Bareilly in his presence because he was posted at Puranpur at the relevant time . He further contended that minor variation i.e. 2.2 % damage may come after several months . After considering the said reply the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty of reduction by one stage inpresent time scale of pay for one year .

18. In the instant case the Disciplinary Authority has not assigned any reason , why he did not find the contentions of the workman in his representation , convincing.There is no recording of finding on the alleged misconduct after considering the contentions in the reply ofthe workman, wherein he has contended that he resumed duty at FSD Pilibhit on 1-4-97, but the stock was accepted inMarch , 1997 prior to his joining, therefore , acceptance of stock, with larger percentage of moisture, in connivance with other staffdoes not arise . Further , according to penalty order loss ofRs . 25,675.75 was alleged to be justified after taking into account the driage due to reduction in moisture contents, storageperiod etc. But the basis on which the Disciplinary Authority arrived on the conclusion that out of loss amounting to Rs . 32,834.10 as mentioned in the charge sheet only loss of Rs . 25,675.75 only is unjustified, is not mentioned. Thus , it is evident from the impugned order itselfthat it is arbitrary, non - speaking, non -reasoned, unjustified, with non -application of mind and inviolation ofRegulation 60 ( 1 ) ofthe Regulation 1971 .

22. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has contended that the penalty which has been imposed is major penalty under Regulation 54 ( v) of Regulation 1971 while the charge sheet has been given for minor penalty under Regulation 60 of staff Regulations as such impugned order dated 10-3-2003 is not legal , which reads as under:

19. In view of the above discussion , the impugned order dated 3-5-2003 is liable to be set aside .

3747

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

"Andwhereas said Shri S.K. Singh TA I was given an opportunity to submit representation against the said memorandum. He submitted his representation dated 21-1-2003 .

Since the union has not pressed the question of validity of impugned order dated 04-05-2000 and satisfied with the penalty imposed in appeal against the said order , the workman is not entitled for any relief as regard said impugned order.

The Undersigned after careful and dispassionate examination of representation submitted by the C.О. , contents of charge sheet , relevant documents and circumstances associated with the case has come to the conclusion that Shri S.K. Singh TAI is respinsible for acceptingBRL rice . In my opinion penalty ofreduction by one stage in time scale of pay for one year will meet the endsofjustice.

(ii) The impugned order dated 03-05-2003 is unjustified, therefore , the same is set aside. If any amount has been recovered from the workman as penalty against the penality imposed by said order , the same be refunded to the workman within 08 weeks of the publication of the award.

Now, therefore, the undersigned in exercise ofpowers conferred under Regulation 56 ofFCI ( Staff) Regulations , 1971 imposes penalty of reduction by one stage in present time scale ofpay for one year upon Shri S.K. Singh TAI . "

(iii) The impugned order dated 10-03-2003 is illegal and not justified, therefore , the same is set aside . The workman will be entitled to consequential benefit, if any , due to setting aside of the said order .

27. Award as above .

Lucknow

28-05-2009

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 4 जून , 2009 23.Admittedly, the penalty by impugned order dated 10-3-2002 has been imposed on the workman without holding any inquiry and it is evident from the statement of misconduct (6/49 ) and memo (6/48) that the charge sheet has been served under Regulation 60 of the Staff Regulations which is pertaining to procedure for minor penalties . Reduction by one stage in present time scale of pay for specifiedperiod is not a minor penality. As per para (v) ofRegulation 54, reduction by one stage inpresent time scale of pay for specified period is a mojor penalty and Sub clasue ( 1 ) of Regulation 58 envisages that no order imposing any of the penalties specified in clauses (v) to (ix) ofRegulation 54 shall be made except after an inquiry held; as far as may be, in the manner provided in this regulation and Regulation 59, therefore , there is substance in the contention of learned representative that under Regulation 60 , major penalty cannot be imposed.

का. आ. 1810. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं न्युक्लियर पावर कार्पोरेशन , एम.ए.पी.पी. इम्प्लाई कोआपरेटिव केन्टीन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/ 129/2004- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 4th June, 2009 24. In the instant case, the charge sheet has been issued under Regulation 60 and major penalty ofreduction to a lower scale in present time scale of pay for specified period has been imposed vide impugned order dated 10-03-2002 without following the procedure for imposing major penalty, therefore , impugned order is contrary to the provisions of said Regulation and illegal and the same is liable to be set aside .

S. O. 1810.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 69/2005 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Chennai , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Nuclear Power Corporation , MAPP Employee Co-operative Canteen and their workmen, received bythe Central Government on 04-06-2009.

25..Beside above illegalities, it is evident from a perusal of the impuganed order that contentions raised by the workman in his reply have not been considered. The order is non- speaking , non - reasoned and passed in arbitrary manner without assigning any reason for disagreeing with the reply of the workman . The said order is in violation of Regulation 60( 1 )9 (d) of the Regulation 1971.Therefore , on aforesaid grounds also the impugned order is liable to be set aside.

[No. L-42012/129/2004- IR(CM- II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 26. Resultantly, the reference under adjudication is answered as under :

3748

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday, the 28th May, 2009

Present : Shri A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 69/2005

(Inthe matter of the dispute of 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 MAPP Employee Co-operative Canteen, Nuclear Power Corporation and their workman)

BETWEEN

1Party/Petitioner

SriR. Muniyandi Vs.

1stParty/Respondent

1. The manager (P& IR)

Nuclear Power Corporation , Kalpakkam, Kanchipuram -603102

2nd Party/Respondent

2. The Special Officer

Co-operative Canteen, Kalpakkam, MAPP Employee , Kanchipuram-603102

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

: Sri S.T. Varadarajulu

For the 1st Management : M/s . Vijay Shankar, Standing Counsel

Sri P. Shankarnarayanan

For the 2nd Management :

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its order No. L-42012/ 129/2004 - IR(CM- II) dated 01-09-2005 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The Schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of MAPP Employees Co- operative Canteen and Nuclear Power Corporation interminating the services ofSri R. Muniyandi w.e.f. 20-01-2004 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, towhat relief he is entitled?"

