This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGDANO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003-05 रजिस्ट्री संः डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/ 0007/ 2003-05

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 30] No. 30]

नई दिल्ली, जुलाई 19 जुलाई 25 , 2009 , शनिवार/आषाढ़ 28 श्रवण 3 , 1931 NEW DELHI , JULY 19- JULY 25, 2009, SATURDAY/ASADHA 28-SRAVANA 3, 1931

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

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

भारत सरकार के मंत्रालयों ( स्क्षा मंत्रालय को छोड़कर ) द्वारा जारी किए गए सांविधिक आदेश और अधिसूचनाएं StatutoryOrders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries ofthe Government ofIndia (Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्यालय, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

मासिक , 26 जून , 2009

विधि और न्याय मंत्रालय (विधि कार्य विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 8 जुलाई , 2009

आयकर नियमावली 1961 की धारा 10( 237 ) (vi) के तहत अधिसूचना

का.आ. 1971.- राष्ट्रपति, श्री राजेन्द्र बी. रघुवंशी , वरिष्ठ अधिवक्ता का दिनांक 5 जुलाई , 2009 ( अपराहन ) से बंबई उच्च न्यायालय , मुंबई में भारत के अपर महासालिसिटर के पद से त्यागपत्र स्वीकार करते हैं।

[फा. सं. 18(7 )/2007 -न्यायिक ] एम. ए. खाँ यूसुफी, संयुक्त सचिव एवं विधि सलाहकार

का. आ. 1972, आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2ग क के साथ पठित आयकर नियम, 1961 की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 ग ) के उप-खण्ड ( vi ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रभोग करते हुए, मैं, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, नाशिक एत‌द्वारा संत जोसेफ सोसायटी, सुयोग कॉलोनी , जिला पेठ , जलगांव -425 002 को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन वित्तीय वर्ष 2009-10 तक आयकर संबंधी उक्त धारा के लिए अनुमोदन प्रदान करता हूं:-

MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE

(Department of Legal Affairs)

1 निर्धारिती , अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनन्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई। NewDelhi , the 8th July, 2009

S.O. 1971. The President is pleased to accept the resignation of Shri Rajendra B. Raghuvanshi , Senior Advocate as Additional Solicitor General of India in the High Court ofBombay at Mumbai w.e.f. 5-7-2009 (AN ) .

[F. No. 18 (7)/2007-Judl . ]

M. A. KHAN YUSUFI , Jt . Secy. and Legal Advisor

2. निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों कीकिसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा 11 की उप- धारा ( 5 ) विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से अपनी निधि ( जेवर अवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्त) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करेगा ।

2570 G1/2009

(4307) 4308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 24, 2000/ SRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

1. The assessee will apply its income, or accumulate for application wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it isestablished.

3. यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आन के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी, जोकि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक कि ऐसा कारोबार बोर्ड को तथा ऐसे कार्यकार के जाती हों । नहीं हो

2. The assessee will not levest or deposit its hand fother than voluntary contribution seotived and and interferofJumellery, Riniture etc.) otherwise than inanyone or moroofthe forms or modes specified in Sch-wution (5) ofSection 11.

4. निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी भारा ( 23 ) के परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ नियमित रूप से दाखिल करेगा। परंतुक के रख सन

3. This notification will not apply in relation to any insame being profits and gains of business, unless the business je incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are mattitained in respect of such business .

5. विघटन की स्थिति में अवशिष्ट ( बची हुई ) आरि किसी ऐसे संस्थान को दी जाएंगी जिसके उद्देश्य समान हो , और इन आस्तियों का कोई भी भाग संस्था के सदस्यों को नहीं दिक दी।

6. यह अनुमोदन , अधिनियम की धारा 143 ( 3 ) के क के प्रावधानों के शर्त पर आधारित है ।

4. The assessee will regularly file its return of income alengwith audit report as per tenth proviso to section 18(230)before the income-tax authority in accordance with the provisions of Income-Tax 1961 .

7. अधिनियम की धारा 10 ( 23 ) के 13वें परन्तुक -प्रावधानों के अनुसार भविष्य में अनुमोदन रद्द किया जा सकेगा।

5. In the event of dissolution, its surplus assets will be given to an organization with similar objectives Ino part of the same will go to any of the members of the institution

8. यह अनुमोदन आकार निम 1961 की मात्र भा 10(23ग) ( Via ) के लिए ही दिया जा रहा है , अन्यकिसी उद्देश्ण से नहीं।

6. The approval granted shall be subject to the provision of provise to section 143(3) of theAct.

7. The approval may bewithdrawn in future as per provisions of 13th provise to section 10(23C).

है तो नह 9. यदि बाद में यह पायक बार कि अनुमोदन सथों को दुरुपयोग से अथवा थोड़ी करके शून्यकृत ( प्रभावहीन ) आएगा।

8. The above approval is given only for the purpose ofsection 10(23C) ( via) of the Income -tax Act, 1961 and not for any other purpose/s.

9. The approval shall be void if it is subsequently found that it has been obtained by fraud or misappropriation offact.

10. कोई आय जो किसी व्यवसाय , वाणिज्य , उद्योग की गतिविधियों से अथवा व्यवसाय , वाणिज्य, उन के संबंध में दी गई सेवाओं के एवज में प्राप्त हो, नते हैं इन विधियों से प्राप्त आण के उपयोय बा जिंभेश या संधन की प्रकृति कुछ भी उनपर अनुमोदन लागू नहीं होगा।

11. आयकर अधिनियम की बारा 115 बीबीसी के साथ पडित धारा 10 ( 23सी ) के पंद्रहवें परंतु को देखते हुए मेहमान दानों के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगा।

16. This approval shall not apply in relation to any income from any activity in the nature of trade, commerce or business or rendering of any service in relation to trade commerce or business irrespective of the nature ofuse or application or retention of income from such activity.

[सं. ना./मु.आ.आ./10( 237 ) (VI ) 2009-10/ 1117 ]

वी. के. श्रीधर , मुख्य आधार आ

11. The approval shall not apply in relation to anonymous donations in terms ofthe fifteenth proviso to Sec. 10(23C) r.w.s. 115 BBC ofthe Income-tax Act .

[No. NSK/CCIT/10(23C)(vi )/2009-10/1117] OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

V. K. SHRIDHAR, Chief Commissioner of Income Tax Nashik, the 26th June , 2009

नाशिक, 8 जुलाई, 2009

Notification under Section 10(23C)(vi) ofthe Income TaxAst

आपवार निवनावली 1961 की धारा 10( 23 ) ( vi) के S.O. 1972. In exercise of the powers conferred on me by the sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) ofthe Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA of the Income Tax Rule, 1962 L, ChiefCommissioner of laceme Tax, Nashik hereby accord approval "St. Josephs Society, Suyog Colony, Jila Peth , Jalgaon 425002 for the purpose of the said section from A.Y. 2009-10 onwards , subject to the conditions mentioned hareunder:

का. आ. 1973.- आयकर नियमावली , 1962 के नियम 2ग क के साथ परित आयकर नियम 1961 की धारा 10 के खंड ( 23 ग) के उप- धान्य ( vi ) द्वारा प्रदत शनि का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैं , मुख्य आकार अनुक्त , नाशिक एतद्वय कर्मवीर के. के. काम एज्युकेशन सोसायटी , अमृतधाम , पंचवटी , नाशिक को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4309 भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 25, 2009/श्रावण 3 , 1931

Nashik, the 8th July,2009

अधीन निर्धारण वर्ष 2007-2008 तक आयकर संबंधी उक्त धारा के लिए निम्नानुसार अनुमोदन प्रदान करता हूं:-

Notification under Section 10(23C)(vi) ofthe Income TarAct, 1961

1. निर्धारिती, अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल अथवा अपनी आय का इस्तेमाल करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतया तथा अनश्यतया उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई है ।

S.O. 1973.-In exercise of the powers conferred on mebythe sub -clasue (vi ) ofclause (23C) ofthe Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA of the IncomeTax, Rules, 1962 I, theChief Commissioner ofIncome Tax Nashik hereby accord approval to " Karmavir K.K.Wagh Education Society, Amrutdham, Panchavati, Nashik for the purpose the said section from A.Y. 2007-2008 onwards, subject to the conditions mentioned hereunder:

2. निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अविध के दौरान धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से अपनी निधि ( जेवर- जवाहिरात, फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करेगा ।

1. The assesseewill apply its income , or accumulate for application wholly and exclusivelyto the objects for which it is established;

3. यह अधिसूचना किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगी , जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक ऐस्म कारोबार बोर्ड के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध मे अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों ।

2. The assessee will not invest or deposit its fund (other then voluntary contribution received and maintained in the form ofjewellery, furniture etc.) otherwise than in any one or more ofthe forms or modes specified in Sub-section (5) ofSection 11 .

4. निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी धारा ( 23 ग ) के दसवे परंतुक के अनुसार लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष दाखिल करेगा ।

3. This notification will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gains of business, unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business;

5. विघटन की स्थिति में अवशिष्ट ( बची हुई ) आस्तियां किसी ऐसे संस्थान को दी जाएगी जिसके उद्देश्य समान हों, और इन आस्तियों का कोई भी भाग संस्था के सदस्यों को नहीं दिया जाएगा ।

4. Theassesseewill regularly file its return of income alongwith audit report as per tenth provise to sec. 10(230) before the income-tax authority in accordance with the provisions of the Income-Tax 1961;

6. यह अनुमोदन , अधिनियम की धारा 143 (3 ) के परंतुक के प्रावधानों के शर्त पर आधारित है ।

5. In the event of dissolution, its surplus assets will be given to an organization with similar objectives andno part ofthe same will go to any of the members of the institution.

7. अधिनियम की धारा 10 ( 23 ग ) के 13वें परन्तुक के प्रावधानों के अनुसार भविष्य में अनुमोदन रद्द किया जा सकेगा ।

6. The approval granted shall be subject to the provision of proviso to section 143 (3 ) ofthe Act.

7. The approval may be withdrawn in future as per provisionsof 13th proviso to section 10(23C).

8. यह अनुमोदन आयकर अधिनियम 1961 की मात्र धारा 10(23 ग ) ( Via ) के लिए ही दिया जा रहा है , अन्य किसी उद्देश्य से नहीं ।

8. Theabove approval is given only for the purpose ofsection 10(25C) ( via) of the I.T. Act, 1961 and not for any other purpose/s.

9. यदि बाद में यह पाया जाए कि यह अनुमोदन तथ्यों के दुरूपयोग से अथवा धोखाधड़ी करके प्राप्त किया है , तो यह अनुमोदन शून्यकृत हो ( प्रभावहीन ) जाएगा ।

9. The approval shall be void if it is subsequently found that it has been obtained by fraud or misappropriation offact

10. कोई आय जो किसी व्यवस्मय , वाणिज्य, उद्योग की गतिविधियों से अथवा व्यवसाय , वाणिज्य , उद्योग के संबंध में दी गई सेवाओं के एवज में प्राप्त हो , भले ही इन गतिविधियों से प्राप्त आय के उपयोग या निवेश या संचय की प्रकृति कुछ भी हो उन पर यह अनुमोदन लागू नहीं होगा ।

10. This approval shall not apply in relation to any income from any activity in the nature of trade , commerce orbusiness or rendering of any service in relation to trade commerce or business irrespective of the nature ofuse or application or retention of income from such activity.

11. आयकरअधिनियम की भारा 115 बीबीसी के साथ पठित धारा 10 ( 23सी ) के पंद्रहवें करंतुक को देखते हुए यह प्रावधान, गुप्त दानों के संबंध में लांगू नहीं होगा ।

11. The approval shall not apply in relation to anonymousdonations in terms of the fifteenth Proviso to Sec. 10(23C) r.w.s . 115 BBC ofthe I.T.Act.

[सं. ना./मु.अ.आ./ 10( 23 ग ) (V1 ) 2009-10/के.के. डब्ल्यू/ 1189]

[No. NSK/OCIT/10(23C)(vi )/2009-10/KKW/ 1189] V. K. SHRIDHAR , Chief Commissioner of Income Tax वी. के. श्रीधर, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

4310

तिरुच्चिराप्पल्ली, 9 जुलाई, 2009

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

अधीन अनुमोदन

3. उपरोक्त अनुमोदन अधोहस्ताक्षरी दवारा वापस ले लिया माना जाएगा , यदि अधिनियम की धारा 10 ( 23 सी ) के तेरहवें परन्तुक के अनुसरण में नहीं है तथा उसकी गतिविधियाँ असली या ' प्रामाणिक नहीं है या गतिविधियाँ स्वीकृति में उल्लिखित सभी या किंहीं शतों के अनुसार नहीं कही जा रही हैं ।

[सी. सं. 935( 1 )/मु.आ.आ./तिरुची/2008-09 ] कमल कांत त्रिपाठी , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

Trichy, the 9th July, 2009

Approval under Section 10(23C)(vi) ofthe Income Tax Act,1961

का. आ. 1974.- आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 की 43) की धारा 10 के खंड (23 सी ) के उप खण्ड ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियम , 1962 के 2 सीए द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए उपरोक्त उप खण्ड में बताए गए प्रयोजनों के लिए निध रिण वर्ष 2009-2010 से दी सुदर्शन एजुकेशनल ट्रस्ट, सुदर्शन स्ट्रीट , पेलस नगर , कलेक्टरस ऑफिस के सामने पुदुको‌ट्ट -622005 को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अनुसार अनुमोदन दिया जाता है :

2 (i ) निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम की धारा 1961 की धारा 10 के खखंड ( 23 सी ) के उप खंड ( vi ) के साथ पठित आकर नियम , 1962 के 2 सी ए के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अनुपालन करेगी । '

S.O. 1974. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clasue ( vi ) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income-taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA ofthe Income-TaxRules, 1962 I, the Sudharsan Educational Trust, Sudharsan Street, Palace Nagar , Opp . Collector's Office, Pudukottai- 622 005 is hereby approved for the purposes of the said sub- clause , from the assessment year , 2009-2010 onwards , subject to the following conditions :

2. (i) The assessee shall conform to and comply with the provisions of sub- clause (vi) of clause (23C) of section 10 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA of the Income-taxRules , 1962 .

(ii) अधिनियम 10 ( 23 सी ) के तीसरे परन्तुक के खंड (आ) से अपेक्षित यह निर्धारिती अपनी आय का उन उददेश्यों के लिए पूर्णतः और अनन्यतः उपयोग करती है या उपयोग करने के लिए संचयन करती है और यदि उसकी आय का पंद्रह प्रतिशत या उससे अधिक का संचयन हो जाता है वहां उसके आय के संचयन की अवधि किसी भी दशा में पांच वर्ष तक अधिक नहीं होगी ।

(ii) The assessee shall apply its income or accumulate the same for application wholly and exclusivelytowards its objects and, in case more than fifteen per cent of its income is accumulated , the period of accumulation of the same shall in no case exceed five years , as required in clause (a) ofthe third proviso to section 10 (23C) of theAct.

(iii) अधिनियम 10 (23सी ) के तीसरे परन्तुक के खंड ( ब ) के सी अपेक्षित तथा धारा 11 की उप - धारा (5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट एक या अधिक रूपों या पद्धतियों सेकिसी भी अवधि के लिए निर्धारिती अपनी সিজি सेअन्यथा निवेशों और निक्षेपों ( आभूषण एवं फर्नीचर या ऐसे वस्तु के रुप में प्राप्त और रखखे गए स्वेच्छिक अभिदाय के अलावा) में नहीं करेगी ।

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

(iii) The assessee shall not invest or deposit its funds ( other than voluntary contributions received and maintained in the form ofjewellery or furniture ) for any period otherwise than in any one or more ofthe forms or modes specified in sub- section ( 5) of section 11 of the Act, as required in clause (b) of the third proviso to section 10 (23C) of the Act .

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

(iv) This approval shall not apply in relation to any income from any activity in the nature of trade , commerce or business or rendering of any service in relation to trade, commerce or business irrespective of the nature of use or applicationation or retention of income from such activity.

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

(vi) न्यास के भंग होने पर उसके अधिषेश एवं आस्तियाँ ऐसे संगठन को दी जाएंगी जो पूर्णतः शैक्षिक प्रयोजनों के लिए हैऔर लाभ के प्रयोजनार्थ नहीं है और अधिनियम की धारा 13 ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट अनुसार उसका कोई भी भाग प्रत्यक्ष या अप्रत्यक्ष रुप से निर्धारिती के हिताधिकारी या अन्य किसी को नहीं जाएगा ।

(vi) In the event of dissolution of the assessee trust, its surplus and assets shall be given to an organization which exists solely for edcational purposes and not for the (vii) अधिनियम 10 (23 सी ) के पंद्रहवें परन्तुक तथा धारा 115 बी बीसी के साथ पठित यह अनुमोदन अनाम संदानों के लिए लागू नहीं होगा । भास्त का राजपत्र : जुलाई 25 , 2009/श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

purposes ofprofit and no part ofthe same. shall go directly or indirectly to any ofthe beneficiaries of the assessee or anybody specified in Section 13 (3 ) ofthe Act. (vii) The approval shall not apply in relation to anonymous donations in terms of the fifteenth proviso to Section 10(23C) r.w.s. 115BBC ofthe Act .

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

[C. No. 935 (1 )/CCIT/ TRY/2008-09] K. K. TRIPATHI , Chief Commissioner of Income Tax MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Revenue) (Central Board of Direct Taxes) CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2009

S.O. 1975. In the Notification Number 52/2009 , dated 25-6-2009 the words and figure " with effect from 1-4-2010" may be corrected to read as " with effect from Assessment year 2010-11 ".

Other terms and condition of the said notification remain unchanged.

[F. No. 203/20/2009/ITA - II ] Dr. SANJAY KUMAR LAL, Under Secy. (ITA- II ) सूचना और प्रशासन मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई, 2009

का. आ. 1976.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 29 मार्च , 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के चेन्नई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के सेवा- काल को दिनांक 29-3-2009 से दिनांक 31-8-2009 तक की अवधि के लिए बढ़ाती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/2/2007- एफ ( सी) ]

अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING New Delhi , the 15th July, 2009

S.O. 1976. In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 29th March, 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (1 ) of Section 5ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification )

$4311 Rules, 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to extend the term ofthe members of the Chennai Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification for the period from 29-3-2009 to 31-8-2009 .

[F. No. 809/2/2007 -F (C)] AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films) नईदिल्ली, 16 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 1977.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 8 जनवरी , 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के कोलकाता सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के सेवा- काल को दिनांक 8-1-2009 से पैनल के पुनर्गठित होने की तारीख तक की अवधिके लिए बढ़ाती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/1/2006- एफ ( सी) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म) NewDelhi, the 16th July, 2009

S.O. 1977. In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 8th January, 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules, 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to extend the term ofthe members of the Kolkata Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification for the period from 8-1-2009 and till the date the panel is reconstituted.

[F. No. 809/1/2006-F(C) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films) नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 1978.- इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 31 मई , 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र (प्रमाणन) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के सेवा- काल को दिनांक 31-5-2009 से दिनांक 31-8-2009 तक की अवधि के लिए बढ़ाती है ।

[फा. सं.:809/1/2007- एफ ( सी) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक (फिल्म) New Delhi , the 16th July, 2009

S.O. 1978. In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 31st May, 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 5ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased to extend the term ofthe members ofthe Hyderabad Advisory Panel ofthe Central Board of Film Certification for the period from 31-5-2009 to 31-8-2009.

[F. No. 809/1 /2007-F(C)] AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films ) 4312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25,2009/BRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई, 2009

बोर्ड के विकार चैनल के सदस्यों के सेवा-कालको दिनांक 11-7-2009 से दिनांक 31-8-2009 शक की अवधि के लिए बढ़ाती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/6/2007- एफ ( सी) ]

अभिकान कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म)

NewDelhi , the 16th July, 2009

का.आ. 1979. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 2 जनवरी , 2007 की समसख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8.के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के गुवाहाटी सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के सेवा- काल को दिनांक 2-1-2009 से पैनल के पुनर्गठन होने की तारीख तक की अवधिके लिए बढ़ाती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/3/2006-एफ ( सी ) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक (फिल्म) NewDelhi , the 16th July, 2009

S.O. 1981. In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even sumber dated 11th July, 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5oftheCinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7and 8 ofthe Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983, theContralGovernment is pleased to extendthe term ofthemembers ofthe Thiruvananthapuram Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification for the period fem11-7-2009 to31-8-2009.

[F.No.809/6/2007-F(C)]

AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films)

नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई, 2009

S.O. 1979. In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 2nd January, 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (1 ) of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 ofthe Cinematograph (Certification ) Rules, 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to extend the term of the members of the Guwahati Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification for the period from 2-1-2009 and till the date of reconstitution ofthe Panel .

[F.No.809/3/2006-F(C)]

AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films) नईदिल्ली, 16 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 1962. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 11 जुलाई , 2007 की सनसंचयक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियन 7 एवं 8 के साथ नठित चलचित्र अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त रमितयों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के बंगलौर सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के सेवा-काल को दिनांक 11-7-2009 से 31-8-2009 तक अथवा नए पैनल के गठित होने की तापीका तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो, की अवधि के लिए गड़ती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/5/2007- एफ( सी) ] अमितन कुमार, विदेशक ( फिल्म) का.आ. 1980.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 8 जनवरी , 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्र सरकार केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के कटक सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के सेवा- काल को दिनांक 8-1-2009 से पैनल के पुनर्गठन होने की तारीख तक की अवधि के लिए बढ़ाती है ।

NewDelhi , the 16th July, 2009

[फा. सं. 809/2/2006- एफ ( सी) ] अमिताभ कुमार, निदेशक ( फिल्म)

New Delhi , the 16th July, 2009

S.O. 1962. In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 11th July, 2007 and in exeruise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1) of Section5 ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952(37 of 1952) read with rales 7 and 8 ofthe Cinematograph (Certification)Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased to extend theterm of the members of the Bangalore Advisory Panel of the Central Board of Film Certification for the period from 11-07-2009 30 31-08-2009 or till a new panel is constituted whichever is earlier.

S.O. 1980. In continuation of this Ministry's notification of even number dated 8th January, 2007 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1) of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 ofthe Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to extend the term ofthe members of the Cuttack Advisory Panel ofthe Central Board of Film Certification for the period from 8-1-2009 till the date the panel is reconstituted .

[F. No. 809/5/2007-F(C) ] [F.No. 809/2/2006- F(C)]

AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films) AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films)

विदेश मंजालम

नई दिल्ली, 16 जुलाई, 2009

(सोनीची प्रमाण)

नई दिल्ली , 2 कुलाई, 2009

कर. आ. 1983.-राजनयिक और कॉसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और कीस ) अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क) के अनुकरण में, केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा श्री मनोरंजन दास , सहायक को का.आ. 1981.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 11 जुलाई , 2007 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन 4313

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई-25, 2009/ श्रावण 3 ; 1931

[भाग H-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES New Delhi , the 7th July, 2009 2-7-2009 से भारत के प्रक्षन कौंसलावास, मिलान में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्त्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी-4330/ 1/2006] आर. के. पेस्निडिया , अवर सचिव (कोंसुलर ) MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

S.O. 1985. In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) ofRule (10)oftheOfficial Language (Use forOfficial Purposes of the Union) the Contal Government hereby notifies the following of this ministry the 80 % staff whereof have acquired working knowledge of Hindi .

(CPV Division) NewDelhi , the 2nd July, 2009

CentralGround WaterBoard, NorthWest Hinsalian Region , Jafimu.

[No, 1 /1 /2008-Hindi] S. S. K. RAO , Dy. Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 जुलाई, 2009

S.O. 1983. In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of theDiplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act , 1948, the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Manoranjan Das, Assistant to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer in the Consulate General of India, Milan with effect from 2nd July, 2009.

[No.T-4330/1 /2006] R. K. PERINDIA, Under Secy.(Consular)

नईदिल्ली, 9 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 1984. राजनयिक और कौंसलीय ऑफिसर (शपथ और फीस) अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड (क) के अनुसरण में, केंद्र सरकार एत‌द्वारा श्री सुरेश कुमार, उच्च श्रेणी लिपिक को 9-7-2009 से भारत के प्रधान कौंसलावास , न्यूयार्क में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्त्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत कस्ती है ।

[सं. टी +4330/ 1/2006] आर. के. पेस्निडिया, अवर सचिव ( कोंसुलर)

NewDelhi , the 9th July, 2009

का.आ. 1986.-सार्वजनिक परिक्षेत्र (अनधिकृत दखलकार की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40) के अनुच्छेद 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और जल संसाधन मंत्रालय में दिनांक 15 मार्च, 1988 के सं. का.आ. 1121. वाली भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना का अधिक्रमण करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतदद्वारा नीचे दी गई तालिका के कॉलम ( i ) में दर्शाए गए अधिकारियों, जो बेतवा नदी बोर्ड , एक साथिधिक प्राधिकरण के अधिकारी और भारत सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारियों की श्रेणी के समान हैं, को उपरोक्त अधिनियम के उद्देश्य के लिए संपदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है , जो उपरोक्त तालिका के कासम (2) में संगत प्रथिमिट में उल्लिखित सार्वजनिक परिक्षेत्र की श्रेणियों के संबंध में उनके कार्य क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमाओं के अन्दर उपरोक्त अधिनियम के द्वारा अथवा इसके अंतर्गत संपदा अधिकारियों को प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे और उन्हें सौंपे गए कार्यों का निष्पादन करेंगे ।

तालिका

अधिकारी का पदभा ন सार्वजनिक परिक्षेत्र की श्रेणियां और कार्थ क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमाएं

S.O. 1984-In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section2of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers(Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 , the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Suresh Kumar, UDC to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer in the Consulate General of India, New York with effect from 9th July, 2009.

[No.T-4330/ 1/2006] R. K. PERINDIA, Under Secy. (Consular)

1. कार्यपालक अभियंता ,

जलसंवन मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 7 जुलाई, 2009

राजघाट बांध, पर्याक्रम एवं भूमि अधिग्रहण प्रभाग , राजघाट, जिला ललितपुर ( उत्तर प्रदेश )

बेतवा नदी बोर्ड से संबंधित और राजभाट बांध, पर्यावरण एवं भूमि अधिग्रहण प्रभाव , राजभाट, पोस्ट ऑफिस राजघाट, जिला ललितपुर ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) के प्रशासनिक मिर्वत्रण के अंतर्गत आने वाले सभी परिक्षेत्र ।

का. आ. 1985, केन्द्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4) के अनुसरण में इस मंत्रालय के संगठन के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय को, जिसके 80% कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है:-

2. कार्यपालक अभियोतत्र , राजभाट विद्युत गृह (सिविल) और कठोर प्रभाग, रामघाट,जि ललिम्पुर (उत्तर प्रदेश)

बेतवा नदी बोर्ड से संबंक्ति और राजबाट किबुक् गृह ( सिविल ) और स्टोर प्रभाग, समभधार, पोस्ट ऑफिस राजा , जिला ललितपुर ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण के अंतर्गत आने वाले सभी परिक्षेत्र ।

केन्द्रीय भूमिजल बोर्ड, उत्तर पश्चिमी हिमाचल क्षेत्र , जम्मू।

[सं-1/1/2008-हिन्दी] एस. एस. के. राव, उप सचिव

[फा. सं. 13/16/2008-जीबी] यू. एक पंजियार, सचिव 4314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

NewDelhi , the 13th July,2009

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

एम.बी.बी.एस.

आयुर्विज्ञान तथा

शल्य विज्ञान स्नातक

S.O. 1986. In exercise of the powers conferredby Section 3 ofthe Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ), and in supersession of the notification ofGovernment of India in the Ministry of WaterResources , number S.O. 1121 , dated the 15th March, 1988 , Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column ( 1 ) ofthe Table below, being officers ofthe Betwa River Board, a statutory authority and equivalent to the rank ofgazetted officers ofthe Government of India to be the state officers for the purpose of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the estate officers by or under the saidAct, within the local limits oftheir jurisdiction in respect of the categories of public premises specified in the correspending entry in colum (2) of the said Table .

TABLE

Designation of officer Categories ofpublic premises and local limits ofjurisdiction 1

1.ExecutiveEngineer , RajghatDam, Environment and Land Acquisition Division , Rajghat, District Lalitpur (Uttar Pradesh)

All premisesbelonging to the Betwa River Board and under the administrative control of its Rajghat Dem, Environment and Land Acquisition Division, Rajghat, Post Office Rajghat, District Lalitpur(Uttar Pradesh ) 2.ExecutiveEngineer, Rajghat Power House (Civil) and Store Division, Rajghat, District Lalitpur (Uttar Pradesh) .

All promises belonging to Betwa River Board and under the administrative control of its Rajghat Power House (Civil) and Store Division, Rajghat , PostOffice Rajghat, District Lalitpur ( Uttar Pradesh)

[F. No. 13/16/2008-GB]

U.N. PANJIAR, Secy.

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय (स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग ) नईदिल्ली , 30 जून , 2009

का.आ. 1987. 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 एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है , अर्थात्:-

उक्त प्रथम अनुसूची में " मदुरई कामराज विश्वविद्यालय " और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के बाद " मीनाक्षी विश्वविद्यालय चेन्नई, तमिलनाडु " जोड़ा जाएगा और " मीनाक्षी विश्वविद्यालय चेन्नई , तमिलनाडु " के सामने शीर्षक ' मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता' ( इसके पश्चात्स्तंभ ( 2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत और पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण ( इसके पश्चात् स्तंभ ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित ) शीर्षक के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित अंतःस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-

( यह एक मान्यताप्राप्त आयुर्विज्ञान अर्हता होगी यदि यह मीनाक्षी मेडिकल कॉलेज एंड रिसर्च इंस्टीट्यूट, इनातूर , कांचीपुरम , तमिलनाडु में प्रशिक्षण प्राप्त कर रहे छात्रों के संबंध में मीपाश्री विश्वविद्यालय , चेन्नई , द्वारा मार्च , 2009 अथबा उसके बाद प्रदान कीगई हो)

[सं. यू-12012/31/2009- एम.ई. (पी. II) ] के. वी. एस. राव , उप संचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Department ofHealth and Family Welfare) New Delhi , the30th June, 2009

S.O. 1987. in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the 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:-

In the said First Schedule after "Madurai Kamraj University" and entries thereto "Meenakshi University, Chennai , Tamil Nadu " shall be added and against "Meenakshi University, Chennai , Tamil Nadu" 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:-

M.B.B.S

Bachelor ofMedicine andBachelor of Surgery

(Thisshall be a recognized medical qualification when grantedby Meenakshi Uni- versity, Chennai , Tamil Nadu on or afterMarch, 2009 in respect of students trained at Meenakshi MedicalCollege & Research Institute, Enathur, Kanchipuram , TamilNadu)

[No. U. - 12012/31 /2009- ME-(P - II) ] K. V. S. RAO , Dy. Secy.

भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय (भारी उक्ोग विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 9 जुलाई, 2009

का.आ. 1996.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम ( 4 ) के 4315 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड, 3( ii) ]

वस्त्र मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 17 जुलाई, 2009

अनुसरण में , निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके 80 % से अधिक अधिकारियों/ कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, अधिसूचित करती है :-

1. नागालैंड पल्प एंड पेपर कंपनी लि. , पो. पेपर नगर , तुली, मोकोकचुंग नागालैंड-798623

[फा. सं. ई. - 11012/2/2005 - हिन्दी]

का.आ. 1989. केंद्रीय सरकार, एतद्‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित करती है कि राज्य सभा ने केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड अधिनियम, 1948 की धारा 4 की उप- धास (3 ) के खण्ड (ग) के अनुसरण में इस अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अध्यभीम श्री के.बी. शनप्पा, सदस्य, राज्य सभा को तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए केंद्रीय रेशम बोर्ड के सदस्यों के रूप में कार्य करने के लिए 14 जुलाई , 2009 को विधिवत चुन लिया है। एम. आर. बाली , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

[फा. सं. - 25012/1 /2008 -रेशम ] भूपेन्द्र सिंह, संयुक्त सचिव (Department of Heavy Industry) New Delhi , the 9th July, 2009

MINISTRY OF TEXTILES New Delhi , the 17th July, 2009 S. O. 1988. In pursuance of the sub - rule (4) of rule 10 ofOfficial Language (Use for official purposes of the union) Rules 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following office whereof more than 80 % staff have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi:

S.O. 1989. The Central Government hereby notifies that theRajya Sabha has in pursuance of clause (c) of sub- section (3) ofSection 4 ofthe Central Silk Board Act, 1948, duly elected Shri K. B. Shanappa, Member, Rajya Sabha, on 14th July, 2009 to serve as a member ofthe Central Silk Board for a period of three years subject to the provisions oftheAct.

1. Nagaland Pulp & Paper Company Ltd. P.O. PaperNagar, Tuli , Mokokchung, Nagaland-798623

[F. No.-25012/ 1 /2008-Silk]

BHUPENDRA SINGH, Jt. Secy.

[F. No. E- 11012/2/2005-Hindi ] M. R. BALI, Under Secy .

उपभोक्ता कार्य एवं लोक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता कार्यविभाग )

( भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली , 8 जुलाई, 2009

का. आ. 1990.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियमन, 1988 के विनियमन 5 के उप - विनियमन (6) के तहत भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो यह अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्नलिखित ब्यौरों वाले लाइसेन्स उनके आगे दी गई तारीखों से रद्द किए जाते हैं ।

अनुसूची

समयबाधित तारीख

समयबाधित लाइसेंस द्वारा आवृत्त वस्तु/प्रक्रिया

लाइसेंस वाले का नाम व पता

लाइसेंस सं.

क्रम सं.

के साथ संगत भारतीय मानक

2009-4-08 6899515

यूनीफॉर्म के लिए पॉलीस्टर ब्लेन्ड सूटिंग भामा : 11248 : 1995

मैसर्स कोयम्बत्तूर मुरुगन मिल्स मेटूपालयम रोड , पी.ओ. बॉक्स सं. 7004 , कोयम्बत्तूर -641043

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 13 ]

पी. के. गम्भीर, उप महानिदेशक ( मार्क्स ) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumerAffairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 8th July, 2009

S.O. 1990. In pursuance of sub- regulation (6) of Regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations, 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licence particulars ofwhich are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each. SCHEDULE

Article/Process with relevant

Licence No. Name and Address of the Licensee

Sl . No.

Date of Cancellation

Indian standard covered by the licence cancelled

2009-04-08 6899515

forUniforms , Textiles-Polyester blend suiting

IS: 11248: 1995

M/s.Coimbatore Murugan Mills Mettupalayam Road, P.O. Box No.7004, Coimbatore -641043

[No. CMD/13: 13 ]

P. K. GAMBHIR, Dy . Director General (Marks) 2570 G1/09-2 4316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2000/BRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II SEC. 3( ii)]

नई दिल्ली 8 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 1991.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रন্দালন ) वিनियम, 1908 के नियम के उप - नियन ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो बैंकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :- एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन

स्वीकृत करने की भी करना वक्त

भाण अनु वर्ष क्रम लाइसेंस संख्या संख्या

7 8

9 1. एल -9705285 15-1-2009

2004

कैपेबल ( कृषिक 14543

में रका न. 12/60/8 गाँव मिरजापुर, जिनांग वेड, बल्लभगढ़ , शिला कनीयाधाद , हरियाना

2. एल -9704990

1161

13-1-2009

1998 है. आरसी इस्रोन लि. , 47 कि.मी. , देहली बेडसकेकी हुन जिला इम्बर-124507 झरवाना

3. एल-9705083

4159

2002 14-1-2009

कर भरने के

में. हॉटपीट एवं लि. , कसत म. 1679 पार्टी एम.आई.ई. , बहादुरगढ़ , जिला झज्जर

4. एल-9705184

1982

10086

15-1-2009

की विशिष्टि नरीक्षण

मै . कन् बी -1908 , एन.आई.ई , हरियाणा

5. एल -9705689

2004 16-1-2009

दुवीस की ट्यून , शिकाकार 1239 01

मै . आरसी इस्पात कोण , 47 कि.मी. , बेहसीन जिला इन्धर -124507

6. एल -9707289 29-1-2009

8472

1998 है. अल्टक निधन व ટે , 98/5 , निसान इट, बौि मन्दिर के पीछे , फरीदाबाद -121001 हरियाणा

[ सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 11 ]

पी. के. गम्भीर, उपमहानिदेशक (मुहर )

NewDelhi, the 8th July,2009

S.O. 1991. In pursuance of sub-regulation (3) ofthe regulation 4 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1983, of the Bureau ofIndian Standards , horoby actifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following schedule:

Sl. Licence No. Grant Date

Title ofthe standard

ISNo.

Sec. Year

Part

No.

Name and Address oftheParty

1 2

9 1. L-9705285

2004

14543

15-01-2009 M/s . Namyn Beverages

Pvt. Ltd.

Packagod drinkingwater (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

RakbaNo. 12/60/8 VillageMirjapur,

TigaonRoad, Ballabhgark,

Distt. Faridabad, Haryana 4317 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/3, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1998 2. L-9704990

M/s. Arvee Ispat Udyog

13-01-2009

Steel tubes used for structural purposes

Ltd. , 47Km. , Delhi Rohtak Road,Rohad Byepass, Bahadurgarh 124507 Distt. Jhajjar

2002 3. L-9705083

4159

14-01-2009

Mineral filled sheathod heating elements

M/s . Hottip Heat & ControlsP. Ltd. KhasraNo. 1679, MIE, PartB,Bahadurgarh, Distt.Jhajjar

1962

10086

4. L-9705184 15-01-2009

Moulds for use in tests ofcement and concrete

M/ s , Consal Laboratory Equipments ,B-1908 , M. I. E. , Bahadurgarh , Haryana

2004

5. L-9705689 16-01-2009

1239

Mild Steel tubes , tubulars and other wrought steel fittings

M/s . Arcee Ispat Udyog Ltd. , 47 Km. , Delhi' Rohtak Road, Rohad Byepass , Bahadurgarh- 124507, Distt. Jhajjar

1998 6. L-9707289

94721

29-01-2009

Ponipe-Regeacretένε οι: clear , cold war s

M/ s. Ultra Engg. & Casting Industries, Plot No. 9815 , Nissen Hut, Opp. BankeyBihari Mandir, Distt. Faridabad, Haryana.