2.After the receipt of Industial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 69/2005 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Reply Statements as the case may be .

3. The averments in the Claim Statement are briefly asfollows:

20-01-2004. There are about 2000 employees in Atomic Power Station at Kalpakam under the control of Nuclear PowerCorporation created in 1986. Until then, it was under the control ofthe Department of Atomic Energy right from the date of its establishment in 1976. Being a factory , a Canteen under Section-46 of the Factories Act was established with the employees alone as the consumers managed by a Managing Committee with the first Respondent as Chairman who nominates members to the Managing Committee from the names recommended by the registeredunion. The first Respondent approves every affair ofthe Canteen and he is the employer . The Canteen is run on no profit basis . The first Respondent provides everything for the Canteen and it is fully subsidized by him and foodstuffs are supplied at concessional rates . The employees of the Canteen are to be treated as employees of the first Respondent . The canteen is registered with Directorate of Canteens , New Delhi as a Departmental Canteen and is bound by instructions issued bythe Deptt . ofPersonnel and Administrative Reforms of UnionGovernment . On 07-02-1996 , the first Respondent approved appointment of some employees ofthe Canteen w.e.f. 05-06-1991 . Their pay- scales were fixed and service was approved and regularized except those of the petitioner and a few other employees . Initially he was paid Rs .40 as dailywage and thereafter at the time ofdenial of employmentwas paid Rs. 104 per day paid all on a monthly basis. There are about 35 regular employees with fixed scales of pay. Under a notification dated 15-09-2000 for recruitment to various posts in the Canteen , though petitionerwas an applicant, he was not selected. It is unfair. There was a writ filed as W.P. No. 29640/03 for regularization . Thereupon the Respondent showed their names under one Contractor ; Mr. Punniakoti whom the petitioner never knew. The petitioner was given quarters and rent was deducted from his wages . In 2004 January, hewas given gate pass through the Contractor. No one can enter the Respondent's area , a protected area without gate pass ofthe first Respondent . He was prevented from entering the work spot after getting his original pass surrendered . He was dismissed from service without following the procedure which is unfair, illegal and which amounts to retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is without complying with the conditions under Section 25F of the ID Act, i.e. without issuance of one month's notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation rendering the termination void ab initio and illegal . The petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in ayear. The termination is opposed to Articles - 14 and 16 of the Constitution . The retrenchment from a continuous employment is to deprive permanency and is mala fide and colorful exercise of powers . The termination isviolative ofnatural justice, fair play and Article -21 of the Constitution . Without giving preference to him , The petitioner-cook with 9 years continuous service in the Respondent Canteen was denied employment from 3749 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़6, 1931

recruiting new employees is against Section-25H ofthe ID Act . His request for regularization has not been considered. The petitioner prays that he may be ordered to be reinstated with all attendant benefits .

even when the work is of permanent and continuous nature . Further according to the petitioner even when he isvalidly retrenched, he should be given preference over other persons . After his termination new workmen were employed and that is violative of provision of section 25H ofI DAct.

3.The first and second respondents filed separate reply statements:

The first Respondent's contentions are as follows:

The Cooperative Canteen is a registered Cooperative Society with its own byélaws under the responsibility of a Special Officer appointed by a State Government Ordinance in 1995, Nuclear Power Corporation of India (NPCIL) under a decision regularized, 36 employees on the regular rolls of the Canteen w.e.f. 05-06-1991 . The petitioner was not found on the regular rolls . The petitioner was not holding any post in the Canteen. He mostly performed jobs like housekeeping of areas in and around Canteenand also at times cleaning work inside the Canteen which work did not require any special skill . The petitioner was not selected in the recruitment since he had no minimum qualification . NPCIL is now reducing manpower in all its units . There is no Management Committee and the first Respondent is not the Chairman . The initial infrastructural support was provided by first Respondent as a welfare measure . The petitioner on his volition started to work with the Contractor mentioned by him . The petitioner has not worked continuously for 240 days . The petitioner left the service of the Corporation on his own volition.

4. The contentions raised by the second Respondent are similar to those of the first Respondent .

5.The points that arise for consideration are:

8. As against this it was argued on behalf of the Respondents that the petitioner was not appointed at my point oftime. There is no employer-employee relationship between them . His appointment was only on hourly rated basis to perform jobs like housekeeping of areas in and around Canteen required depending upon the exigencies ofwork. It is pointed out that regarding the engagement of the petitioner under the Second Respondent Canteen, he has no consistent case . While it is stated in EX.W.1 and Ex. W2 that he was working from 1983 and 1987 and so on, his statement in his Claim Statement and Proof Affldavit is that his initial appointment was in 1995. Ex . W1 to Ex. W5 certificates produced by him cannot be relied upon . Regarding his occupation of quarters provided. by the Respondent, no worthy or reliable evidence has been produced . Ex . W3 Service Certificate issued by the Special Officer of the Second Respondent Canteen does not show the period of his service exactly and is also not reliable . The same also only shows that he was working on hourly rated basis during strikes , independence day celebrations,etc. Ex . W4 also is also not convincing piece of evidence to support the case of the petitioner. Documents Ex . W5 to Ex . W12 do not show the number of days the petitioner has worked. None of these documents would show that the petitioner had worked for not less than a period of 240 days during any year of course with orwithout any permitted break . There . is nothing to show that he hasworked continuously for any given year ofhis claimed service under the Second Respondent Canteen.

(i) Whether the action of the Management in terminating the services of the petitioner is legaland justified?

(ii) To what relief the petitioner is entitled?

Point No. 1

6.On the side of the petitioner WW1 was examined and exhibits W1 to W12 are marked . On the side of the Respondent , MW1 and MW2 were examined and exhibits M1 to M4 were marked.

9.Admittedly, the petitioner has not been selected when there was a recruitment process held to appoint persons under the Second Respondent Canteen for the reason that he has not had the qualifications . The petitioner's, case is that there is no hostile relationship between him and the Respondent . Demonstrably there is no reason why the Respondent should deny employment tothepetitioner.