[No. CMD/13: 11 ]

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

नई दिल्ली 10 जुलाई, 2009

का.आ. 1992.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खखंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण भीधे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्थाचित हो गए हैं

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानकों की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक

संख्या

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

जुलाई 2008 1.

आई एस 6991: 1985 , आई एस 9644:1980 एवं आई एस 10554: 1983

आई. एस/ आई एस ओ 4090:2001 फोटोग्राफी- चिकित्तीय रेडियोग्राफी कैोट्स/स्क्रीन/फिल्में तथा संपठनीय प्रतिलिपि फिल्म- आयाम और विशिष्टियाँ

अगस्त 2008

आई एस 13450 ( भाग 1 ) : 1994/आई ई सी

पब604-1:1988

आई एस 13450 ( भाग 1 ) : 2008/आई ई सी 60601-1 :2005 चिकित्सीय विद्युत उपस्कर भाग बुनियादी सुरक्षा एवं आवश्यक निष्पादन के लिए सामान्य अपेक्षाएँ ( महला पुनरीक्षण)

इन भारतीय मानकों की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर साह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002, क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेत्रई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयोंः अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर , मुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, चूने तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भः एम एच डी/जी -3.5 ]

राहुल कुमार , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( एम एच डी) 4318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2009/SIRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II-SBC. 3(ii)]

NewDelhi , the 10th July,2009

S.O. 1992. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub-rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the Indian standards, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each.

SCHEME

Sl . No. No. & Year ofthe Indian Standards Established

Date of established

No. and year of Indian Standards, if any, superseded by the new Indian standard

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

July2008

IS6991 :1905 , I8 9644:1980 and 15 10554:1983

1. IS/ISO 4090: 2001 Photography-Medical radiographic cassettes /screens /films and hard -copy imaging films - Dimentions and specifications .

IS13450(Part 1): 1994/IEC Pub

August2008

601-1:198

2. IS 13450(Part 1) : 2008/IEC 60601-1 : 2005 Mindical Electrical Equipment Part 1 General requirements for the basic safety and essential performance (FirstRevision)

Copy of these Standards 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, Banglore ,Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: MHD/G-3.5 ]

RAHUL KUMAR, Scientist - ' F ' & Head (MHD)

नई दिल्ली 14 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 1993.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के निचन ( 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 :-

क्रम सं.

लाइसेंसधारी का नाল দ নল্প

चालूतिथि

लाइसेंस सं. मई2009

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक व संबंधित भारतीय मानक

3021730 5-5-2009 मै. डाइन्द्रमीक केबल्स क्र. लि. ,

7098 ( भाग 2) : 1985

क्रासलिंक्ड पोलिइथिलिन इन्सुलेटेड पीवीसी शीथेड केबल्स

एच 581 ए से इत्र 592 ए, विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक एरिया, जयपुर-302013 , समस्थान

2 .

3022227 8-5-2009 मै. बिम्सन केबल्स प्रा. लि. , जे 1/52-59 , रीको औधोगिक एरिया , शाहजहांपुर , जिला अलवर , राजस्थान

3024029 8-5-2009 मैं. बी के सन्सज्वैलर्स,

7098 ( भाग 1) : 1988 क्रासलिंक्ड पोलिइथिलिन इन्सुलेटेड पीवीसी शीथेड केबल्स 1417:1999

3022328 11-5-2009

गोल प्याउ, नया बाजार , अजमेर -305001 , राजस्थान मैं चेतन उद्योग,

हॉल मार्किंग ऑफ गोल्ड ज्वैलरी 694: 1990

पीवीसी इन्सुलेटेड केबल्स

जयपुर 302013 , राजस्थान जे 513 , रोड नं 9 ए, विश्वकर्मा औद्योगिक एरिया ,

3022429 11-5-2009 मैं. बजरंग वायर प्रोडक्टस ( इ ) प्रा. लि. ,

398 ( भाग 2) : 1996 एसीएसआर

यूनिट-2 , प्लाट नं. 15-28 , जकेका डूंगर (औद्योगिक वार्क) जयपुर -302013 , राजस्थान

3023835 14-5-2009

2547 ( भाग 1 ) : 1976 जिप्सम बिल्डिंग प्लास्टर

मैं. काया माया इण्डस्ट्रीज , जे 1/322 , आईजीसी जारा , बीकानेर-334601 , राजस्थान 4319

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(i) ]

7. 302393614-5-2009

मैं. दिनेश इरिमेशन प्रा. लि.

3024736 14-5-2009

458 :2003

मैं. पाईप इण्डस्ट्रीज , एनएच नं. 8 , ग्राम बडपाल , डूंगरपुर, राजस्थान 'प्रीकास्ट कंक्रीट पाईप्स ( रौइन्फोर्समेन्ट सहित व बिना)

12818:1992

T अनप्लास्क्सिाइड पीवीसी स्क्रीन एवं कॉस्टिंग पाईप्स फार बोर/ट्यूबवेल

86:बी 1 , झोटवाडा औद्योगिक एरिया, जयपुर-302012

राजस्थान

18-5-2009

3024938

10. 3025334 19-5-2009 मैं. आदित्य सीमेंट यूनिट II , (ग्रासिम इण्डस्ट्रीज लि. की इकाई) आदित्यपुरम-312622 चित्तौड़‌ङ्गड, राजस्थान

14543:2004 पेकेज्ड ड्रिंकिंग वाटर

मैं. स्काई इटरनेशनल , गुलाब विहार, सेक्टर 6 , प्रताप नगर, श्योपुर रोड, सांगानेर , जयपुर-302033 राजस्थान

8112 : 1989 43ग्रेड, ओ. पी. सी.

[सं. सी एम डी/13 : 11 ] कमी. के. गम्भीर, उपमहानिदेशक ( मुहर )

New Delhi, the 14th July, 2009

S.O. 1993. In pursuance of sub- regulation (5) ofthe regulation 4 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards, hereby notifies the grant of licence particulars ofwhich are given in the following schedules :

SCHEDULE

Name and Address of the Licensee

Sl . No. Licence No. Operative Date MAY2009

(CM/L)

5-5-2009

3021730

M/s. Dynamic Cables Pvt . Ltd. H-581 (A) to H - 592 (A) V.K.I. Area, Jaipur-302013 Rajasthan

8-5-2009

3022227

8-5-2009

3024029

M/s. B. K. Sons Jewellers Gol Pyao, Naya Bazar Ajmer-305001. Rajasthan

11-5-2009

3622328

11-5-2009

3022429

14-5-2009

3023835

14-5-2009

3023936

14-5-2009

3024736

18-5-2009

3024938

19-5-2009

3025334

10.

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

7098(Part 2): 1985

Crosslinked Polyethylene Insulated PVC Sheathed Cables 7098 (Part 1) : 1988

M/s. Brimson Cables Private Limited G-1/52-59, RIICO Industrial Area Shahjahanpur Distt. Alwar Rajasthan

Crosslinked Polyethylene Insulated PVC Sheathed Cables 1417: 1999

Hallmarking of Gold Jewellery

694:1990

PVC Insulated Cables

G-513, RoadNo. 9A Vishwa Karma Industrial Area, Jaipur -302013 Rajasthan M/s. Chetan Udyog

398(Part2): 1996 ACSR

M/s.Bajrang Wire Products ( I ) Pvt . Ltd. Unit- II Plot No. 15-28 , Akera Dungar [Industrial Park] Jaipur-302013 Rajasthan

2547 (Part 1): 1976 GypsumBuilding Plaster

M/s . Kaya Maya Industries.. G- 1/322, 1.G.C. Khara Bikaner -334601 Rajasthan

458:2003

Precast Concrete Pipes (With & without Reinforcement)

M/s. Pipe Industries N. H. No. 8 , Village Vadapal Dungarpur Rajasthan

12818: 1992

M/s. Dinesh Irrigation Private Limited 86 B II , Jhotwara Industrial Area Jaipur-302012 Rajasthan

Unplasticized PVC Screen & CasingPipesfor Bore/Tubewell 14543:2004

Packaged Drinking Water

M/s. Sky International Gulab Vihar, Sector-6 Pratap Nagar , Sheopur Road Sanganer Jaipur- 302033 Rajasthan

8112:1989 43GradeDPC

M/s. Aditya Cement -Unit H (AUnit ofGrasim Industries Limited) Adityapuram- 312622 Chittorgarh Rajasthan

[No. CMD/13: 11 ] P. K. GAMBHIR, Dy. Director General (Marks ) 4320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : ARLY 25,2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART HSBC, 3( ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 15 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 1994.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के निथन 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अधि- सूचित किया जाता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे रद्द कर दिए गए हैं और वापस ले लिये गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं. रद्द किये गये मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(2)

(1)

1. आई एस 2646 : 1986 ऑटोमेबॉइल जनरेटर (डायनामोस ) की विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण) 2. आई एस 5977 : 1981 ऑटोमेबॉइल डी सी मेर (डायनामोस ) के रेगुलेटर ( पहला पुनरीक्षण) 3. आई एस 7528 : 1974 ऑटोमेबॉइल हेतु पोर्सीलीन (मॉल्डिड ) फयूज लिंक्स की विशिष्टि

4. आई एस 4384 : 1967 इस्पात के जल सह एवं मौसम-सह दस्वाजों की विशिष्टि

5. आई एस 10548 : 1983 अग्नि नियंत्रण एवं जीवन बचाव उपकरण की योजनाएं-प्रतीक

6. आई एस 13915 : 1994 पोत निर्माण जहाजों के स्टील के मौसम-सह दरवाजे विशिष्टि 7. आई एस 10289 : 1982 मोपेड के बैंक नियंत्रण लीवरों की विशिष्टि

8 आई एस 10841 : 1984 स्कूटर एवं मोटर साईकिल के फ्रंट ब्रेक कंट्रोल लीवर की विशिष्टि 9. आई एस 13493 : 1992 ऑटोमोटिव व्हीकल- दुपहिए- ब्रेक लीवर सामर्थ्य अपेक्षाओं के मूल्याकंन की पद्धति

10. आई एस 3404 : 1979 स्त्रियों के लिए साईकिल के फ्रेम- विशिष्टि

टिप्पणी

भारत के राजपत्र भाग म, डि 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में का.आ. संख्या और

(3)

(4)

मानक प्रयोग में नहीं लाया जा रहा है ।

वही

1 वही

वर्गीकरण सोसाईटियों के साथ-साथ भारतीय नौ सेना के इस विक्रय पर अपने नियम हैं जो इससे संबंधित सबके द्वारा माने जाते हैं और भारतीय मानक का प्रयोग कम हो रहा है ।

इस मानक का कम प्रयोग हो रहा है क्योंकि इस मानक में जो विषय रखा गया है वह IMO से संबंधित है जो सबके द्वारा सीधा प्रयोग किया जाता है ।

वर्गीकरण सोसाईटियों के साथ- साथ भारतीय नौ सेना के इस विषय पर अपने नियम हैं जो इससे संबंधित सबके द्वारा माने जाते हैं और भास्तीय मानक का प्रयोग कम हो रहा है ।

आई एस 15783 : 2008 के

द्वारा अतिक्रमण

-वही-

समामेलन

आई एस 623 : 2008 इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक वन , राजकर मार्ग, नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली,, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़, बेवई , मुम्बई तथा शाकार को काटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर, पटना , पूजें तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में मिश्री के प

[संदर्भ: टी ई डी/जी-16 ] टी. वी. सिंह , वैज्ञानिक ई एवं प्रमुख (टी ई डी) 4321

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रवण 3 ; 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड़ 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2009

S.O. 1994. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, it is hereby notified that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule give hereafter, have been cancelled and stand withdrawn.

Sl . No. No. and Year ofthe Indian Standards Cancelled

(2)

(1)

1. IS 2646: 1986 Specification for generators (dynamos) for automobiles ( first revision) 2. IS 5977: 1981 Regulators for automobilede generators (dynamos) (first revision) 3. IS7528: 1974 Specification for porcelain (moulded) fuse links for automobiles 4. IS4384: 1967 Specification for steelwater tight andweather tight doors

IS 10548 : 1983 Plans for fire control and life saving equipment-Symbols

6. IS 13915 : 1994 Shipbuilding-Ships ' steel weather tight doors-Specification 7.

IS10289: 1982Specification for brake control levers for mopeds

8. IS10841: 1984 Specification for front brake control lever for scooters and motorcycles 9. IS 13493 : 1992 Automotive vehicles-Two wheelers Method of evaluation ofbrake lever strength requirements

10. IS3404: 1979 Specification for ladies bicycle frames (first revision)

SCHEDULE

Remarks

S.O. No. and Date published in the Gazette ofIndia, Part - II , Section-3 , Sub-section (ii)

(4)

(3)

Standard is not in use .

-do-

Classification societies as well as Indian Navy have their own rules on the subject which are followed by all concerned and Indian Standard is finding little use.

This standard is finding little use as matter covered in this standard pertainsto IMO resolutions which are directly followed by all concerned.

Classification societies as well as Indian Navy have their own rules on the subject which are followed byall concerned and Indian Standard is finding little use.

Supersededby IS15783:2006-

-do-

Amalgamated with IS623:2008

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9 , Bahadur Shah ZafarMarg, 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: TED/G-16] T. V. SINGH, Scientist- 'E' & Head (Transport Engg.) 4322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 17 जुलाई, 2009

का.आ. 1995.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियन ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों) में संतोक्न किया गय/किये गये है :-

क्रम सं.

संशोबन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक( कों) की संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 आई एस 651 : 2007

1, जून2009

13-07-2009

2 आई एस 13983 : 1994

3, जून2009

13-07-2009

इन संशोधनों की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों अहमदाबाद , मंगलौर , भोपाल , भुबनेश्वर , 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 )

NewDelhi , the 17th July,2009

S.O. 1995. In pursuance ofclause (b ) of sub-rule ( 1 ) ofRule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl .No. No. & Year of the Indian Standard

No.&Yearof

the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 IS 651 : 2007

1, June2009

13July2009

2 IS 13983 : 1994

3, June2009

13 July2009

Copy of these amendments are 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. )

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 1996. केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि, इससे उयाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस क्षेत्र में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है । 4323 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25 , 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक सं. एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी )/भूमि/334 तारीख 22 दिसम्बर , 2008 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक, 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता 700001 के कार्यालय में या साऊथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) , सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर- 495006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

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

अनुसूची

करताली ब्लाक , अंबिका ओसी. , कोरबा क्षेत्र

जिला-कोरबा ( छत्तीसगढ़ )

रेखांक संख्या - एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी ) /भूमि /334 तारीख 22 दिसम्बर , 2008 ( पूर्वेक्षण के लिए अधिसूचना भूमि दर्शाते हुए ):-

ग्राम

तहसील जिला

टिप्पण क्रम सं

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

पटवारी हल्का नम्बर

ग्राम नम्बर

करताली

कोरबा

पाली

138.614

भाग 2.

1.125

पाली

कोरबा

भाग तेन्दूभाठा

दमियों

पाली

कोरबा

5.261

भाग

कुल क्षेत्रफल: 145,000 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 358,29 एकड़ ( लगभग )

सीमा वर्णन:-

क-ख रेखा ग्राम दमियों के पश्चिमी सीमा में " क " बिन्दु से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम दमियों और तेन्दूभाठा से होती हुई ग्राम तेन्दूभाठा- करताली के सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख- ग - घ- ड़ रेखा ग्राम करताली के मध्य और दक्षिणी भाग से होती हुई ग्राम करताली गणेशपुर के सम्मिलित सीमा में " ड. " बिन्दु पर मिलती है ।

ड - च रेखा ग्राम करताली से होती हुई ग्राम तेन्दूभाठा -करताली के सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है ।

च -छ रेखा ग्राम तेन्दुभाठा और दमियों से होती हुई ग्राम दमियों के पश्चिमी सीमा में बिन्दु " छ " पर मिलती है ।

छ-क रेखा ग्राम दमियों के पश्चिमी सीमा से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/ 10/2009- पी.आर.आई.डब्ल्यू-1 ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2009

S.O. 1996.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed;

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

TheplanbearingNumber : SECL/BSP/GM (Plg ) / Land/334 dated 22nd December, 2008 of the area coveredby this notification can be inspected in the Office ofthe Collector, Korba (CG) or in the Office ofthe Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata -700001 or in the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields Limited (Revenue Section ), Seepat Road, Bilaspur-495006 (Chhattisgarh).

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

2570G1/09-3 4324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 25, 2009/SRAΜΑΝΑ 3 , 1931

[PART II SBC. 3(ii)] Kartali Block, Amblin OC, Kerbe Area

Dist-Kortin(OC)

PlanNo. SECL/BSP/GM (Pig)/Land/334 dated 22nd December , 2008 ( Showing the land notified for prospecting) :-

Til

District

Remarks Village

St. No.

V N

Area in Hectares

Patawari Number

Kartali

Korbe

130.614 Part 2.

Tendubhatha 10

Part

Korba

1.125

Pall

Korbe

5.261

Part Damiya

TotalArea: 146.000 hectares (approximately) BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION :-

A-B Line starts from point "A" on the western boundary of village Damiya and passes through the villages Damiya and Tendubhatha and mests at point "T" on the commnon boundary of villages Tendubhatha- Kartali.

B-C-D-E Linepasses in the middle and southers part of village Kartuli and meets at point " E" on the common boundary of villages Kartuli-Ganeshpur .

E-F Line passes through village Kartali and mosts at point "F" on the communmon boundary of villages Tendubhathe-Kartali .

F-G Line passes through village Tondudhaths & Duniya anil meets at point "G" on the western boundary of villageDatsiya.

K-A Linepasses along the western boundary of villinge Duniya and meets at stuting point "A".

[F.No.43015/10/2009-PRIW-1] M. SHAHABUDEEN,Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 15 जुलाई, 2009

का.आ. 1997.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतीत होता है किसी में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है ;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सस्कर गरारक्षेत्र अभिमन , 1957 ( 1957 कर 29 ) ( किसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उप- कारा ( 1 ) द्वाप्रो करते हुए उस क्षेत्र में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले रेखांक सं. सी-1 ( ई ) 782-0409 तारीक 18 अप्रैल , 2009 का निरीक्षण वेस्टर्न कोलफीड्स लिमिटेड (राजस्व अनुभाग ) , कोल इस्टेट, मिसर-445801 ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में वा मुख्य महाप्रबंधक (अन्वेषण प्रभाग ) , बोन्द्रीय खान, बोजा और তिকাল পাল , ভারी ( शरांड ) के कार्यालय में या कोक्ला नियंत्रक , 1 , काऊंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट, केमेंट्रेटनपुर ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आनेवाली भूमि में विस सभी व्यपि अधिनियम की मारा 13 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चार्टी और अग्भाओं को इस अधिसूचना की सारी से नये दिनों के भीतर , महाप्रबंधक , वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , उमरेर क्षेत्र, फॉस्ट उमरेर मरिच उमरेर जिल्ला नागपुर- 441 204 ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय या मुख्य [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का सजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/श्रावण 3 , 1931

4325 खनन इंजीनियर ( भू/रा ) , वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , राजस्व विभाग , कोल इस्टेट , सिविल लाईन्स, ऋणपुर 440001 (महाराष्ट्र) को भेजेंगें ।

अनुसूची

दिनेश ओपनकास्ट ( मकरमीकरा माई उमरेर क्षेत्र

जिला-नागपुर ( महाराष्ट्र)

(रेखांक संख्या- सी-1 ( ई ) III /एफयूआर/782-0409, तारीख 18 अप्रैल, 2009)

पटवारी

तहसील क्रम सं.

ग्राम का नाम

सर्कल संख्या

मकरधोकरा

उमरेड 2

उमरेड सुकली

बोपेश्वर

उमरेड 4.

हेवटी

उमरेड कटारा

उमरेड 6.

दहेगांव

उमरेड 7.

सायकी

उमरेड सीमा वर्णन:-

क- ख

जिला

टिप्पण

वीत्रफल हेक्टर

647.90

भाग

नागपुर

457.12

भाग

नागपुर

भाग

213.17

नागपुर

211.72

भाग

नागपुर

भाग

46.88

नागपुर

37.35

भाग

नागपुर

भाग

10.52

नागपुर

कुल क्षेत्रफल:- 1624.66 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या4014.54 एकड़ (लगभग) रेखा ग्राम सायकी और ग्राम सुकली की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर ' क' बिन्दु से भारंभ होती है और ग्राम सुकली से होती हुई आक्रम सुकली तथा ग्राम हेवटी की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा में बिन्दु ' ख' पर मिलती है ।

ख - गृ रेखा ग्राम हेवटी से गुजरती हुई ग्राम हेवटी तथा ग्राम बोमेश्वर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है । ग - घ रेखा ग्राम बोपेश्वर से गुजरती हुई ग्राम बोपेश्वर तथा ग्राम कटरा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु ' अ' पर मिलती है । घ- ड. रेखा ग्राम कटरा से गुजरती हुई ग्राम कटारा तथा ग्राम बोमेश्वर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पार करती है और ग्राम बोपेश्वर से गुजरती हुई ग्राम बोपेश्वर तथा ग्राम मकरधोकरा की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु " ड " पर मिलती है ।

ड. -चः रेखा ग्राम मकरधोकरा से गुजरती हुई ग्राम मकस्थौकरा तथा ग्राम दहेगांव की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है । च-छः रेखा ग्राम देहगांव से गुजरती हुई ग्राम दहेगांव तथा ग्राम सायली की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीता पर बिन्दु " छ " पर मिलती है । छ -कः रेखा ग्राम सायकी से गुजरती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/4/2009-सी.आर.आई.डब्ल्यू-1 ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

NewDelhi, the 15th July,2009

S.O. 1997. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that Coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed ;

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

Theplanbearing number : C- 1 (E) II/FUR/782-0409 dated the 18thApril, 2009 ofthe area coveredby this notification canbe inspected in the office ofthe Western Coalfields Limited (Revenue Department) , Coal Estate, Civil Liines,Nagpur- 440 001 (Maharashtra) or at the office of the ChiefGeneral Manager (Exploration Division ), Central Mine Plansing and Design Institute, Gondwana Place , Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata or at the office ofthe District Collector, Nagpur (Maharashtra).

Allpersons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all maps, charts and other documents referredtoin sub-section (7) ofSection 13 ofthe said Act to the office ofthe General Manager , Western Coalfields Limited, Umrer Area, Post: Umrer Project, District Umrer, Tahsil Nagpur -441 204 (MS) ofChiefMining Engineer (L/R), Western 4326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2009/ SRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II-SEC .3 (ii)] Coalfields Limited , Revenue Department, Coal Estate , Civil Lines , Nagpur 440001 ( Maharashtra ) within ninety days from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette.

SCHEDULE

Dinesh Opencast (Makardhokra III) Mine UmrerArea

District- Nagpur (Maharashtra)

(Planbearing number C- 1 (E) III/FUR/ 782-0409 dated 18thApril, 2009)

Tahsil Sl. No.

Patwari circle number

Name of Village

Umrer Makardhokra 17

Sukali

Umrer 3.

Umrer Bopeshwar 17

Umrer Hewati

Katara

Umrer 6.

Umrer Dahegaon

Umrer Sayaki

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION : -

A-B

District

Remarks

Areain Hectares

647.90

Part

Nagpur

457.12

Part

Nagpur

213.17

Part

Nagpur

211.72

Part

Nagpur

Part

46.88

Nagpur

37.35

Part

Nagpur

10.52

Part

Nagpur

Total Area:- 1624.66hectares( approximately) or4014.54acres( approximately)

Line starts from point ' A' on common village boundary at villages Sayaki and Sukali and passes through the village Sukali and meets at point "B " on the common village boundary of villages Sukali and Hewati .

B-C Line passes through village Hewati and meets at Point ' C' on cosmon village boundary of villages Hewati andBopeshwar.

C-D Line passes through village Bopeshwar and meets at point ' D' on the common village boundary at villages Bopeshwar and Katara .

D-E Line passes through village Katara and crosses common village boundary of villages Katara and Bopeshwar then line passes through village Bopeshwar and meets at the Point ' E' on common village boundary of villages Bopeshwar and Makardhokra.

E-F Line passes through village Makardhokra and mests at Point ' F ' on common village boundary of villages Makardhokra and Dahegaon .

F-G Line passes through village Dahegaon and meets at point ' G' on common village boundary of villages Dahegaon and Sayaki .

G-A Line passes through village Sayaki and meets at starting point "A" .

[F. No. 43015/4/2009- PRIW -I ] M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 16 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 1998. - केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि, इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किए जाने की संभावना है ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्तअधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वास प्रदत्त सपितों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस क्षेत्र भूमि में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आनेवाले रेखांक सं. ईसीएल/आरजेएमएल/मौजा/नोटि/ 10 तारीख 30-11-2008 , का निरीक्षण उपायुक्त, जिला गोड्‌डा ( झारखण्ड ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता 700001 के कार्यालय में या निदेशक तकनीकी ( प्रचालन , ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सांकटोरिया , डाकबर - दिशेरगढ़ जिला बर्द्धमान ( प. बंगाल ) पिन कोड 713333 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता । 4327 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 25 , 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चारों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे (90 ) दिन के भीतर , निदेशक तकनीकी (प्रचालन ) , ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड, सांकटोरिया , डाकघर- दिसेरगढ़ , जिला बर्द्धवान (प. बंगाल ) पिन कोड - 713333 को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

ललमटिया कोयला खनन ब्लाक

जिला-गोड्डा , झारखंड

रेखांक संख्या- ईसीएल/आरजेएलएम /मौजा/नोटि/ 10 तारीख 30-11-2008

टिप्पण

जिला

ग्राम सं.

मौजा/ग्राम

थाना

क्रम सं.

एकड़ मेंक्षेत्र लगभग

हेक्टर में क्षेत्र लगभग

भाग

20.380

50.360

ललमटिया 17

छोटा भोड़ाय

गोड्डा

50.360

कुल क्षेत्रफल 20.380

कोयला. धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 के अधीन अधिसूचित किए जाने वाले क्षेत्र का सीमा विवरण सीमा विवरण ( का से क6 )

1 -क 2 रेखा ललमटिया थाना , जिला गोड्‌डा ( झारखण्ड ) के छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 , बड़ा भोड़ाय सं. 18 और पहाड़पुर सं. 32 मौजा के त्रि- संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु क 1 से प्रारंभ होकर छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 और बड़ा भोड़ाय सं. 18 की सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई मौजा छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 तथा बड़ा भोड़ाय सं. 18 के त्रि- संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु क 2 पर मिलती है । क2- क3 रेखा मौजा- छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 और बड़ा भोड़ाय सं. 18 की सम्मिलित सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क-2 से प्रारंभ होकर छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 के प्लाट सं. 14 की उत्तरी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क-3 पर मिलती है ।

क3 -क4 रेखा छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 के प्लॉट सं. 14 की उत्तरी सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क-3 से प्रारंभ होकर छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 प्लॉट सं. 16 ,.

15 , 20, 24, 44, 42 , 183 , 79 , की उत्तरी सीमा से होती हुई जाती है और प्लॉट सं. 33 , 35 की उत्तरी पश्चिमी सीमा से होते हुए रोड सं. 161 को पार करती है तथा पुनः प्लॉट सं. 107 , 108 की पश्चिमी सीमा और प्लॉट सं. 18 की उत्तरी सीमा , प्लॉट सं. 109 की पश्चिमी सीमा , प्लॉट सं. 109 , 178 , 102, 155 , 156 , 160 की उत्तरी सीमा से होते हुए छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 तथा बड़ा भोड़ाय सं. 18 की सम्मिलित सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क -4 पर मिलती है ।

क4 - कऽ रेखा छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 और बड़ा भोड़ाय सं. 18 की सम्मिलित सीमा पर स्थित बिन्दु क 4 से प्रारंभ होकर , छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 तथा बड़ा भोड़ाय की सम्मिलित सीमा भोड़ाय से गुजरते हुए छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 , बड़ा भोड़ाप सं. 18 और केशगडिया सं. 20 मौजा के त्रि- संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु क 5 पर मिलती है।-

क5 - क6 रेखा छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 , बड़ा भोड़ाय सं. 18 और केशगडिया सं. 20 मौजा के त्रि- संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु क 5 से प्रांरभ होकर छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 तथा केशगडिया सं. 20 की साझा सीमा से होते हुए छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 , केशगडिया सं. 20 पहाड़पुर सं. 32 के त्रि- संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु क 6 पर मिलती है ।

क6 - का रेखा छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 , केशगडिया सं. 20 , पहाड़पुर सं. 32 के त्रि - संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु क 6 से होकर छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 तथा पहाड़पुर सं. 32 की सम्मिलित सीमा से होते हुए छोटा भोड़ाय सं. 17 , पहाड़पुर सं. 32 तथा छोटा भोड़ाय. सं. 18 के त्रि- संधि स्तंभ पर स्थित बिन्दु क 1 पर मिलती है ।

[सं. 43015/2/2009- पी आर आई डब्ल्यू-1 ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 16th July, 2009

S.O. 1998. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is Jikely to be obtained from the lands mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed .

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

The plan bearing No. ECL/RJML/ MOUZA/NOTI/ 10 dated 30-11-2008 of the areas covered by this notification may be inspected in the office of the Deputy Commissioner, District Godda ( Jharkhand) , or in the office of the Coal 4328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JJULY 25, 200 /SRAMANA 3, 1931

[PART I-Sec. 3(ii) ] controller, 1Council House Street, Kotkata- 700 001 or in the office ofthe Director Technical (Operation) Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria, P. O. Dishergarh, Dist.-Burdwan (West Bengal), Pin Code- 713333.

All persons interested in the land covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred in sub- section (7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the Director Technical (Operation) Eastern Coalfields Limited, Sanctoria , P. O. Dishergarh, Dist.- Burdwan (West Bengal), Pin Code- 713 333 ; within ninety (90) days from the date of publication of this notification in the OfficialGazette.

SOHIDULE

Lalmatia Cool MiningBlock

District Godda, hakhand

Plannumber ECL/RJML/MOUZA/NOTI/ 10 dated 30-11-200€

Thana

Area in

Remarks Village District Number

Sl No.

Mouza/ Village

Area in Acres approximately

Hectares approximately

Lalmatia

1. Chota Bhorai

50.360

Godde

20.300

Part

20.300

50.360

Total(Aren)

Boundary Description of the area to be notified under Section 4 (1) of the CBA (A&D) Act, 1957)

Boundary Description (A1 toA6)

A1-A2 Line starts from point Al at tri-junction pillar ofChhota Bhosai No.17, Bara Bhorai No. 18 and Paharpur No. 32 of PS Lalmatia Dist . Godda ( Jharkhand) and passes through the common boundary of Chhota Bhorai No. 17 and Bara Bhorai No. 18 and meets at the point A2 on Commmen boundary ofMouza Chhota Bhorai No. 17 and Bara Bhorai No. 18.

A2-A3 Line starts from point A2 on the common boundary of Mouza Chhota Bhorai No. 17 and passes through the western boundary of plot No. 14 and meets at point A3 en northern boundary of Plot No. 14 Chhota Bhorai No. 17.

A3-A4 Line starts from point A3 on northern boundary ofPlot No. 14 Chhota Bherai No. 17. and passes through the northern boundary ofplot No. 16, 15, 20, 24,44,42, 41, 163,79western and northon boundary ofPlot No. 33 , 35 crosses the road on plot 161 , again passes through western boundary ofplot No. 107, 108 northern boundary ofPlot No. 108; western boundary ofplot No. 109; navthoes boundary ofPlot No. 109, 178, 102, 155 , 156, 160 and meets at the point A4 on Commen boundary of Chhota Bherai No. 17 and Bara Dhorai No.18.

A4-A5 Line starts from pointA4 on the common boundary of Chhota Bhorai No. 17 and Bara Dhorni No. 18.and passes through the common mouza boundary of Bara Bhomi No. 18 Chhota Bhorai No. 17 meets at point A5 on tri- junction pillar of Chhota Bhorai No. 17, Bara Bherai No. 18 and KeshgariaNo.20.

A5-A6 Line starts from point A5 at tri -junction pillar ofChhota Bhorai No.17 , Bara Bhorai No. 18 and Keshgaria No. 20 passes through the common mouza boundary of Chhota Bhorai No. 17 and Keshgaria No. 20 ; and meets at point A6 on tri -junction pillar of Chhota Bhorai No. 17, Paharpur No. 32 and KeshgariaNo.20.

A6-A1 Line starts from point A6 on the tri -junction pillar of Mouza Chhote Bhorai No.17 , Paharpur No. 32 and Keshgaria No. 20 passes through the common Mouza boundary ofChhota Bhorai No. 17 and Paharpur No. 32 meets at the point Al on tri -junction pillar of Mouza Chhota Bhorai No. 17, Bara Bhorai No. 18 and Paharpur No. 32.

[No. 43015/2/2009 -PRIW- I ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 16 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 1999. केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्त किये जाने की संभावना है;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत समिक्षकों का प्रथोन करते हुए , उस भूमि में कोबले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है । [भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

4329

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3, 1931

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले रेखांक सं: राजस्व/59/09 तारीख 25 अप्रैल , 2009 का निरीक्षण मुख्म महा प्रबन्धक , दुधीचुआ परियोजना पोस्टः खड़ियां जिलाः सोनभद्र (उत्तर प्रदेश ) के कार्यालय में या मुख्म महाप्रबन्धक ( विदोहर डिवीजन ) , सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग और डिजाइन इंस्टिट्यूट , गोंडवाना प्लेस , कांके रोड , रांची या कोयला नियंत्रक 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट, कोलकाता के कार्यालय में या कलेक्टर सिंगरौली ( मध्य प्रदेश ) के कार्यालय में या नार्दर्न कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड, सिंगरौली ( मध्य प्रदेश ) के मुख्यालय में किया जा सकता है । इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाली भूमि में, हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 13 की उपधारा ( 7 ) में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों, चाटों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से नब्बे दिनों के भीतर भारसाधक अधिकारी/विभागाध्यक्ष (राजस्व) नार्दर्न कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड , सिंगरौली को भेजेगें ।

अनुसूची

दुधीचुआ ब्लाक विस्तार II ( कोल माईनिंग ब्लाक ) नार्दर्न कोलफील्डस लिमिटेड, सिंगरौली , जिला सिंगरौली ( मध्य प्रदेश )

जिला

थाना सं. ग्राम सं.

क्रम ग्राम सं

मोरवा

131

सिंगरौली मेढौली

2 पंजरेह

सिंगरौली

140

मोरवा

सिंगरौली चटका

मोरवा 135

137

मोरवा

सिंगरौली झिगुरदा

योग सीमा वर्णन

क-ख

टिप्पन क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

क्षेत्रफल एकड़ में

214.98

भाग 87.001

भाग

202.62

81.999

86.50

35.006

भाग

7.40

भाग 2.994

207.00 लगभम

511.50 लगभम

रेखा बिन्दु " क " से आरम्भ होती है , और ग्राम मेढ़ौली से होकर जाती है तथा बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग रेखा बिन्दु " ख " से आरम्भ होती है , और ग्राम मेढ़ौली से होकर जाती है तथ्था बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती है ।

ग-घ रेखा बिन्दु" ग " से आरम्भ होती है , और ग्राम मेहौली से होकर जाती है तथा ग्राम मेढ़ौली और ग्राम चटका की सम्मिलित सीमा क्रे बिन्दु" घ " पर मिलती है ।

घ-ड रेखा बिन्दु" घ " से आरम्भ होती है , तथा ग्राम मेढ़ौली और ग्राम चटका की सम्मिलित सीमा , तथा ग्राम करवारी और ग्राम चटका की सम्मिलित सीमा तथा गग्राम करवारी और माम झिगुरदा की सम्मिलित सीमा से होकर जाती है और बिन्दु " ड " पर मिलती है । ड-च रेखा बिन्दु" ड " से आरम्भ होती है , तथा ग्राम झिमुरदा और ग्राम चटका से होकर जाती है और ग्राम चटका के बिन्दु " च " पर मिलती है ।

च-छ रेखा बिन्दु " च " से आरम्भ होती है , तथा ग्राम चटका और ग्राम पंजरेह से होकर जाती है तथा ग्राम पंजरेह के बिन्दु " छ" पर मिलती है ।

छ -ज रेखा बिन्दु " छ " से आरम्भ होती है तथा ग्राम पंजरेह से होकर जाती है तथा बिन्दु " ज " पर मिलती है ।

ज-क रेखा बिन्दु " ज " से आरम्भ होती है तथा ग्राम पंजरेह और गाम मेढ़ौली से होकर जाती है और ग्राम मेढ़ौली के आरम्भिक बिन्दु "क" पर मिलती है ।

[फा. खं 43015/15/2009- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू ! ]

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 16th July, 2009

S.O. 1999. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the Schedule hereto annexed.

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

4330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] Theplan bearing number Rev./59/09 dated the 25th April , 2009 ofthe area covered by this notification can be inspected in the office of the Chief General Manager, Dudhicue Project , Post : Khadia Dist: Sonebhadra (UP) or at the office ofthe Chief General Manager (Exploration Division) , Central Mine Planning & Design Institute , Godwana Place , Kanke Road Ranchi or at the office ofthe Coal Controller, 1 Council House Street, Kolkata or at the office of the District Collector, Singrauli ( Madhya Pradesh) or at the Head quarters of M/s . Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli (Madhya Pradesh) .

All persons interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred in sub- section ( 7) of section 13 of the said Act to the Officer in Charge/Head of Department (Revenue) , Northern Coalfields Limited , Singrauli within ninety days from the date of the publication of this notification in the OfficialGazette ..