7. In the written arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the denial of his employment from 20-01-2004 is unfair and illegal. It is not assigning any reason or after any enquiry . The termination amounts to retrenchment . He has had worked for more than 240 days in a year. It is without a notice or a notice pay or retrenchment compensation paid to him as stipulated under Section 25F of the ID Act thereby rendering the termination void abinitio and illegal . It is also assailed as being arbitrary and opposed to Article- 14 and 16 of the Constitution and as unfair labour practice by employing workmen for some period to deny permanency

10. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Santosh . Gupta Vs. State Bank of India ( 1980 002-LLJ.:0072-SC) where it is held that "discharge of a workman on ground that she failed topass the prescribed testfor confirmation Would amount to retrenchment as defined under Section-2(oo) of the ID Act". In this case the fact is that the petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification for selection . Thereforehewas not selected . It is not a case of discharge for want of subsequent acquisition of test qualification and is an absence of basic qualification for selection. Therefore the above decision is not applicable to the facts THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

3750

ofthis case . The petitioner has not succeeded in proving that he has had continuous service for not less than 240 days during any given year so as to entitle him to the benefits under Section -25F ofthe ID Act viz. notice , notice pay or retrenchment compensation . According to the Respondent the petitioner has not worked continuously for 240 days . He was not retrenched. He himself left the service ofthe Corporation on his own volition and joined a Contractor .

11. The specific case of the Respondent is that the petitioner never worked continuously. He was only appointed to work during the exigencies ofwork on specific occasions during specific spells of periods which were not lasting continuously. He was engaged only as a Casual Worker . He cannot be found to have become entitled to any right under Section -25F of the ID Act . He was not entitled to selection in the recruitment process heldby the Corporation since evidently and as admitted by him, he has not had the required qualification . For the same reason when once the petitioner stands terminated from the employment, he cannot claim any preferential treatment over any other person subsequently selected who possessed the requisite qualification but which was not possessed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to prove that he has specifically worked for not less than 240 days in a given period of 12 months , he is not entitled to any benefits under Section - 25F of the ID Act . Therefore , it is only to be held that the action of the Management in terminating the services of the petitioner is only legal and justified and it is found so .

Point No. 2

12. In the light of above finding, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

13. 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 28th May, 2009)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :-

For the I Party/Petitioner : WW1 , Sri R. Muniyandi For the II Party/Management : MW1 , Sri V. K. Potty MW2, Sri V. Arumozhi Documents Marked :-

From the Petitioner's side

Date

Ex. No.

Description

Ex. W1

Service Certificate issued to the petitioner

01-12-1998

Ex.W2

Service Certificate issued to thepetitioner

25-03-1998

Ex.W3

Service Certificate issued to thepetitioner

27-09-2000

Ex.W4

Service Certificate issued to thepetitioner

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

Description

Ex.No.

30-11-2000

Ex.W5

Service Certificate issued to thepetitioner

Ex.W6 02-09-2002 Night shift and Holiday duty permission given to the petitioner Ex.W7 07-10-2002 Night shift and Floliday duty permission givento the petitioner Ex.W8 07-11-2002 Night shift and Holiday duty permission given to the petitioner Ex.W9 14-02-2003

permission given to the petitioner Night shift and Holiday duty

Night shift and Holiday duty 30-05-2003

Ex.W10

Ex.W11

permission given to the petitioner Night shift and Holiday duty 28-06-2003

02-06-2003

Ex.W12

permission given to the petitioner Night shift and Holiday duty permission given to the petitioner From the Management side:

Date

ExNo.

Description

Ex. M1 29-04-2003 Renewal of licence by the completent authority in respect of the Contractor

05-01-2004

Ex. M2

Work Order issued to the Contractor.

Ex.M3 12-01-2004 Agreement between the Contractor and the Ist Respondent

Ex.M4

Photo pass for non- departmental personnel issued by CISF.

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून , 2009

का. आ. 1811 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं न्युक्लियर पावर कार्पोरेशन , एम.ए.पी.पी. इम्प्लाई कोआपरेटिव कैन्टीन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 70/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 04-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/ 130/2004- आईआर( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 4th June , 2009 S. O. 1811. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 70/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Nuclear Power Corporation , MAPP Employee Co -operative Canteen and their workmen, received by the Central Government on4-6-2009.

[No. L-42012/130/2004- IR(CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

3751 ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Thursday, the 28th May , 2009

Present : A. N. Janardanan, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 70/2005

(Inthe matter ofthe dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section (1 ) and sub- section 2(A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of MAPP Employee Co-operative Canteen, Nuclear Power Corporation and their Workman) .

BETWEEN

Sri M. Bhaskaran

IstParty/Petitioner

Vs.

1. The Manager (P& IR) IstParty Respondent

Nuclear Power Corporation Kalpakkam

Kanchipuram -603102

2. The Special Officer

2nd Party/

Respondent

MAPP Employee Co-operative Canteen Kalpakkam Kanchi-

puram-603102

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

Sri S. T. Varadarajulu

For the 1st Management : M/s . Vijay Shankar , Standing Counsel

For the 2nd Management : Sri P. Shankarnarayanan

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -42012/ 130/2004- IR (CM- II) dated 01-09-2005 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of MAPP Employees Co-operative Canteen and Nuclear Power Corporation in terminating the services of Sri M.Bhaskaran w.e.f. 20-01-2004 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled? "

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 70/2005 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Reply Statements as the case may be .

3. Both sides entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Reply Statements as the case may be.

4.The averments in the claim Statement are briefly as follows:

Thepetitioner- cook with 11 years continuous service in the Respondent Canteen was denied employment from 20-01-2004. There are about 2000 employees in Atomic Power Station at Kalpakkam under the control ofNuclear Power Corporation created in 1986. Until then, it was under the control ofthe Department of Atomic Energy right from the date of its establishment in 1976. Being a factory, a Canteen under Section - 46 of the Factories Act was established with the employees alone as the consumers managed by a Managing Committee with the first Respondent as Chairman who nominates members to the Managing Committee from the names recommended by the registered union. The frist Respondent approves every affair of the Canteen and he is the employer . The Canteen is run on no profit basis . The frist Respondent provides everything for the Canteen and it is fully subsidized by him and foodstuffs are supplied at concessional rates . The employees of the Canteen are to be treated as employees of the first Respondent . The Canteen is registered with Directorate of Canteens, New Delhi as a Departmental Canteen and is bound by instructions issued << bythe Deptt. ofPersonnel and Administrative Reforms of UnionGovernment . On 7-2-1996, the first Resporident approved appointment of some employees of the Canteen w.e.f. 5-6-1991 . Their pay- scales were fixed and service was approved and regularized execpt those of the petitioner and a few other employees . Initially he was paid Rs. 40/- as daily wage and thereafter at the time of denial of employment was paid Rs.104/- per day paid all on a monthly basis . There are about 35 regular employees with fixed scales ofpay. Under a notification dated 15-9-2000 for recruitment to various posts in the Canteen , though petitioner was an applicant, he was not selected. It is unfair. There was a writ filed as W.P. No. 29640/03 for regularization . Thereupon the Respondent showed their names under one Contractor, Mr. Punniakoti whom the petitioner never knew . The petitioner was given quarter and rent was deducted from his wages . In 2004 January, he was given gate pass through the Contractor. No one can enter the Respondent's area, a protected area without gate pass of the frist Respondent . He was prevented from entering the work spot after getting his original pass surrendered . He was dismissed from service without following the procedure which is unfair, illegal and which amounts to retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act. It is without complying with the conditions under Section-25F of the ID Act, i.e. without issuance of one month's notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation rendering the termination void ab intio and illegal. The petitioner had worked for more than 240 days in a year . The termination is opposed to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The retrenchment from a continuous employment is to deprive permanency and is malafide and colorful exercise ofpowers . The termination is violative of natural justice , fair play andArticle - 21 of the Constitution . Without giving preference to him, recruiting new 2205 G1/09-15 3752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2000 /ASADHA 6, 1931

[PART II SEC.3 (ii)] employees is against Section - 25H of the ID Act . His request for regularization has not been considered. The petitioner prays that he may be ordered to be reinstated with all attendant benefits .

5. The first and second respondents filed separate reply statements :

The first Respondent's contentions are as follows:

illegal. It is also asssailed as being arbitrary and opposed to Artisle 14 and 16 of the Constitution and as unfair labour practiceby employing workmen for some period to deny permanency even when the work is of permanent and continuous nature . Further according to the petitioner oven when he is validly retrenched, he should be given preference over other persons . After his , termination new, worlanen were employed and that is vielative of provision of 25H of ID Act. The Cooperative Canteen is a registered Cooperative Society with its own byelaws under the responsibility of a Special Officer appointed by a State Government ordinance . In 1995 , Nuclear Power Corporation of India ( NPCIL) under a decision regularized , 36 employees on the regular rolls of the Canteen w.e.f. 05-06-1991 . The petitioner was not found on the regular rolls . The petitioner was not holding any post in the Canteen . He mostly performed jobs like housekeeping of areas in and around Canteen and also at times cleaning work inside the Canteen which work did not require any special skill . The petitioner was not selected in the recruitment since he had no minimum qualification. NPCIL is now reducing manpower in all its units . There is no Management Committee and the fira Respondent is not the Chairman . The initial infrastructural support was provided by first Respondent as a welfare measure . The petitioner on his volition started to work with the Contrastor mentioned by him. The petitioner has not worked pontinuously for 240 days . The petitioner left the service of the Corporation on his own volition .

6. The contentions raised by the second Respondent are similar to those of the first Respondent.

10. As against this it was argued on behalf of the Respondents that the petitioner was not appointed at any point of time . There is no omployer-employee relationship between them. His appointment was only en hourly rated basis to perform jobs like housekeeping of areas in and around Canteen required depending upon the exigencies of work. It is pointed out that regarding the engagement of the petitioner under the Second Respondent Canteon, he has no consistent case . Ex. Mandak. W17 ware intued for obtaining gate pass for ampingmes. Ex . W1 to Ex . W5 cannot fumich reliable piece of evidence to support the claim of petitioner. Bx. W1 to Ex. W7 do not show actual number of days worked by the petitioner. Regarding his ocompation of quarters provided by the Respondent , no worthy or reliable evidence has been produced. Nome of the donuments shows the number of days the petitioner has recked. Blanc of these deaumonts would show that the ninnar bad warland for mat less than a period of240 days during any year of course with or without any permitted brock. There is nothing to show that he has worked continuously for any given year of his claimed service under the Second Rompendent Cantoon. The documents saly tend to show that the petitioner actually worked only when there was more work 7. The points that arise for consideration are:

(1) Whether the action of the Management in terminating; the services of the petitioner is legal and justified?

(ii) To what relief the petitioner is entitled ?

Point No. 1

12. Admittedly, the petitioner has not been attented when there was a recruitment process held to persens under the Second Respondent Canteen the reason that he has not had the qualifications . The petitioner's case is that there is no hostile relationship between him and the Respondent . Domensterbly there is no reason why the Respondent hould domy employment to the petitioner.

8. On the side of the petitioner WW1 was examined and exhibits W1 to Wi4 are marked . On the side of the Respondent , MW1 and MW2 were examined and exhibits Ml to M4 were marked.