SCHEDULE

Dudhichua Block Extn . - II ( Coal Mining Block)

Northern Coalfields Limited, Singrauli

District Singrauli (Madhya Pradesh)

(Planbearing number Rev./59/09 dated the 25th April , 2009)

Thana

District Area in hectares

Remarks

Area in acres

Village Number

Sl . No.

Mouza/ Village

1. Medhauli

Morwa 131

214.98

Part

Singrauli 87.001

Morwa 140

Part

202.62

2. Panjreh

Singrauli 81.999

3. Chatka

Morwa 135

86.50

Part

Singrauli 35.006

Part

Morwa 137

7.40

Jhingurda

Singrauli 2.994

Total Area

511.50 approximately

207.00 approximately

Boundary Description:

A-B The Line starts from point " A" and passes through villige Medhauli and meets at point "B" .

B-C Line starts from point " B " and passes through village Medhauli and meets at point " С" .

C-D Line starts from point " C " and passes through village Medhauli and meets at common village boundary of Medhauli and Chatka at point " D" .

DE Line starts from point " D" and passes through common village boundary of Medhauli and Chatka, common village boundary of Korwari & Chatka and meets on common village boundary of Korwari and Jhingurda at point"E".

E-F Line starts from point " E " and passes through village Jhingurda and Chatka and meets village Chatka at point "F"

F-G Line starts from point " F " and passes through village Chatka and Panjreh and meets village Panjreh at point "G" .

GH Line starts from point " G " and passes through village Panjreh and meets at point " Н" .

H-A Line starts from point "H " and passes through village Panjreh and Medhauli and meets at starting point " A " .

[File No. 43015/ 15/2009 -PRIW - I ]

M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy .

पेट्रोलियम और प्रकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 16 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2000. सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अनधिकृत कब्जाधारियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्राधिकृत शक्तियों का प्रयोग तथा भारत के गजट में दिनांक 28-12-2007 की का. आ. संख्या 18 के अंतर्गत प्रकाशित पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक 4331

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

गैस मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार की दिनांक 28 दिसम्बर 2007 की अधिसूचना संख्या 25015 /1 /07- ओ आर. 11 में आशिक संशोधन करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार इस अधिसूचना के साथ संलग्न सारणी में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है जो इस प्रकार है:

सारणी

अधिकारी का पद यूनिट/कार्यालय का नाम

क्रम सं

प्रबंधक ( प्रशा. व कल्याण ) गुजरात रिफाइनरी

क्रम

सं.

इंडियन ऑयल कॉपों. लि. गुजरात रिफाइनरी, डाकघरः जवाहर नगर , जिला वडोदरा , गुजरात - 391320 इसके स्थान पर निम्नलिखित को रखा जाएः

वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक ( प्रशा. व कल्याण ) 1. गुजरात रिफाइनरी

इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पो. लि.

गुजरात रिफाइनरी, डाकघरः जवाहर नगर , जिला वडोदा , गुजरात- 391320 सार्वजनिक परिसरों की श्रेणियों तथा स्थानीय क्षेत्राधिकार की क्षेत्र सीमाएं

गुजरात राज्य के अंदर तथा आसपास इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण वाले सार्वजनिक परिसर गुजरात राज्य के अंदर तथा आसपास

इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड के

प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण वाले सार्वजनिक परिसर [फा. सं. आर-25015/ 1/2007- ओ आर -1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

NewDelhi, the 16th July, 2009

S.O. 2000.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction Un - authorized Occupants ) Act 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in partial modification of the notification ofGovernment of India in the Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas No. R- 25015 / 1 /2007 - OR- II dated 28-12-2007 published vide S.O. No. 18 dated 28-12-2007 in the Gazette of India, the Central Government makes the following amendments in the table annexed to this notification as under namely:

TABLE SL. Name ofthe Unit/Office

Categories ofPublic premises and local

Designation of the officer

No.

limits ofjurisdiction

Manager (Administration &

GujaratRefinery

Welfare), Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Gujarat Refinery, PO Jawahar Nagar , Distt Vadodara, Gujarat - 391320 Shall be substituted as under:

SL. Name ofthe Unit/Office

Public Premises under the administrative control of Indian OilCorporation Ltd. , within the StateofGujarat

Designation of the officer

No.

1. GujaratRefinery

Categories ofPublic premises and local limits ofjurisdiction

Sr. Manager (Administration and

Welfare), IndianOil Corporation

Ltd. , Gujarat Refinery, PO Jawahar Nagar , Distt . Vadodara, Gujarat- 391320 2570 G1/09-4

Püblic Premises under the administrative control of Indian OilCorporation Ltd. , within the State ofGujarat

[File No. R-25015/ 1 /2007 -OR - 1 ]

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy .

4332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/ SRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II Sec. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 17 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2001 , तेल उधोग (निस) अधिनियम 1974 ( 1974 का 47) की भास ( 3 ) की उपचात (3 ) के खंड ( ग ) द्वारा प्रदत्त की गई शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्रीय सरल‌ निरों को तेल उधोग विकास बोर्ड के सदस्य के रूप में, उनके नाम के सामने दर्शायी गई अवधि के लिए अनले आनेश जारी होने का सेवानिवृतिक को भी पहले को, पुनर्नियुक्त करती है:-

तक

4-7-200

3-7-2011

1. श्री आर. एस. शर्मा, अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक, तेल एवं प्राकृतिक गैस कामेरेशन लिमिटेड

19-8-2009

18-8-2011

2. श्री अशोक सिन्हा, अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक , भारत पेट्रोलियम कामशिन डि

[सं. जी -35012/2/91 - वित-- II ] एस. सी. दास , अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 17th July, 2000

5.О. 2001.-Іп еxercise of the powers conferred by Clouse ( c) Sub-section (3 ) of Section 3 of the Oil Industry (Development)Act , 1974 (47 of 1974), the Central Government horoby re-appoints the following officers as Members ofthe OilIndustry Development Board for the period shown against their names or until further orders or retirement, whichever isearlier:

Prom

4-7-201

3-7-2011

Shri . R. 9. Sharma, Chairman& Managing Director , Oil& Natural GasCrop: Ltd.

19-6-2009

13-5-2011

Shri . Ashok Sinha, Chairman & Managing Director, Bharat Petroleum Crap. Ltd.

[No. G-35012/2/91 -Fin-IIJ S. C. DAS , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2009

का. आ. 2002.-भगत सरवर ने पेट्रोलियम और नई भूमि में जो के अधिकार बम अर्जन अधिनियम, 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 2 के ( क) के अनमें भरके पेट्रोल और गैस की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 503 तारीख 8-3-2008 द्वारा श्रीप्रदेश में मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सपनाने के लिए निमुक्त किया था ।

और उक्त श्री ज्ञाम प्रकाश अपनी 31 जुलाई 2009 को सेनाले रहे हैं और श्री भगवत सागर ओझा, विशेष भूमि अध्याप्ति अधिकारी को उनके पद पर नियुक्त किया गया है ।

1 ) में वर्णित व्यक्ति अतः अब, भारत सरकार उपअधिनियम की धाल 2 के खंड ( क) के अनुकरण में और भारत सरकमर के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. कर आ 503 तारीखा 8-3-2896 को करते हुए , नीचे दी गई अनुसूची को स्तंभ ( 4333

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25 , 2009/ श्रावमा 3, 1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

को उक्त मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाईन बिछाने के लिए निम्मलिखित अनुसूची के साँध (2 ) में वर्मित क्षेत्र में जगत चिनियस के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त करती है ।

अनुसूची

अधिकारिता बन क्षेत्र

व्यक्ति का नाम और पत्ता

(2)

(1)

सम्पूर्ण उत्तर प्रदेश शब्य

श्री भगवत सागर ओझा,

विशेष भूमि अध्याप्ति अधिकारी ,

मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया) लिमिटेड में प्रतिनियुक्ति पर ,

गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड,

जी.टी.आई. , पी.ए. आर. सी. बिल्डिंग ,

प्लाट नं. 24, सैक्टर -16 ए,

नोएडा-201301 , जिला गौतमबुद्ध नगर, उत्तर प्रदेश

[का. सं. एल-14014/2/08-जी.पी . ]

के. के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S.O. 2002.-Whereas , in pursuance of clause (a) of Section 2 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Government of India vide Notification in the Ministry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas S.O. 503 dated 8th March , 2008 appointed Shri Gyan Prakash Awasthi, Additional District Magistrate to perform the functions ofthe Competent Authority under the said Act for laying ofpipeline by M/S. GAIL (India) Ltd. in the State of Uttar Pradesh .

And, whereas, Shri Gyan Prakash Awasthi is superannuating on 31st July, 2009 and Shri Bhagwat Sagar Ojha has been posted as his incumbent;

Now, therefore , in pursuance ofclause (a)of Section 2 ofthe said Act and in supersession of the notification ofthe Government of India, Ministry ofPetroleum & Natural Gas vide S.O. 503 dated 8th March, 2008, Government of India hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying pipelines by the said M/s . GAIL (India) Limited in the area mentioned in column (2) ofthe said schedule .

SCHEDULE

Area ofJurisdiction

Name and Address of the person

(2)

(1)

Whole State of Uttar Pradesh Shri Bhagwat Sagar Ojha,

Special Land AcquisitionOfficer ,

Ondeputationto

PlotNo.24, Sector -16A, NOIDA-201301 ,

Distt. Gautam BudhaNagar,

M/s. GAIL (India) Limited, G.T.I. , PARC building , Uttar Pradesh

[File No. L- 14014/2/08-G.P. ]

K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy .

4334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2009/SRAVANA 3, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नईदिल्ली, 23 जून , 2009

"Whether the action of the management of M /s . TISCO, Sijua Colliery in note providing employment to the dependent of Shri Bahadur Mahato, who died of chest Cancer on 28-6-94 while inservice, inaccordance with the existing company policy, isjustified ? Ifnot , to what relief the workman entitled ?"

का.आ. 2003.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै . टी.आई. एस.सी.ओ. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय संख्या 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 150/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/42/2001-आई आर. ( सी-1 ) ]

स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 23rd June, 2009

S.O. 2003. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 150/2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. I , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . TISCO , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23-06- 2009.

[No. L- 20012/42/2001 - IR (C- I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. - 1 , DHANBAD.

In the matter of a reference U/ s . 10( 1 ) ( d) (2A) of 1.D. Act . Reference No. 150 of 2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of SijuaColliery of M/s . TISCO.

AND

Their Workmen

Present : Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

FortheEmployers : Shri D. K. Verma , Advocate

Forthe Workmen Shri N. G. Arun , Authorised Representative

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Coal

AWARD

Dated, the 29th May, 2009

By Order No. L - 20012/ 42/2001 - IR ( C- I ) dated 7-6-2001 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 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

2.The workman has filed written statement stating that the deceased employee, Bahadur Mahato , had been appointed in the service ofthe company on 10-10-1977. He had been working as Line Mazdoor at Sijua Colliery of M/s. TISCO . The deceased employee had been suffering from chest cancer since 1990 and he remained under regular treatment of Tata's Central Hospital , Jamshedpur till his last breathing. On the basis ofwrong dygnosis of disease themanagement forced him tojoin the duty and to perform his original job, resulting the disease aggrevated and turned to very serious stage . After his joining in duty due to pressure ofwork again he became seriously ill and caused internal haemorrhage . In last he was first admitted at Tata's Central Hospital , Jamadoba and later on referred to Tata Main Hospital , Jamshedpur for better treatment from specialised Doctors where he had been declared incurable . Ultimately when disease turned to very severe state he was admitted at Tata's Central Hospital , Jamadoba on 27-6-94 and expired on 28-6-94. The concerned workman expired after completion of 16 years service . Asper procedure of employment in vogue in M/s . Tata group of collieries, if a workman has been suffering from certain listed disease including Cancer and has put in minimum 5 years of service and is below 55 years of age their dependent is to be given employment . While late Bahadur Mahato was suffering from chest cancer , her wife Smt . Sanjoti Devi was absorbed as a temporary worker in Category- I and after 18 months she was stopped from work . It shows that there was scope to absorb the female dependent yet on the pretext on non -availability ofjob for femaleworker the management denied to offer employment . Thedependent son of deceased employee , Durga Charan Mahato had also approached to the management to offer him employment as they had earlier denied to absorb his mother on the pretext on non -availability of the job for female. The management again not acceded to the request ofthe dependent son and did not take heed of it . Denial to provide employment to the dependent son of deceased employee violates the adopted principle/norms of the company. The deemed of the dependent son of late Bahadur Mahto is legal and justified. A dispute was raised before the A.L.C. (C) , Dhanbad which ended in failure due to adamant attitude of the management . Thereafter the matter has been referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal by the Ministry of Labour for adjudication . It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be graciously pleased to pass in award bydirecting the management to provide employment to the dependent son of late Bahadur Mahto.

4335

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(Exts. W-3 to W-3/3/and W- 1 series) . The documents authenticate that the day Bahadur Mahto expired his wife Sanjoti Devi was stopped from duty that is on 28-6-1994. The letter dated 4-4-98 (Exts . W-2 & W-5) proves that as Sanjoți Devi is a female worker so he was stopped from work. The management of M/s . Tisco was exempted from NCWA for the purpose of social security as they assured before the highest body ofcoal wage negotiation committee i.e. JBCCI that they shall provide better social security other than NCWA. The management's witness admitted the same in cross -examination .

It is pertinent to mention that in NCWA it is agreed that if the worker are suffering from cancer or died during his tenure of service, his dependent shall be provided employment.

3. The Management has filed written statement stating Late Bahadur Mahto , Ex- Line Mazdoor was an employee of Sijua Colliery and died on 28-6-1994 after putting aproximately 16½years ofservice . It has been stated that as per the employment procedure in vogue at the relevant time one male dependent ofan employee suffering from certain listed disease including Cancer used to be offered employment provided the guardian employee had put in minimum 5 years of service and was below 55 years of age and wished to resign from Company's service on medical ground or was discharged on medical grounds . Since Late Bahadur Mahto neither resignedfrom Company's service nor he was discharged on medical grounds , but he expired while in service, the dependent was not entitled to employment as per the above procedure. The management used to provide employment to the dependent of such employee purely on compassionate ground. The whole object of granting compassionate employment was to unable the employees concerned to tide over the sudden crises . The compasssionate employment can not be claimed and offered whatever the lapses of time and after the crisis is over . In the instant case the workman concerned expired 28-6-94 and after the lapse of over 5 years the demand of the dependent employment is being raised by the Union as a matter of right . It has been prayed that an award be passed holding that the action of the management of Sijua colliery in not providing employment to the dependent of Late Bahadur Mahto is legal and justified and further be pleased to hold that the person concerned is not entitled forany relief. on

7. In the written statement of the management in para 6 it has been stated that the management used to provide employment to the dependent of such employee purely on compassionate ground . The whole object of granting compassionate employment was to unable the employees concerned to tide over the sudden crises . After persual , it is revealed that the company provides employment to the dependent of the deceased employee as because after death, the family on the ex-employee use to suffer for bread and livelihood and to tide over the crisis, employment is provided . In this case the company has acted against their own statement by snatching livelihood which they earlier provided employment to Smt. Sanjoti Devi wife of Bahadur Mahto to meet and tide over the crisis which was arose in their family after being seriously ill of empoyee Bahadur Mahto and after due to bedridden for chest cancer .

4. the management has produced MW -1- Dinesh Kumar Sharma, who has proved Exts . M - 1 to M -8 . During cross -examination he has proved Exts . W- 1 and W-2.

The management's counsel argued that as Late Bahadur Mahto had not wished to resign so dependent was not provided employment .

The concernedworkman has produce WW- 1 - Sanjati Devi, who has proved Exts . W- 3 to W- 3/ 3 and Exts . W-4 to W-4/2.

5. In the above case the deceased, Bahadur Mahto had been appointed on 10-10-1977 . He had been suffering from chest cancer since 1990 and he had remained under regular treatment ofTata's Central Hospital, Jamadoba and later on hewas referred to Tata Main Hospital , Jamshedpur for better treatment where he had been declared incurable . Ultimately he became bed ridden and when disease turned to very severe stage he was admitted at Tata's Central Hospital , Jamadoba on 27-6-94 and expired on 28-6-94 (Exts . W-4to W-4/2).

Inthis respect it has been argued on behalf of the workman that since the wife of Late Bahadur Mahto continued in employment for more than 4 years so her entitlement can not be terminated as soon as Bahadur Mahto died because it is against the natural justice . She was given employment to tide over the sadden crisis as Bahadur Mahto was suffering from cancer due to this his family was facing starvation. Ext . W- 2 is a reply of the management to Shri G. R. Khan, secretary, RCMS . In said reply it is proved that the workman was suffering from canceranddied. His wife Sanjoti Devi was not further given employment as because she is a female worker . Though earlier shehad worked more than 4 years when her husband was bedridden and was in the roll of the company. Ext . W- 1 series are the pay slips of Smt . Sanjoti Devi . These payslips authenticate that she had worked from May, 1991 to June, 1995. Whereas the management says that ifworkers are unable to work their dependents use to get employment for 18 months , not more than that. In this case she had worked more than 4 years as because her husband was 6.The concerned workman's wife , Smt . Sanjoti Devi, was appointed on 23-2-1991 and it has been said that she will be paidwages as per NCWA- IV intimating that her appointment in Category - 1 Kamin will stand terminated, the date on which her husband, Bahadur Mahto will be declared fit for his original job by the Medical Board or after 18 months whichever is earlier. Smt . Sanjoti Devi had continued work upto June 1995 i.e. more than 4 years 4336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2009/ 9RAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II SEC. 3(ii)] declared unfit due to cancer and when she became entitled for permancy she was stopped from work as because she isa female worker . Ext . W- 2 proves the same.

WW- 1 - Smt . Sanjoti Devi , has stated in examnation- in-chief that the management has provided employmentto Ganga Mani wife of Gopal , Manju Devi W/ o Goverdhan Mahto in same and similar nature of case but her case was not considered on the same footing discreminating with others. This statement was not denied by the management when Smt . Sanjoti Devi was not provided employment she had applied for her son , Sri Durga Mahto but the management has also not considered his case (Ext . M-6).

boun mentioned in this para that if any workman who has put in 5 years of service and is below 55 years of age his dependentwould be provided employment . By this clause also the present workman is entitled for employment . The husband of concerned werkman served for more than 16 years andbelow 55 years of age and death caused due to cancer .As per document Ext. M- 5 shows that Bahadur Mahto has served for more than 16 years of service .As per Ext . W-3 the employment was given to the concerned workaman on 3-6-94 for 18 months on compassionate ground andwageswere paid as per NCWA - IV. She has served for more than 4 yours . Ext. W- 3/ 1 is a letter which has been given tobe concerned workmen by the Sr. Manager, Sijua Colliery for givingjob.

10. In view ofthe discussions made above, I come to the conclusions that the dependent son of Late Bahadur Mahato is entitled for employment.

11.Accordingly, I render the following award-The action ofthemanagement of M/ s . TISCO , Síjua Colliery in not providing employment to the dependent ofSri Bahadur Mahato, who died of chest cancer on 28-6-94 while in service, inaccordance with the existing company policy, is notjustified. Therefore , thedependent son ofLate Bahadur Mahato,DurgaCharan Mahato , is entitled for employment. The management is directed to implement the Awardwithin 30.days from the date of publication ofthe award.

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer 8. Learned representative ofthe workman argued that in same and similar nature of case Hon'ble Trdibunal No. 2 atDhanbad has passed an award in favour of the workman wherein the court held that the dependent employment in violation of NCWA - II is not justified. It has been argued by the workman that the management's witness during cross - examination admitted that NCWA is applicable in their company. The management has not produced any employment procedure agreed by the union and the management during tdhe period of 1994. Moreover, management's witness MW -1 -Dinesh Kumar Sherna , during cross -examination admitted that NCWA is applicable in the company. Even though Ext . M -5 proves that Smt . Sanjoti Devi has been stopped from work, ithas beendiscriminated between the male and female although earlier she has worked more than 4 years , which is violative ofArticle 39 (4) of the Indian Constitution .

नई दिल्ली , 23 जून , 2009

का.आ. 2004.-औजोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की बारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीण सरकार मै. बी.सी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधमंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ क्रम न्यायालय संख्या-2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-6-2009 को क्रप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/439/1995- आईआर (सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 23rd June, 2009

S.O. 2004.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 17/1997) of the CentralGovernement Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, No. 2 Dhanbad now 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 was received by the Contral Goverament on 23-6-2009.

[No. L-20012/439/95- IR (C-I )] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer 9. MW- 1 , management's witness , Dinesh Kumar Sharma, has stated in cross -examination at page 2 that NCWA is applicable in the company. The social security clause of NCWA is applicable in their colliery other than the employment of dependent . JBCCI has given exemption in the matter of employment deceased workman on the ground that employment procedure of management ofthe TISCO is better than the provision of NCWA . The concerned workman was suffering from cancer. He was under treatment in the hospital of the company continuously. He has stated " I do not know if she was giventemporary employment and on death ofher husband she was stopped from duty. I do not know that the widow ofconcerned workman had addressed an application to the Vice Chairman of the company which was replied and stated that since she is no male workman she will not be given employment . In cross-examination at page 3 the witness has admitted that the pay slips of Sanjoti , marked ExtW- 1 in a bunch . It may be that she might have worked for 18 months as temporary worker . Ext M- 1 shows that the husband of the concerned workman , Bahadur Mahto died due to cancer on July, 1994. As per Ext . M-2 it shows that there was agreemet/settlement . As per page 2 para 1 the dependent of the employee should be given employment who has completed 15 years of service . The present workman has served more than 16 years service. It has 4337

भारतः का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. -2, AT DHANBAD

Present: Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

Inthe matter of an Industrial Dipute Under Section 10( 1)(d) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 17 of1997

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Colliery of M/s . BCCL and their workmen.

APPEARANCES

: Mr. S. C. Gaur

Onbehalf of the workmen

Advocate .

:Mr. D. K. Verma

Onbehalf of the employers

Advocate.

State:Jharkhand.

Industry: Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th May, 2009.

AWARD

TheGovt. of India , Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10( 1 )(d) of the L. D. Act . , 1947 bas referred the following dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L-20012/ 439/95 - IR(Coal -1) , dated, the 2nd January, 1997.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the trade union for regularisation of Smt. Devanti Kamin and 13 others (given below) by the management of Sijua Colliery ofM/ s. BCCL is justified? If so , to what relief are theseworkmen entitled?"

1. S/Smt . Saraswatia.Kamin.

(2) Br. Shanti Kamin.

(3) Likhi Kamin.

(4)Citua Kamin.

(5) Ch . Muni Kamin.

(6) Sanjoya Kamin.

(7) Budhai Kamin.

(8)Mahasin Kamin.

(9) PatiaKamin.

(10)Nathunia Kamin.

(11)Malti Kamin.

(12) Br. Muni Kamin

(13) Somri Kamin."

themwere (a) drain cleaning, (b) earth cutting, (c) carrying removed earth and deuping them in various places (d) carrying stone in basket from head, (e) loading and carrying coal and sand. All kinds of duty work connected with sanitation were done by them and taken by the management. Payment was being made by BCCL as the nature ofjob performedbythem was for the work ofBCCL. The workman have stated that as per Circular No. D (P)/PS/86/ 2649- 949(H) dated8/9-5-1986 the then Director (Personnel ) , Sri R.A.P. Singh , fixing criteria for departmentalising/ regularising workers engaged in workthrough Co-operative basis.One ofthe conditions laid down therein is-completing attendance 240 days from 1982 to 1985. Thereafter the Agent, Basdeopur colliery of Sijua Area, prepared the attendance of Shri Dhara Rabidas and 49 other workers attendance who were working in Basudeopur colliery as a co-operative workers for their regularisation on the roll of the Company and forwarded it to the Personnel Manager, Sijua Area No. V by his letter dated 1-7-87 . the female workers directly involved in the dispute completed more than 240 days attendance between the year 1983 and 1985 andwere eligible for their direct employment in BCCL.but outofthe list preparedby the Agent: 12 male workerswere taken in direct employment in BCCL and regularised tut discriminatiion was made between male and female workers ofthe Co-operative where all ofthem were working together. They have submitted that the concerned female workers submitted ajoint representation dated 13-6-91 which was addressedto the General Manager, Sijua Area, demanding fortheir regularisation on the roll of the Company/BCCL butneither any reply was given to them by the management nor they were kept in direct roll of the Company. They continuing working as contractual basis till termination of their services mentioned in eacdier paragraph. Thereafter the General Secretary, of the sponsoring union raised a disutewiththe General Manager, Sijus Arsa by his letter dated 21-6-93 stated therein that the above noted kamins had completed240 days attendance in a calendar year and aphotostat copyofletterNo BSP/ 87/88/488-dt. 1-7-87was also enclosed. By this letter the management was informed that male workers of those groups have been takken in company's roll but discrimination has been made in the case ofthese aggrieved female workers . The attention of theGeneral Manager was also drawn to the joint petition ofthese female werkers which was addressed to the General Manager for considering thedemand but due to the adamant and unreasonable attitude: shown by the management no bi -partite agreement could be arrived.at and thus mutual negotiation failed. Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised before the ALC(C) Dhanbad which ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal for adjudication . It has been prayed on behalf of the fentale workers to pass an Award answering the terms of Reference in favour of the workmen holding that the action of the mangement is illegal and against the fundamental right of the Constitution of India.

2. The case of the above 14 female workers is that theywereworking in contractual work through Co-operative basis along with other male workers . They were employed as far back as from the year 1979 and continued working permanently till 18-9-94 and thereafter their services were terminated w.e.f. 19-9-94 . The nature ofjobs performedby 4338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii) ]

5. The workman side in order to substantiate their claim has examined Devanti Kamin as WW- 1 , Munshi Rabidas as WW-2 who has proved Ext. W- 1 and W-2to W-2/11 . Baleshwar Rabidas has also been examined on behalfofthe workman as WW -3 . Management on the other hand examind Rakesh Ranjan as MW- 1 . No document on their behalfhas been marked..

3. In the Written Statement filed by the management it has been stated by them that the demand of the trade union for regularisation ofSmt . Devanti Kamin and 13 others bythemanagement of the Sijua Colliery of the BCCL is not justified proper and legal and hence the reference is not maintainable . They have further stated that there is absolutely no employer -employee relationship between the parties in the dispute and therefore there cannotbe amy industrial dispute much less of the present nature between the employer management and its so-called workmen . It has been stated on behalf of the management that the workman.concerned are the contract labour of the Kalyan Sahyog Samiti , Basudeopur who used to get various sorts of contractual jobs in the colliery as and when available. The employer -employee only existed between the Kalyan Sahyog Samiti and the concerned workman for whom the letterworked and in lieu got the Wages . They have stated that the Basudeopur colliery on the Sijua Area o theBCCL in any view of the matter under the Contract Labour (Abolition and Regulation) Act, is the principal employer and the concerned workman are the contractor's (Kalyan Sahyog Samiti's) workmen/Labour, and therefore , they are not at all entitled for departmentalisation in the company, nor entitled for any relief from the company. The BCCL management with the approval of Board of Directors , had some additional requirement of miners/ loaders in the company in the year 1986, and had wished to appoint fresh miners/loaders in its various units by way of implementating awards , settlements , agreements by fulfilling its commitments and assurances given in the past . Under this scheme , since the case of the co-operative workers was also covered , 12 male labours of the Kalyan Sahyog Samiti wereappointed as fresh miners/loaders on compliance of formalities as applicable in case of fresh appointment . The Kamin workmen under the dispute were not eligible for miners/loaders as they were not fit to do work underground. Since there was nojob in the colliery to providejobs tothe Kaminindispute because the colliery already stood plagued with surplus permanent workmen , contract work , was stopped to the Kalyan Sahyog Samiti . However, taking the welfare ofthe Kamins in mind and on humanitarian rounds, the companyhad on a number of times , instructed Srimati Devanti Kamin and 13 others to resume their work as before on the same terms and conditons . But they did not turn up forduties deliberately and intentionally. Since there isno employer - employee relationship between the BCCL management and the concerned workman (kamins) being the contract Labours no industrial dispute existed between them.Consequently, the concerned kamins are not entitled toget any relief and prayer has been made on behalf ofthe management to pass an Award rejecting the claim 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 .

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned kamins is that they were engaged by the management ofBasudeopur Colliery through Co-operative Sociuty.Theconcorned Kamins are 14 in number including Devanti Kamin. Workman's case is that they used to perform drain cleaning, as removal job , stone picking from bunker, supply of coal in quarters for domestic purpose and theywore performing their work since long. No identity card was issued to them . At the time of receiving the payment of their wages they used to put their signature/ thumb impression upon the register and they have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year , and this clear from the attendance Register . Their work is of permanent and parennial nature . In this respect Ld . Counsel for the management argued that they were never engaged by the mangsanent . The contractors workers and contract is given when there is necessity of work on temporary and casual basisand theconcerned workman are not their employees nor any work has been taken from them. In this WW- 1 Devanti Kamin in course ofhis cross -examination stated at page-2 that they were engaged through Contractor , co- operative society and they were all the members of the said society. Theydo not have any paper to show that they were the members of the said co -operative society . They do nothave the copy of any work order also with them. Theyalsodo not have any paper to show that their wages were being by the Cashier ofthe Colliery . Every year prior to rainy season the drains used to be cleaned and for cleaning of the details the management used to engage contract labourers through the co- operative society . Once in every year the bushes and hurbs grown near the drains alsoused tobe cleared through the contract workers . Ash cleaning works also used to be done after about every 10 or 12days and that also used to be done through contract labourers . They used to supply coal for domestic purpose in the officers ' quarters only. Different works assigned to them were being performed by them not regularly rather intermittently . The attendance register was being maintained neither by them nor by the co -operative society, rather the same is with the management only. The statement ofthe concerned workman shows that the work performed bythem are not regular work but it is intermittently done . Shehas also stated that it is done only after 10/12 days . They cannot be called in any way the work of the management because supply of coal to the officers' quarters is ofprivate work and not the work ofthe management . It has been admitted very clearly by the above witness that they have been engaged by the contractor through 4339

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

cooperative society. No payment by the colliery management has been made to them because no paper has beenfiled that they have got their payment through Cashier oftheColliery.

8WW- 3 Baleshwar Rabidas in course ofhis cross- examination has stated "during the relevant period Sri Govind Singh was the General Secretary ofthe union and itwas he who raised the industrial dispute on behalfofthe concerned workmen . Still he is the General Secretary ofthe sponsoring union. I cannot say as to why the written statement in the present case was not filed by the said General Secretary. " It only shows that when as General Secretary he has raised the dispite and has not filed Written Statement, he does not want to come before this Courttotell the truth. WW-3 stated in cross - examination , "It is true that only male workers can be assigned the job of miner/loader. It is true that for engagement or for the appointment on surface no vacancy was declared orwas made available. It is true that the concerned workmenwere engaged by the said Co - operative Society. " Ld. Counsel for the management argued that they have got no work force of female workers and WW- 3 Baleshwar Rabidas admitted that the job of miner/loaders can be done bymale workers and not the female workers . All the 14 persons named in the order of reference are the females . So no job can be given to the female workers as per statement of WW-3. Also as per statement ofWW-3 at page -2 it shows that there is no vacancy declared or are available for appointment of miner/loaders on surface . Management also has stated that there is no vacancy in surface for miner/ loaders . It only shows that the above 1414 workers cannot be absorbed or regularised or given job by the management .

9.No payment sheetor payment order has been filed by the concerned workmen to show that they are getting payment from the management . No Attendance Register has been filed by the society regarding work done from the concerned workmen. Moreover, no work order has been produced to show that they have been given work by the management to perform so that it may be presumed that they are working under the management and that they worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. Management witness also admitted in cross-examination thatthework performed by the concerned workman is not ofpermanent nature and it is of intermittent nature and it .. has also been admitted by the management witness that there is novacancy for miners /loaders with the management andnoworkcanbe allotted to the female workers concerned on the surface by the management as miner/loaders . All are female workers so it is not possible for the management toemploythem. There is no basis for employment. In this respect Ld . Counsel for the management has referred to a decision reported in 2006 (3 ) JLJRpage 535 in which Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Bench laid down the following:-

"Industrial Disputes Act, 1947-Section 25F- Tribunal's award not becoming final having been stayed-Union not discharging its onus to prove that the workman worked for more than 240 days -materials on record not establishing employee- employer : 7.WW- 2 Munshi Ravidas in course ofhis evidence has stated that he is working as a Miner /Loader in Area V of Kankanee Colliery of M/ s.BCCL . He has filed appointment letter marked as Ext . W- 1 as Badli Miner/ Loader. He was appointed in the year 1988. Prior to 1988 theyall had been doing miscellaneous nature ofjob under a Co-operative Society in Basdeopur Colliery of M/s.BCCL . He has deposed that there were altogether 43 persons who were working under the said co -operative. Out ofthem only 12 persons were absorbed or regularised and rest were made to sit idle . All the 14 concerned workmen used to work with him in the said Colliery.Being the co - operative workers , during that period their attendance used to be marked by the management and the payment of wages used to be made by the Colliery Cashier.He has proved six original copy of coal card and sixphoto copies of the said cards , marked as Ext. W- 2 to W-2/ 11 showing supply of coal to different residential quarters for domestic purpose . He has further deposed that as co -operative workers all those works which were beingperformed by them were of permanent and regular nature, and they used to put in the attendance of more than 240 days in one calendar year . He has proved copy ofthe certificate showing the attendance ofthe concerned workmen during the period of three years and this is under the signature of the Agent of Basdeopur Colliery marked asExt .W-3 . However , in cross -examination he has said that he cannot give the name of the said Agent who has signed this Ext . W- 3 . He has also deposed that he is not in a position to say as to what is written in the said document marked as Ext . W-3 , but he has seen the original ofthis document which is lying in the office of the management. He has not got this document photo copied but this was done by his guardian . He has also stated that he does not know as to what was the name of the said co -operative society. One Daso Rabidas was the Secretary ofthe said Co- operative . He has denied the fact that the said Secretary used to be engaged for getting the work done on contractual basis. He has stated "we were appointed or engaged in the said cooperative by said Daso Rabidas . Chairman of BCCL used to assign works to us . It is true that coal cards remain in possession of the employee ofBCCL and they are being supplied coal on the basis ofthe said cards . It is true that these coal cards Ext. W-2 series do not contain the signature of Issuing Authority or the seal of the management. " It shows that Ext. W-2 to Ext. W- 2/ 11 are wastepaper because they do not bear the signature of Issuing Authority or the seal of the management. Moreover , this witness also stated in cross -examination . " I do not have any document with me to show that the concerned workmenwere also working with me . "

2570G1/09-5 4340

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2009/SRAMANA 3 , 1931

relationship -petitions daily wyers and the scheine already closed-ne notification issued prohibiting contract labour for supply ofwater-impugned award set aside."

Theyhave also refomed to another decision reported in2001 Lab . I.C. 3656 in which Han ble Supreme Court id down the following:-

"(A) Interpretation of Statutes -Beneficial Logiolation-Amriguity in To berushed by rather than denying the bumalik."

In Interpreting a beneficial legislation enacted to give effet to directive principtes of the State policy which is otherwise constitutionally valid, the consideration of the Court cannotbe dovode those objectives . In a case of ambiguity in the language of a beneficial labour legislation, the Courts haveto resolve the quandary in Bavour of confwment of rather than denial of, a benefit on the labour by the Legislature but without rowrking and/ or doing violenceto the provisions of the sanctment .

Contract Labour (Pongsition and Abeltion) Act (37 of1970)S.1.

the There does echt a distinction between public law and private law. The divide between the public law and the private low is material in regard remodieswhich could be muiledwhen and rights, public or private, but not in regard to interpretation of the Statutes. Principle of public law interpretation opposed to private law interpretation for intumprutution of statute are not found either in any authoritative treaties interpretation or in pronouncement ofany Coust. It cannot, therefore, be acupted dut white public law likeCoutrunt Labour Ast the p literal interpretation has to be discarded represents common- law approach appliouble anly to private law field and has no release who cated on anvil ofArt. 14.

(E) Constitution ofIndia, Art . 12- Instrumentalities of Govt. Are not agents ofGovt. for all purposes .

The principle that white dischargin functions and duties the Govt . Companies/ Corporations/Societies which are i agencies oftheGovernment must be miljouted same Hwistions in the field of public low- Constitutional or administrative low- s Government itself, download to the they become age of the Couture Dante Govern forall purposes so as to drind auch Goverment forall their acts , liabilities and obligatioης απλα ναίους Central and/or State Arts- orumile private low .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] Ld. Counsel for the management also referred to mother decision reported in 2006 (2) JLJR page 282 (SC)- Sowmy, State of Karnataka... Appellants - versus-Uma Devi & Ors . in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down the following:-

"Constitution ofIndia-Article 226- wide powers thesuunder-Courts should- desist from issuing orders for continuance of these who have not secured radar appointments as per established procedure- wide powers under Article 226 are not intended to bewood for the purpose of perpetuating illegalities, inugularities or improprieties or for soutting thewhole scheme of public employment High Court is the sentinel and guardian of equal rights protection- Courts are not to ignore, encourage or approve appointments made or engagements given outside titutions scheme (Paras 3 and 12).

Constitution of Inadin-Article 309-State is meant tobe amodel employer and its power ofappointment are subject to constitutional limitations and cannot be exercised arbitrarily-when statutory rules are framed U/Art . 309 the only fair means to adopt is to mide appointments based on the rules so framed- συρίοχοος engaged without following due process orthe subve- did not soquire any right-Court cannot dieret absorption , regularisation or re-engagement or permanency of such omployees. (Paras 5, 30 31 ).

Service Law-Appointments-no employment is envienged outside the constitutional scheme and without following the requirements set down therein- equidity of opportunity is the hall mark-provisions exist for alfamentive action to ensure that unequals are not treated equals though the Government prechoded from making temporary appointments , regular appointments must be the rule-Constitutional scheme of public employment flows from Articles 14, 16, 315 , 320 and 335 in absence of any right to a post erto aparticular status , appointment cannotbe doomed to be valid-directions for re -ongagement of such persons in any other work would make judicial process another mode of recruitment de hors the we (Pass 10, 12, 22, 24, 27 and40).

Service Law-Absorption High Court should not U/Art . 226 ordinary issue directions for aboveption regularisation ofpermanent continuance unless the recruitment itselfwas made regularly and interms ofthe constitutional scheme merely because an employee had continued under cover of an order ofthe Court (litigious employment) he would notbe entitled to be absorbed or made permanent . (Pam-34).

4341 [भाग II-खण्ड 36 ) ]

भारतः का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2000 /

3,1961

एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संयों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विकार में केन्द्रीयः सरलमोनिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय के पंचाटोरी संख्या 89/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो सरकार को 23-06-2009 कोप्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एत-20012/278/95- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता क्वाल, डेस्क अधिकारी Service Law-pay-equal pay for equal work while accepting employment, daily wages or casual or temporary person concerned knows the nature of his employment and wages tobe paid-daily wagers form a class by themselves-they cannot claim discrimination with regular employees even by invoking the principle or equal pay for equal work they cannot be treated at par with regular employeesArticle 14 and 16 not attracted (Paras 36 and39).

NewDelhi , the23rd June,2009

Words and Pharases Doctrine of legitimate expectationdoctrine can be invoked ifthe decisions ofthe Administrative Authority affect the personby depriving him of some benefit or advantage which either ( i) he had in the past been permitted to enjoy andwhich he can legitimately except to be permitted to continue to do or (ii ) he has received assurance that they will not be withdrawn without giving him an opportunity.(Paras-37) .

S.O. 2005. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes.Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/1996) ofthe Contral Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, No. I Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s , BCCL, and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 23-06-2009.

[Nox L-20012/278/95- R(C-J SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Constitution of India Article 21 regularisation- regularisation of persons engaged dehors the rules in the guise or upholding rights w/Art . 21 , would negate the rights of the other u/Art . 21 also daily wagers having accepted the employment on their ownviolation, cannot be termed forced labour and it does not breach Art. 23 -right to life does not include right to employment. (Paras 41 and42).

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . I AT DHANBAD

Present: Shri H.M. Singh , PresidingOfficer

Inthematter ofan Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act., 1947.

Reference No. 89 of1996

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Moonidih Project ofM/ s : BCCL and theirworlunen.

Service law Regularisation cases irregular appointments (not illegal appointments) of duły qualified persons in sanctioned posts working for tenyears or more appointed not under cover oforders of Courts or tribunal their regularisation maybe considered as one time measures further directions given for filling up vacant sanctioned posts (Paras-44)."

APPEARANCES

Onbehalfofthe Workmen : Mr. D. Mukherjee, Advocate. In view of the facts, circumstances , evidence and citations of rulings discussed above, I hold that the concerned female workers are not entitled to get any relief. Accordingly following Award is rendered:

Onbehalf of the Employers Mr.H.Nath, Advocate

State : Jharkhand

Industry Coal .

Dated, Dhanbad, the 18th May, 2000

AWARD

"The demand of the trade union for regularisation of Smt . Devanti Kamin and 13 others whose names have been mentioned in the order of reference, by the management of Sijua Colliery of M/s . BCCL is not justified. Consequently the concerned female workers are not entitled to get any relief."

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 23 जून , 2009

का.अ. 2005.-औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै.बी.सी.सी.

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise ofthe powers conferred on them under Section 10(1) (d) ofthe I.D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudicaiton vide their Order No. L-20012/ 278/95-1.R. ( C - 1 ) , dated, the 3rd October,1996.

4342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009SRAVANA 3 , 1931

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

" Whether the demand by the union for including the Face Dearness Allowance as a part of Basic Wage to fixthe revised basic wages of S/ Shri Laloo Charan Mahato and 8 others (as given below) at the time of regularisation as Overman/Mining Sirdar is legal and justified? If so , to what relief are the concerned workmen entitled ? "

Name of the workman

6. S/Sh.RamGope, Mining Sirdar.

2. S/Sh . Chandi Charan Das , Mining Sirdar

7. " Kusankur Mining Das, Sirdar

3." Nageshwar Sharma, Mining Sirdar

4. "

8. " T.B. Paswan , Mining Sirdar

N.D. Ghosh Mining , Sirdar

5." Samir Kumar Roy , Mining Sirdar

9. " Nitish Kr . Overman Mukherjee

Piece rated allowance in their required grade and the concernedwerkmen automatically ceased to do the job of Face-Work with their promotion, this face D.A. could not becounted for foxing theirwages. Moreover, those workmen who again work as Mining Sirdar or Overman are still working in frocs, they are being given additional wages of Rs.6.38 Paise por day.Accordinglythere is no question of any monetary loss to the concerned workmen as theirwages have boon freed as per the norm of M/ s . B.C.C.L. It has been further stated by the management that the concerned workamen raised an Industrial Dispute before theAssistant Labour Commissioner (C) , Dhanbad vide letter , dated 11-8- 93 regarding the wages of the concerned workmen. On receipt ofthe letter from the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C), Dhanbad, dated 13-9-93 , the Project Officer, Moonidih Project vide his letter, dated 24-9-93 replied to the same and explained the facts and prayed for cling ofthe case. It has been further stated that the dispute which has been raisedby the concerned workmen after delay ofmany years has become a stale demand and it is not maintainable in view ofthe various rulings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'bleHigh Court . Accordingly it has been prayed on behalf ofthe management to pass an Award in favour of the management rejecting the claim of the concerned workmen.

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

5. The workmen side in order to substantiate their casehasproduced Samir Kumar Roy and examined him as WW-1 . On their behalf documents have been marked as Ext . W- 1to W-4 . Management also in order to substantiate their case has produced Nand Kishore Jha who has been examined as MW- 1 . On their behalf documents have been marked as Ext . M- 1 to M-5 .

2. The case of the workmen as per their Written Statement is that the concerned workmen were appointed in BCCL in the month ofApril, 1978 on different dates in Face evew (piece rated Group -5A at the rate of Rs . 14.62 per day. Thereafter all the concerned workmen were regularised on the post of Mining Sirdar and Overman and their pay scale was reduced at the rate of Rs . 13.00 per day only and arbitrarily and illegally all the concerned workmen were put to loss of Rs . 1.62 per day each . It has been further stated on behalf of the workmen that the management has got no reason and ground to reduce the pay scale which is itself evident from the letter ofP.M. Monidih Project vide No. MID/PM/Pra/Recruitment/78/9/ 75-93 dated 22-4-78 in which the daily wages rate has been mentioned as Rs . 14.62 for piece rated Group -VA. They have also stated that the comment of the management in this matter is not at all tenable and acceptable as because there is no provision to show that in case of change of post from the post of face evew, the basic pay Rs . 14.62 would be reduced to Rs . 13.00 only. The management acted arbitrarily in the matter and they by the concerned workmen are bint put in loss of Rs . 1.62 . Accordingly it has been prayed on behalfof the concerned workmen to passAward in their favour .

6. It has been argued on behalf of the concerned workmen that they were getting Rs . 14.62 P. per daywhich hasbeen reduced to Rs . 13.00 per day after they have been regularised on the post of Mining Sirdar and Overman and there is no reason to reduce their pay scale and they are entitled for 14.62 Group -V wages as per letter of P.M. Moonidih Project vide No. MID/PM/Pra/Recruitment/78/ 9/75.93 dated 22-4-78 . Ld. Representative of the management on the other hand argued that the concerned workmen have already been paid more than required . He has also argued that as per rules they are being paid extra allowance. There is no provision available in N.C.W.A. for face D.A. as part ofbasic pay.As per document filed by the concerned workman marked as Ext . W-4 it shows that they were being paid Rs . 14.62 per day. The said document has also been filedby the management marked as Ext . M -4 . In this respect the concerned workman WW- 1 has stated in cross- examination that "before regularisation as Mining Sirdar/ Overmen wewere getting piece- rated wages . Since wewere not working as Face workers therefore the management 3. In the Written statement filed on behalf of the management it has been stated that the present reference is not maintainable both on law and facts of the case . Management have submitted that the concerned workmen were appointed as Piece- rated Workers in the Group VA in the year 1978. Subsequently after their obtaining statutory Certificate, they were diverted to the post of Mining Sirdar/ Overman and accordingly their wages were fixed giving due care to the Basic etc. While fixing their wages Wage protection was taken in respect of all the concerned workmen. Management have further submitted that after reugularisation the Basic Pay of the concerned workmen was fixed as per theiry Basic Wage include Group VA+ 4343 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3, 1931

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . BCC Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-06-2009.

[No. L-20012/133/2002-IR(C- 1 )]

SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO I DHANBAD

Inthematter ofa reference U/s. 10(1 ) (d) (2A) of1.D. Act .

Reference No.89 of2002

wasjustified in stopping payment of face allowance, but our grievance is for variation in basic wages . We were getting an additional mechanised face allowance. We have not filedpaper to show that prior to raising dispute wehad madedemandto the management." It only shows that they have not raised the demand with the managementbefore raisingthepresent dispute . Ld. Counsel for the management argued that the matter is belated one. The concerned workmanhave been regularised in 1986 and they have raised the present industrial dispute in the year 1996. It only shows that their case is stale one though there is no time limit prescribed in raising industrial dispute in the I.D. Act . 1947. The concerned workmen are getting mechanised face allowance as stated by the concerned workmen.

Parties: Employers in relation to the management ofBhowra (South)Colliery ofM/s . B.C.C. Ltd.

AND

TheirWorkmen

Inview ofthe facts , circumstances and evidence. discussed above I find no merit in the demand of the concernedworkmen . Accordingly following Award is rendered:-

Present: Shri H.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer.

APPEARANCES

FortheEmployers

: Shri U. N. Lal, Advocate.

For the Workman

Shri R. Rai, Authorised Representative " The demand by the union for including the Face dearness Allowance as a part of Basic Wage to fix the revisedbasicwages of S/Shri Laloo Charan Mahato and 8 others (as given below) at the time of regularisation as overman/Minng Sirdar is not legal and not justified. Consequently, the concerned workmen are not entitledto getanyrelief.

State : Jharkhand

Name ofthe workmen.

Industry : Coal . Dated, the 26th May,2009 1. S/Shri Chandi Charan Das .... Mining Sirdar.

AWARD

-do-

2. " Nageshwar Sharma

-do-

3. " N.D. Ghosh

-do-

4. " Samir Kumar Roy

-do-

5. " RamGope

-do-

6. " Kusankur Das

-do-

7. " T.B. Paswan

By Order No. L -20012/ 133/2002- I.R . (C - I) dated 26-7-02 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labourhas, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1) and sub- section (2A) of Secction 10 ofthe IndustrialDisputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

Overman.

8. " Nitish Kr . Mukherjee

अनुसूची

H.M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 23 जून , 2009

" क्या भा.को.को.लि. भाऊरा ( सा) कोलियरी के प्रबंधतंत्र द्वारा कर्मकार श्री समीर कुमार बाउरी को वर्शक III के पद पर नियमित न किया जाना उचित एवं न्यायसंगत है ? यदि नहीं तो कर्मकार किस राहत के पात्र हैं तथा किस तारीख से " का.आ. 2006.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै.बी.सी.सी. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालयः संख्या I , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 89/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/133/2002- आई.आर. (सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 23rd June, 2009

S.O. 2006.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 89/ 2002)of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. 1 Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure, in

2.The written statement has been filed by the concerned workman stating that he was appointed on 3-3-1987 as Miner /Loader at Bhowra ( South) Colliery. The Dy. C.M.E. , Bhowra (South) Colliery vide his letter No. 1739 dated 15/22-4-1991 directed the concerned workman towork in the Accounts Section as Clerk . Since then he is working as a Clerk in Accounts Deptt and accodingly he was regularised inClerk Grade- III vide order No. 141-58 dated 3/6-1-98 by the order of Dy. C.P.M. , BhowraArea No. II. Further it has been submitted that Samir, Kumar Bouri, concerned workman, was regularised by the Project OfficerofBhowra ( south) colliery on the basis oforder dated 3/6-1-94 of Dy. Chief Personnel Manager . But the said order was not implemented. Hence, the union raised an indutrial dispute before A.L.C. (C), Dhaabad, demanding 4344

[PART II Sec.3( )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : ARLY 25, 200MBRAMANA 3 , 1931

regularisation of the concerned workman in Clerk Grade- IH w.e.f. 22-4-1991 according to the provision of Certified Standing Order . Conciliation proceeding was ended in failure and the appropriate Government referred thedispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . It has been prayed to pass an award in favour of the workman.

whichwastaken from hius. The management hat promoted the emernedwastaan on 3 /6-1-94- as per Ext . W- 2 and as per ist.W-2/1 he was at serial No. 2 formadarimtion frem as clerk inOr. I w.e.f. 6-1-9, though he was working as munai from 18/19-9-1989, Ext. M-2 . As per Ext . M- 3 regulariontion has been done by the management on 10/12-11-1999.

3.Themanagement has filed written statement stating that Samir Kumar Bouri , concerned workman , was appointed as Miner /Loader on 3-3-87. He was deployed as Sand Munshi w.e.f. 19-9-89 to work as temporary basis. The competent authority had accorded approval for regularisation of the workman as sand Munshi with the condition that the workman should accept the date ofbirth as per Form ' B ' . The workman concerned had produced latter on his matriculation certificate which the workman had stated tohave been passed in S.S. Annual Examination in 1988. the concerned workman has been regularised as Sand Munshi in Clerk Gr. III with immediate effect vide officeOrder No. EJ/86/99/ 13163 dated 1 /2-12-99 signedby theDy. Chief Personnel Manager, BhowraArea. The claim of the workman has been accepted and he has been regularised alongwith others in Clerical Grade- III. It has beenprayed that an award be passed that the regularisation order issued by the management in regularising him in ClericalGr. III w.e.f. 1/ 12-12-99 isjust and fair, and the concernedworkman is not entitled to any other relief in the instant case .

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

7.Moreover, the concerned workman has filed order ofthe management dated 28-3-2008 being Office OrderNo. PSABHA(S)/ 08/ 11 /257 wherein it has been mentioned that asD.K.Mudurjee, DillClerk ofDhonte(3) Collleryis going to retire from 1-4-06 the concerned workomen was diercted towerk atbill sectionwith immediate effect. It only shows that the work was from the concernedworkiman since 22-1-1991 but he was not regularised due to the reason known by the management. As per statement given on behalf of the management witness - fW- 1 - Ramadhar Tripathy, he has stated in cross - examination at page 2 that the letter Ext. W- 2 has been issued by Dy. C.P.M. and in this letter there is order ofDy. C.P.M. for regulerisation of SamirBouri in Clerical Gr. III but the same was not approved by the competent authority. The letter Ext. W-2/ 1 is under the signature ofthe Project Officer. By this officeorder the concerned werkman was ordered to be regularised in reference to earlier letter Ext . W-2 . The order was not implemented. But the concerned workman still getting the wages ofMiner/Londer. There is rule of payment ofwages according to the work performed . After examining the record ofthe office I can say whether there is any proofof service of that order to the concerned workman . This evidence ofthe management shows that the work ofClerical Grade-III is taken from the concerned workman but the payment is not paid for Clerical Grade- III . He was given wages ofMiner/Loader which is against the rule .

8. In view of the discussions made above , I come to the conclusion that the action of the management in not payingwages ofClerk grade- III to the concerned workman, Samir KumarBouri , is not justified and accordingly, the concerned workman is entitled to be regularised as Clerk Grade- III w.e.f. 22-4-1991 and arrear ofdifference wages with effect from that date i.e. 22-4-1991 .

9.Accordingly, I render the following award - 5.Argument advanced on behalf of the management is that the concerned workman was appointed on 3-3-87as Miner /Loader . It has also been argued by the management that the concerned workman was regularised as Sand Munshi in Clerical Gr. III with immediate effect vide Office OrderNo. GM-Per/EJ/86/99/ 13/66 dated 1 /2-12-99 signed by the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager, BhowraArea. It has also been argued on behalf of the management that in respect of the concerned workman it was taken up by the unionvide letter dated 30-12-93 vide item 14 of the meeting held at corporate level vide Office Order dated 3/6-1-94, butfor regularisation w.e.f. 22-4-91 of the concerned workman is not justified and it is not as per rules of the company.

The action ofthe management of M/s . B.C.C.Ltd . in not regalarising Samir Kumar Bouri as Clerk Grade- III w.e.f. 22-4-1991 is not justified . Therefore , the concerned workaman is entitled for regularisation as Clerk Grade-III w.e.f. 22-4-1991 with difference ofwages from that date . The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date of publication of the award .

H. M. SINGH, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 23 जून , 2009

बह.आ. 2007.-ओजोनिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 6. In this respect it has been argued on behalf ofthe concerned workman that he was appointed as Miner/ Loader from 3-3-87 but the work ofClerk was taken from him as per order dated 15/22-4-1991 being No. PS/BH(S)/ 91/14- Staff/739 . By this office order he was ordered bythe management to work as Clerk in the Account Department under Asstt . Finance Officer for a period of six months, Ext. W- 1 and it has been extended after completion ofsix months by the management vide Office Order No. PS/ BH( S) /91 / 11 /2036 dated 6/ 9-11-91 , Ext.M- 1 . As per Company's rule 73 the probation period is only for six months and the concerned workman completed more then six months even then he was not given pay for the work

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. एअर इंडिया लि. के पंचतंत्र के संबनियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार 4345 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3, 1931

الغارقة AWARD PARTI W

औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ अम न्यायालय संख्या 2 , मुंम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 2/16/ का 2000 ) को प्रकाशितं करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को23-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11012/56/99 - आई.आर. ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेह लता अबास , डेस्क अधिकारी

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No.L- 11012/56/99/IR(C-1) dated 4th January, 2000 in exercise of the powers conferred by elause (d) of sub-section ( 1) and sub section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

NewDelhi, the23rd June,2009

"Whether the action of the management ofAir India Ltd. în dismissingthe services of Shri A.D. Salvi, Ex- Traffic Assistant w.e.f. 16-4-1996 is legal and justified? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman concerned is entitled to?" 1.

S.O. 2007. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Contral Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No2/ 16 of 2000) of the Central Government Industrial TribunalLabour Court, No.2 Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofMrs.Air India Ltd. and theirworkman, which was received by the Central Government.on 23-06-2009.

[No. L- 11012/56/99- IR (C- I) ] SNEH LATAJAWAS, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.2 MUMBAI

Present: Shri A.A.Lad , Presiding Officer

Reference No.CGIT-2/16 of2000

Employers in relation to the managetnent of M/ s . AIR INDIALTD..

(NowNational Aviation Company of India Ltd.)

2. Workman Salvi was employed by the Management of Air India as Typist/Clerk in 1977 and that he was promoted as Senior Traffic Assistant . Vide Statement ofClaim ( Exhibit 6) workman pleaded that, the management issued him charge sheet dated 4th October, 1995 alleging his unauthorised absence from duty. According toworkman domestic inquiry conducted against him in respect of the said charge sheet was against the principles ofnatural justice in as much as undue hastewas done and that, the genuine difficulties for remaining absent were not considered and that , he had intimated the Management on his absence along withmedical certificate. It is averred that , the proceedings initiated against him was without authority of law and that findings recorded are perverse, consequently inquiry as a whole vitiates. It is contended that, based on the inquiry report workman was dismissed from service w.e.f. 16th April, 1996 and that, his dismissal being illegal , management be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages, setting aside the inquiry.

TheManagingDirector, Air IndiaLtd.

(NowNational Aviation Company ofIndia Ltd. )

Air IndiaBldg.; Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. 1stParty

V/s.

Their Workmen

2nd Party

Shri A:D.Salvi , Adarshila Co-op . Housing Society Ltd. 163/19Gorai- II, Borivali (West),Mumbai-400092 ..

APPEARANCES

Forthe Employer:

Mr. LancyD'Souza, Representative

For the Workmen:

Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant, Advocate

Award: 14-1-2009.

Award: 01-05-2009.

3.Management Company resisted the claim of werkmanby filing Written Statement (Exhibit 9) contending that, though the workman was promoted as Senior Traffic Assistant in the year 1989 was demoted as Traffic Assistant in the year 1995 and on the day of issuance of the charge sheet, he was Traffic Assistant and not the Senior Traffic Assistant. It is averred that, the workman remained absent without permission in the year 1995 for about 149 days. Prior to that also he was absent unauthorisedly for which he was penalized, but he could not mend his conduct and that, his absence created obstacle in the working of the Company therefore he was issued charge sheet on 4th October, 1995 which he replied on 29th February, 1996,however explanation being not satisfactory domestic inquirywas initiated against him. It is contended that, the inquiry committee giving sufficient opportunity conducted the inquiry and based on the evidence and the documents, pecorded the findings and based onthat after seeking approval by the application dated 16thApril , 1996 in Reference No.1 of 1990 from the National Industrial Tribunal, Mumbai, the workman was dismissed from service w.e.f. 16th April, 1996. It is contended that, inquiry being fair and proper and findings not perverse, the claim ofthe workman be dismissed with costs in limine.

DateofReserving the Date of Passing the 4346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 25, 2009/BRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II Sec.3 ( ii)] 4. In view ofthe above pleadings issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor at Exhibit 11 where , the issue of domestic inquiry and perversity of the finding ofthe inquiry officerwere framed and were tried as preliminary issues. Award Part Iwas passed on the said issues on 22-8-2003 holding enquiry fair and proper and finding not perverse.

5. Now the remaining issue on quantum of punishment remain to decide which is Issue No.3 amongst the issues framed at Exhibit 11 which I answer as under:

FINDING

ISSUES

3. Whether the action of the Management ofAir India Ltd. in dismissing the services of Shri A.D. Salvi, Ex-Traffic Assistant w.e.f.

Yes

16-4-1996 is legal and proper?

4. What relief the workman is entitled to? Does not arise.

ISSUES NOS. 3 & 4:

REASONS:

enquiry against the concerned workman. He claims that, said authority cannot issue charge sheet as well as issue termination order. He challenges the status of the Authority by filing this affidavit even at this stage when point of quantum of promichment is under consideration vis-a-vis termination. He states that, he was compelled to remain away from his duty during the period covered in the charge shest on account of genuine difficulties and the cheeptances which were beyond his control . Even he that, he submitted medical certificates to the Mi tin respect ofillness ofmembers ofhis family. His also alleges that , he was under medical treatment of Medioni Officer of the Management . He alleges that, windument of dismissal from services given to him w.e.f. 166 April, 1996 is very haruh and disproportionate to the gravity of alleged of misconduct ofabsenteeism. He goes on alleging that, since it was not order of competent authority it does not attract legality and sanctity. In the croes he admits that , the charge sheet is signed by Cosumasini Manager. He admits that, he was not aware about change of the designation of the Commercial Manager frem 1996. He admits that, he was punished four times ofthe charge of absenteeism prior to serving- order ofdimaisent as shown on page 34 ofExhibit 13. Then 2nd Party olssssd his evidence and filed closing purshis at Exhibit33.

6.The concerned workman was charge shested on the charge of absenteeism and onquiry was conducted against him where the concernedworkanan was found guilty. of the said charge of absenteeism . In the said enquiry concerned workman led evidence and the Enquiry Officer gave decision observing charge of misconduct of absenteeism is proved against him . Ist Party submits that, the enquiry was challenged by the 2nd Party vis-a-vis perversity offinding and state that, after recording evidence my predecessor observed enquiry fair and proper and finding not perverse.

7. Now, point of quantum of punishment is taken for adjudication at this stage. As stated above charge of misconduct i.e. of absenteeism was leveled against the concerned workman . After holding enquiry and after recording evidence, Enquiry Officer observed said charge levelled against the concerned, workman were proved, which was upheldby my Predecessorwhile passing Award Iobserving enquiry fair and proper and finding not perverse. It is to be noted that, said is not challenged by the concerned workman till this moment .

8. Now, question arise for consideration iswhether the punishment of termination awarded to 2nd Party is adequate?

10. As against that, 1 st Party placed reliance on the evidence ofits witness Mrs. Shubhada Shreerang Marathe by filing her affidavit atExhibit 39; in lieu ofher examination- in-chief, who states that, according to Clause 3.12 ofthe Scheme ofAmalgamation, which, interalia, deals with the legal proceedings , the National Aviation Company for India Ltd. have undertaken to have such legal, quasi judicial and other proceedings initiatedby or against the aforesaid TransferorCompanies, namely, Air India Ltd. and Indian Airlines Ltd. , transferred in the name ofNational Aviation Company of India Limited. It is stated that, the said national Aviation Company of India Ltd. has also undertaken to deal with the legal or other legal proceedings which may be initiated against the Transferor Companies (Air India Ltd. and Indian Airlines Lad.) after the effective date relatingto the Transferor Companies in respect ofthe period upto the effective date in its own name and account and to the exclusion ofthe Transferor Companies . She further states that, the concerned workanan was issued a charge sheet dated 4thOctober , 1995 as per the Model Standing Orders (Central) . She states that , list of Authorities who are empowered to take disciplinary action and hear appeals were specified in the circular dated 17th November , 1990 and as per that Commercial Manager /Regional Manager or its equivalent is the Competent Authority and as per that, Competent Authority issued the charge sheet against the concerned workman . He says that the Commercial Manager/Regional Manager are the officers of that equivalent status. He further states that, Mr. O. Shekharan, 9. To prove that, 2nd Party made out case that, the punishment of termination awarded to him is not proportionate for his absenteeism . To prove that , he placed reliance on his affidavit filed at Exhibit 32 in lieu of his examination- in -chief. However, in the said affidavit 2nd Party again disputed about the enquiry stating that, the General Manager Sales and Space Management has no power or authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings or $4347

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3,1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the then Deputy Commercial Director of the Ist Party Companyhas signed the impugned order under challenge. He further states that, as per order dated 30-11-1995 said Mr. O.Shekharan was promoted as Dy. Commercial Director w.e.f. 1-11-1995 and said order was signed by Sari N.S. Rajan, the then Director, HRD . He further states that, post ofexecutives and officers were rationalized vide circular dated 23rd February, 1996. It is further stated that, the said circular mentioned that, the said changes in the designation ofExecutives/Officers in various grades would not involve any change in the exercise of administrative, financial , disefplinary powers . He fürther states that, vide order dated 30-11-95 Shri O.P. Shekharan was promoted as Dy . Commercial Director , the revised designation of the same is General Manager and during the relevant period post of Dy. General Manager in the Sales & Space Management Unit ofCommercial Department, in which the workman was working before his dismissal was vacant . He further states that, on perusal of both the standard force statement of the office of CM and also Dy.C.D. Sales and Space Management as on Ist January . 1996 and Ist July , 1996 respectively shows that , the post of Commercial Manager/ Dy.General Manager (Revised) is one which was vacant during 1-1-1996 . He further states that, since the post of Dy. General Manager was vacant in the said Division at the relevant period , the order of dismissal dated 16-4-1996 was signed by Shri O. Shekharan in his capacity as the General Manager , which isthe post next higher in hierarchy tothat ofDy. General Manager,

11. In the cross he states that no standing orders were displayed on the notice board which were applicable to the concerned workman . He also states that, he has no idea whether copy of the said was given to the concerned workman.

12. So this is the evidence led by both on the point of quantum of punishment . 2nd Party filed written arguments at Exhibit 40 and 1st Party at Exhibit 41 with some citations .

nothing is stated by the 2nd Party Besides he is not showing how punishment awarded of dismissal is not just and proper. However , he admits that prior to that, he was having no idea on the penalty laid 4 times on the point of absenteeism. It shows that, absenteeism is the problem of the 2nd Party which he does not want to improve . When that was the habit of the 2nd Party of remaining absent fromduty andwhen he was warned from time and again, he suffers by the same problem. Here question arise Whether such a conduct on the part of the 2nd Party can be treated as simple and require to ignored? It is argued by 1st Party that, he was convicted on 4 occasions in the past which does not permit 2nd: Party to pray for any benefits as he was given a chance on four occasions in past to improve his attendance. Besides Ld. Advocate for the 1st Party placed reliance on the citation published 2004 III CLR page 289 in the case of Delhi Transport Corporation vs. Sardar Singh where Apex Court observed that, if unauthorized absence for a long period is proved which is habitual negligence in duties , in that case , one has to consider that such a conduct was nothing but irresponsible in extreme andhardly be justified . He also placed reliance on citation published in 2008 ( 1 ) CLR page 978 in the case of L & T Komatsu Ltd. vs N. Udayakumar where Apex Court observed that, when charge of absenteeism is proved, the habitual absenteeism is gross violation of discipline and in that case one cannot expect leniency and Courts should not interfere with the order oftermination . Another citation relied by 1st Party is published in 2005 III CLR page 539 in the case of Larsen & Toubro Grahak Satikari Sanastha Maryadit, Bombay vs. Talaji Kashinath Vishwe & ors .where our Hon'ble High Court observed that, when enquiry was found fair andproper in such case and when dismissal is not shown improper it is observed it is justified. The ratio laid down in citation published in 2006 (110 ) FLR page.965 of our Hon 'ble High Court , in the case of Rasik Govind Mankar vs. Oberoi Towers , reveals if action was taken on the habitual absenteeism which was proved by holding enquiry . When enquiry was legal and proper in that case, one cannot ignore punishment awarded by disciplinary authority.

14. Ifwe consider all this coupled with the case made out by both , where 1st Party succeeds to show that , the punishment awarded by it of dismissal is proved as just and proper I conclude that, in the case of absenteeism , ifproved , andwhen it is shown by the employer that, he was a habitual in remaining absent in that case, the punishment ofdismissal isjust and proper and does not require interference with the punishment awarded on 2nd Party . So I answer this issue to that effect and pass the following order :

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to its costs .

Bombay,

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer 13. In view of the discussions made above and the written arguments submitted by both, I find , 2nd Party still doesnot come and want to come out of dispute of fairness ofthe enquiry and perversity of the finding. Even at this stage he challenges that, the enquiry saying it was not fair and proper . He also alleges that, the officer of the Airport Authority who issued the charge sheet was not competent authority to serve the charge sheet upon him alleging that , the order of dismissal is also signed by an officer who was not competent to sign it . As against that , evidence led by 1st Party by filing affidavit of Mrs. Marathe at Exhibit 39 categorically gives idea how Mr. Shekharan , the then Commercial Manager , whose revised designation was General Manager, signed the charge sheet and dismissal order , since the post of Commercial Manager was lying vacant before his dismissal order dated 16-4-1996 . On that 1stMay,2009

2570 G1/096 4348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009 /SIRAWANA 3, 1931

[PART 11-Sec.3(ii)] नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2009

का. आ. 2008.-और, 1947(1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के बैंक, रोहतक के प्रबंधतंत्र के के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट नेत में औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ 64/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो सरकार को 25-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012 /30/2007 -आई आर(ची-II)]

New Delhi, the 25th June, 2009

but the work that adress w Old D were granted to the wordsman for fiting of cleim statement opted act to file slabe statosentill date. Notice was again sent to the workusan by registered post ne beammonimed book with the romarks plots. As per reference sent by the Covettustent, Sabir Singh is reshihint of44/10, Mand, Rekick, Notice veas sant on this boss. Therefore , it is evident that addressee has mplete address or by the passage of time, changed. The addressee had 10 this Tribunal . Under these this Tribunal cannot sent notice to Satbir rest, than that given in, the reference As detailed above, amid notice has been received evaludes this Tribunal from before it. Workman never ofthe his claim

S.O. 2008. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No, 64/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank, Rohtak and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2009.

[No. L-12012/30/2007-IIR (B- ID)] RAJINDER KUMAR, DeskOffliner

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAY: PRESIDING OFFICIA:

3. Though refrente made by the appropriateGovt. goment to show that order dated 22-3-98, souminating the services of the workman, isjust I legal , yet in the absence of the workanen it is not to call upon the management to justify their One side story would not lead the Tribunal stear Through to find out correct foets . Long absence and insstion on the part of the workman raises a presumption tothe effout that he is not at alt interested to raise his case befute this forum. Consequnatly I am left withino option burtoconcludethat there rotasins two dispute between the partion. Resultanty & No dispute award is passed. Itbe sent to the appropriate Government for its publication. Dated: 186-2009

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 1 : NEW DELHI : KARKARDOONA

Dr. R.K. YADAV, PresidingOfficer COURT COMPLEX : DELHI

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून , 2009

I.D. NO . 64/2007

मा. आ. 2009 औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 In the matter of dispute between:

Shri Satbir Singh , 44/10, Near Old Delhi Bus Stand, Rohtak.

Workumen

Versus

The Senior Regional Manager,

का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, बकेन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक , लखनक के प्रबंकतंत्र के संबद्ध निचीजों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , जनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक वाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अभिकरण, लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संजना 149/2004 ) कते प्रकाशित बारती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/114/2001 - आईआर ( बी -11) ]

सजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी Pubjab National Bank , Regional Office Near Railway Double Phatak, Geeta Colony, Rohtak, Rohtak.

Management.

New Delhi, the 25th June , 2009

AWARD

The Central Goverrunent, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012/30/2007 ( IR) (B-1B) dated 23-08-2007 bes referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

SO. 2009.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 149/2001) of the Central Government Indiestrial Tribunal/ Lalveur Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their worlunan, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2009.

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of Shri Satbir Singh S/ o Shri Chhotu Ram, Peon -cum -Driver w.e.f. 22-03-1998 is just and legal? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

[No. L- 12011 / 114/2001 - IR (B- 11 ) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer 2. Notice was issued to the parties on 10-9-07 for filing of claim statement on 12-11-2007. Ten adjournments 4349 [ भारा -खण्ड 3 ( ⅱ ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: खुलाई 25, 2009/श्रावण 3, 1931

ANNEXURE

employment vide onder dated 28-2-2000. Aggrieved from penalty order the workman preferred an appeal befenc AppellateAuthority, which too was rejected.

Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Lucknow

Present:-N.K. Purohit, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 149/2001

Ref.No. L- 12011 / 114/2001 -IR(B- II) dated07-09-2001

BETWEEN

The State Secretary

Syndicate Bank Empls . Union State Committee, 211 , Vinay Palace, AshokMarg Lucknow (U.P. )-226001 (Espousing case of Shri Rakesh Kumar )

AND

4. It is caseofthe workanan's union that the enquiry proceedings were held ex parte without affording any opportunity to the workman for defence and all the correspondences /memos/ notices issued to him by the bank were in English in violation ofpara 19.16 of the Bipartite Settlement, which being a sweeper he was not able to understand its contents, resultantly he could not respond as requiredby them. Furthermore, the alleged charge for misappropriating the amount temporarily itself shows that itwas not misappropriation ofmoney and giving the money by the accountholder to the workman was a personalmatter. Accordinglythe workman prayed to set aside the impugned order dated 28-2-2000with consequential benefits .

The Dy, Gen. Manager, SyndicateBank

ZonalOffice, Meerut Wing, Bhawani Puram University, Meerut, U.P. -250001

AWARD

15-06-2009

1. By order No. L - 12011 / 114/2001 -IR(B- II) dated: 07-09-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, NewDelhi in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) ofsub section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referredthis industrial dispute between the State Secretary, Syndicate Bank Empls . Union State Committee, 211 , Vinay Palace , Ashok Marg, Lucknow (U.P. ) and the Dy. Gen. Manager, Syndicate Bank, Zonal Office , Meerut Wing, Bhawani Puram University, Meerut U.P. for adjudication.

5. The management of the bank has denied the allegation of the workman that he was not given proper opportunity for his defence and the proceedings were conducted ex-parte and has submitted that the enquiry proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice giving full and proper opportunity to the workman for his defence . However, it was the workman who did not avail the opportunity and the InquiryOfficer was to proceed the inquiry ex -parte . As regarduse ofEnglish language in various correspondences/ memos etc. ofthe bank, it has been submitted by theBank that the reply to the charge sheet by the workman is in English, therefore, the contention as to usage of English language is not tenable. Accordingly, the management of theBank has prayed that the claim of the workman's union be rejected without any relief being extended to the workman concerned.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

6. The workman's union has filed rejoinderwhereby ithasonly reiterated its averments in the statement of claim andhas introduced nothing new.

"Whether the action of the managerment of Syndicate Bank in imposing the punishment of removal from service of Shri Rakesh Kumar , Ex Part Time Sweeрет, w.e.f. 24-3-2000 vide Order Dated 24-03-2000 is justified? Ifnot, what relief he is entitled?"

7. The management of the Bank submitted photo copyof the entire enquiry proceedings in support of their respoctive case . Following preliminary issue were framed on8-10-2002 by the Tribunal:

(i) Kya vibhagiya jaanch naisargik nayaay ke niyamon ke anuroop the athva nahi ?/trutipurn hai athva nahi ?

(ii) Kya janch adhikari dwara di gai aakhya durahgrahpurn (perverse) hai ? athvaa nahi ?

8. The workman examined himself whereas the management examined Shri R. K. Garg, Sr. Manager in support of their stand on preliminary issue .After hearing argurments ofthe parties , preliminary issues were decided in favour of the management vide order dated 30-3-2006, which reads as under :

" In the circumstances both the issues are decided against the workman and in favour ofthe management and it isheld that the departmental enquiry was conducted in 3. It is admitted case of the parties is that the workman Rakesh Kumarwas employed as part time sweeper onhalfscalewages at Collectorate Branch of the Syndicate Bank at Meerut and he was served upon a charge sheet dated 23-3-98 for alleged gross misconductby the Dy.GM, Zonal Office, Meerut for alleged gross misconduct of receiving Rs . 500/-from Smt. Manju Sharma on 12-8-97 for depositing the same in her saving bank account and temporarily misappropriating the amount of Rs . 500/ - and later crediting the above amount to her S /B account on 16- 9-97 after the depositor lodged a complaint in the branch . The management of the bank'being unsatisfied with the reply oftheworkman instituted an domestic enquiry into the charges leveled against the workman and the enquiry officer after conducting such enquiry submitted his report before Disciplinary Authority on 15-12-1999 who, after issuing show cause notice to the workman, imposed the punishment of removal from the services of the bank with immediate effect without disqualification for future 4350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II SEC. 3( ii)]

misconduct have been enumerated as under :

accordance with principle of natural justice and the enquiry proceedings are proper and the enquiry report is not perverse ."

may: "19.6 An employee found guilty of gross misconduct

(a) be dismissed without notice ; or

(b) be warned or censured, or have an adverse remark entered against him; or

(c) be fined; or

9.Accordingly, the case was listed on 26-6-2006 for evidence ofthe parties for disposal of the case but due to absence of the workman and his authorized representative thecase proceeded ex -parte against the workman and the management also declined to produce any witness . Resultantly, the case was listed for arguments .