9. In the written arguments submitted on behalf of the petitioner, it is contended that the denial of his employment from 20-01-2004 is unfair and illegal. It is not assigning any reason or after any enquiry. The termination amounts to retrenchment . He has had worked for more than 240 days in a year . It is without a notice or a notice pay or retrenchment compensation paid to him as stipulated under Section 25F ofthe ID Act thereby rendering the termination void sbinitio and

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Santosh Gupta Vs. State Bank ofIndin ( 1900-002 -LLJ-0072-SC) where it is bald that "dinshage of a workman on ground that she failed to pass the prescribed test for condirmation would amount to retrenchment as defined under Section 2 (00) of the BDAct". le this case the fact is that the petitioner didnot possees the minimum qualification for selection. Thereforehe was not selected . It is not a case of discharge for want of subsequent acquisition of test qualification and is an absence of basic qualification for [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( in) ] .

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

3753

Ex. No.

Description

Ex. W3 27-3-1996 Service Certificate issued to the petitioner

Ex. W4 25-3-1998 Service Certificate issuedto thepetitioner

Ex. W5 29-3-1999 Service Certificate issued to the petitioner

Ex. W6 31-8-1999 Service Certificate issued to the petitioner

Ex. W7 27-9-2000

selection. Therefore the above decision is not applicable to the facts of this case . The petitioner has not succeeded in proving that he has had continuous service for not less than 240 days during any given year to entitle him to the benefits under Section-25F of the ID Act viz . notice, notice pay or retrenchment compensation . According to the Respondent the petitioner has not worked continuously for 240 days . He was not retrenched . He himself left the service of the Corporation on his own volition and Joined a Contractor.

Service Certificate issued to the petitioner

Ex. W8 30-11-2000 Night shift and Holiday duty permission given to the petitioner

Ex. W9 19-1-2001 Representation given by the petitioner for Regularization

Ex. W10 2-9-2002. Night shift and Holiday duty permission given to the petitioner

Ex. W11 7-10-2002 Night shift and Holiday duty permission given to the petitioner

Ex. W12 7-11-2002 Night shift and Holiday duty permission given to the petitioner

Ex. W13 14-2-2003 Night shift and Holiday duty permission given to the petitioner

Ex.W14 14-5-2003 Representation given by the petitioner for Regularization

Ex.W15 30-5-2003

14. The specific case of the Respondent is that the petitioner never worked continuously . He was only appointed to work during the exigencies of work on specific occasions during specific spells of periods which were not lasting continuously . He was engaged only as a Casual Worker. He cannot be found to have become entitled to any right under Section 25F of the ID Act . He was not entitled to selection in the recruitment process held by the Corporation since evidently and as admitted by him, he has not had the required qualification. For the same reason when once the petitioners stands terminated from the employment, he cannot claim any preferential treatment over any other person subsequently selected who possessed the requisite qualification but which was not possessed by the petitioner. Since the petitioner failed to, prove that hehas specifically worked for not less than 240 days in a given period of 12 months , he is not entitled to any benefits under Section 25F of the ID Act . Therefore, it is only to be held that the action of the Management in terminating the services of the petitioner is only legal and justified and it is found so.

PointNo. 2

Night shift and Holiday duty permission given to the petitioner

Ex. W16 28-6-2003

15. In the light of above finding, the petitioner is , not entitled to any relief.

Night shift and Holiday duty permission given so the petitioner

16. The reference is answered accordingly.

ExW17 2-8-2803 Night shift and Holiday duty permission given to the petitioner

(Dictated to the PA , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 28th May, 2009)

Ex. Wis

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Photo pass issued to the petitioner

Witnesses Examined :-

On the Moungement's side

Ex. No. Dutc

Description

For the Ist Party/ WW1 , Sri M. Bhaskaran

Ex.MI

29-4-2003

Petitioner

For the II Party/

MW1 , Sri V.K.Potty

Renewal of licence by the competent authority in respect of the Contractor Management

MW2, Sri V.Arulmozhi

Ex.M2 5-1-2004

Documents Marked :-

Work Order issuedto the Contractor

From the Petitioner's side

Ex. M3 12-1-2004

Ex. No.

Date Description

Ex.W1

Service Certificate issued to

Agreementbetween the Contractor and the Ist Respondent

the petitioner ( 1993-94)

Ex. M4

Ex.W2

Service Certificate issued to the petitioner ( 1994-95)

Photo pass for non-depart- mental personnel issued by CSF 3754

[PART II SEC . 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

नई दिल्ली, 4 जून , 2009

का. आ. 1812. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केंद्रीय सरकार एवं एस.ई.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ आर/64/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/87/1992- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 04 th June, 2009

Isolation stopping in underground through a smoke screen contractor at Jhimar Colliery in permanent, perennial and regular nature of job . It is stated that under clause 11.5.0 ofNational Coal Wage Agreement- III & IV between Trade Unions and Management, it was agreed not to engage contract labour in permanent and perennial nature of work. It is stated that these workmen were also engaged in mining work as per Sec-2 ( 1 )(j )(vi ) of the Mines Act, 1952 and they had been paid sub- standard wages ranging from Rs.10-25 per day. Their services is said to have been utilised for the profit and business of the company . It is stated that these workmen were performing their duties under the supervision of the official of the SECL. Their attendance were marked by the staff of the company and payments were madeby them . It is stated that their work also come under prohibited category of work as per Notification No. S.O.408 dated 1-2-1975 . It is stated that the workmen had worked for 240/190 days in a calendar year . It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the workmen.

S. O. 1812. 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/64/93 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 4-6-2009.

[No. L-22012/87/ 1992 -IR(C- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO.CGIT/LC/R/64/93

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Sakir Hasan

Workman/Union

The General Secretary, M.P.Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) , PO South Jhagrakhand Colliery, Distt. Surguja (M.P.)

Versus

Management

Dy. General Manager/Sub Area Manager, Ramnagar R/ O Sub Area of SECL, PO Ramnagar Colliery, Distt. Shahdol (MP)

AWARD

3. The non-applicant/management contested the case by filing Written Statement in the case . The case of the management, interalia, is that the workers were not the members of MP Koyla Mazdoor Sabha (HMS) Union and the Union had no locus - standi to raise the dispute on their behalf. It is stated that the work of ventilation/Isolation stopping was not a perennial nature of work and it did not come within prohibited categories ofwork as notified by the Govt . It is stated that there was no relationship of Employer and Employee between the workmen of such contractors and with the management of SECL . The contractor was engaging less than 20 workers and therefore licence was not necessary and the contract Labour ( R& A )Act 1970 was not applicable . It is denied that there was any supervision of the management and attendance was taken by the management's staff. It is denied that the workers had completed 240/190 days in a year and had been paid less wages . On these grounds , it is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the management .