(d) have his increments stopped; or

10. Heard learned representatives of the parties and perused entire material on record .

(e) have his misconduct condoned and be merely discharged."

14. Minor misconduct has been defined in clause 19.7 as an act or omission on the part of an employee including attempt to collect or collecting moneys within the premises ofthe bank without the previous permission ofthe management or except as allowed by any rule or law for the timebeing in force.

15. The contention of the learned representative on behalfofthe workman is that act of alleged misconduct of theworkman comes within the minor misconduct as defined in clause 19.7 (g) ; whereas learned representative of the management has urged that the act of the alleged misconduct of the workman is gross misconduct .

11. The learned representative on behalf of the workman's union has contended that the workman was a parttime sweeper in the Bank, he was not holding an office oftrust and he was not performing any duty pertaining to money matters . He was serving the Bank for about eight years without any complaint . The punishment imposed vide impugned order is disproportionate and harsh looking into the alleged misconduct and it will also effect his all family . He has further contended that the workman has not misappropriated the money entrusted to him but delayed in depositing the money in account of Manju Sharma. The amount of Rs . 500/- was given by her for depositing in her saving bank account, but she was in hurry and did not give her account number and pass book to the workman on 12-8-97 . In such circumstances , the amount could not be deposited timely. The matter is totally connected with private affairs . The learned representative has contended thatunder Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 the Tribunal has power to set aside the impugned order . He has requested that some minor punishment may be imposed keeping in view the facts of the matter. He has relied 2005 Lab 2160 ( Kerala) High Court .

12. Per contra , the learned representative on behalf ofthe Bank has urged that workman has committed gross misconduct ofdoing an act prejudicial to the interest ofthe Bank . It is clear case of lack of confidence of bank management in the workman who cannot be retained in service.Hence order of removal is quite just . He has placed reliance on following case laws :

( i ) 2003 ( 3 ) SCC 583

( ii ) AIR 1997 SC 3571

( iii) 2009 ( 4) SCC 225

13. Thus , the question under consideration is as to whether the punishment of dismissal imposed on the workman is disproportionate looking to the charge against the workman found to be proved . I have given my thoughtful consideration on rival submission ofboth sides on above the point . The workman was charge sheeted for gross misconduct under clause 19.5 of the Bipartite Settlement for alleged misconduct . It has been alleged in the charge sheet that workman committed an act which was prejudicial to the interest of the Bank under clause 19.5 of the said settlement . Gross misconduct has been defined under clause 19.5 and 19.6 punishments for gross

16. Section 11 A ofthe I.D. Act empowers the Tribunal to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal, if, found notjustified and to give direction for reinstatement of the workman and to give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal and the circumstances of the case may require . Since the question regarding validity of the impugned order has already been decided in favour ofthe management vide tribunal's order dated 30-3-2006 and only question regarding quantum of punishment is under consideration, there is no need to go into the merits ofthe case only it is to be seen whether the punishment of dismissal imposed on the workman is disproportionate to the alleged misconduct under clause 19.5 of the bipartite settlement. In case laws which have been referred by the learned representative on behalf of the management, the matter pertaining to harsh punishment under Section 11 A ofI.D. Act was not under consideration . In AIR 1997 SC 3571 Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that where no irregularity alleged nor charges framed are contrary to any law, Tribunal cannot go into correctness of charges. In (2003) 3 SCC 583 , the matter under consideration was scope ofjudicial review ofHigh Court under Article 226. In said caseHon'bleApex Court has observed that in the matter ofDomestic Inquiry High Court does not act as an appellate authority. In (2009) 4 Supreme Court Cases 225 appellant was compulsorily retired on account of failure to file property returns under Armed Forces Air Force Act, 1950. Inthis matter Hon'ble Apex Court observed that power of court to interfere with quantum ofpunishment is extremely restricted . Court can direct reconsideration only when relevant factors have not been considered. But in the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

present matter under section 11 A of the I.D. Act, it is within the purview and scope of the Tribunal to consider whether the punishment imposed is disproportionate or harsh and Tribunal is also empowered to award any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal taking into the consideration the circumstances of the case .

17. Admittedly , the workman was a part time sweeper. It was not part of his job to receive and deposit the amount in the accounts of the customers of the Bank . He had not received the amount of Rs . 500/- from the customer Manju Sharma while acting and purporting to act in discharge of his any official duty to receive and deposit the amount of customer. He was working as part time sweeper for eight years .

18. In 2005 Lab. I.C, 2160 , the petitioner was working as machinist , in a public sector undertaking, was caught bysecuritypersonnel when he was trying to taken out 1.75 liters of oil in tool box of his scooter . He was found guilty ofmisconduct of theft and he was dismissed from service . Hon'ble Kerala High Court observed that the workman was not holding an office of trust, he was an ordinary worker . He was engaged in factory as machinist . His qualification will normally, be a pass in the ITI Trade Certificate , therefore , having regard will all aspects , punishment of dismissal was not justifying having regard to nature of offence and imposed a punishment of suspension for three years and directed reinstatement of workman after three years .

4351

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

within eight weeks of publication of the award . The reference is answered accordingly.

M 21. Award as above.

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer Lucknow, 15-06-2009

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून, 2009

का. आ. 2010. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिंध बैंक, चण्डीगढ़ के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण सं. -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-6-2009 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/105/2008- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्कअधिकारी New Delhi, the 25th June , 2009

S.O. 2010.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 05/2009). of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank, Chandigarh and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/105/2008-IR (B- II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I. D. 5/2009

19. A dismissal order has serious consequences ; therefore , it should be imposed only keeping in view the gravity and magnitude of alleged charges. The totality of circumstance has to be considered : In present case the charges of alleged misconduct ofthe workman is not such which warrants harsh punishment of dismissal . The punishment of dismissal seems to be disproportionate looking to the charges proved against the workman. Having regard to the nature ofjob of the workman and nature of alleged charges for which he has been found guilty, nature ofpunishments other than dismissal enumerated for gross misconduct under clause 19.6 of the Bipartite Settlement i.e.warning, censure , fine, stoppage of increment, and other entire facts and circumstances of the case the interest of justice would be subserved if instead of punishment of dismissal the workman be punishment for lesser punishment i.e. withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect and reinstating him without order for back wages .

20. In view of the above discussion , the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in imposing the punishment of removal from service vide impugned order dated 24.3.2000 , is not justified to the extent of the punishment imposed . The impugned order is modified in lieu of dismissal , lesser punishment of withholding of two grade increments with cumulative effect is imposed on the workman. The workman be reinstated without back wages Sh. Surinderpal S/o Shri Daya Ram, VPO- Kalanaur ,Mohalla, New Katra, Tehsil & Distt . Gurdaspur. ...Applicant

Versus

TheZonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank, ...Respondent Gurdaspur.

APPEARANCES

None For the workman:

None Forthe management:

AWARD

Passed on: Ist of June 2009

Central Govt. vide notification No. -L- 12012/ 105/2008 -IR(B- II) , dated 24-3-2009 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

4352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 200 /BRAMΜΑΝΑ 3, 1931

[PART II-SBC. 3( i) ]

Versus

TheRegional Manager,

Regional Office, 20, Snch Nagar,

Punjab National Bank, Indore

Management .

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab and Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Surinder Pal w.e.f. 16-12-2006 without following the provision of section 25F and 25G of the industrial dispute Act 1947 is legal and justified . What relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent .

AWARD

Passed on this 10th day of June , 2009

1. The Central Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 12012/ 122/98/ IR (B-II) dated25-2/4-3-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management ofRegional Manager, Punjab National Bank in terminating the services ofShri Umesh Chandra Pathak w.e. f. 5-4-97 isjustified. If not, to what reliof the workman is entitled for? י

2. None is present on behalf of the workman . None is present on behalf of the management. On receipt of the reference fromthe Central Govt . , the notice was issued to theworkman for 14-5-2009 . None appeared on behalfof the workman on 14-5-2009 and again a registered notice was issued for today. Registered notice for today was received back with a report not available . There is no other address of the workman in the reference and it is not possibleto serve the workman on this address . Therefore, the present reference is returned as such to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt . be informed . File be consigned.

Chandigarh. 1-6,2009

G. K. SHARMA, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 25 जून , 2009

का. आ. 2011.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक, इंदौर , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , इंदौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 109/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/122/1998 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th June, 2009

S.O. 2011. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 109/1999) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, No. 1 Indore now as shown in the annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank, Indore and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 122/ 1998- IR (B- II) ] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. The case of the workman Shri Umesh Chandra Pathak in short is that he was appointed initially as a peon on23-3-85 and was posted at Punjab National Bank, Dewas . Subooquently he was promoted and was working as clerk- cume-enshier at Punjab National Bank, Khokrakalam Branch, Distt. Shajapur . It is stated that on 27-10-96, he received information about the serious illness of his wife at Indore and he went there on 28-10-96. His wife is said to have been admitted in the hospital on 30-10-96 and she remained theretill 14-11-96. Again she was hospitalised on 25-12-96 and remained there till 20-1-97 and again from 2-2-97 to 9-2-97. It is stated that the workman also become ill from 20-1-97 and was admitted in the hospital from 22-1-97to 1-2-97 and again admitted from 6-3-97 to 13-3-97 and from 11-4-97 to 17-4-97 and was under the treatment oftheDoctor ofDapatHospital, Indore . It is stated that the workman had sent two leave applications by pest on 30-10-96 and 20-1-97 but the same were not considered by the Branch managor , Khokrakalam, Distt. Shajapur , nor any intimation ofrejection was given to him . The management is said to have not issue/ served any show cause notice to the workman at his address and suo - moto the Regional Manager took a decision to treat the workman as voluntarily retired. It is stated that the termination order dated 7-4-97 passedby the Regional Manager was received by the first party on 17-4-97 when he returned from the Hospital . It is denied that the notice of show-cause dated 27-1-97 was ever received by him and the notices published in local newspapers on 6-3-97 and 7-3-97 were never read by him . It is also atinged that the workman was terminated without any enquiry or chargesheet and Vth Bipartite Settlement was never displayed on the notice board ofBranchOffice.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO . CGIT/LC/R/109/99

PRESIDING OFFICER: Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan

It is also alleged that the provision of ID Act was also complied with . The workman also filed appeal but the same was rejected by the management on 13-10-97 . It is also stated that the punishment is harsh and excessive . On these ground, it is submitted that the order dated 7-4-97be set- aside and the workman be reinstated with back wages and costs of the suit.

Shri Umesh Chandra Pathak, 50, Bhamori Dube,

Workman/Union

Indore(MP)

3.The management has filed Written Statement in the case. The case of the management , inter alia, is that the 4353 [ भाम -खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/3 , 1931

are PaperNos. 14/7 to 14/18 and 14/19 to 4/21 . There is nothing in these appeal and representation that he had no knowledge about 5th Bipartite settlement: This ples appears tobe after thought. Thus the fact that, the 5th Bipartite settlement was in existence between the Bank and the workman is not in dispute about the knowledge of the said settlement and the workman was all along wware about the legal position and consequences of the said settlement.

service conditions of the Bank staff in the Banking Industries are governed by the provision ofShastriAward, Desai Award and various Bi -partite settlement. It is admitted position between both the parties that applicant Umesh Chand Pathak was governed by the Service conditions of Para 17(a) ofthe Vth Bipartite settlement. It is stated that Shri Pathak while working as clerk -cum-cashier inPunjab National Bank at Khokrakalam Branch absented from duties from 28-10-96 without any information and application for leave. A notice dated 27-1-97 through registered post as well as UPC were sent to join on his duties within 30 days but he did not join on his duties nor had submitted any explanation of his absence. It is stated that for giving another opportunity to Shri Pathak, the noticewas published on 6-3-97 in two local newspapers to reportwithin30 days on duty. Shri Pathak neither reported onhis duties nor sumitted any explanation in response of thenotices published in the local newspapers . Thereafter in terms of clause 17(a) of the Bipartite settlement, the Competent authority vide letter dated 7-4-97 treated him having voluntarily retired from the service ofthe Bank w.e.f. 5-4-97. It is stated that there was no provision on any appeal against the voluntary retirement ofthe employee under the Vth Bipartite settlement . It is submitted that the voluntary retirement ofShir Pathak is legal and justified and he is not entitled to any relief.

4.On the basis of the pleadings ofboth the parties, the following issues are settled on recast for adjudication.

(1) Whether the conditions of clause: 17(a) of th Bipartite settlement were fulfulied before treating the workman Shir Pathak as voluntarily retired w.e.f. 5-4-972

(ii) Ifyes , whether the action of the management in terminating the service of Shri Pathak is justified?

(iii) To any other relief, the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. 1:

6. It is an admitted position that the workman Shri Pathak absented himself for a period ofmore than 90 days without submitting any application for leave . It is admitted position that theworkman Shri Pathak absented hinselffor. a period of more than 90 days without submitting any application for leave . It is admitted position that the workman Shri Pathak absented w.e.f. 28-10-96. After 90 days, i.e. on 27-1-97, the management Bank issued notice to the workman which is marked as Exhibit M/2 . The workman has alleged that he had not received any show cause notice. The Bipartite settlement shows that the management may atany time thereafter give a notice to the employee at his last known address . It is clear that after90 days, the management may send notice at his last known address. The management has filed photocopy of the notice which is marked as Exhibit M/2. The photocopy of registration receipt is also filed to show that the show cause notice was sent through Registered Post which is marked as Exhibit M/3 . The management has also filed receipt ofUnder Certificate ofPosting which is marked as Exhibit M/JA . This also shows that the show- cause notice was also sent through post in addition. The said notice and receipt show that it was sent on the address of 133/2 . Bharmori Dubey, Indore. The important question ofthebi- partite settlement is that the notice is to be sent at his last known address. The mingement case and the evidence ofthe nummagement witness show that the notice was sent on the last known address of the applicant. This fact is also substarushied from the documents filed by the applicant hanself. Exhibit P/1 , 2/3 , P/ 5, P/7, P/9 and P/ 11 , the alleged discharge cards are filed by the applicant workman. These papers show that the address is same as on which show cause noticewas sent to the applicant. Thus it is established that the notice was sent by registered post on the last known address where the applicant was admittedly living at the relevant there. This part of the ingredient of the Bi- partite settlement is proved beyond duabe. :

7. It is an admitted fact that the applicant had not reported on duty within 30 days of the said show cause notice. The case of the applicant is that he had sent application for 1 1/2 month leave on 30-10-96 ontheground ofillnessofhiswife under CertificateofPosting and again an application for extension of leave on 20-1-97 under CertificateofPosting. It is stated by the applicant that his hospitalized and he was also hospitalized and therefore he did not reported on duty . Discharge cards of the Bapat Hospital and receipts are filed by the applicant which are marked as Exhibit P/ 1 to P/ 13 and a Certificate of the Doctor which is marked as Exhibit P/ 14. The case ofthe management is that no application for leave was ever wife

It appears form the pleading of the workman that he has not deniedthe existence of clause 17(a) of5th Bipartite settlement which is filed by the managerment and is marked asExhibit M/ 1 whick appears to be a complete code. He has merely raised a point that the 5th Bipartite settlement was not know to the workman and it was not properly displayed on the notice board of the said branchs of the Bank. This fact appears to be nottrue because the workuman hashimselt fited circular No. 1716 dated 5-4-2000which is PaperNos . 14/23 to 14/32. This is filed to show that clause 17(a) of 5thBipartite settlement is deleted. This modification in 5th Bipartite settlement is not applicable in this case because this amendment took place on 5-4-2000 where as he was deemed to be voluntarily retired before i.e. on 5-4-97. As such, it is clear that the workman had knowledge about the Bipartite settlement . Moreover it appears that the workman has raised this plea at a belated stage. He is said to have filed appeal and representation before the higher authority ofthe Bank. He has filed the said memo of appeal and representation on dated 7-5-97 and 27-8-97 which -4354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/BRAVANA 3, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

not arrive at a satisfaction that the workman had no intention to join his duties."

10. In the instance case, the applicant had also not attached medical certificate and the applicant for leave is alleged tohave been sent by ordinary Dak. The management appers tohave given sufficient time to resume his duties . Thus the above cited decision appours to be applicable in the ouse. This issues is answered in favour of the non- appliount and against the applicant/workman.

11. Insue No. 2 &3 :

received by the non-applicant . The burdon is on the applicant to prove that the application was sent on the ground of illness of his wife and of himself. Firstly the alleged application for leave was not sent by registered post. Secondlythe address on the cortificates were different as on the discharge cards . Thirdly the alleged leave applications and UPC (Papers No. 17/2 to 1 7/5) show that the medical certificate was not attached with the application . Lastly the copies of the applications ofleave are submitted in court at a belated stage on 23-11-2004. TheDoctor is also not examined to support the illness.All the above circumstances clearly show that the documents filed by the applicant to substantiate the ground ofhis absence from duty are not reliable. It is not out ofplaceto say that from the basis of the documents filed by the applicant, it appears that from 15-11-96 to 24-12-96, from 10-2-97 to 5-3-97 and from 14-3-97 to 10-4-97, there is not discharge cards and the applicant was not ill . There is no explanation as to why the applicant had not reported on dutyduring those days . The above discussion clearly show that the applicant has failed to discharge his burden that there was reasonable ground for his absence within the period of about six months . The management appears to be reasonable satisfied that the applicant had no intention ofjoiningduties .

k is clear from the above discussion that the action of the management was in accrodance with the Bipartite settlement. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that the punishment was harsh and excessive . From the Bipartite setloquent, it appears that it is not a termination . Rather it is more an act of the applicant workman himself. The management has to come to the conclusion that the workman has no intention ofjoining duties and thereafter it will be deemedthat the workman has voluntarily retired from the Service after expiry of the period ofthe said notice . The counsel for the applicant submitted that the principle of astural justice is violated as the services of the applicant is terminated without hearing the workman . He has relied upon adecision reported in 2009( 120) FLR 608 StateBank of India&& others versus Ranjit Kumar Chakraborty & others. This decision appears to be not applicable in the case because firstly it is not a termination. Secondly the action of the management is based on 5th Bipartite settlement which appears tobe a complete procedure which was settled by the management and the employee by way ofsettlement . As discussed above, it appears that the management has fully followed requirements of the said settlement which was also binding on the applicant.

8. It is argued on behalf of the applicant that notices were also published with local news papers which are marked as Exhibit M/4 and M/5 when the management was fully knowing well that the applicant was living at Indore because the Registered notice was sent to Indore. It is submitted that notice was not properly served. I do not agree with the view of the learned Counsel for the applicant because as per Bi-partite settlement, the show-cause notice was to be sent at his last known address . The show- cause notice through registered post and UPC were sent at the address of Indore . The above discussion clearly proves that the notice of show- cause was sent at the correct last known address . The show -cause notice published in the local news -paper will not create any lacune in the case ofthe management. Thus it is established that the non-applicant management has complied the requirements of clause 17 (a) of the Bipartite settlement and the applicant workman has failed to prove that he was prevented with reasonable cause to report on duty within 30 days of the notice.

9.The management has relied a decision reported in (2005) 5 - S.C.C . 337 , Viveka Nand Sethi versus Chairman , J & K Bank Ltd. , & others wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that-

12.Thelearned counsel for the applicant also urged that the punishment is excessive. He has relied upon decisions reported in 2008 ( 117) FLR 354 , PEPSU Road Transport Corporation versus Rawel Singh and 2008 ( 117) FLR 324 Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. versus Industrial Tribunal- II , Lucknow and another wherein the workman was terminated on the ground of absence of few days . These rulings are not applicable in the case as it is based on Bi -partite settlement . Thus the management action appears to be justified and the applicant does not entitle any other relief. However he is entitled to retirement benefits as per rules of the non- applicant Bank w.e.f. the dateofvoluntarily retirement .Accordingly with the above observations , both the issues are decided in favour of the non -applicant management and against the applicant werdanan.

13. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the award is passed in favour of the non- applicant/management and against the applicant/workman without any orders as to costs .

14. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment asperrules.

"Mere sending of an application for grant of leave much after the period of leave was over as also the date of resuming duties cannot be said to be a bonafide act on the part ofthe workman . Opportunties after opportunities indisputably had been granted to the workman to explain his position but he chose not to do so except filing applications for grant of medical leave and that too without annexing proper medical certificate . In the aforementioned fact situation there is no reason as to why the Bank could

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer 4355

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/श्रवण 3 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 25 जून , 2009

Bank.His request was not acceded to, He raised a dispute before the conciliation officer, before whom the management offered to pay retrenchment compensation . He opted not the accept the same . Since conciliation proceedings failed, appropriate Government vide its Order No. L- 12012/174/ 2004- IR (B - II ) dated 17-12-2004 referred a dispute to this Tribunal for, adjudication , in following terms:

का. आ. 2012, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक , गाजियाबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 02/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/174/2004- आईआर( बी- II ]

राजेन्द्र कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th June , 2009

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank in discontinuance/terminating services of Shri Malkhan Singh son of Rambir Singh employed in District Lead Bank Branch Noida w.e.f. 2-1-2004 without observing provisions Section 25 -F, G and Hofthe Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the concerned workmanis entitled to?" S.O. 2012. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 02/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank, Graziabad and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on25-6-2009:

[No. L- 12012/ 174/2004- IR(B- II)] RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, NO. 1, NEW DELHI, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

L. D. No. 2/2005

Inthe matter ofdispute between: Malkhan Singh S/o Shri Rambir Singh, R/o Village Sabot Mustafabad, Bulandshehr , U. P.

Versus

Regional Manager, Syndicate Bank,, Regional Office, First Floor, R-1/77 , Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad.

AWARD

2. Claim statement was filed by the workman pleading therein that he was employed as Water Boy-cum -Peon since 29-12-2000 at District LeadBranch, Syndicate Bank, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar , U.P. His last drawn salary wasRs . 2400 P.M. However, he was paid Rs . 80 per day for actual working days . No wages were paid to him for Sundays and Holidays . He was doing office work including cleaning ofoffice, filing work, local delivery of notices and serving water to officials of the bank as well as visitors . He requested for benefits such as bornus, minimum wages and other benefits under the law. To his utter surprise when he pressed his demands for above benefits, hewas not allowed tojoin duties on 1-4-2004. He approached management time and again and requested them to permit him tojoin duties but to no avail . However, he used to report for duty every day but was not allowed to join his duties . Management has terminated his services wrongfully , without giving him notice pay and retrenchment compensation , besides other behefits attached to his services. He was also not paid wages for weekly holidays . His signatures were obtained on various bank vouchers, blank paper and letter head etc. He was thrown out ignoring. legal provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) . Not allowing him to work tentamounts to his retrenchment , as per Section 2(00) of the Act. His services were summarily terminated without following requisite provisions of Sections 25 -F, G and H of the Act . Management has not followed the principles of last come and first go . He sent demand notice on 3-5-2004, but it was not complied with bythe management . He is unemployed since the date of his illegal termination. He could not get gainful employment despite his best efforts . He claims reinstatement in service with full back wages and continuity of service , besides arrears of pay and other benefits ...

3. Management contests the claim pleading that Malkhan Singh was engaged at their Lead District Office, Noida for the purposes of fetching water to office . He was engaged on daily Coolie post and paid by, debiting to general charges head of accounts and Malkhan Singh was employed as causal labour in District LeadBranch, Syndicate Bank, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. on 29-12-2000 . He was working as Water Boy- cum-Peon and paid Rs . 80 per day . He worked in the Bank till 31-3-2004, the date when aforesaid branch of the bank was closed . On 19-4-2004 he wrote to the Regional Manager, as well as , General Manager of the Syndicate Bank, seeking employment in, some other branch of the

2570 G1/09-7 4356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 25, 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

other branch of the bank but he was not allowed for the same. He addressed letter date 19-2-2004 to Regional Manager as well as General Manager, Syndicate Bank , copies of which are Ex . WW1/ 6 and Ex.WW1 / 7 respectively. He has been thrown out by the mangement , ignoring legat provisions of law, specially of Sestion 25-F of the Act. Acts of the management tentamounts to retrenchment, as defined in Section 2(00) of the Act. His services were summarily terminated without following the provisions of Section 2 ( 00) , 25-F, Gand H of the Act . He is unemployed ever since the date of his illegal termination.

not by debiting establishment expenses , as done in the case of regular employee. His work was totally independent and not controlled or supervisedby the officials of the bank. Hewas paid coolie charges for the day he worked.It was contract for service and not contract of service. No appointment letter was issued nor he was recruited by following prescribed provedure and rules of recruitment. He was engaged purely for casual work on daily wage basis. Since the office where the workman was supplying watte was closed on 31-3-2004, he stopped coming from 1-4-2004 . Being a casual employee,, concept of retrenchment was not attracted to his case: It was claimed that bank offered to pay compensation to him during conciliation proceedings on 20-7-2004, but he declined to accept it . TheManagement prayed that claim of the workman may bedismissed.

4. On perusal of the pleadings of the parties following issues were settled:

1.As in terms of the reference .

2. Relief.

5. The workman tendered his affidavit in his evidence on 8-11-2006 . He was cross -examined by the management on 6-2-2007.

9. Out of facts projected by Malkhan Singh and those contained in letters Ex. WWI/6 and Ex . WW1 / 7 it emerge over the record that Malkhan, Singh joined District Lead Branch , Syndicate Bank, Noida, as Water Day-cum-Poon on 21-12-2000 . He was paid Rs . 80 per day fer actunt working days , without making payment for Sundays and Holidays . He performed his duties till 31st of March, 2004. Therefore, out of these facts it came to light that Malkhan Singh had rendered continuous service for more than 240 days in a calander year and is deemed to have been in continuous service of the management for one year, as contemplatedby sub-section (2) of Section 25-B of the Act .

6. From 5-4-2007 and onwards management opted to abandon the prowwedings . Hence the management was proceeded exparte vide Order dated 4-10-2007.

7. Arguments were advanced by the workman in person. None came forward on behalf of the management to present their point of view. I have given my careful considerations to the contentions raised by the parties and cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

Issue No. 1 .

10. Question for consideration comes as to whether the workman Mwilihan Singh is entitled for protection. under the Act, while being a casual omphryne. "The Apex Court, in. Suresh Kumar Verma (AIR 1996 SC 1565), was confronted with case of an στιχlayer wito was appointed on daily wages . It . was ruled therein that an appointment on daily wages cannot be subutitute for regular appointment which couldbe a bach door entry, detrimental to the efficiency of service and would bread seeds ofnepotisen and coruption. It is equally settled law that even for class IV employees recruited accordingto rules is a pre-condition . Only work-charged employees who perform the duties of transitory nature are appointed not to a post but rather respaire to perform the work of transitory and urgent nature so long the work exists. One temporary employee cannot be replaced by another temporary employee .

11. La Suresh Kumar Verma (supra) the Apex Court was construing the provisions ofArticle 16 and 309 of the Comtitution of India. Industrial jurisprudence was not taken into account by the Apex Court while adjudicating with the said case . In that case rules of subutantini appointment were taken into account when above prepositions were laid. Herein the case, the workam since protection of the Act. Facts of Suresh Kantaur Venne ve distinct and different than the present controversy.

8. Workman swears that he was appointed by the management as a Water Boy-cua-Poon since 29-12-2000 atDistrict Lead Branch, Syndicate Bank, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P. His lout drawn salary was Rs . 2400 PM . However, he was paidRs . 80 per day and nowages were paid for Sundays and Holidays . He was drawing his salary from the management, vide dubiť slips photo copies ofwhich are Ex . WW1 /2 (photo copies of42 stipe are collectively exhibited as Ex . WW/2). He Ind boun cleaning the office, fifing work, local delivery of notice and providing water to officers ofthe bank as well as to the visitors, photo copy ofletter dated 19-2-2008 isuund by the Lead Branch, Noide is Ex. WW1 /3 . Another written by the manager of the said bank toGenerat Manager is Ex. WWl/4. 01-4-2004when he went to his duties he was not allowed to join the same. Thweste he approached the management and requested for joining the duties either at the Lend Brandit or at ay

12. bu Himewhu Kumar Vidyarthi [ AIR 1977 50 3657 (1 ) ] the Apex Court considered case of five employees who were appointed on daily wages basis 4359 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : बुलाई 25, 2009/श्रावण 3 , 1931

finding out solutions to industrial disputes great caresis always taken, as it ought to be, to see that the settlement of industrial dispute does not go against the interest of the community as a whole. Therefore, in Bhurkunda Colliery case, the Apex Court considered the case of casual labours and issued instructions for their regularisation.

16. Sub-clause (s) of Section 2 of the Act defines

workman as follows:

and ruled that every department of the Government cannot be treated to be " Industry" when the appointments are regulated by the satisfactory rules, the concept of Industry to that extent stands excluded: The court considered that the petitioners were not appointed to the posts in accordance with the rules but, were engaged on the basis of need of the work . They are temporary employees working on daily wages. Under these circumstances , their disengagement from service cannot be considered to be retrenchment under the Industrial Disputes Act . The concept of " retrenchment " therefore, cannot be stretched to such an extent as to cover these employees . Ld . Counsel for the petitioners seeks to contend that in the High Court petitioners did not contend that it is a case of retrenchment but termination of their services is arbitrary . Since they are only daily wage employees and have no right to the posts, their disengagement is not arbitrary.

(s) Workman means any person ( including an apprentice) employed operational, clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward, whether the terms of employment be express or emplied , and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in velation to an industrial dispute, includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with, or as a consequence of, that dispute, or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchrmant has led to that dispute, but does not include any such person .

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 (45 of1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of1950) or the NavyAct, 1957 (62 of 1957) , or

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

(iii) who . is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity, er

13. In Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi (supra) the Apex Court ruled that the management where the daily wagers were employed was not an " Industry" . Therefore , the facts of the said case are not relevant to the present controversy.Herein workman was an employee of Distt. Lead Branch, Syndicate Bank , Noida, which answers the definition of industry contained in clause (j ) of Section (2) of the Act. The Distt . Lead Branch of Syndicate Bank otherwise answers the triple test of systematic activity, co-operative between the employees and employer and production of goods and services for to its customers. Consequently the management is an " industry" within themeaning of clause (j ) of Section (2) of the Act, which fact makes the controversy herein different and distinct than that which was before the Apex Court in Vidyarthis case.

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

17. The aforesaid definition nowhere make any distinction between casual workers and other workers . The definition is wide enough even to include casual workmen. A casual workman getting pay for the week by working for six consecutive days and also entitled to pay for the day when he reported for work but no work was offered to him was held to be a workanan in case ofTapan Kumar Jana ( 1980 Lab.I.C. 508) . Lawto this effect was also laid by the Apex Court in Krishna Karup ( 1987 Lab. LC. 32).

14. In Bhurkunda Colliery case [2006 (2) JTI ] the Apex Court was concerned with a case where in issue of regularisation of 125 casual labours was raised. Relying the precedent in Piara Singh [ 1992 (4 ) SCC 118 ] the Apex Court ruled that so far as the work charged employees and casual labours are concerned, the efforts must be to regularise them as far as possible and as early as possible subject to their fulfilling the qualifications , if any prescribed for the post and subject also to availability of work, if a casual labour is continued for a fairly long spell say two or three years a presumption may arise that there is a regular need for his services . In such a situation , it become obligatory for the authority concerned to examine the feasilbility of his regularisation . While doing so , the authorities ought to adopt a positive approach coupled with an empathy for the person.

15. In Bhurkunda Colliery case the Apex Court dwelt upon the industrial jurisprudence and announced that it seeks to evolve a rational synthesis between conflicting scheme of the employers and employees . In

18. Horein the case Malkhan Singh was employed as a casual labour, who continuously worked with the management for more than 240 days in a calendar year. He answers all ingredients of the definition of workman given in the Act and when he rendered continuous service for 240 days in a calendar year he gets protection under the Act . Malkhan Singh claims that his services were dispensed with on 1-4-04 , when he 4358

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2009 /BRAVANA3, 1931

reported for his duties. He wrote letters to Regional Manager as well as General Manager of the bank, copy of which are Ex. WWI/6 and Ex. WWI/7 respectively. When these letters were perused, it come to light that Distt. Lead Branch , Syndicate Bank, Noida, was closed. Malkhan Singh asked Regional Manager as well as General Manager of Syndicate Bank for job in some other branch of the bank . Therefore , it is emerging over the record that on 31-3-04 Distt . Lead Branch, Syndicate Bank, Noida was closed.

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii)] नई दिल्ली, 25 जून , 2009

का. आ. 2013.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की चारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक , मुंबई के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुर्थन में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विचार में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 2, मुंबई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/3 का 2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-06-2009 को ऋपा हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/119/2006- आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ]

राजेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 25th June , 2009

5.0. 2013.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/3 of 2008) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, No. -2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofCanaraBank, Maumbai and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-6-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/119/2006- IR (B- II)]

RAJINDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 2, MUMBAI Present: A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-2/3 of 2008 Employers in Relation to the Management of CanaraBank

The Manager

19. Provisions of Section 25 - FFF of the Act provides for the situation where an industrial undertaking ; has been closed. It speaks that in the event of closer , a workman is entitled to notice and compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act, as if he has been retrenched. However, in the case of closer payment of retrenchment compensation before that closer is not compulsory . The Apex Court in Isha Steel Treatment , Bombay (AIR 1987 S.C. 1478) ruled that in a case of closer workman is entitled for notice and retrenchment compensation. However, payment of retrenchment compensation prior to the closer of the Unit is not mandatory . Payment of compensation and payment of wages for the notice period is not a condition precedent to the closer . Therefore, it is emerging over the record that when the undertaking was closed by the management , in that situation the workman is entitled only for notice and retrenchment compensation in terms of the provisions of Section 25FFF of the Act . Therefore , Malkhan Singh was entitled to notice as well as retrenchment compensation in accordance with the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act . Section 25 -F of the Act contemplates that workman has to be given one months notice or wages in lieu of notice period , besides retrenchment compensation. Therefore , in this case Malkhan Singh is entitled for one months notice pay and one and a half month pay as retrenchment compensation for three years service rendered by him . Consequently it is concluded that discontinuance of the service of Malkhan Singh from 1-4-04 was on account of closer of the industrial undertaking of the management and not in violation of the provisions of Sections 25 - F , G and H of the Act .

CanaraBank,

571, Sadashiv Peth,

R.O.

Pune-411030

and

Their Workmen

Shri V.G. Gaikwad

484, Ghorpadi Peth (Zogade Wadi)

Near PMTBus Depot

Relief

Pune.

APPEARANCES

: Mr. S.V. Alava

FortheEmployer

20. As held above , in the case of closer of an industrial undertaking , workman is to be given notice or notice pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation . Payment of notice pay and retrenchment compensation can be made even after the closer of industrial undertaking . In view of these findings, it is held that Malkhan Singh is entitled for notice pay and closer compensation, as referred above . Reference is answered accordingly .

Dated: 13-5-2009 Dr. R.K. YADAV , Presiding Officer

Advocate

Forthe Workmen

No appearance

Mumbai, dated 27th , April , 2009

AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its OrderNo. L- 12012/ 119/2006- IR (B - II) dated 14-12-2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- 4359 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25 , 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

ByAdv. Sri . P.B. Suresh Kumar .

Management:

Section ( 1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this.Tribunal for adjudication :

TheChairman, The South Indian Bank Limited, Administrative Office, SIB House, MissionQuarters, P.B. No. 28, Thrissur-680 001 .

"Whether the action of the management in imposing the penalty of dismissal on Shri V.G. Gaikwad, a part time employee on daily wages w.e.f. 25-2-2005 is legal and just. If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?"

ByAdv. Saji Varghese.

This case coming up for hearing on 4-6-2009, this Tribunal-cum- Labour Court on 8-6-2009 passed the following:

AWARD

2.As per reference, notices were sent toboth parties and vide Ext . 9 notice served on second party but he remained absent. Even Roznama reveals that second party was intimated time and again but not reporting in the reference . So it led me to pass the following order:

ORDER

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

Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution.

Dated:27-4-2009

A.A. LAD, PresidingOfficer

नईदिल्ली, 26 जून , 2009

"Whether the action of the management ofthe South Indian Bank Ltd. , Thrissur in relation to their Karunagappally Branch in dismissing the services of Shri C. Suresan Pillai, Peon w.e.f. 7-12-1998 is justified? Ifnot to what reliefthe workman is entitled to?"

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :-

का. आ. 2014.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार द साउथ इंडियन बैंक लिमिटिड , प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , एर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 255/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/157 /2001- आई.आर. ( बी -1 ) ] .

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 26th June , 2009

The workman Shri C. Suresan Pillai was a Peon of Karunagappally Branch of South Indian Bank . While so , he was charge sheeted on 19-6-1998 for unauthorised absence exceeding 30 days continuously. An explanation dated 3-7-1998 was submitted by the workman . That was not satisfactory to the management . Hence , the management ordered enquiry . The workman appeared with defence representative . In the enquiry the workman was found guilty of the charges. A copyofthe report was given calling for his remarks. Thereafter punishment was proposed and the workman was given chance for personal hearing. The disciplinary authority dismissed him from service as per order dated 17-9-2005 . Though theworkman filed appeal he did not succeed .

S.O. 2014. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 255/ 2006) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the Management of The South Indian Bank Limited and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 26-6-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 157/2001 -IR(B-I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3.According to the worker the Enquiry Officer had not complied with the principles ofnaturaljustice . Sufficient opportunity was not given to cross examine the management witness . He was not given copies of documents properly. He had applied for leave whenever he was absent. It is due to his illness that he remained absent. Though he filed two appeals to the bank authorities theywere not properly considered.

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

4. In the light ofthe above contentions the following points arise for considération :

Present: Shri . P.L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Monday the 8th day of June , 2009/ 18th , Jyaistha, 1931 )

I.D. No. 255 of 2006

(1) Whether sufficient opportunity was given to the worker in the enquiry to prove his innocence ?

(I.D. No. 57/2001 of Industrial Tribunal , Alappuzha)

Workman:

(2) Are the findings sustainable? (3) Is the punishment proper?

Sri . C. Suresan Pillai ,

Theevidence consists ofthe oral testimony of MW1 and Exts . Mi and M2 on the side ofthe management and WW.1 on the side of the workman .

Indira Mandiram, Thevalakkara, Kollam District , Kerala State.

4360

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 ,2009/ SRAVΑΝΑ3 , 1931

However, the defence did not want to examine any witness or produce any further documents other than Exts . DEX- 1 and 2. Hence on the same day evidence was closed and partieswere given time to make their written submissions. Thus it isseen that the Enquiry Officer had given sufficient opportunity to the defence . There is compliance with the principles ofnatural justice and the enquiry is not vitiated for any reason .

6. Point No. 2: Five charges are levelled as per Ext . MEX - 12 charge sheet . The first charge is that he remained aboent without leave continuously from 9-4-1998 tothe date ofcharge shoet. Ext . MEX- 1 is a report of Chief Manager to the head office regarding unauthorised absence . MW1 in Ext . M1 is the Manager . According to him the worker had not applied for leave for the period from 9-4-1998 till the date of charge sheet . In the cross examination no question was put to him as to whether the worker had not applied for leave . But it was argued by the learned counsel for the worker that leave application was submitted whenever the workman was absent . But the managsament had not communicated to the worker the order inhis applications . Hence , it has to be presumed that leave was sanctioned. Ext . MEX-2 is the leave rules ..As per the leave rules onehas to apply for leave well in advance except in unforeseen and urgent circumstances . It also provides that no leave or extension of leave shall be deemed to have been granted unless an order to that effect is passed and communicated to the employee . Therefore, no presumption canbe drawn that leave is granted on the premise that the werker was net conveyed the result ofhis application for leave. That apart asconding to the management the worker had not applied for leave since 9-4-1998 . Ext. MEX - 4 is attendance register. It is seen from the register that for the period from 9-4-1998 to 11-4-1998 no attendance is marked and the columns are blank . But at the margin it is endorsed that on 7-4-1998 the workman was taken into custody by the police . On 13-4-1998 it is noted in the column " leave application" . For the period from 15-4-1998 to 18-4-1998 the columns are blank . For the period from 20-4-1998 to 24-4-1998 it is noted " leave". For the period from 27-4-1998 to 13-6-1998 it is noted as unauthorised absence . In Ext . DEX-2 which is reply to charge sheet the workman states that he had applied for leave on 22-4-1998 and for the remaining period he would submit leave application . Though the management does not admit that a leave application was received by the management on 22-4-1998, but assuming that such an application was given still there is no evidence to show that for the subsequent period the worker had applied for leave. Even going by the attendance register the unauthorised absence is from 27-4-1998 to 13-6-1998 exceeding 30 days . As already observed there is no proofof having applied for leave for this period . Thus the first charge of absence without leave stands proved.

7. The second charge is that the workman remained absent continuously exceeding 30 days falling within 5. Point No. 1: Though the learned counsel for the workman did not seek for a separate finding on the question of validity of enquiry as a preliminary issue still for the purpose of completeness, this issue is also considered. Though the worker has a contention that principles of natural justice were not complied and he was not given sufficient opportunity to defend, the proceedings in the enquiry does not support this contention. The workman was defended by a defence representative . Both workman and defence representative were present during enquiry. The Manager of the Branch was examined in the enquiry as MW1 . He was cross -examined . The documents were marked as Exts . Ml to M- 12 without objection . The proceedings does not reveal that the workman had sought time to go through the documents for the purpose ofcross examination of MW 1. It is contended by the worker that the documents were produced by the management on the dayof the enquiry and he was given copies of documents only just prior to the commencement of enquiry . But no such objection is seen raised at the time of the enquiry as per proceedings . At any rate he had not submitted any objection inwriting. Besides according to the management late production of documents has sprung no surprise on the workman as the documents were already known to the workman except Ext. MEX- 1 . It is a letter sent by Chief Manager to the Head Office reporting about the unauthorised absence of the worker. Ext . MEX -2 is copy of leave rules . Ext. MEX- 3 is a relevant portion of the Bipartite Settlement. Ext . MEX-4 is copy of attendance register . Ext . MEX-5 is copy of relevant portion of subsequent Bipartite Settlement . Exts . MEX. 6 to 11 are previous disciplinary proceedings and punishments imposed on the workman for similar misconduct of unauthorised absence. Ext . MEX- 12 is the copy of charge sheet . Thus documents 2 to 12 are those someofwhich are already in the possession of the werkmen being previous disciplinary proceedings against him and others are Leave Rules, Bipartite Settlements and Attendance Register. Absence is admitted. But his only contention is that it is not unauthorised. Thus Ext. MEX - 1 alone is a new document so far as the workman is concerned. But it is only a letter reporting about the unauthorised absence by the Chief Manager to the head office. Thus non supply ofcopies of the documents prior to the commencement of enquiry proceedings cannot cause any prejudice to the workman . Besides no objection was raised by the defence regarding late supply of copies of documents. Though before this court at the time of evidence the workman put forward a contention that he was not given copies of documents , he has no such case in the clain statement . What is stated in theclaim statement is that he was not properly given copies ofdocuments (para 4 of claim statement) . When enquiry Officer was examined as MW1 he said that copies of documents were given to the worker on the day of the enquiry prior to the examination ofthe management witness . The Enquiry Officer had invited defence evidence.

4361 [ भाग -खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपुत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/श्रावण 3,1931

continuous absence of the workman who was a Peon of the office. The conduct of the workman is an act prejudicial to the interest ofthe bank falling within Clause 19.5 (j ) of the First Bipartite Settlement. Thus charges 4 and. 5 also stand proved.

Clause 19.5(p) of6th Bipartite Settlement dated 14-2-1995. Ext. MEX-4 attendance register already referred prove the charge that the worker remained absent without applying for leave and without intimating the bank at least from 27-4-1998 to 13-06-1998 . It is a gross misconduct as per Clause 19.5 (p) of the Bipartite Settlement. It is for the workman to show that he had submitted leave application for this period . However , there is no evidence at all . Thus the second charge also stands proved .

8. The third charge is that the workman continued to commit the same kind of misconduct disregarding warningof themanagement . Exts . MEX- 6 to 11 are previous disciplinary proceedings and punishments imposed on the workman' for 'unauthorised abserice . He was warned once and increments were stopped twice for the misconduct of remaining absent unauthorisedly . Despite that he remained absent continuously and thus the third charge also is proved. It is considered as an act of wilful disobedience of the directions ofthe management.

11 Point No. 3: The Disciplinary Authority had dismissed the workman from service as per memo dated 17-9-2005 . According to the worker the punishment is excessive and harsh . The mitigating circumstances described by him are that his father is a paralytic patient and mother a cancer patient, that his wife is unemployed and lack of issues out of the wedlock always vex him . But it is to be noted that he was given several chances to improve. He was warned and his inoctements were stopped twice for unauthorised absence . He was instructed not to commit similar misconduct in future . Yet he remained absent from 9-4-1998 tillhe was given charge sheet on 19-6-1998 without applying for leave or intimating the bank . The management was thus conmpefted to impose deterrent punishment. The fact that he has to look after his sick parents and wife did not impel him to work and earn. On the otherhand he chose to remain absent for a long time despite previous punishments . He does not deserve any leniency in the matter of punishment . Considering his past record the punishment of dismissal, cannot be said to be harsh or excessive.

The misconductbeing unauthorised absenga there is no justification in denying retiral benefits like gratuity, P.F. and pension if he has exercised option for pension . It is for the management to offer him such benefits, if not alreadypaid.

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in dismissing Sri . C. Suresan Pillai from service is legal andjustified andhe is not entitled for any relief. However, the management may offer him the retiral benefits .

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

Dictatedto the.Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her, corrested and passed by me on this the 8th dayof June, 2009.

P. L.NORBERT, PresidingOfficer

Appendix

Witness for the Workman

WW1

1-7-2004

Suresan Pillai C. 9. Charges 4 and 5 are that the leave rules of the bank are violated and the workman acted in a manner prejudicial to the interest of the bank. Ext. MEX-2 is the leave rules which is already referred. Leave rule says that an employee has to apply well in advance for availing leave except inunforeseen circumstances or in urgent cases. If one is sick he has to produce medical certificate. Unless the management communicate to the employee that leave he applied for is granted it cannot be presumed that leave issanctioned. Though the worker says that he had applied for leave whenever he was absent, no copies of leave applications are produced and there is no proof of having submitted any such application for the period from 9-4-1998 to 19-6-1998 (date ofcharge sheet) . The workman has inconsistent version in his claim statement and explanation to the charge sheet. In the claim statement he stated that he had applied for leave whenever he was absent. But in the explanation to the charge sheet (Ext. DEX-2) he says that he had applied for leave on 22-4-1998 and for the remaining period he would submit application . The management does not admit having received any application during his absence from duty. I have already mentioned that going by the attendance register Ext. MEX-4 assuming that the period of unauthorised absence noted in the attendance register alone can be considered as misconduct, still it comes to 54- days of continuous; absence. Thus the worker has violated the leave rules and it is breach of any rule of business of the bank as per the Bipartite Settlement.

Witness forthe Management

MW112-8-2004

D. Ramakrishnan Nair.

Nil

Exhibit for theworkman

Exhibits for theManagement

Ext.M 1- Enquiry Proceedings and Report .

10. Whenan employee remains absent continuously without intimation the employer will be put to disadvantage ofmaking alternate arrangement to run the office smoothly. The worker has been in the habit of remaining absent on and off. He was punished three times for unauthorised absence previously . The concerned documents are Exts .MEX-6 to 11. The work ofthe bank is affectedby the

Enquiry Proceedings and Report. Ext.M.2 4362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/SIRAVANA 3, 1931

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 26 जून , 2009

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :- Shri.K.J. Varoo was a Clerk of South Indian Bank, Viyyur Branch. Hewas charge sheeted for misappropriation, fraud, tampering ofbank records , failure to discharge duties with diligence and acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank. A domestic enquiry was conducted in which he was found guilty ofthe charges . The disciplinary authority dismissed him from service . Though he filed an appeal it was rejected.

का.आ. 2015.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार साऊथ इंडियन बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण एर्नाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 26-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/130/2006- आई. आर (बी-Ⅰ ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 26th June , 2009

3.Accordingtothe workman enquiry is invalid due to violation of the principles of natural justice and biased attitude of the enquiry officer . A farce of an enquiry was conducted. The findings are perverse. There is no evidence worth reliable to find the guilt of the workman . The pumishiment is illegal . Even ifthe allegations are found to be true it amounts at the most to minor misconduct only. The mitigating circumstances of the workman was not consideredby the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment.

S.O. 2015. In pursuarice of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 8/ 2007) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court , Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial distpute between the management ofSouth Indian Bank Limited and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 26-06-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/130/2006- IR(B-1)] AJAY KUMAR, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

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

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

4.Accordingto the management the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the procedure and complying withthe principles ofnatural justice. Sufficient opportunity was given to the workman to defend in the enquiry. There is enough evidence to establish the missenduct alleged against the workman . The punishment is in proportion to the misconduct. The workman was , on an earlier occasion , punished for misconduct of availing full house loan without even commencing the construction work. There is no illegality in the punishment as the misconduct found is grave.

(Friday the 12th day of June , 2009/ 22nd Jyaistha,

1931)

1.D.08/2007

Workman :

5. The validity of enquiry was considered as a preliminary issue and an order was passed on20-05-2009 holding that the enquiry is valid. Therefore the points that remain to be considered are:-

(1) Whether the findings are sustainable?

K. J. Varoo , Kanjiraparambil House , Kottil Valapil Lane , Thrissur-680 004 .

(2) Is the punishment proper?

Adv. Sri . Asok Shenoy.

Management :

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of MW 1 and the documentary evidence of Ext.M 1 enquiry fitealone.

The Chairman , South Indian Bank Ltd. , HeadOffice, Thrissur .

By Adv.Saji Varghese .

6. Point No. 1 :-The charges levelled against the workman are:

This case coming up for hearing on 09-06-2009 , this Tribunal - cum-Labour Court on 12-06-2009 passed the following.

AWARD

(1) On 20-08-2004 when the day's cash was closed it was found that there was a shortage of Rs .75,000 . The amount was misappropriatedby theworkman who was the cashier.

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

(2) In order to cover up the misdeed the workman manipulated cash striking book .

(3) With a view to suppress the fact of misappropriation the workman removed the concernedpage from the cash striking book and destroyed the same.

"Whether the action of the management of South Indian Bank Ltd. in dismissing Shri.K.J. Varoo , a former employee of the Bank from its services w.e.f. 25-11-2005 on the alleged misconduct of misappropriation of cash is fair and justifiable? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ? " 4363 भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(4) Amounts received on various dates from a valuable customer of the bank for credit towards O. D. Account, were not accounted on respective dates.

7. Ext . MEX- 3 in Ext . Ml is the memo of charges (page 128 ofExt.M1 ). The reply ofthe workman is contained at page 134 (Ext. MEX-6). He admits that while he was closing the cash on 20-08-2004 he found a cash shortage of Rs . 75,000. Immediately he gave the cash striking book to theAssistant Manager in charge . The entries in page 139 were re-written by him in page 140 of the cash striking book.However he is not aware as to what had happened to page 139 ofthe book. He also denies that amount received from customer M/s . Krishma Agencies were not accounted by him on the same day.

shortage ofRs. 75,000. The managementwas informed, who in turn informed the Deputy General Manager . The latter along with the Chief Manager visited the branch and verifiedthe book and confirmed the shortage .At that time page No. 139 was missing from the book: According to MW1 the striking book was brought to her at the end of. theday for verification of the entries and at that time page: 139was signed by the worker. However in Ext. MEX-6 reply to memo ofcharges it is stated by the workman that while hewaswriting the striking book he had noticed some cash shortage and immediately the book was taken to the Assistant Manager in charge. But MWI does not admit this: According to her she was never told about any shortage by the worker. The shortage was detected by her and pointed out to the worker who corrected it and brought back the book. But still she found shortage . This alerted her for close scrutiny of the cash striking book page 139 and found that the multiplication value of ten rupee denomination currency was wrong (pg.58).

10. MW2 is the Deputy General Manager who conductedthe investigation on the same day and prepared Ext .MEX-18 report. According to him when he reached the branch and asked for the cash striking book the Assistant Manager went to cashier's cabin and brought the book. On verification it was found that page 139 was torn away: The details ofthe cash was already written on a new page (140) bythe worker himself. In the cross-examination ofthe witness there is no proper challenge regarding this aspect.

8. Charges 1 to 3 are interconnected and it is convenient to consider them together . The main allegation is that the workman had misappropriated Rs. 75,000 and for avoiding detection of the misdeed he had tampered with the records of the bank. The main contention of the learned counsel for the workman is that it was the duty of the concerned officers of the bank as well as officers who conducted the investigation to find out the denominations ofcurrency which is alleged to have been taken away by the workman on 20-08-2004 . But none ofthe officers tried to find out the currency missing from the cash tray or cash chest in order to say that they were misappropriatedby the workman. It is also submitted by the learned counsel that the cash striking book was in the custody of the Branch Manager after the shortage was detected by the Assistant Manager and hence the allegation that page No.139 ofthe bookwas removed by the workman is baseless . It is to be noted that since the enquiry is found to be valid it is not necessary for this court to probe deep into the evidence and analyse it meticulously, Suffice to know whether there issome evidence on record against the workman. If there is absolutely no evidence at all or ifthe evidence collected is totally irrelevant then alone the interference of the court is called for .

11. MW6 is the Manager of the branch. According to him on 20-08-2004 around 4.30 p.m. the Assistant Manager had informed him ofsome shortage ofcash. MW6 went to the cash cabin, verified the cash as well as the cash striking book and found that there was shortage of cash of Rs .75,000. He enquired with the workman . But he could give no valid reason for the shortage. There were some corrections in the relevant page of the striking book. The pagewas signedby the workman. The matter was informed. tohigher officers . Thereafter the DeputyGeneral Manager and the Chief Manager visited the branch and enquired about incident . The striking book was till then in the cash cabin. It was brought from the cash cabin for verification by the Deputy General Manager . It was at that point of time that page 139 was seen removed from the book and the same entries were made in the next page (140).

12. It was feebly contended by the learned counsel for the worker that the cash striking book was in the custody of Branch Manager after the shortage was first detected. It is so contended on the basis of the statement of MW6 that cash striking book was not given to the custody of the worker after the shortage was detected (pg.79). It is to be noted that the witness had not stated that he had carried the book with him to his cabin when he returned. After detection ofthe irregularity he, returned to his cabin for informing his superiors . But when Dy. General 9. In the enquiry nine witnesses were examined and 73documents were marked on the side ofthe management. But no defence evidence was adduced . MWI is the Assistant Manager and Joint custodian of cash . She had given a statement to the Manager on 20-08-2004 narrating the incident . According to her on 20-08-2004 cashier Shri .Varoo hadbrought the cash striking book after writing and signing it for the purpose of verification around 4.40 p.m. She found that the number of thousand rupee denomination currency was wrongly noted as '99 ' instead of ' 29' . This was pointed out to the workman and he corrected it by getting a whitener from MWI . Thereafter the book was brought back to MWI . It was again verified byMWI and found that multiplication value of ten rupee denomination currency was wrong . There was a cash

2570G1/09--8 4364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 25, 2000NORAMANA3 , 1931

[PART IISBC. 3 (ii) ]

amounts remitted by M/ s . Krishna Agencies from March toAugust 2004. Almost everyday they remit money into their O. D. account . Though the mistomer has written the ates of remittances ofmoney in the challans, the seal and by the cashier does not show the dates , According hen as and when amounts were received he ated them and credited in the O. D. account of ner. It is submitted that the date put by the the cash cholions are not the correct dates of but are produted. That is the reason why the ware not credited in customers account on the es shown in the shatians . According to him ast delayed accounting of the payments in the accounts. It is to be noted that as many as 40 of late accounting is brought out in evidence by As per that there was delay of 1 to 4 days the amounts remitted by the customer. If it bence the wanguement could take a lewient Mistake er omission would have happened secounting. However the inututices are so many and the worten boing the cashier who had received money, is bound to explain satisfactorily as to how this had happened. The contention oftheworkman that the challans do not bearcorrect date ofreinittances is too good a story to bebofieved. Ifprior dates were seen in the cash callans submitted along with money for remittance it was the daty ofthe cashion to verify the dates and get it corrected. That apart in all the challuns the dates ofthe seal showing cash rousived, are either not seen or not descernable . According to1996, the Dranch Manager on the basis ofthe complaint when reconds were verified and the cash received seal was examined it was found that the date of the seal was tempored and mutilated . If the date seal was not proper and clear itwas the duty of the cashier to inform the matter to the Marynger. Since the customer was remitting money alment everyday there was no need for them to predate the cash challans . The counter foils of challans with cash received seal and cash scroll are Exts . MEX- 32 to 68. Ext . MEX -69 is copy of the account of the customer for the period from 17-11-2003 to 23-8-2004. On a verification of the account with reference to Ext. MEX - 32 to 68 challans it can be seen that the amounts remitted on various dates were not credited on respective dates by the workman .

Manager reached the book was taken from the cash.cabin for examinationby the Deputy General Manager. It is inthe same manner that MWI saya. MW2 sise says that the bookwas brought from the cash cubin. Until then the book was there in the cash cabin accessible to the workman wellas the Assistant Manager (D4W1 ). The worker says thathe is not awarehow page 139 ismissing. Dut he is the person who was writing the cash striking book on 20-08-2004and he is bound to explain how it had happene and cannot just wash offhis hands. He had onse contact thewrong entry in the cash stolking book at page 139 by putting whitener .Again there was waistake and comecti with regard to multiplication value of ton rup denomination currency. Since thesecorrections were don by the workman he is the sole interested person in destroying the sheet containing correction and alteration . It has to be presumed from the circumstances that page 139 was removed with a view to destrey evidende of tampering and manipulation. The workman has no case that there is any motive for any bank staff or officers to trap him. MW7 (Manager Inspection & Vigilance Department) is blamed by the worker for not finding out the denominations of currency which are alleged to have beenmisappropriated by the worker on 20-08-2004.But it is to be noted that he visited the branch only on the next day on 21-08-2004 and that too mainly for the purpose of investigating into the 4th change i.e. about the complaint ofM/s.Krishna Agencies . The incident of cash shortage was already investigated by MW2 . It was not essential to find out the exact denominations of currency that were missing after the days transaction to book the culprit. Ext. MEX- 16 is page No. 140 of cash striking book and MEX - 17 is page No. 138 of the same book. No evidence was adduced by the defence in the enquiry . The workmen being the cashier who had written the cash striking book and who had struck the cash balance of 20-06-2004 he is bound to explain how the shortage had happened and how page No. 139 of the striking book was missing. If it was merely a mistake by making wrong entries in the striking book then there should not be any cash shortage in the cash section. But the cash was also short by Rs . 75,000. When all these circumstances are linked together there is no room for any doubt that the culprit is none other than theworker . There is sufficient material as discussed above to find that the workman is guilty ofthe first three charges.

13. The 4th charge is that remittances made by customer M/s . Krishna Agencies were not accounted on respective dates of remittancesby the workman who was the cashier. Ext. MEX-29 is the complaint of the customer totheManager made on 21-8-2004. Accordingto the learned counsel for the worker this is a cooked up story to add strength to the allegations of fraud and misappropriation ofmoney (charges 1 to 3 ). The submission appears to be meritless in the light of the evidence on record. Exts. MEX- 32 to 68 are counter foils of cash challans of the

14. The Manager of M/s . Krishna Agencies was examined as MW9 in the enquiry. He has given evidence that the amounts remitted by them were not credited in their account by the cashier on respective dates (page 120 to 124 of Ext . M1 ). MW7 , Manager of' Inspection and Vigilance Department of the bank had conducted an investigation on 21-8-2004 regarding the complaint ofthe customer and found the discrepancy in accounting the amounts remitted (page 38 to 90 in Ext . M1 ) . Ext . MEX - 31 is the investigation report ofMW7 (page 180to 183). MW8 is the Assistant Manager in charge of cash section of Viyyur branch . However on 20-8-2004 he was on leave 4365

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25 , 2009/श्रवण 3 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typedbyher, corrected and passed by me on this the 12th dayofJune,2009.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX

Witness for the Workman Nil

and MWI was in charge . On the next day when he resumed duty he had verified the accounts and confirmed the late accounting of the acounts remitted by M /s . Krishna Agencies . Thus it is abundantly clear that the worker had retained the money remitted by the customer and misappropriated the same. The finding of the Enquiry Officer regarding charge No. 4 is only to be confirmed.

Witness for the Management

PeterA. D.

MW1-14-5-2009

Exhibit for the workman Nil.

Exhibits for the Management

Enquiry File.

Ext. M1

नई दिल्ली , 29 जून , 2009

का. आ. 2016. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार विक्रम साराभाई स्पेस सेन्टर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , अरनाकुलम के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 11/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को29-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42011/5/2008- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th June, 2009

S.O. 2016.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 11/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2009.

[No. L-42011 /5/2008- IR(DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM 15. Point No. 2 : According to the workman even if all the allegations levelled against him are proved it amounts only to mere negligence and not gross negligence . Shortage in cash is a routine matter in banks and such shortages are set right by proper verification of the accounts and detection of the discrepancy . But the evidence discussed in the foregoing Paragraphs lend no support to the case of the workman. The evidence and circumstances go to show that the workman had deliberately tampered with the records of the bank with a view to misappropriate money and he did misappropriate . He went on to destroy the evidence which would go against him . Therefore the charges proved is not simple negligence but gross negligence , misappropriation of money and fraud attracting major penalty under para 19.6 ofBipartite Settlement. He was dismissed from service by the Disciplinary Authority. According to the workman his past record of service and family circumstances were not taken into account by the disciplinary authority while imposing the punishment. Para 16 of the claim statement contains a contention that the extenuating circumstances were not taken into account by the disciplinary authority. But no extenuating circumstances are narrated . In para 15 of the written statement the management contends that his past record is not clean, that he was punished by stoppage of three increments with cumulative effect in 1991 and his promotion was withheld for a period of five years on account of the fraud committed by him by availing full house loan but not even commencing the construction. The disciplinary authority had given the workman an opportunity of personal hearing regarding proposed punishment . Page 9 of Ext . M1 contains the minutes of personal hearing. The workman had not mentioned any mitigating circumstances but only had stated that he was regretful of what had happened and he would be careful in future and he was ready to work anywhere in the bank . Thus there are no extenuating circumstances and the misconduct proved is grave aftracting major penalty. It calls for no interference by the court. However the management is generous enough to offer him retiral benefits like gratuity and employee's

contribution of EPF .

Present: Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Mondaythe 15th day of June, 2009/25th Jyatha, 1931 )

I. D. 11 OF 2008

Union

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in dismissing Shri K. J. Varoo from service is legal and justified and he is not entitled for any relief. However the management may offer him retiral benefits i.e. gratuity and Employee's contribution of EPF .

: The Secretary, ISRO Casual Workers Union , Valiamala, Kizhakke Bangalave, Nedumangadu, Trivandrum.

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

ByAdv.Thomas Abraham.

4366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

The Controller,

Management :

Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre, Government of India , Department of Space, Trivandrum - 695 022 .

By Adv.T. P.M.Ibrahim Khan This case coming up for hearing on 15-6-2009, this Tribunal- cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

AWARD

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

"Whether the demand of ISRO casual workers union for extending the facilities of canteen, medical and bonus to 11workers , namely S/Shri . B.S.Ajayakumar, V.Manian Pillai , S.Ponnayan , K.Venugopalan Thampi , B.Mohanan, N.Sasidharn , R.Gangadharan , G.Prasad, N.Mohan Kumar, S. Raman and Y.Francis bythe management ofVikram Sarabhai Space Centre is legal andjustified? Ifyes , to what relief the workamen are entitled to ?"

On summons both sides entered appearance and filed their pleadings . But when the case came up for evidence the union and counsel remained absent . There is not even representation for the union . The management is ready. 11 Casual workers engaged in Vikram Sarabhai SpaceCentre, Trivandrum are claiming through union canteen and medical facilities as well as bonus . The management has denied the claim in their written statement contending that they are entitled to get only minimum wages and not the benefits enjoyed by regular employees . Since the union has not turned up with any evidence to prove their claim it has to be found that the claim is not substantiated by the union. Hence their demand cannot be found to be legal and justified.

In the result, an award is passed finding that the demand ofthe union, for canteen and medical facilities and bonus to 11 workers named in the reference, is not legal andjustified and the workers are not entitled for any relief.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her and corrected and passed by me on this the 15th day of June , 2009.

Appendix:Nil .

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2009

का. आ. 2017.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस. ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 169/1994 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/213/1994- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June, 2009

S.O. 2017. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 159/1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur SECL as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workmen, received bythe CentralGovernment on 29-6-2009.

[No. L- 22012/213/1994- IR (CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO.CGIT/LC/R/169/94

PresidingOfficer: Shri MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN TheArea President,

Duman Hill Colliery,

Koyła Shramik Sabha (H.M.K.P) . Post Sonawani Colliery,

Workman/Union Distt. Surguja(MP)

Versus

TheGeneral Manager,

ChirimiriAren ofSECL, PostWest Chirimiri Colliery,

Distt. Surguja(MP)

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 16th day of June, 2009 1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L-22012/213/94- IR(CM- II) dated28-9- 94has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:

"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager , DumanHill Colliery of Chirimiri Area of SECL in dismissing Shri Dhan Singh, S/o Shiv Lal, Loader, DumanHillColliery from company services w.e.f. 10-3-90 is legal and justified? Ifnot, towhat relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. The workman Shri Dhan Singh did not appear in thecase inspite ofnotice. Therefore the case is proceeded exparte against the workman on 15-7-2005.

4367

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

7. In the result, the award is passed ex parte against theworkman and in favour ofthe management without any orders ofcosts .

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

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2009

"का.आ. 2018, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध मेंनिर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 71/1991 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/5/1991-आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th June, 2009

S.O. 2018. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute, Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 71/1991) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of WCL and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-6-2009.

3. The management appeared and filed written statement in the case. The case of the management in short is that the workinan Shri Dhan Singh was appointed as a GeneralMazdoor Cat- I on 1-1-1974. Subsequently, he was promoted as a semi-skilled worker Cat- II . It is stated thathe was a habitual absentee and was given ample opportunity to improve his conduct by putting proper attendance but instead of improving his attendance, he remained absent unauthoriselywithout prior intimation or sanction ofleave . He again became absent from 11-10-89. Thereafter the charge-sheet was issued against him on 17-11-1989 but he did not give satisfactory reply. The management then decidedto conduct Departmental Enquiry against him. An Enquiry Officer was appointed and a Presenting Officer is also appointed to represent the Management . The Enquiry Officer started the said proceeding and the workman was given full opportunity to defend his case. The Enquiry Officerconducted the enquiry and after considering all the evidence produced on behalf of the management, he found the allegation against the workman proved and submitted his enquiry report before Competent Authority . The Competent Authority fully agreed with the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer that the charges levelled against the workman of grave misconduct stands proved . Thereafter the authority terminated the service ofthe workman w.e.f. 10-3-90 vide order No. 2462-73 dated 1-2-1990 . It is submitted that the action ofthe management of DumanHill Colliery ofChirimiri Area of SECL in dismissing Shri Dhan Singh w.e.f. 10-3-1990 is legal and justified.

[No. L-22012/5/1991 - IR (CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

4. The only point for decision is as to whether the action ofthe management in dismissing the workman w.e.f. 10-3-1990 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

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

NO . CGIT/LC/R/71/91

PresidingOfficer: Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan.

TheOrganising Secretary,

R.K.K.M.S (INTUC) , Post Chandametta,

Workman/Union

Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

Versus

...Management

The General manager, Kanhan Area of WCL, - PODungaria,. Distt. Chhindwara (MP)

AWARD

5.To prove the case, the management has examined onlyone witness . M.W Shri N. R. Das is Personnel Manager in Duman Hill- North Chirimiri Group . He has stated that the workman was habitual absentee and he remain absent from duty unauthorised without intimation, prior permission and sanctioned leave . He has further stated that ample opportunity was given to him to improve his conduct but failed. Lastly a departmental proceeding was started and the charges of his gross misconduct were proved against him though full opportunity was given to defend himself. The Competent Authority after Departmental Enquiry found the charges proved and terminated the service ofthe workman w.e.f. 10-3-1990 .His evidence is ex parte . There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence in absence of any evidence against the management .

Passed onthis 17thday of June, 2009

1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No.L- 22012/5 /91 - IR(Coal - II) dated 11-4-91 6. Considering the evidence, I find that the action of the management in dismissing Shri Dhan Singh w.e.f. 10-3-1990 is legal andjustified . Therefore, the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY25, 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii) ] has referred the following dispute for adjudicationby this tribunal:

5.After hearing on the point of validity of the procedure oftheDepartmental Enquiry conducted against the applicant , it was found that the procedure was not followed in the Departamental Enquiry and the enquiry against the applicant was vitiated. The management was allowed to prove misconduct in court.

"Whether the action of the management ofW.C.L KanhanArea in terminating/ dismissing theservices of Shri Sittoo S/o Fagoor, General Mazdoor, Token No. 1827 , Nandan Mine No.1 w.e.f. 8-6-1990 is justified and legal? Ifnot, towhat relief the workman is entitled to ?"

6.Thereafter the applicant became absent . After giving sufficient time to the applicant to appear and contest the care, he didnot appear. Hence the case is proceeded ex. parteagainst the applicant on 9-3-06.

7.On thebasis ofthe pleading, the following issues are fordecisina :-

(1) Whether the management has succeeded to prove misconduct of the applicant in Court?

(2) Ifyes, the action ofmanagement in terminating/ dismissing the services ofShri Sittoo isjustified andlegal?

(3) To what relief, ifany, the applicant is entitledto?

3. JaumeNo. 1 :

2. The case of the applicant in short is that the workman Shri Sittoo was working as General Mazdoor in NandanNo.1 Mine of Western Coal Fields Limited, Kaun Area. He fell ill seriously w.e.f. 1-9-89 and was unable to attend his duties . He was admitted in the hospital w.c.f. 1-9-89 to 30-1-90 . After recovery from iliness , he reported onduty on 31-1-90 alongwith sickness and fitness certificate but in the evening, he was served with charge sheet alloging therein that he was absented from duties w.e.f. 1-9-89 to 30-1-90 unauthorisedly and he was refused to resume his duty upto 8-6-90 on the ground of Departmental Enquiry. It is stated that he was dismissed from service on 8-6-90 by an order of the Manager, Nandan Mine No.I. It is alleged that on 31-1-90, he was asked to sign over blank paper which was subsequently used by the management in dismissing the services ofthe applicant. He submittedreply to the charge sheet stating therein that he was seriously ill but without considering his reply, Enquiry Officer Shri P.S.Deshpandey, Labour Welfare Officer was appointed who with prejudiced and biased mind conducted the enquiry in oneday and submitted report before Disciplinary Authority who without considering his reply dismissed the service of the applicant w.e.f. 8-6-90 . It is stated that there are similar cases where the management has settled the cases and they were reinstated whereas the applicant is discriminated from others . On these grownds , the reference be answered in his favour.

To prove misconduct , me management has examined ond and documentary evidence. Lot ut examine the evidence adduced by the managemont. The management has filed photocopy of Form I from the youum 1986 to 1989 which arcanaked as Exhibits M/ 1 to M/7 . These forms are Register ofleave account of the applicant. This register shows that he hul ne leuve dons in his account but 61 days in 1986, 113daysin1987, 87 days in 1988 and 84 % days in 1989 he worked. It is filedto show that he was habitual absentee without any leave in his account. The management has also filed photocopy ofBonus Register of year 1987 to 1989which are marked as Exhibits M/8 to M/9. The Bonus Register shows that the bonus was paid every year in the month of July, August and September on the basis of attendence. This also shows that the attendance of the wordsman was very poor. The management has also filed photocopy of attendance of the years 1989 & 1990 which are marked as Exhibit M/ll to M/37 . This register further shows that the workman was mostly absent in the year 1909 andwas never present even a single day in the year 1990 till charge sheet issued against him . There is no other evidence in rebuttal to the evidence of the management . There is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of the management . It is also clear that there is no documentary evidence tojustify the absence ofthe workman from duty. It appears that workman was not in attendance for 190 days in a year as he was working underground . Thus the documentary evidence shows that the workman was habitual absentee .

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement in the case . The case of the management, inter alia is that the workman Shri Sittoo was General Mazdoor in WCL , Kanhan Area of Nandin Mine No. I. It is stated that since appointment, he was in a habit of being absent unauthorisely without any rhyme and reason. Inspite of repeated warnings , he did not improve his habit . Finally he remained absent from duty from 1-9-89 without any intimation till the issuance of chargesheet dated 31-1-90. Thereafter explanation was asked from the applicant. The management decided to conduct Departmental Enquiry. The applicant participated in the enquiry and after conclusion of the Departmental Enquiry , the Competent Authority found the charges proved and dismissed him vide order No. 1673 dated 8-6-90.

4.On the basis of the pleadings ofboth the parties , the preliminary issue was settled as under :-

(1) Whether the procedure followed in the DE is proper, valid and legal?

9. The Management has also examined two witnesses in the case. M.W.1 Shri Manohar Raktake is a Token clerk in the said mines .He has proved the documents. He was incharge to take attendance of the workman . He has stated that Shri Sittoo remained absent from duty भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 25 , 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

without any leave application and without any intimation and warning was also issued to him but he did not improve his conduct. His evidence is also un-rebutted . Another witness Shri Mishra Chandpuri is wage clerk in Nandan MineNo.1 . He has supported the case of the management. He has stated that the workman was habitual absentee. These two witnesses appear to be the competent witnesses to substantiate the case of the management that the workman was habitual absentee. There is nothing to show that these witnesses had any grudge with the workman . Thus the oral and documentary evidence prove the case of the management that the workman was habitual absentee from duty and as such, he is liable for his misconduct . This issue is decided in favour of the management and against the workman..

10. Issue No. 2 & 3

Both the issues are taken up together . It appears 'from the evidence of the management that the workman had never completed his attendance to the extent of 190 days in a year as he was working underground . I find that the action of the management appears to be justified in view ofhis misconduct and in view ofutility of his service on account of poor attendance in the said mines . Hence these issues are also decided in favour of the management and against theworkman.

11. In the result, the award is passed'exparte against the applicant and in favour of the management without any order of costs .

12. 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 नईदिल्ली, 29 जून, 2009

का.आ. 2019, 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 56/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-06-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/498/1990- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th June , 2009

S.O. 2019-In pursuance of, Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 56/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

4369 Western Coalfield Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-6-2009.

No.1-22012/498/ 1990- IR(CM-II)] AJAY KUMARGAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

Date: 19-06-2009 Cate No. CGIT/NGP/56/03

Petitioner/ : The President.

PartyNo..1 Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC), WCL, HeadQuarter Branch, Coal Estate, Civil Lines, Nagpur (onbehalfof Shri B.C. Sahu) ۳۰ The General Manager (IR) ,

Respondent/

PartyNo.2 Western Coulfield Limited, Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 19th June, 2009)

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between the President , Rashtriya Koyla, Khadan Maadoor Sangh (NUC) WCL, Head Quarter Branch, Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur (Party No.1) and TheGeneralManager (IR),Western Coalfield Limited, Coal Estate, Civil Lines , Nagpur (Party No.2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No.L-220121498/ 90-IR(Coal-IF) dated 25-3-1991 under climse (d) ofsub- section (1)and sub-section (24) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) with thefollowing schedule.