Passed on this 25th day of May, 2009

4. On perusal of the record, it appears that subsequently the workmen/union absented and therefore the case proceeded exparte against the workmen/Union on 5-7-07.

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-22012/87/92 - IR (C- II) dated 22-3-93 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Ramnagar colliery of SECL, Distt . Shahdol (MP) in denying the regularisation of workers engaged through Shri Nandji , contractor is justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to?"

2. The case of the applicant in short is that the workmen were engaged in construction of ventilation/

5. The management/non-applicant has adduced only oral evidence in the case M/W- 1 - T.Samuel is a Personnel Manager and was posted at Ramnagar (R.O) SubArea. He has stated that General Secretary of the Union was not empowered to raise the dispute and there was no resolution. He has denied that there was any. supervision by the Company officials on the work of contract labour and attendance had been marked by the company . He has also stated that they had not worked [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/ आषाढ़ 6, 1931

3755

Versus

ChiefGeneral Manager,

SECL, Gevra Area,

PostGevra Pariyojana,

Distt. Bilaspur (MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 25th day of May, 2009 for 240/190 days in a year. Regarding the payment of wages made by the contractor , he has stated about certain documents but the management has not filed those documents in this case . As such these parts of the evidence are not acceptable because when the existence of the documents are accepted, the oral evidence is not reliable in absence of those documents . Thus non- applicant/management has also failed to prove in absence of documents that the work was done by the contractor because the management has stated about the existence of the documents .

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L- 22012(565)/94- IR(C-II) dated 24-11-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal: -

case. 6. In the result, no dispute award is passed in this

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

"Whether the following demands of Chhattisgarh Khadan Karkhana Mazdoor Union, Bilaspur regarding the membership placed before the management of South Eastern Coalfields Ltd., Gevra Area is justified ? "

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली , 4 जून, 2009

( i) to provide equal treatment without any discrimination to all the registered Trade Union operating in Gevra Area or to recognise only one Union which has majority ofmembership.

(ii) To deduct Rs.36 from the wages of 452 Union members listed from 1993 continuously and provide the same to the Union .

का. आ. 1813.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ आर/202/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

(iii) To refund Re. I deducted from the wages of452 members of CKKMU every month and Rs. 15 deducted fromthe wages of members in May, 1993, and one daywages deducted in the month ofOctober- 1993 with interest@ 12%.

Ifyes , what reliefthe Union is entitled to? " [सं. एल -22012/565/1994- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमारद गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 4th June, 2009

S. O. 1813.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. CGIT /LC/ R/202/95 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 4-6-2009.

[No. L-22012/565/1994- IR(C- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR NO . CGIT/LC/R/202/95

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Sakir Hasan

TheGeneral Secretary,

Chhattisgarh Khadan Karkhana

Mazdoor Union,

Bankimogra,

.Workman/Union

PostBankimogra (MP)

2. The case of the Applicant/Union in short is that in theGevraArea of South Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. ( in short referred here- in - after as SECL ) , there were seven Unions working namely-(2) National Colliery Workers Federation- Affiliated with N.L.O. , (2) Samyukta Khadan Mazdoor Sangh-affiliated with (A.I.T.U.C. ), (3 ) M.P.Koyla Mazdoor Sabha- affiliated with H.M.S. , (4) M.P. Koyla Shramik Sangh- affiliated with C.I.T.U. , (5) Chhattisgarh Khadan Karkhana Mazdoor Union - affiliated with U.T.U.C. , (6) Central Labour Federation-affiliated with B.M.S. & (7) Rashtriya Koyla KhadanMazdoor Sangh-affiliated with I.N.T.U.C. and all are affiliated with nationally recognized Trade Unions . The above named Trade Unions are registered under Madhya Pradesh Trade Regulation and are not recognized under "CodeofDiscipline or any other Act rather all are of same status . It is stated, that SECL gives recognition to the above named Trade Unions except the applicant and gives all facilities to them . It is stated that SECL discriminates from other Unions and does not give any facility to the applicant Union. It is stated that it is a wrong plea of the management that United Trade Union Congress in short here - in - after referred as UTUC) is not a member of Joint Consultative Committee . As such the Management is not giving recognition to the applicant/Union . It is stated that National Colliery Workers Federation is affiliated with N.L.O. and this Union is also not member of Joint 2205-GI/09-16 3758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 12. To prove the point for consideration , the applicant Union has examined WW- 1 Prem Das . He has stated that the applicant Union had given in a proforma (Exhibit W- 18) authorisation letters with lists to the management to deduct Rs . 36 yearly from the pay of members and to provide the same to the Union. The said receiving copies of the lists are marked as Exhibit W-19to W-25. He has further stated that Korba Area of SECL deducted the annual subscription of the applicant Union and provided the same to the extent of Rs . 12,348 to the Union. Bank receipt is filed which is marked as Exhibit W-26 . This shows that one of the unit of SECL was recognising the applicant Union and his members on their authorisations . He has further stated that Gevra Area of SECL did not deduct the annual subscription of Rs . 36 of the members ofthe applicant Union inspite of authorisation letters. It appears from the evidence adduced on behalf of the applicant that there was no justification for refusing to deduct the amount of Rs . 36 and to provide to the Union when one of the unit of SECL , Korba Area was deducting the amount, and there was no justification to refuse the sameby another unit of SECL.

photocopy ofthe petition signedby all the 115 members is filedwhich is marked as Exhibit W-27. The copy shows that the said petition is received bythe management. This witness has filed his pay slip of the month of May, 1993 (Exhibit W-28) which shows that Rs . 16 was deducted from his pay. He has stated that the then Vice President of the applicant Unionprotested for deduction from the pay of the members and gave letterwhich is marked as Exhibit W-29 but it was not considered. He has stated that the management discussed with office bearer of the applicant Union on 20-10-93 and it was resolved to deduct Rs . 25 from the Pay ofOct.-93 forearthquack victims . The said minute is marked as Exhibit W-30 .Accordingly Office order was passed which is Exhibit W-31 . He has stated that in the same way, the management of SECL of Gevra area also deducted Rs . 25 from the pay of 452 membersby passing an office order (ExhibitW-32) without informing the Union . The deduction ofRs. 25 appears to be justified by the management as the Secretary of the Office Bearer of the applicant Union interacted with the management and agreed for such deduction. He has stated that Sec.-7 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 provides that without authorisation letter of the cmployees, the management cannot deduct any amount of the employees . It appears from the evidence ofthe applicant Union that the management had deducted Rs. 15 from the pay ofthe month ofMay, 93 and Re . 1 per month from their pay without authorisation letters of the employees since there is a specific provision in Sec. - 7 ofPayment ofWages Act, 1996.That the deduction cannot be made without written authorisation of the employed person.

13. On the other hand, the witness of the management MW- 1 H.K. Jha has stated that the so called 452 members of CKKMU Union are of other Unions also which are covered under check off system where theyhave given authorisation to other Unions also to deduct early subscription . His evidence shows that he has not denied that authorisation letters were not filed before the management, rather Exhibit W-19 to W- 25 support the case of the Union that the lists with authorisation letters were provided. Moreover the non- applicant management has not filed a single authorisation letter of the member of the CKKMU to show that authorisation letter of member of this Union had also given to another Union. The oral evidence of the management is not acceptable when it appears that there is existence of documentary evidence . Thus the case ofthe applicant Union isproved that inspite of authorisation letter of the members, the management had intentionally not deducted without any justification. This point is accordingly answered in favour ofthe Union/ applicant.

16. On the other hand , the management witness MW- 1 Shri H.K. Jha has simply stated that the members have given authorisation to another unions for deduction of yearly subscriptions but there is no chit of paper to show that these members whose list is filed have given authorisation letter to other Unions . In absence of documentary evidence, his evidence is not trustworthy. Hehas further stated that it was decided in the JCC that the non-applicant will provide drought relief to the affected people. It appears that this decision of JCC is against the provision of Sec . 7 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Since it is against the provision as such the wrong act of the management cannot be said to be justified simply because it was for pious purposes . Considering the entire evidence on record , it is evident that the demand of CKKMU from SECL, Gevra Area to refund Re . 1 deducted from thewages of 452 members every month and Rs . 15 deducted in May, 1993 is justified. This issue is answered inpart in favour ofthe CKKMU .

14. The last point for consideration is as to whether the demand of CKKMU from the management of SECL area to refund Re. I deducted from the wages of452members of CKKMU every month and Rs . 15 deducted from the wages of members in May, 93 and the one day wages deducted in the month ofOctober, 93 with interest @ 12% isjustified.

17. In the result , I find and hold as follows :-

(1) that the management ofSECL, Gevra Area is directed toprovide equal treatment to Chhattisgarh Khadan Karkhana Mazdoor Union , Bilaspur as has been providedto other six aforesaid Unions .

15. The applicant Union has adduced evidence on the above point for consideration . WW- 1 Prem Das has stated that Rs . 15 was deducted from the pay of May, 93 for drought relief fund but 115 members ofhis Union filed petition for not deducting the amount from their pay. The 3759 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/ आषाढ़6, 1931

Versus

TheDirector (Personnel),

M/s. coal field limited ,

Party No.2

CoalEstate, Nagpur.

(ii) that the aforesaid management is also directed to deductRs . 36 from the wages of452 Union members listed from 1993 continuously and provide the same tothe applicant Union . In case any member is either retired or died ofthe said list, the said member will be excluded.

AWARD (29-5-2009)

(iii) that the aforesaid management is directed to refund Re. 1deductedfrom the wages of 452 members and Rs. 15 deducted from the pay of May, 93 to the members of the applicant Union or to their heirs in case of retirement or death .

The said management is directed to comply the same within one month from the date ofnotification ofthe award failing which the applicant Union may take the recourse of the appropriate Court .

Accordingly the award is passed in favour of the applicant Union and against the non -applicant management without costs.

The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri Kunwar Singh through Shri P. Modi , Joint Secretary, Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh . M.P. ( BMS) , Vishwakarma Bhawan, Chhindwara, Party No.1 and the Director (Personnel ) , WesternCoalfields Ltd. , Coal Estate, Nagpur, Party No. 2, referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L. -22012/344/2004- IR (CM - II) dt. 20-7-2005 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 :

18. 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 , 5 जून , 2009

2. "Whether the action of the Director (Personnel) ofWestern Coalfields Ltd. , Nagpur (Maharashtra ) by not giving a permanency to the workman Shri Kunwar Singh S/o Shri B. K. Singh , Roof Bolter Mazdoor , Category- II from January, 2001 as a Clerk Grade- II though he has completed 240 days from August, 1999 as a Clerk Grade- II . If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " का.आ. 1814.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 60/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-22012/344/2004-आईआर (सीएम- II ) ]

3. Heard the counsels for the both parties , the petitioner Kunwar Singh, Telephone Lineman Helper on 15-05-2009 submitted a Pursis saying that he does not want to proceed with this case . He wants to withdraw the same. Accordingly he is allowed to withdraw and the reference stands as dismissed. Hence this ' No Dispute Award' is passed.

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

Dated29-5-2009

New Delhi, the 5th June, 2009

A. N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2009

S.O. 1814. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between management of M/s . Western Coalfields Limited, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 5-6-2009 .