2. "Whether the action of the management in not regularizing the services of Shri B. C.Sahu, Peon as Clerk Grade- II is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relieftheworkman concerned is entitledto?"

3. The reference came up for bearing on 01-09-2005 after transferring the case from CGIT, Jabalpur to this Tribunal atNagpur. On this date, respondent present, but the Petitioner and his Counsel were absent. The counsel for Respondent was present. The Petitioner is not attending the case since 1-9-2005 i.e. from the date of filing ofthe case . Today also the Counsel for Respondent present but the Petitioner and his counsel were absent. I do not think it proper to continue it on the same stage years together, It seems that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case . In the circumstances , ne purpose will be served in continuing the case , hence it dismissed for the default of the Petitioner and pass the negative award that he is not entitled for any relief.

Date:19-6-2009 .

A.N. YADAV, Presiding Officer [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 4370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 25, 2009/SRAVANA 3, 1931

नई दिल्ली, 29 जून , 2009

(2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule.

2. क्या प्रर्वनक , रामनवाडा खास कालरी , वेस्टर्न कोलफील्ड रिमिवेड दीनानानी मिला छिन्दवाडा म.प्र. के प्रबंधन द्वारा श्री रामप्रसाद সালন জল, মু डू कहडिंग इंजन ड्राइबर को दिनांक 27-6-2003 सेना के दंड से वंचित करने की कार्यवाही न्यायोचित है । यदि नहीं, जो किस अनुशेष का हकदार है ।

का. आ. 2020.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एकम् डब्ल्यू सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रींय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/274/2004- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29thJune, 2009

3. The reference came up for hearing on 18-12-2006 on which the Putitioner and his Counsel were absent. The conned for Respondent was present. The Petitioner is not attending the case since 18-12-2006i.e from filing of the case. He ham ishro not even filed a statement of claim . I do not think it proper to continue it on the same stage years together. It seems that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case. In the circumstances, no purpose willbe served in continuing the case, hence it dismissed forthe defimit ofthe Petitioner and pass the negative award that he is not entitled for any relief.

Date:19-6-2009 A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer S.O. 2020. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Western Coalfields Limited and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 29-6-2009.

नई दिल्ली , 1 जुलाई , 2009

[No. L- 22012/274/2004- IR(CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

मा. आ. 2021. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 ANNEXURE

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

Date:19-6-2009

CaseNo. CGIT/NGP/50/05

Petitioner/ : Shri C. Bhattacharya,

का 14 ) की भाया 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रर्थनतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुमंच में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसमोत के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । PartyNo.1

[सं. एल -22012/410/1998- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st July, 2009

Joint Secretary, RashtriyaKoyla KhadanMazdoor Sangh (INTUC), Regional Office, Chandumata, Dist. Chhindwara, Chhindwara. (onbehalfof Shri Ramprasad Atmaji )

Versus

Respondent/ : The Manager, Rawanwara Khas PartyNo. 2 Colliery,WesternCoalfield Limited, PenchArea, PO-Dighavani, Dist. Chhindwara, Chhindwara .

5.0. 2821.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government bareby publishes the award (Ref. No. 47/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Count, Asmsol 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 1-7-2009.

AWARD

(Dated: 19th June, 2009)

[No. L-22012/410/1998- IR (CM- II )] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOURT COURT, ASANSOL.

Present: Sri Manoranjan Pattnaik, Presiding Officer . Reference No. 47 OF 1999 .

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri C. Bhattacharya , Joint Secretary , Rashtriya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh (INTUC) , Regional Office, Chandumata, Chhindwara (on behalf of Shri Ramprasad Atmaji) (Party No.1 ) and the. Manager, Rawanwara Khas Colliery, Westem Coalfield Limited, Pench Area, PO-Dighavani, Chhindwara (Party No.2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No.L - 122012/ 274/2004- IR(CM- II) dated 8-7-2005under clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section

Parties : TheA gent , Bogunia Project, CVArea of Mis, DCCL, Burakar, Burdwan.

4371

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25 , 2009/श्रावण 3 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Vrs .

TheAreaWorking President, Janta Mazdoor Sangh,

Jharia, Dhanbad .

REPRESENTATIVES :

by the Company. Invoking the provisions of Sec 7.2 of Certified standing order , the union urged that as because the workman a permanent workman completed a continuous period of six months satisfactorily as night guard since 27-1-97 , he is entitled to get the wages of Night Guard w.e.f. 28-7-97.

Sri P. K. Das , Advocate

Forthe management:

None

Forthe union(Workman) :

INDUSTRY: COAL STATE: WEST BENGAL .

Dated the 28-5-2009.

AWARD

5. The stand of the Management is that the workman's engagement as Night Guardwas on timebasis and on exigencies . Post of Night Guard or Security Guard requires prerequisite physical fitness and three years of deployment on trial basis . There has been embargo for conversion ofwork from time rated basis to monthly rated basis and hence the action ofthe management is legal and justified.

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub -section ( 1) and Sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947) , Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/ 410/ 1998 - IR( CM - II) dated 23-5-1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Agent, Begunia Project , CV Area, P.O. Barakar Distt. Burdwan for not regularizing the services of Shri Jageshwar Rout in the post of Night Guard is justified? If not, to what relief the workman entitled?"

6. As indicated above except the documents no oral evidence has been adduced by the parties . Except the attendance roll showing the duties performed by the workman Jageshwar Rout as " Prahari " guard on different dates nothing has been filed to substantiate the fact that the workman was engaged as a Night Guard on regular basis or on probation so as to lay a claim on the post subsequently. There is nothing found that the workman otherwise possessed the required qualification ofphysical fitness required for his appointment as such. By simple engagement to perform such work in exigencies and without any prior terms or commitment by the management, the claim of the workman does not seem to be proper . Accordingly it is held that the action of the management in not regularizing the service of Sri Jageshwar Rout in the post of Night Guard is justified and the workman is entitled to no relief. Hence it is order .

ORDER

Let an award be and same is passed as above it be sentto the Ministry of Labour and Employment, Govt . of India,NewDelhi .

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 1 जुलाई , 2009

2.On receipt theOrder No. L-22012/410/1998- IR(CM- II) dated 23-05-1999 ofabove mentioned reference from theGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No.47 of 1999was registered on 7-6-1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties conrerned directing them to appear inthe court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list ofwitnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

का. आ. 2022. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-07-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । 3. Both the parties made their appearance and laid downtheir respective claims by filing written statement. No oral evidence was adduced . Subsequently for a considerable period the Union did not take any interest and notice returned undelivered. Accordingly, the matter was taken up for disposal onmerit .

[सं. एल-22012/203/2004- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st July, 2009 4. The claims of the union revolves around the fact (as reflected from the written statement) that the workman Sri Jageshwar Rout primarily appointed as a dyke cutter was asked to work as Night Guard but he was declared surplus staff due to mechanization of dyke cutting work

S.O. 2022. Inpursuance of Section 17ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government 2570 G1/09-9 4372

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2009/ SRAMΑΝΑ 3, 1931

[PART II SEC. 3 ( ii)] hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Pandakashwar Area M/s . ECL and their workman, received bythe Central Government on01-07-2009.

[No. L-22012/203/2004- IR (CM-II)) AJAY KUMARGAUR, Desk Officer

Delhi for adjudication ofthe dispute, a reference case No.29 of2005was registered on 31-05-2005 and accordinglyan order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registeredpost to the parties concemed directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and alist ofwitnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance ofthe said onder notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

ANNIEGURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL COVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUMLABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present: Sri Manoranjan Pattnaik, Presiding Officer .

REFERENCE No. 29OF 2005.

3. Diefly stated the case of the union as setforth in writtenstatement is that theworkman Sri Tulsi Das, due to ittoms remained absent from duties from 19-4-99 Enquiry was held expartee without serving any notice on him . And without serving copy of the charge sheet, his service was tominatedw.ef. 15-12-99 Alleging violationofprinciple of natneul justicethe union weyed for reinstatment in service ofthewesbannwith fall backwages .

Parties : The agent, Dalurband Colliery of M/s . ECL. , PandabeswarArea,Burdwan .

Vrs.

4. The management forwhatsoever reason did not prefer to contest the claims of the union and did not participate in the proceeding.

The General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol , Burdwan

REPRESENTATIVES

None

For the management :

For the union (Workman) : Sri S. K. Pnadey, General Secretary ofthe Union.

INDUSTRY:

COAL STATE : WEST BENGAL .

Dated the 9-4-2009 .

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub -section( 1) and Sub- section 2(A) ofSection 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of1947) , Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/203/2004- IR(CM- II) dated 13-05-2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudicationby this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

5. As indicated above the scheduled issue that required to be resolved and question to be decided is that as towisether thodiumissal of the workman in question Bomservice w.e.f. 15-12-99 is legal and justified. For whatsoever reasons the management did not participate in heroding. No evidence has been adducel form the side oftheworkman . On a careful scrutiny of the record it appeard that the enquiry bas boon conducted by the RequiryOffhearin absence ofthe worluman, has been found Rupar des enquirey proceeding that sincere step or attempt was-oven made to sosure the attendance of the workınan. Without any sort of proof of sufficiencyservice ofnotice and without any opportunity being heard and above all without anypositive evidence, the finding that the Enquiry Officer that the absence of the workaam was unsthorized and that the work of the company suffered cannot be considered just and proper and in that respect legal . Futher,for the alleged absence ofthe worker for his illness as claimed a dismissalorder as punishment also appear to be too hard and disproportionste. The Enquiry Report is nottenabécunder law. Consequently, the order ofdismissal isboldnot legal andjustified . In all fitness ofthings and in abence ofproof that employee was employed elsewhere cutithes himselftobe reinstated with full back wages and consequential benefits . Hence

ORDIER

"Whether the action of the managment of Dalurband Colliery under Pandabeswar Area, of M/s E.C. L. in dismissing Sh . Tulsi Das , U.G. Loader U.M.No. 120187 from service w.e.f. 15-12-99 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to whatrelief the workman entitled?"

Let an award be and same is passed in favour of the workman . It be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment, NewDelhi .

2. Onhaving received the Order No. L- 22012/ 203/ 2004- IR( CM - II ) dated 13-05-2005 of the above mentioned reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry ofLabour, New

MANORANJAN PATINAIK , Presiding Officer [भाग -खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3, 1931

4373 नई दिल्ली , 1 जुलाई , 2009

"Whether the action of the management of New Kenda Colliery under Kenda Area ofM/s E.C.L. in dismissing Sh.BijoyPaswan, General Mindoor, U.M. No.509516 from service w.c.f. 16-5-97 is legal and justified? If not, to what releif is the workna entitled?"

का.आ . 2023, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947) 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 औधोगिक अधिकरण असनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 104/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-07-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/411/2004- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

-अजय कुमार गौड , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 1st July, 2009

2. In response to the notice issued to the parties by thisTribunal as back as on 9-9-2005. TheUnior hinde their appearance through its General Secretary but the Management preferred not to appear nor to contest . Necessary documents have been filed by the union along with the written statement. As such it necessitated to dispose of the matter expartee in absence of the management.

S.O. 2023. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Governsent hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 104/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cam- Labour Court, ASANSOL as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the the management of KendaArea of M/s . ECL, and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 01-07-2009.

[No. L-22012/411/2004-IR( CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT: Sri Manoranjan Pattnaik, Presiding Officer

Reference No. 104 of2005

Parties: TheAgent, New Kenda Colliery of M/ s . ECL, Kenda, Burdwan

Vrs.

The General Secretary, Koyala Mazdoor Congress, Asansol, Burdwan.

REPRESENTATIVES

For the management : None

For the Union (workman) : Sri S.K. Pandey, General

Secretary ofthe Union .

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE: WEST BENGAL .

Dated the 28-07-2009

AWARD

3. The Core issue in this proceeding is as towhether thedismissal ofthe workman from servicew.e.f. 16-5-97 is legal andjustified. The ground of dismissal as foundfrom the Enquiry Report is unauthorized absence from duties since 20-11-1995 for more than 10 days for which charge was labelled against him u/s 17(4)on of the Coal Mines Standing Orders and on termination ofEnquiry proceeding dismissal order was charged on him as a taken of examplery punishment as the enquiry report was foundby the management tobe free from blemish. However , on a close look to the findings of the Enquiry Officer it is glaringly found that the ground of absence as self sickness,and factumhis illness and treatment for hepatitis havenotbeen refuted and the Medical Certificate issued by the Superintendent, SID. Hospital, Asatisol has never being challanged by the other side. The grounds that the intimation was sent by certificate of posting and not by registered post and the workman was not treated in the CompanyHospital statid to no reasori so as not to accept the explanation of the workkinan as true and hence the conclusion arrived at is glaringly illegal, unreasonable and denial of natural justice . As indicated above the Management preferred not to participate in this proceeding forwhat so ever reason. Having found the enquiry report and findings blemished one as described above. Consequently the impugned dismissal order is held not legal and justified. Self illness of the workman causing involuntary absence in duty can not be considered as an act of reprehensible and grave offence as it has happened in this case so as to draws examplery punishment. The workman is entitled to be reinstated with full back wages with consequential benefits . Hence ordered

ORDER

Let an award-be and same is passed in favour of the workman. It be sent to'the Ministry of Labour & Employment, New Delhi .

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub -section( 1 ) and Sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , Government of India through the Ministry ofLabour vide its letter No. L- 22012/411/2004- IR( CM- II) dated 18-08-2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer 4374

[PART II-Sec. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2009/SIRAMANA 3 , 1931

SODULE

नई दिल्ली, 1 जुलाई, 2009

"Whether the action ofthe management ofNingha Colliery ofM/s . BCL. in not providing employment to Sh. Sankar Das , Dependent son ofLate SumaDevi is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the dependent concerned is entitled to and fromwhich date?"

का. आ. 2024, और अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुरण सरकार ई.सी. एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों औरों के बीच , अनुबंध में. निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औधोगिक अभिकरण आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 58/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-7-2009 कोः प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/404/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अभिनवरी

New Delhi, the 1st July, 2009

2. After having received the Order No. L-23012/404/2003-IR(CM -II) dated4-10-2004 ofthe above mentioned reference from the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute, a reference case No. 58 of2004was registered on 14-10-2004 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notiocs through the registered post to the puties concomed directing themto appear in the court on Grodate fined and to filetheirwritten statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support oftheir claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

S.O. 2024. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cam- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in theAnnexure in the IndustrialDispute between the the managerment ofGroup ofMinesM/s . Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , and their workmm, receivedbythe Central Government on 1-7-2009.

[No. L-22012/404/2003- IR(CM-II )] AJAYKUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE TEH CENTRAL COVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

PRESENT: Sri Md. SARFARAZ KHAN, Presiding Officer

ReferenceNo.58 of 2004

PARTIES :

3.The substance ofthe case ofthe union as per their written statement is that one Suma Devi permanent employee ofthe company died on 22-4-1996 while in service. As perwageAgreement/NCWA-V one dependent is entitled to get the employment. Son of deceased Suma Devi namely Sri Shankar Des applied for the post with documents of eligibility but the company did not pay any hood to the same and hence the dispute. The management in their written statement without refuting the death of Sume Devi and death claim ofher son, maintained that the case ofShankar Des was not considered as he was a minor i.e. below 18years ofage. The case of the claiment remained under consideration and as such dispute raised is without basis.

TheAgent, Ningha Group of Mines of M/s. ECL, Burdwan

4.Boththeparties adduced evidence in support of Vrs.

General Secretary, Koyła Mazdoor Congress , Gorai Mansion, G.T. Road, Asansol.

REPRESENTATIVES

For theManagement : Sri P. K. Das , Adovocate

For theUnion (workman) : General Secretary, K.М.С. ,

Asansol .

their stand. However as during the course of the proceeding both ofthe parties reached to a settlement on 10-09-2008 the dispute pales in to insignificance. The copy of memorandum of agroanent duly signed by both parties having filed and binding both the parties , this proceeding terminates with a formal award of agreement making the Memorandum of Agreement at 10-09-2008 a part of the award . Hence ordered

STATE: WEST BENGAL

INDUSTRY: COAL

ORDERED

Dated the 30-04-2009

AWARD

Let there be an awarded and same is passed accordingly as per above. The copies of the award be sent to the Ministry of Labour & Employment, Government of India, New Delhi.

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 1 जुलाई , 2009

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section (1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/404/2003 - IR(CM- II) dated 4-10-2004has bom pleasedto refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal

का. आ. 2025. औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं टी.बी. रिले 4375 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजयत्र : जुलाई 25, 2009/श्रावण 3 , 1931

Sri Ram Rup Singh, Casual Security Guard is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ? " सेन्टर 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 173/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-07-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42012/5/2001-आई आर ( सीएम- II ) अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 1st July, 2009

2. This case was received from the Ministry and registered on 9-8-2001 . On 19-2-2009 Advocates ofboth side appeared for evidence of workman but no evidence was present. From the record it appeared that notice was sent to the workman which was returned back with postal remarks "Addressee has died hence retumed to sender" Since the case is of termination and the workman who has already been died there is no alternative but to pass No Dispute Award inthis case.

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

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 2 जुलाई , 2009 S.O. 2025. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Govemmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 173/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of T.V. Relay Centre, Koyla Nagar, and their workmen, received bythe Central Government on 01-07-2009.

[No. L-42012/5/2001 - IR (CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

का. आ. 2026, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सीमेन्ट कार्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजी आईटी /एल सी/आर/63/01 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29012/ 138/2000- आई आर ( एम ) ] Inthematter of a reference under section 10 (1 ) (d) (24) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी Reference No.173 of2001

New Delhi , the 2nd July, 2009 Parties: Employers in relation to the management of T.V. Relay Centre, Koyla Nagar, Dhanbad

and

Their Workman

Present- Shri Hari Mangal Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

S.O. 2026. 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/ 63 /01 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cement Corporation of India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 30-06-2009.

Sri P.M. Prasad, Advocate

For the management:

[No. L-29012/ 138/2000- IR(M)] Forthe Union/workman: Sri D.K, Verma, Advocate

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer State: Jharkhand

Industry: Broadcasting

ANNEXURE

Dated, the 1-06-2009

AWARD

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO.CGIT/LC/R/ 63/01

Presiding Officer: Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan By order No.L- 42012/5 /2001 - IR (CM - II) dated 17-7-2001 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 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

Shri Dhirendra Singh,

SCHEDULE

S/o Sukh Nidan Singh, PO & Vill . Darautalalpur, Distt. Fatehpur (U.P. )

Workman/Union "Whether the action ofthe Management ofT.V. Relay Centre, Dhanbad in terminating the Services of 4376

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

Versus

The Zonal Manager,

Cement Corporation of India Ltd. ,

Samsthargat Office Complex, OffMahul Road, Opp .Ashish Theatre, Chembur, Mumbai-74.

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 15th day of June, 2009

1. The Government of India, Ministry ofLabour vide its Notification No.L -29012/ 138/2000/IR(M) dated 30-3-2001 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of Cement Corporation ofIndia Ltd. , Indore by verbally terninating the services of Shri Dhirendra Singh w.e.f. 21-8-99 and non-payment ofbonus for the year 97-98, 98-99 is justified or not? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled for?"

4. The management contested the case by filing Written Statement. The case of the non- applicant/ management, interalia, is that the ID Act is not applicable in the case as the Cement Industry is a scheduled industry under the M.P. Industrial Relations Act and therefore it is not maintainable . It is stated that the corporation became sick company and a reference was made to the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconsideration . As such a case No. 501/96 was registered . It is stated that the said Board passed an order dated 8-8-96 declaring the corporation as a sick company and therefore no case can be entertained against the company and the dispute is not maintainable . The further case is that the management had a Sales Office at Indore and the same is closed with effect from 18-1-2001 . The applicant is said tohave been engaged for the miscellaneous job purely on temporary/ casual basis and was engaged on daily wages for a period of 89 days . The engagement was for a specific period. It is admitted that the wages were being paid to the workman through Bank drafts from the Zonal Office, Mumbai.It is denied that there was any violation of Sec- 25F of the Act as the cngagement was on contractual basis . Rather Sec-2(00)(bb) oftheAct is attracted in the case. The regular appointment has a recruitment policy. It is also denied that the applicant has worked for 240 days in a calendar year. On these grounds , the award be answered in favour of the menagement .

5. On thebasis of the pleadings of both the parties , the following issues are for adjudication.-

(1) Whether the applicant shall be deemed to be in continuous service and has completed 240 days in a calendar year?

(2) Whether the applicant was engaged on daily wages forafixedperiod?

(3) Whether the applicant was terminated/ retrenched without complying the provision of Sec- 25F of the L.D.Act .

(4) Whether the action of the management by verbally terminating the service of Shri Dhirendra Singh w.e.f. 21-8-99 and non- payment of Bonus for the year 97-98 and 98-99 is justified?

6. Issue Nos . 1 & 2:

2. The case of the applicant in short is that he was appointed by M/s . Cement Corporation of India Ltd. , a Govt. of Indiaundertaking and posted at Indore on 6-8-96 andwas verballyterminated w.e.f. 21-8-99 by the Regional Manager ofCement Corporation of India, Indore. It is stated thathe worked three years and 15 days continuously from 1996 to 1999 and completed 240 days in a calendar year within the meaning ofSec -25 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred as Act) . It is stated that the provision of Sec- 25 - F ofthe Act was not complied before terminating him from the service. It is further stated that the work of the applicant was marketing, sales , Reporting ofmarket, sales price of Cement, Preparation of Invoices , Maintaining party ledger which was ofpermanent nature. He was being paid a consolidated monthly salary @ Rs.1836 per month from 6-8-96 to March 1999. Thereafter his salary was raised to Rs . 2041 per month but the management was illegally treating him an employee on adhoc basis . There is no provision in standing orders of any rules to appoint on adhoc basis . The Controlling OfficerofCement Corporation ofIndia Ltd. ( in short CCIL) ofIndore is the Zonal Office ofCCIL , Mumbai .

Both the issues are taken up together for the sake of convenience. According to the applicant, he worked for three years and 15 days from 6-8-96 without any break and completed240 days in a calendar year on a fixed monthly salary ofRs . 1836per month which was subsequently raised toRs.2041 por month . Hereceived bonus of the year 1996- 97 and the PF was being deducted from his pay since January 1999. He was doing job of permanent nature but illegally the management was treating him an employee on anadhoc basis . On the other hand, the management's case 3.The further case is that the Zonal Office, Mumbai had directed to fill up the Provident Fund form and accordingly PF was being deducted from his pay from Jan. , 1999 but no account number was allotted to him. He had also received annual bonus for the year 1996-97 by demand draft No. 014270 dated 18-9-98 for Rs.1379 but the bonus for the years 1997-98 and 1998-99 were not paidto him. On these grounds , it is prayed that the applicant be reinstated with back wages with other fringe benefits .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4377

भारत का राजपत्र: कुलाई 25/ 2009/ श्रथम 3, 1931.

is that hewas a casual wages employee appointed on, adhoc basis for a fixed period of 89 days and after break the fixed period of89 days extended time and again. It is denied that he had worked for 240 days in a calendar year.

April- 99 to July 99. These documents are also not specifically denied by the management . These documents also appear to have contradict the claim of the management that the applicant was daily wages employee for a fixed period.

9. To fusther support the case of the applicant that hewas not a daily wages employee for a fixed period, he has filed photocopy of receipt issued by the Dy. Manager (Finance), CCIL, Mumbai to show that the bonus was paid oftheyear96-97of 1379by demand draft No. 01-4270 dated 18-9-98 . This document is also not specifically deniedby the management rather in the pleading the management has stated no commerits with regard to the alleged fact. There is no case ofthe management that casual dailywages employees are entitled for Provident Fund and also payment ofbonus . The payment ofbonus also supports the case of theapplicant that he was not daily wages employee . The management has also failed to show that there is any rule for payment of bonus and for contribution towards Provident Fund to the daily wages employees . This also proves that thejob ofthe applicant was not ofdaily wages employee.

10. It is admitted fact that the applicant had miscellaneousjob. The applicant has filed work Instruction which is Paper No. 6/3 . The said instruction shows that the works of the applicant was to be done ofthe marketing as well as ofofficeand appears to be ofpermanent nature.

11. The applicant Dhirendra Singh is also examined inthe case. He has, supported his case. He has stated that heworked continuously for more than 240 days prior to his date of termination. He has been cross -examined at length. There is nothing to disbelieve his evidence. He has fully supported the documents filed by him.

7. Now let us examine the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the applicant in the case . To prove the case that he had worked continuously for 3 years and 15days since 6-8-96 without any break, the applicant has filed photocopy of salary statements prepared by Damp Incharge, Indore and the copy was sent to Dy. Manager (Finance) , CCIL, Mumbai which are paper Nos . 6/11 and 6/21. These salary statements show that salaries were paid in full fromApril 1997 to March 1999 without any break. He has further filed photocopy of receipts of payment from April 1999 to July 1999 to show that the salaries were paid till July 1999 without any break which are paper Nos . 12/12 to 12/15 . There is no specific denial on the part of the management in respect of these documents . This clearly proves that the salaries were paid in full of each month from April 1997 to July 1999 without any break and the service appears to be continuous and the applicant has completed 240 days in a calendar year . These documents contradicts the case of the management that the service was for a fixed period of 89 days because the salaries were paid in full continuously of every month without any break after 89 days . The applicant has also filed photocopy of available attendance sheets which were prepared by the Dump Incharge of the month of Nov. 98 and Jan. 99 to March 99 which are Paper Nos.12/8 to 12/11 . These are simply filed to show that the applicant was in attendance inthe whole months and there was no break. The applicant has also filed photocopy ofPass book ofthe bank to show that the salaries were paid by Demand Draft and the same were credited in his account . Moreover, there is no specific case as to when and also in which date and month ofthe year, the service of the applicant was broken after 89days and also for how many days . In absence of any specific case of the management and in view of the documents of the applicant, it is established that he was not engaged for a fixed period rather he was allowed to continue his work and his service was continuous and has completed 240 days in a calendar year.

8. Another important aspect of the case is also whether the job of the applicant was of casual nature or otherwise as has been claimed by the management. The applicant has filed photocopy of letter No. BZD/ 101 (31 )/ 1999-2000/ 2806 dated 11-5-99 of the manager (Finance- CR) , CCIL , Mumbai wherein it is clear that the saidManager had directed to submit Form-2 for applicant's Provident Fund and applicant's Pension Scheme. This letter indicates clearly that the job of the applicant was not of casual daily wages employee . Photocopies of payment receipts issued by Dy . Manager (Finance) , Mumbai office, which are Paper Nos . 12/12 to 12/15 , also go to show that Rs.204 per month was deducted as Provident Fund from

12.On the other hand, the management has also filed oral and documentary evidence in the case. In order to prove the case, the management has filed proposals of different dates for appointment of the applicant Shri Dhirendra Singh as daily wager for 89 days at a time . The first proposal was ofdated 6-8-98 which are marked as Exhibit M/3 to M/8 . These proposals are filed to show that at a time, the applicant was appointed for 89 days i.e. for a fixedperiod. Thereafter fresh proposal was made for further appointment of 89 days and so on. The said proposalsdo not showthat as to when 89 days were completed. Secondly the pay statements and receipts of the payment filed by the applicant contradicts these proposals because the full month fixed salary was paid each and every month since 6-8-96till termination from the service. It is clear from full payment of the salary without break that the applicant was allowed to work continuously without any break and accordingly full salary was paid to him. The management has also filed notification and its annexures , which are marked as Exhibit M/10 to M/ 12 of the difference of [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] 4378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 200 /SRANNΝΑ 3 , 1931

the service ofthe applicant Shri Dhirendra Singh. This issueis also desided in front ofthe applicant and against

16. IssueNo.4 :

Dearness Allowance which was enhanced .These documents do not prove the case of the management . It appears that the applicant had also filed application for payment ofdifference in DA which is marked as Exhibit M/9. This is also no proof to the case of the manag

k is urged on behalf of the management that the refrenceis ast maintainable as the ID Act is not applicable indocamother M.P.Industrial Relations Act is applicable and doerefore it is beyond the jurisdiction ofthis Tribunal. M.P Indutini Relations Act, 1960 entends to the whole of Madhya Pradesh only but the management of CCIL is a Govt. Rutegrises having its Hand Office at New Delhi . Mossover Regional Office Indorewas controlledby Zonal OfficeofCCM, Mumbai whare the M.P Industrial Relation Act,1960(in shert hereinafter refereed as MPIRAct, 1960) isnot applicable.Thus MPIRAct, 1960 is not applicable in the case.

13.The management has filed photocopy of a letter ofBench Officer - IV dated 8-8-96 ofthe Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction, New Delhi whwvby IFCI was appointed as operating Agency and M/s . Coment Corporationof India Ltd. (CCIL) was declare sick in case No.50/196which is marked as Exhibit M/ 1 . This is filedto show that CCIL is declared sick and therefоrе во appointment can be done thereafter it is clear from the above discussion that the applicant was admittedly appointed thereafter time and again. This shows that this order does not affect the establishment at Indore and Mumbai which were the place of Controlling of the applicant . It also appears that the appointment of the applicant became necessary for want ofwork in the said Indore office. Another photocopy of the office order dated 18-1-01 of the Asstt . General Manager(Personnel ) is filed to show that the marketing activities of Indore Regional office , Indore Dump and Khandwa Dump were closed and windup with immediate effect . This' is much afterthe date of alleged verbal termination . This order is also not applicable in the case. Thus the documentary evidence adduced by the management are not sufficient to the case ofthe management .

17. The applicant has relied upon the decisions reported in2001 (38)PLR508 (S.C) Doop Chandra versus State ofUP and another and 2002(94 ) FLR283 State ofRajasthan versus Kanhaiya Lal & others wherein the Hon'ble Court hold thatwhen the employee had put in service for more than240days in each year for several years , the employee is entitled to be reinstated in his service. These rulings appant to be applicable in the case as there is clearviolation ofSec. 25(F) of LD.Act, 1947. On the other hand, the management has relied upon a decision reported in AIR 2007 S.C. 631 , M.D. Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Ltd.l versus Mahadeva Laxman Raval wherain theworkman was ongaged for a fixed periodto tsainweaves . This ruling is not applicable in the case because in the instance case, the workman was allowed to continue in the service without any break . The management kas also cited a ruling reported in (2007) 9 S.C.C. 353 Uttranchal Forest Development Corporation versus M.C.Joshi but the said ruling appears to be not applicable in the case as there was no delay in filing case and theworkman had worked for more than 3 years . On the basis of the evidence discussed above, it is clear that the action of the management by verbally terminating the service of Shri Dhirendra Singh w.e.f. 21-8-99 and nonpayment of Bonus for the year 97-98 and 98-99 was not justified. Accordingly this issue is also answered in favour of the applicant and against the managemont/non- applicant.

18. In the result, the applicant is entitled to reinstatement with back wages w.c.f. 21-8-99. Accordingly award is passed in favour ofthe applicant and against the management/ son - applicant without any order ofcosts .

14. The management has also examined one witness in the case. Shri R.N.Tiwari was Chief Sales Supervisor, CCIL office situated at Indore . He has proved the documents . The relevancy of the documents are already discussed above . He has supported the engagement of the applicant but as daily wages worker for a period of89 days . He has not supported the case as to when and for how many days the service of the applicant was disengaged . This shows that there is no specific case of dis - engagement . The documents of the applicant contradicts the oral evidence of this witness . Those documents clearly show that there was no break as foll salary was being paid continuously in each and every month with deduction towards Provident Fund. His evidence is also not helpful in establishing the case ofthe management. Considering the discussion made above, it is proved that the applicant was in continuous service till termination and had completed 240 days in a calendar year and the management has failed to establish that the applicant was engaged on daily wages for a fixed period. These issues are decided in favour of the applicant and against the management .

15. Issue No. 3:

19. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment asperrules.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer From the pleadings ofboth the parties , it is an admitted fact that the non- applicant management has not complied the provision ofSection 25 -F of ID.Act before terminating 4379

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25 , 2009/ श्रावणः 3 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

अधिनिर्णय

नई दिल्ली , 2 जुलाई, 2009

भारत सरकार, श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के उक्त प्रासांगिक आदेश दि. 13-11-96 के जरिये निम्न निर्देश /विवाद, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " से सम्बोधित किया जायेगा की धारा 10 ( 1 ) (घ ) के अतंर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णयार्थ सम्प्रेषित किया गया है:-

का.आ. 2027. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. जयपुर उद्योग लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों केबीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोटा के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 23/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -29011 /32/ 1996 - आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 2nd July,2009

"क्यासीमेंट वर्कर्स कर्मचारी संघ , सवाईमाधोपुर द्वारा दि. 30-1-91 एवं दि. 7-8-95 को उनके एवं प्रबन्धम के बीच हुए समझौते को प्रभावहीन एवं निष्क्रीय घोषित करने की कार्यवाही उचित एवं म्यायसंगत है ? तथा इसके परिणामस्वरूप प्रबन्धन द्वारा उनकी फलौदी क्यारी पर तालाबन्दी करने कार्यवाही उचित है ? यदि नहीं तो संबंधित पक्ष किस अनुतोष के हकदार हैं ?

2. निर्देश/विवाद, न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीबद्व उपरान्त पक्षकारों को सूचना विधिवत रूप में जारी की गयीं जिस पर दोनों पक्षों की ओर सेअपने-अपने अभ्यावेदनों के समर्थन में साक्ष्य प्रस्तुत किये जाने उपरान्त पत्रावली बहस अन्तिम में नियत हुई । S.O. 2027. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industriál Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.23/ 1996) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Kota now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Jaipur Udyog Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 30-6-2009.

[No. L-29011/32/ 1996- IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

न्यायाधीश , औद्योगिक न्यायाधिकरण/ केन्द्रीय/कोटा/राज. पीठासीन अधिकारी- अनुराधा शर्मा , आर. एच.जे.एस. निर्देश/विवाद प्रकरण क्रमांकः औ.न्या. /केन्द्रीय/23/96

दिनांक स्थापितः 21-11-96

3. पत्रावली के अवलोकन से प्रकट होता है कि दौरान विचारण दि. 28-3-07 को अप्रार्थी प्रतिनिधि श्री एस. सी. मिश्रा, मैनेजर ( पी एण्ड डबल्यू. ) की ओर से प्रार्थना- पत्र के साथ समझौता (एग्रीमेन्ट) दिनांकित 18-11-06 की फोटोप्रति प्रस्तुत कर निवेदन किया गया था कि दोनों पक्षों के मध्य समझौता/राजीमामा हो चुका है । तदुपरान्त पत्रावली पेश होने राजीनामा अब तक नियत होती रही । आज प्रार्थी श्रमिक यूनियन की ओर से प्रतिनिधि श्री डी. आर. द्विवेदी ने भी प्रार्थना- पत्र प्रस्तुत कर यह निवेदन किया कि पक्षकारों के मध्य लंबित प्रकरण में लोक न्यायालय की भावना से राजीनामा हो गया है और अब प्रार्थीगण कोई कार्यवाही नहीं चाहते हैं, अतः तद्‌नुसार अधिनिर्णय पारित कर दिया जावे ।

प्रसंगः भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश क्रमांक एल. 29011/32/96- आई आर ( विविध ) दि. 13-11-96

निर्देश/विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ) औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947

मध्य

चूंकि लम्बित प्रकरण में पक्षकारों के मध्य उक्त प्रकार से राजीनामा सम्पन्न हो गया है और अब प्रार्थीगण कोई कार्यवाही नहीं चाहते हैं, अतः सम्प्रेषित निर्देश/ विवाद को इसी प्रकार अन्तिम रूप से अधिनिर्णित कर उत्तरित किया जाता है ।

अध्यक्ष , सीमेंट वर्कर्स कर्मचारी संघ, सवाईमाधोपुरः

अनुरुधा शर्मा, न्यायाधीश

-प्रार्थी श्रमिक यूनियन

एवं

नई दिल्ली , 2 जुलाई , 2009

प्रबंधक , मै. जयपुर उद्योग लि. , साहुनगर, सवाईमाधोपुरः

-अप्रार्थी नियोजक

उपस्थित

प्रार्थी श्रमिक यूनियन की ओर से प्रतिनिधिः-

श्रीडी. आर. द्विबेदी

अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर सेः-

का, आ. 2028.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.पी.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय, ईर्णाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 79/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

कोई उप. नहीं

[सं. एल -30011 /46/1999- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी अधिनिर्णय दिनांक: 26-5-09

2570 G1/09-10 4380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009 /SRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] NewDelhi , the 2nd July,2009

S.O. 2028. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No.79/2006) of the Central Government used Tribal-can-Labour Court, Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of B. P. C. L. and droh workomen, which was received by the Central Govention30-6-2009.

[No. L-30044/46/3999-IR (M)]

KAMALDAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANMERKE

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

been working continuously for a long time. They are supervised and controlled by the management . The work is perennial in nature . The management has named them as ' contract labour ' on the strength of sham and void contacts entered with third parties with a view to deprive them ofthe benefits and privileges ofpermanent workmen . The management has been employing workers for certain periods and then engage fresh batches in succession . The union demanded absorption ofthese workmen several times . Dut the management has not responded favourably. To leeup such workers in job for long periods without giving them benefits of permanent workers is an unfair labour practice. Employment of fresh hands after retrunching the existing workman is in violation of $.25 (H) ofL.D. Act . The management is not following the Rule of " last come first go " . No retrenchment compensation or neticewas given to the retrenched workers .

Present: Shri P. L. Norbert, B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Wednesday the 27th day of May 2009/6th Jyaistha,

1931)

I. D. 79/3006

L (I. D. 75/1999 of Labour Court, Ernakulam)

Union:

TheGeneral Secretary,

Petroleum Employees Association ,

Dr. SalimAli Road, Cochin .

ByAdv . Sri . H. B. Shenoy.

Management:

TheSenior Divisional Manager ,

Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Dr. Salim Ali Road, Cochin - 683014

ByAdv. M/s . Menon & Pai

This case coming up for hearing on 15-5-2009, this Tribunal -cum -Labour Court on 27-5-2009 passed the following.