[No. L-22012/344/2004- IR (CM -II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

का.आ. 1815.- जबकि मैसर्स मितसुबीशी कॉरपोरेशन इंडिया प्रा.लि. , ( दिल्ली ) क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डी.एल/ 1491 के अंतर्गत ) ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) (एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

ANNEXURE

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

Date:30-05-09 Case No.60/2005

Sh . P. Modi , Joint Secretary,

Bhartiya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor

Sangh , M. P. (BMS) , Viswakarma Bhavan,

Chhindwara .

PartyNo.1

2. और जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान दर के मामले में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि के नियम उसके कर्मचारियों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं है और कर्मचारी भी समान प्रकृति के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 (एतदुपरान्त उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं । 3760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27, 200WABADIA 6, 1991

किसी अन्य प्रन्यतरसंबंध में उप अधिनियमः का कर्मचारी नदिन्ननिनोन 1952 ( साधुसन्त उपप्रतिष्ठान के साथ में संदर्मिक ) के अन्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं।

3. केन्द्र सरकार एतदद्वारा , अब उक्त অভিসিকল নদ धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत समिकों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय- समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शतों को ध्यान में रखते हुए, उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 30-9-1965 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस-35015/78/2009- एस.एस- II ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi , the 8th June,2009

3. केन्द्र सरकार एलान , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप- भात ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए कमाइसंबंध में समय-समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट सों को व्यान में रखते हुए प्रतिष्ठानको उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 1-3-1994 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए सूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं एस-35015 /76/2009- एस.एस- II ] एस. डी. जेबियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 8th June , 2009 S.O. 1815. Whereas M/s . Mitsubishi Corporation India Pvt. Ltd. [under Code No. DL/ 1491 in Delhi Region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct) .

S.O. 1816. Whereas M/s . Indian Renewable EnergyDevelopment Agency Lad. [ undurCode No.DL/12903 in Delhi (North) Region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees ' Providents Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fand benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said cstablishment with respect to the rates ofcontribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment ofsimiler character .

3. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferredby clause ( a) of sub- section (1 ) of Section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 30-9-1965 until further notification.

[No. S-35015/78/2009-SS-II] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2009

3. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) ofsub- section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the saidAct and subject to the conditions specified in this regard frous timeto time, the Central Government, hereby exempts the said establishment from the operation ofall theprovisions ofthe said Schomewith effect from 1-3-1994 until further notification.

[No. S-35015/76/2009-SS-II ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1816. जबकि मैसर्स इंडियन रिन्यूएबल एनर्जी डेवल्पमेन्ट एजेन्सी लि., दिल्ली ( नॉर्थ ) क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डी. एल/12903 के अंतर्गत ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 (1952का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

का.क. 1817.- जबकि मैसर्स नेशनल एग्रीकल्चरल को- ऑपरेटिव मोडरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लि. , दिल्ली ( साउथ ) क्षेत्र में बोडसं की. इस/1507 के अंतर्गत ( एतदुपसन्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संस ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की काल 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड (क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

भारत का राजपत्र : जून 27, 2009/आषाढ़ 6, 1931

[भाग - खण्ड 3( ) ]

(एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उम- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

2. और जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान दर के मामले में उबत प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि के नियम उसके कर्मचारियों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं है और कर्मचारी भी समान प्रकृति के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं ।

2. और जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान दर के मामले में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि के नियम उसके कर्मचारियों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं है और कर्मचारी भी सम्मान प्रकृति के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 (एतदुपरान्त उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) केअंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं ।

3. केन्द्र सरकार एत्तदद्वारा , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को ध्यान में रखते हुए , उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 01-06-1976 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

3. केन्द्र सरकार एतदद्वारा , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शतों को ध्यान में रखते हुए , उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 1-10-1977 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस-35015/39/2009-एस.एस- II ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव NewDelhi, the 8th June,2009

[सं. एस-35015/72/2009- एस.एस- II ]

एस. डी. बेवियर , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the 8th June, 2009 S.O. 1817. Whereas M/s . National Agricultural Co-operativeMarketing Federation of India Ltd. [under CodeNo. DL/ 1507 in Delhi (South) Region ] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

S.O. 1818. Whereas M/s. Engineers India Ltd. [under Code No. DL/2097 in Delhi (North ) Region ] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) ofsub- section (1 ) ofSection 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme , 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment ofsimilar character .

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund ofthe said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.

3. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1 ) ofSection 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all theprovisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01-06- 1976 until further notification.

[No. S-35015/39/2009-SS- II]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2009

3. Now , therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) ofsub-section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from timeto time, the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-10-1977 until further notification .

[No. S-35015 /72/2009-SS-II ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy .

का.आ. 1818.-जबकि मैसर्स इंजीनियर्स इंडिया लि. , [दिल्ली ( नार्थ ) क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डी. एल/2097 के अंतर्गत ] . (एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) 3762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JUNE 27 , 2009/ASADHA 6, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] नई दिल्ली, 8 जून , 2009

NewDelhi , the 8th June, 2009

S.O. 1819.-Whereas M/ s . Win- Medicare Private का.आ. 1819. जबकि मैसर्स विन मेडिकेयर प्राइवेट लि. , दिल्ली [ ( साउथ ) क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डी. एल/6600 के अंतर्गत ] (एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

Ltd. [undor Code No. DL/6600 in Delhi (South) region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied forexemption under clause (a) ofsub-section ( 1) of Section 17 ofthe Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct).

2. और जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान दर के मामले में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि के नियम उसके कर्मचारियों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं है और कर्मचारी भी समान प्रकृति के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 ( एतदुपरान्त उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं ।

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.

3. केन्द्र सरकार एतदद्वारा , अभ उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को ध्यान में रखते हुए , उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्तउपबंधों के प्रचालन से 1-3-1987 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

3. Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Sectin 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from timetotime , the Central Government, hereby, exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-3-1967 until further notification .

[सं. एस-35015/68/2009- एस.एस- II ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

[No.S-35015/68/2009-SS- II ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager , Govt. of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Publishedby the Controller of Publications , Delhi -110054.