AWARD

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

3. According to the management the reference is vague and the number of employees working within the territorial jurisdiction ofthis count is not from the order ofreference . Though the demand is to absorb the contract workers the concerned contractors are not made parties to the dispute. The management is wrongly added as a party. The reference is bad for misjoinder and nonjoinder of parties . The contract labour are not workmen within the definition of S.2 (s) of I. D. Act . There is no master- servant relationship between the parties . Hence there is no industrial dispute as defined U/s.2 (k) of the I.D. Act . The management engages contract-labour only for thejobs which are not permanent in nature . For permanent jobs workers are recruited as per norms of recruitment . The management denies supervision and control by its officinis. Long and continuous employment of contract labour is also denied by the management . None of the provisions of I.D. Act are applicable to contract labour. The management is not resorting to any unfair labour practice . The question of the rule of " last come first go" does not arise in this case . The contracts by which the workers are engaged are genuine contracts . None of the workers are entitled to be absorbed .

4. In the light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration .

1. Is the contract sham ?

2. Are the workers entitled to be absorbed in the management establishment ?

"Whether the demand of Petroleum Employees Association for absorption of around 140 contract workers working in various establishment of M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. situated in the State of Kerala at different jobs for considerably long period , as the permanent workers by the management is legal and justifiod ? Ifso, towhat relief the concerned workmen are antinied ?"

The evidence consists of the oral testimony of WWI and documentary evidence of Exts . W- 1 to W- 81 series on the side of the union and MW1 and Exts.M1 to M3 on the side of the management .

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows: The union is claiming regularisation of 148 contract- employeов in the establishment of Bharat Petroleum Corporation functioning in different units in Kerala . According to the union the management employed several workers under the banner of contract labour" in the state of Kerala . But they are really employees of the management . They have

5. Point No. 1:- It is the case of the union that 148 workers involved in this case entered service of management corporation as contract labour. But the so-called contract is sham and pretentious and the workers [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4381

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

in fact are employees of the corporation . According to the management they are only contract labour and the contract is gemuine.

6. The very reference describes the workers as contract labour. The union also admits that they entered service as contract labour . Otherwise the very contention for absorption cannot stand. The burden therefore is on the union to prove that contract is sham . In Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors . v. National Union Water FrontWorkers & Ors . 2001 - II -L.L.J . 1087 (Five Judges Bench decision) the test to know the nature of the contract is laid down in paragraph 65 ofthe judgment:

doneby engaging contract labour and permanent workers are recruited by inviting applications . The age of applicants should be 25 years and educational qualification is S.S.L.C ( page 9 & 10 ) . However he does not say which officer of the management is supervising and the manner in which they are supervised and controlled. According toMWI , Manager (Operations) the contract workers are supervised and controlled by the contractors and not by the corporation. In the cross examination there is no direct question about any particular official who is supervising (page 12 of MWI ) . Accordingto MWI if a labourer misbehaves the contractor will be instructed, not to engage him. The standard of work is to be maintainedby the contractor. The officer of the corporation who issues work order has to assess the standard of work. If the work is not satisfactory or defective the contractor will be directed to set it right and not the workers . Thus there is no evidence to prove that the workers are supervised. and controlled by the management.

9. (2) Payment ofWages

To prove that wages are paid by the management the union has producedExts . W -2to 47 and 58 to 63. Exts . W2 to 47 are: (a) Wage Slips (b) E.S.I. Cards ( c) Entry Permits and ( d) P.F. annual statements of accounts . Exts . W-58 to63 are ESI cards of some of theworkers .

10.(a)Wage Slips

"Where a workman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by the principal employer through a contractor , he merely acts as an agent so there will be master and servant relationship between the principal employer and the workman. But where a workıman is hired in or in connection with the work of an establishment by a contractor , either because he has undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment or because he supplies workmen for any work of the establishment a question might arise whether the contractors is a mere camouflage as in Hussainbhai Calicut's case (supra), and in Indian Petrochemicals Corporation's case (supra), etc.; ifthe answer is in the affirmative , the workman will be in fact an employee ofthe principal employer , but ifthe answer is in the negative , the workman will be a contract labour."

The management does not admit that workers were hired in connection with the work of the establishment through contractor. Therefore the factual situation has to be ascertained from the evidence on record to know the manner in which workers are engaged in order to find out the nature of contract.

7. The main factors to ascertain whether the contractor is only a supplier of labour orhe has undertaken to produce a given result for the establishment are :

(1) Supervision and control .

(2) Payment ofwages.

(3) Disciplinary Action.

8.(1) Supervision & Control:

Accordingto the union in none of the wage slips the contractor's name is shown but that of the management alone. It is to be noted that in the first column of thewage slip (printed form) name of the establishment is to be mentioned.It is against that column that the name of the management is noted Just above the name of the establishment the words " all contractors " are printed, In the third column regarding designation of the employee it isprinted ' unloading/bonding, The fact that the name of the establishment is shown in the wage slip does not mean that management is the employer. It is only the name ofthe establishment where the workers are working . It isthe further case of the union that wage slip is signed byan officer ofthe management and not by the contractor. However the management does not admit it. There is no evidence either qral or documentary to show that the signature subscribed at the foot ofthe wage slip is that of an officer of management . At any rate this contention of the union and the submission of the learned counsel for the union become redundant in view of the testimony ofWW1 . He admits in the cross examination (page 3 ) that the wage slips produced in this caso were issued by the contractor. This ends the controversy regarding payment ofwages evidenced by Exts:W2 to 47 .

Theunion contends that the workers are supervised and controlled by the officers of management . WWI is the General, Secretary of the union and a worker . To a specific question in the cross examination as to whether the contract labour are not supervised by contractors ' supervisors, his answer is that all workers are not supervisedby contractors ' supervisors (page & & 9 of WW1 ) . The witness also says that the contract work, is

11. However it is pointed out by the learned counsel for theunion that Exts. W-48 to, 53 , 55 and 56will support the contention of the union that wages were paid 4382

[PART IISEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/SRAVANA 3, 1931

the contractor to carry out works undertaken by the contractor. Ifthey were taken by the management without the intervention ofa contractor then their status is that of either casual or temporary workanen and the present claim commot stand.

by the management and not by the contractor. Exts.W-48 is a receipt for having paid wages to four workers for the month of February 2001. The payment is admittedly made bythe management and not by the contractor. The names ofthe four workers are S. Saseendran, K. Satheesan, L. Preman and K. Janardhanan . Exts. W-49 to 53 are vouchers acknowledging receipt of payment from the management by the four employees . They are described as casualworkers as per these documents . These workers are Sl . Nos . 84 to 86 and 88 in the list of workers (Ext . W1 ) . MW1 admits (page- 9) that as per Exts .48 to53, 55 and56 payments were made by the management . Ext. W-56 is a letter issued by Accounts Pay Roll , Madras to Kannur division of the management instructing to make arrangements for Ex - gratia payment to temporary employees Saseendran and Balan . But according to MW1 Shri Saseendran is a contractor-cum-worker and the other threeworkers are employees of Saseendran . However other than the ipse dixit of MW1 there is no evidence to corroborate the case of the management . Whereas Exts. W-48 to 53 , 55 and 56 prove that the four employees were treated as casual employees of the management andwages were paid by the management .

13. It is relevant to note that the management was left in the dark as to the identity of all the workers. Inthe order оr rоблечnce no list ofworkers is attached. Even in the reference the exact number ofworkers is not mentioned bet described as " around 140" workers . The union is not even able to identify all the workers who are concerned with the dispute. Unless particulars of workers are specifically mentioned in a list annexed to the reference it isnot possible for the management to take up a definite contention regarding the status and the nature of work of onch employee. Aclaim statement was filedby the union in March 2001. The written statement was filedby the management in September 2001. However the list of workers, Ext . WI was produced by the union only on 22-6-2007. The submission of the learned counsel for the union that Exts . W-48 , 53 , 55, and 56 prove that all the 146 workers are really employees of the management cannotbe accepted because these documents refer only to four employees . The remaining documents on the side of the uniondo not support the case of the union and WWI admits that wages are paidby contractors . WW1 has also admitted (page 5 and 6) that service conditions and wages are settled in discussion between contractors and union in the presence of Conciliation Officer and management is only a witness to the settlement and conciliation . Thus the evidence does not reveal that wages are paid by the management except to four employees mentioned above.

14.(b)ESI Cards

According to the union contributions to Employees State Insurance are paid by the management . Exts .W2 to47 contain Photostat copies of indentity cards issued byESi corporation to the employees . The cards will not show that the ESI Contribution is paid by the management. Assuming that it is paid by the management still it will not show the status of employee . The returns of ESI contribution called for from the management are produced (but not marked) . Even contract labour is covered by ESI Act . Hence an employee, whether he is contractual or regular will get an identity card from the ESI Corporation . S.38 of the Employees State Insurance Act says that all employees, in factories or establishments to which the Actapplies, shall be insured in the manner provided by the Act. S. 40 says that the principal employer shall pay in respect ofevery employee whether directly employed or through an immediate employer, the contributions of employer as well as employee . Section 41 says that the principal employer who has paid contribution in respect of an employee shall be entitled to recover the amount from 12. But the case of the union is that all the 148 workers , including Saseendran and three others referred supra entered service as contract labour (though the contract is sham) and not as casual labour. The union has no case that any of the workers were taken by the management as casual labourer . If the workers are taken and treated as casual labourers of the management then they cannot claim absorption or regularisation . It is the discretion of the management to consider casual employees for absorption . Being a public sector undertaking they are guided by presidential directives and norms of recruitment . Even WW1 admits that permanent workers are recruited after inviting applications . There is age limit and educational qualification for applying for the post . Besides reservation policy has to be observed (page 9 and 10 ofWW1 ) . However long a casual employee works he does not acquire a right for absorption . Thus the definite case of the union is that all the workers in this case were taken as contract labour under the cover of sham contract. Hence they are entitled for absorption . The case of Saseendran and three others stand on a different footing as Ext . W -48 to 53 , 55 and 56 go to show that they were treated as casual employees of the establishment and not of contractor. Is evidenceregarding payment ofwages for certain days during certain periods , sufficient to say that these employees are direct employees of the management . Regarding supervision and control there is no evidence . At least one of the four workers could be examined to give evidence as to how they entered service, the mode ofpayment , the manner of supervision etc. There is no evidence to show whether these four workers were hired by the management through contractor or hired by 4383

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 25, 2009/श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

determining the fact ofthe nature ofemployment. Therefore Ext.W-57 also will not help the union to prove that the employer of the workers is the management.

the immediate employer . S.2 (9) defines employee . The definition takes in employment through contract labour also. Thus the fact that contribution to ESI is paid by the management does not necessarily mean that the management is the employer of an employee .

15.(c)Entry Permits

17. (3) The union has no case that any disciplinary action was taken by the management against any of the 148 workers . There is no evidence also to that effect. It is ture that MWI has stated (page 12) that if a worker misbehaves the contractor (and not the workers ) is directed by the management not to engage him any more . That means that the Disciplinary Authority of workers is the contractor and not the management.

Exts.W2 to 47 also contain copies of entry permits issued bythe management to workers . The Entry permits also will not prove the case of the union that workers are the employees of the management. The premises of the management being a security area nobody can enter the premises without an entry permit. Besides entry permits describe the workers as contract workmen. Hence the Entry permits also do not support the case of the union that the employer ofworkers is the management .

16. (d) PF Annual Statements ofAccounts

18. Itwas contended by the learned counsel for the union that the management has not produced contract agreements as well as licences of contractors to prove that contracts are genuine and workers are employed by the contractors . It is relevant to note that the union has no case that there is no contract at all. Their case is that there iscontract, but it is pretentious and sham, created for the purpose of depriving the workers oftheir service benefits . The management has however produced one contract agreement (Ext.M1 ) and a notice of commencement of contract work issued to one of the contractors . It is not necessary to produce all the contracts of various periods inviewoftheplea ofthe union itself as well as the terms of reference. It is then submitted that the jobs done by the employees are not covered by the registration under Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act . Ext.M3 is a copy of the registration certificate under Section 7 of CLRA Act. The works mentioned in Ext.M3 are civil work, fabrication work, painting and maintenance , electrical work, catering work and pipeline installation . The work done by the employees are security, loading and unloading, house keeping and gardening, maintenance work, electrical repairing and maintenance and civil works. As per entry permits the jobs are loading and unloading of cylinders , transportation of cylinders,and handling of cylinders . Assuming that certain jobs are not coveredby registration the management need only to face prosecution under Section 25 of CLRA Act . But the fact that there is no registration regarding certain jobs given on contract not necessarily mean that the contract is not genuine. It may be a piece of evidence along with other evidence to prove that the contract is sham . But by itself the case of union cannot be substantiated.

19.None ofthe factors to prove that the contract is sham and pretentious are established by the union . Naturally the workers cannot claim absorption by the principal employer . There is no employer -employee relationship between the workers and the management . The employer of the worker is the contractor. Once the period of contract comes to an end the work of the employees too comes to an end . Since the contractual workers are not ' workmen ' within the definition of S.2 (s) of I.D. Act no kind of rights under the provisions of Exts.W2 to 47 also contain PF annual statements , of contributions in respect of workers . Even if contributions are paid by the principal employer the union cannot say that the workers are employees of principal employer . S.8 -A ofEmployees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act says that amount of contribution, both of the employer and employee, paid by an employer can be recovered from the contractor . Section 2 ( f) defines employee. It includes a person employed through a contractor. It is the liability of the principal employer topay PF contributions of an employee whether regular or contractual . Ext. W- 57 is the proceedings of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner . The union had demanded enrolment of 16 workers to the membership of employee's Provident Fund. After hearing the union and Bharath Petroleum Corporation (management) the latter was directed to file returns and remit statutory dues in respect of the 16 workers . The direction was given to the management because till then nobody, either the management or the contractor, had paid contributions to PF and enrolled the workers in the provident fund. It is the statutory obligation of a principal employer to pay contributions . It was then contended by the learned counsel for the union that the very fact that the management had not sought to implead the concerned contractors in the proceedings before Provident Fund Commissioner, is itselfproof of the fact that the workers are not contractual labour . As per the provisions of the Act referred above if the contractor fails to pay contribution to PF it is the statutory liability ofthe principal employer to make payment and to recover it from the contractor. WWI says that PF contributions in respect of permanent employees of the corporation are paid under code KR/261 and that of contract labour under the subcode KR/ 261 / ABC ( page - 8 ) . Accordingto MW1 PF contribution is paid by the contractor under the Code of management (page 8) . Being a statutory liability of principal employer the payment of PF contribution by the management is not decisive in 4384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 25, 200AMΜΑΝΑ. 3, 1931

the I.D. Act accrue to them, much less a right for absorption.

20. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the management that regarding some of the workers there was another industrial dispute in respect of the same issue and an award was passed in that case by this court. A copy of the award ( I.D. 37/2006) is produced. It is admittedby the union that 16 werkers had raised a dispute through another union for absorption . But they did not succeed . The workers in I.D. 37/2006 are Serial Nos. 93to 107 in Ext . W1 list. So far as they are concerned they cannot once again raise the same dispute . That apart there are another set of workers engaged as security guards oncontract basis admittedly . Exts. W-64 to 81 are identity cards issued by the contractor (Raven-Air Securities), wage slips , E.S.I. cards and a few P.F. annual statements . The union admits that they are contract labour taisen on the basis of a genuine contract. They are Sl . Nos . 130 to 143 and 145 to 148 in Ext. WI . They too cannot demand absorption.

In the result an award is passed finding that the demand of the union for absorption of contract labour , working in various units ofBharat Petroleum Corporation in the State of Kerala, is not legal and justified and the workers are not entitled for any relief.

The award will come into force one month after its publication intheOfficial Gazette.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 27th day ofMay , 2009 .

P.L. NORBERT, PresidingOfficer APPENDIX

Witness for the Union

WW1 11-2-2009 B.Balagopalan

Witness for theManagement

MWI

21-4-2009 T. R. Harikrishnan Exhibits for the Union

W1 .

Photocopy ofList of Contract Workmen engaged in BPCL at its offices in Kerala

W2.

Shri . Anil Kumar.

(a) Photocopy of wage slip issued to

Shri . AnilKumar.

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

[PART II-SBE.3(ii)] W3.

DavidAntony (a) Photocopy of Wage stlip issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

( Photocopy of Aanuel statement of accounts of vident funds issued to

W4.

Photocopy of Wage

AsokKumar.G. slip issuedto

-do-

(b) Phatecopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

(d) Photocopy ofAnnual statement of accounts of provident funds issued to

W-5.

Devadasan (a) Phetecepy of Wage slip inveed to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Cand issuedto

-do-

(d) Phetssopy of Annual statement of accounts of provident funds issued to

W-6.

DominicT.

(a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

-do-

(b) Photosapy of Identity Card inoued to

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Annual tent of accounts of lent funds issued to

W-7.

Harrison Ronald.

(a) Rutesupy of Wage slip issuedto

(b) Photocopy ofEntry permit Cand issuedto [भाग -खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

4385

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009% श्रावण 3 , 1931

W-8.

Ignatious Fernandez.

(a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

W-9.

JohnBosco (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issued to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

W-10.

John Martin (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Annual statement of accounts issued to

W-11.

Justin Fernandez (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

-Ho-

(d) Photocopy of Annual statement of accounts issued to

do-

W-12 .

MartinDavid (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issued to dito

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

W-13 .

MerimDavid (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

MerinDavid (b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

W-14.

SimiMon (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issued to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

W-15.

८ Sreeraj (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issued to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

W-16.

VijayanB (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issued to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

W- 17.

Vijayan V. (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issued to

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Annual statement of accounts issued to

W-18.

S. R. Sivaprasad (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issued to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Annual statement of accounts of issued to THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 25 , 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

4386

W-19.

Hari Prasad (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issued to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

Muralidharan Nair S. (c) Photocopy of Entry permit Card issued to

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Annual statement of accounts of issued to

W-25.

Shijil Kumar K. Ρ.

(a) Photocopy of Wage

slip issuedto

W-20.

S.Thulaseedharan (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

W-26.

MourisJoseph (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Annual statement of accounts of issued to

W-21 .

Ramachandran S. B. (a) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Entry permit Card issued to

W-22.

A. Satheesan (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Annual statement of accounts issued to

W-23 .

Baiju S

(a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

W-24.

Muralidharan Nair S (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

W-27.

N. Raju (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Annual statement of accounts issued to

W-28.

M. Abdul Rehim (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Annual statement of accounts issued to

W-29.

Krishnan KuttyV (a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3 ,-1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

-do-

4387

W-35.

Binu R.

(c) Photocopy of Identity

Card issued to

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Annual statement of accounts issued to

-do-

(d) Photocopy ofEntry permit

Card issued to

W-30.

Kunjumon Fernandez.

W-36.

Sudhakaran A.

(a) Photocopy of Identity

Card issued to

(a) Photocopy of Wage slip issued to

-do-

(b) Photocopy ofEntry permit

Card issuedto

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

W-37.

V.Vimalraj (a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

W-31.

G.Soman.

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Entry permit

Card issuedto

(a) Photocopy of Wage slip issuedto

do ...

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

W-38.

S.Rajan (a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Entry permit

Card issuedto

W-32 .

Ayyappan. L (a) Photocopy of Wage slip: issued to

W-39.

V.Mohanari .

(a) Photocopy of Identity

Card issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Entry permit

Card issuedto

-do-

W-33 .

W-40.

Viņu. M (a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

Ajith. R. slip issued to (a) Photocopy of Wage

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Entry permit

Card issued to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

-do-

W-41 .

R. Madhu- (a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to soodanan

W-34.

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Entry permit

Card issuedto

A. Jeevanandan.

(a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Entry permit Card issued to

W-42.

R. Sunil Kumar (a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

W-35.

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Entry permit

Card issued to

Anil Kumar S. (a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

W-43.

N.Manikantan (a) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

(b) Photocopy of Entry permit Card issued to

2570GI/09-11 4388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009 /SRAMAINA 3, 1931

[PART H-Sec. 3(ii) ]

W-54.

(b) Photocopy ofEntry permit Card issued to

W-44.

Photocopy of Identity Card issued by ESI Corporationto S. Sescendran .

T. Lalon

W-55.

(a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

-do-

Photocopyof letter dated 13-10-1981 issued by Accounts PayRoll, Madras to Kannur Division of BPCL.

(b) Photocopy ofEntry permit Card issuedto

W-56.

W-45.

V. Arun Kumar

Photocopyof letter dated 24-4-1979 issuedby Accounts PayRoli, Madras to Kannur Division:

(a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

W-57 .

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Entry permit Card issued to

Photocopy of order of Regional Provident Fund Commissioner dated 6-12-2005.

W-46.

W-58.

S. Santhock

(a) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedto

Unsiluidaan . Photocopy of Identity Card issuedby ESI Corporation to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Entry permit Card issuedto

W-59.

W-47.

Photocopy of Identity Card issued by BBM Cogurationto Manej Kumar P.A.

S. Suresh Kumar

(a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

W-60 .

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Entry permit Card issued to

Photocopy of Identity Card issued by ESí Corporationto T. P. Job.

W-48 .

W-61 .

Photocopyof Identity Card issued by ESI Corporation to Amoop Т.В.

Photocopy of consolidated statement of Casual Wages Payment for February 2001 pertainingto Shri . S. Saseendran , S. Sathessan , L. Preman & K. Janardhanan.

W-62.

W-49.

Photocopyof Identity Card issued by ESI Corporationto C.K. Chandran.

Photocopy of Voucher dated 31-12-1991 issued by management to S. Sasindran (Sl. No. 84).

W-63.

W-50.

Photocopy of Identity Card issued by ESI Corporationto M.Ajit Kumar

Photocopy of Voucher dated 31-12-1991 issued by management to S. Sathessan ( Sl . No. 38).

W-64.

W-51 .

C.A. Paulose

(a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued to

Photocopy of Voucher dated 30-12-1991 issued by management to L. Preman (Sl . No. 86).

-do-

W-52 .

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued by ESI Corporationto

Photocopy of Voucher dated 30-12-1991 issuedby management to K. Janardhanan (Sl . No. 85).

-do-

W-53.

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Wage Slip issued todated 5-3-2007

Photocopy ofVoucher dated 10-6-1982, 24-12-1981 , 13-4- 1979,20-12-1980,24-3-1900, 28-12-1900 (6Nos.) innaed by management to N. Sasindran (Sl . No. 19).

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25 , 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

W-65.

4389 (c) Photocopy of Wages Slip dated5-3-2007 issued to

B. Raveendran Pallai

(a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued by Raven- Air-Securities to

-do-

W-69.

Jayaprasad (a) Photocopy of Identity Cardissuedby Raven-Air-Securitiesto

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedbyESI Corporationto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity

Card issuedby ESI

Corporationto

-do-

(c) Photocopy of Wages Slip

issuedto

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Wages Slip dated5-3-2007 issued to

W-66.

R.Muraleedharan W-70.

Viswa Kumar (a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued by Raven- Air-Securities to

(a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued by Raven- Air-Securities to

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity

Card issuedby ESI

Corporationto

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedby ESI Corporationto

-do-

(c) Photocopy of Wages Slip

dated 5-3-2007 issuedto

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Wages Slip dated 5-3-2007 issued to

W-71 .

Karthikeyan (a) Photocopy of Identity " Card issued by Raven- Air-Securitiesto

-do-

(e) Photocopy of Annual statement of account for the year 2005-06 issued to

(b) Photocopy of Identity

Card issuedby ESI

Corporationto

W-67.

Sudhakaran Pillai .

-do-

(c) Photocopy ofNSSN Form

Acknowledgment Slip dated

24-7-2004 issued to

(a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued by Raven- Air-Securities to

-do-

W-72.

G. Raju (a) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedbyRaven- Air-Securitiesto

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issued by ESI Corporationto

-do-

-doi

(b) Photocopy of Identity

Card issuedby ESI

Corporationto

-do-

(d) Photocopy of Wages Slip dated 5-3-2007 issuedto

-do-

(c) Photocopy of Wages Slip

dated 5-3-2007 issued to

W-68 .

Surendran Nair (a) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedby Raven- Air-Securities to

W-73.

Rajagopalan Pillai (a) Photocopy of Identity Card issued by Raven- Air-Securitiesto

-do-

(b) Photocopy of Identity

Card issued by ESI

Corporationto

(b) Photocopy of Identity Card issuedby ESI Corporationto 4392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FULY 25 , 200 /BRAMANA 3 , 1931

New Delhi , the 2nd July, 2009

S.O. 2030. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 183/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No. 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelationto the management of Noamundi Iron Ore Mines and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-6-2009.

[No. L-26012/6/2000- IR(M)]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1 , DHANBAD Inthe matter ofa reference U/s . 10( 1 )(d)(2A) ofI.D. Act , Reference No. 183 of 2000

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Noamundi IronOre Mines of M/s . TISCO Ltd.

AND

Their Workman

Present: Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

Forthe Employers : Shir D. K. Verma, Advocate Forthe Workman : ShirD. Mukherjee , Advocate State : Jharkhand

Industry: Ore Mine Dated, the 27th May, 2009

AWARD

ByOrder No. L-26012/ 6/2000- IR(M) dated 23-6-2000 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 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the management in denial of employment to the dependent son of Shri G. D. Mahapatra, ex-employee of Noamundi Iron Mine ofM/ s. TISCO is justified ? If not, to what relief Shri R. K. Mahapatra S/o Shri G. D. Mahapatra is entitled ?"

2. The workman has filed written statement stating that he had been working as permanent workman at Noamundi Iron Ore Mines of TISCO since 8-5-1956 and retired from service after completing 40 years of service w.e.f. 1-6-99. The concerned workman had registered his dependent's name in the Companies ' Register for

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] employment as per settlement/ agreement and prevailent practice, and as per that settlement as employee who retired from service after putting requisite period of service is entitled for employment . As regards to employment of employees' dependents following are the settlement/ agreement:

(a) The musorandum ofagreement ofNational Joint Committee for the Steel Industry held at NewDelhi on 25-5-1983 item No. 7-16 employment to be provided to the dependents ' sons who are permanentlydisable and to the dependent son of retiring employees would be employed.

(b) National Joint Committee for the Steel Industry memorandum of agreement item No. 7-14 employment to the dependent son would be providedtoworkers who is permanentlydisabled, accident and retiring workers .

(c) Mines division agreementent of TISCO Ltd. and Indian National Mines Workers Federation alongwith his affiliated Unions held on 2-1-1984 item No. 29, employment wouldbe provided to thedependent of the employee who ceased to be inemployment due to permanent disablement of those who died in service . Preference in employment will be given to the dependent ofthe retiring employees on a mutually agreed procedure which should be decided within three months of signing of the agreement.

(d) Thewage revision ofMemorandum ofAgreement between the TISCO Ltd. and Indian National MinesWorkers Federation and its affiliated union held at Jamshedpur on 11-9-1989 item No. 35 employment would be provided to the dependent ofthe employee who cease to be in employment due to permanent total disablement or those who diewhile on duty. Preference in employment will be given to the dependent of the retiring employees on a mutually agreed procedure.

(e) The wage revision of memorandum of agreement on11-8-95 item No. 50 at Jamshedpur onwards as regards to employment similar terms of agreement have been provided employments to the dependent son of workers .

Itisevident from the aforesaid agreement/ settlement ofNational Committee and Mines Division of TISCO Ltd. to the fact and effect of the appointment of dependent's cmployee .

Though the management had assured to provide employment but unfortunately the management refused to settle the issue amicably, so the conciliation proceeding ended in failure . The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , referred the dispute for adjudication to this Hon'ble Tribunal . The action of the management in denial of [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4393

भारत का सबप्रत्र : जुलाई 25, 2009/श्रावान 3, 1931

employment to the dependent son ofG. D. Mahapatra was illegal, arbitrary, unjustified and against the principle of natural justice . Ithas been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award in favour of the workman by directing the management to provide employment to the dependent son ofG. D. Mahapatra with retrospective effect with all arrear of wages and consequential benefits.

workman, G. D. Mahapatra did not appearbefore theChief Medical Officer (4) Noamundi for his pre-employment medical examination, the issue for his employment in the employment ofNoamundi Iron Qre Mines was finally colsed. Ithas been submitted that the demand of the concerned workman for employment of his son is without any merit and is liable to be summarily rejected and he cannot get any rellief in this matter.

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

5. The management has produced MW - 1 - N..J . Akthrayose who has proved Exts. M- 1 and M-2.

The concerned workman has produced Ranjit Kumar Mahapatra as WW- 1.

6. The main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman that the dependent son of the concerned workman , G. D. Mahapatra had applied forthe post ofPersonnel Officer (Trainee) .He has got educational qualification in Degree of Master in Industrial Relation, and Personnel Management. But he has not been given employment after retirement ofhis father , G. D. Mahapatra, who had been working as permanent workman since long to the satisfaction of the management and he was retired after completion of 40 years of service . As per management's policy decisión also employee's dependent isentitled for employment, in the event ofcompletion of40 years of service. But the managemat has not provided employment to him. It has alsobeen stated by Ranjit Kumar Mahapatra ( WW- 1 ) in cross- examination that even the management has not offered employment for the past of General Mazdoor. He has admitted that the post of Personnel Officer is an Executive post.

3. The written statement has been filed on behalf of the management stating that the reference is not legally maintainable. It has been submitted that G. D. Maltapetra submitted his demand before the A.L.C. (C), Chaibasa by his letter dated 5-7-99 for employment of his Son, R. K. Mahapatra in the employment ofNoamundi Iron OreMines inhis place. After several discussions with the management the conciliation proceeding ended in failure and thereafter the present reference has been made by the appropriate Government to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication . It has been stated that the Noamundi Mazdoor Union was never a party before the Conciliation Officer and in the order ofreferérice the Under Secretary has put the above 'name of the Union without proper application of mind behind the back of the management and, as such, the reference is liable to be summarily rejected. It has been stated that the coneerned workman , G. D. Mahapatra ceased to be workman ofthe company after his superannuation and, as such, he had no right to raise any industrial dispute even U/s. 2A of the I.D. Act . It has been stated that G. D. Mahapatra was a Senior Mackoperator at the time of his superannuation and he applied for employment ofhis son , Ranjit Kumar Mahapatra after his superannuation. The management could offer him the employment as a time- ratedworker which was not acceptable to him and he wanted ajeb commensurate with the qualification . The concerned workman approached the Managing Director for considering employment of his son on the post of some officer considering his educational qualification . Accordingly, he was called for an interview on 14-4-99 to face the Selection Committee but he could not give his answers to the question put by the Selection Committee. But he was not found suitable for the post of Personnel Officer(Trainee) and accordingly he was informed by letter dated 20-4-99. The management by letter dated 3-4-2000 informed the concerned workman , G. D. Mahapatra that therewas no scope for providing employment to his son on the post ofPersonnel Officer ( Trainee) ini view of his failure in the interview on 14-4-99 before the selection committee. He was also given option to accept the offer of employment ofMazdoor on time -rated job and was advised te send his son before the Chief Medical Officer on 5-4-2000 for his pre -employment medical examination . It was clearly stipulated that if his son would not appear before the ChiefMedical Officer, Noamundi Mines on the date and time fixed for the same purpose , it would be considered that he was not interested for his employment.

Since Ranjit Kumar Mahapatra, son of the concerned

Inthis respect the counsel ofthe management argued that he was given employment for the post of General Mazdoor and he was directed to appear before Medical Board for pre-employment medical examination, but he refused to join as general mazdoor. In this respect MW- 1 has admitted that as per the agreement the dependents of employees willbe given preference in the matter of employment. It shows that the concerned dependent of G. D. Mahapatra is entitled for employment as per management's evidence. The mahagement's witness stated that the son of G.D.Mahapatra was given offer of employment as general mazdoor and was directed to appear before the Medical Borad but he did not appear before Medical Board. The management has proved Ext . M- I for offering employment to Ranjit Kumar Mahapatra for the postofGeneral Mazdoor and as Ext . M -2 he did not appear beforeMedical Board. After retirement, G.D. Mahapatra applied for his son for the post of Personnel Officer (Trainee).As per Ext. 'X' for identifacation shows that he wasnot found fit by the Interview Board . WW- I admitted in cross -examination that the post of Personnel Officer is 4394

[PART II-Sac. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 25, 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

mouth, he will notbe considered to be a workman . He also refuved decisionofHon'ble Supreme Court inCivilAppeals Nes,44,45,336 and 337 of 1997 desided on 15-10-1957 that U/s. 2 (s) of I.D. Act person holding managering capacity alse doing clerical werk is " workanan" which has also been reported in 1956-(2)-LLJ260 - AIR 1958 SC 130.

Asettlement/agreement which has been made with the union for offering employment ofretiring employee is binding in both the parties . The asunagement had offered ensployment to the dependent son of G.D. Mahapatra, owned worlutem for the post ofGeneral Mazdoor and mamagranent has stated that he refused to join. But he said letter of Offer has not been proved by the management by documentary evidence . So, in the circumstances Ranjit Kumar Mahapatra, dependent son ofG.D. Mahapatra is entitled for employment in the post ofGeneral Minedoor.

8. Accordingly, I render the following award- an Executive post . As per document filed by the management it shows that as per Agreement Clause 50 of Chapter XXXV - Employment would be provided to one dependent ofthe employee who cease to be in employment due toparmanent total disablement or those whe die while onduty. Preference in employment will be given to the dependent ofthe retiring employees on a mutually agreed procedure . It has also been mentioned regarding priorities for Employment in Memorandum ofAgreement between TISCO and Union Minute dated 11-8-95 which mentions that a near relation of an employee who has compicted25 years of continuous service if no other relation of that employee is in employment . The term "relittion " for this purpose is defined as husband, wifeor wives, widow , son, daughter, brother, sister and son- in- law, in order ofpriority. As per Agreement by Steel Industry dated 25-5-83 Para 7.16 regarding Employment, it has been mentioned that employment would be provided to one depandent of workers disabled permanently and those who meet death. One dependent of the retiring employee would be provided employment , but in case of TISCO the same would be subject to their Certified Standing Orders . As per note- sheet ofA.L.C. Ext . W- 2 shows that the management offered to give employment to Ranjit Mahapatra , dependent son ofG. Mahapatra, as General Mazdoor.

The action of the management in denial of employment to the dependent son ofShri G.D. Mahapatra, ex -employee ofNoamundi Iron Mine of M /s . TISCO is not justified. Hence, the dependent son of G.D. Mahapatra is entitted for employment in the post of General Mazdoor. The management is directed to implement the award within 30days from the date of award.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer.

नई दिल्ली , 2 बुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2031.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केद्रीय सरकार ओ.एन.जी.सी. शिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीचींभाईये -2/ 129/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30011/46/2001- आई.आर. ( एम ) ]

कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd July, 2009

S.O. 2031.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/ 129/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court No. 2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ONGC Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-6-2009.

[No. L-30011/46/2001 - IR (M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer 7. Learned counsel for the workman referred AIR 1940 Patna 683 in which Hon'ble Patna High Court laid down that when witness is not cross-examined his evidence must be accepted. He has also referred 2005 ( 106) FLR1067 inwhich Constitution Bench held that the pleadings are no substitute for proof. The learned counsel for the workanın also referred 2002 (2) LLN 871 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that Appellant, an area sales executive, on termination of his service , raised an industrial dispute- StateGovernment refused to refer the dispute holding, on the basis of his designation , that he was not coveredby the definition of " workman " as defined in industrial Disputes Act-His writ petition to High Court against the said order of refusal ofreference was dismissed- Hence the instant appeal to Supreme Court - Held, the decision to refuse reference of dispute to industrial adjudication based on designation of the post held by employee is erroneous- Determination of the question depends on types of discharged by the employees and not merely on the designation of post held by him . In the present case admittedly the post of Personnel Officer is an executive, so it shows that the concerned petitioner (WW- 1 ) himself admitted in his evidence that the post of Personnel Officer is an executive . Learned counsel of the workman referred 1977 Lab . I.C. 1088 in which Hon'ble Allahabad High Court Industrial Disputes Act Person employed for doing work oftechnical nature---Doctor employed by an industry for rendering medical aid to its employees is a "workman" . The Hon'ble court also held that if the wages of person employed for doing supervisory work exceed Rs . 500/- per 4395 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - NO.2, MUMBAI

Present : A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT -2/129 of 2001

Employers in Relation to the Management of Oil& Natural Gas Corpn . Ltd.

THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR ( MRBC),

O&NGC Ltd. ,

Vasudhara Bhavan , Bandra (East) , Mumbai -400 051 .

1st Party

V/s.

Their Workman

Shri Devendra Sharma,

He states that, however , during the notice period ist Party did not make any enquiry in respect of his reason for seeking VRS and decided to sanction . It is stated that, even 1st Party did not conveyed any decision . It is stated that , however , in the meanwhile due to changed circumstances at his home , the concerned workman informed the 1st Party that, he is not interested in VRS for whichhe applied by mentioning the above, facts and request to withdraw it . Said request was sent by him by letter dated 22-3-1999 . It is stated by the 2nd Party that, by said he requested 1st Party to permit him to withdraw his VRS option by letter dated 22-3-1999 , It is stated that, he was not informed, whether 1st Party is going to consider his VRS or his application dated 22-3-1999 of withdrawal of VRS prayed by him. He states that, he continued to work with 1st Party till end of April, 1999 and to his surprise 1st Party informed him that, his VRS was accepted and informed that, he will be voluntarily retired with effect from 30-4-1999.

Urmila Bhavan, Plot No. B/354-355, Sector 20 , CBD Bellapur , Navi Mumbai -4000614.

2nd Party

APPEARANCES

Forthe Employer : Mr. Gobindram D. Talreja, Representative .

For the Workman : Mr. H.T. Ameta, Advocate .

Date of reserving the Award: 14-01-2009.

Date ofpassing the Award: 28-4-2009.

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its OrderNo. L- 30011 / 146/2001 - IR (M) dated 13th November, 2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

4. According to 2nd Party, 1st Party cannot voluntarily retire him w.e.f. 30-4-1999 without giving decision on his application dated 22-3-1999 which he send withdrawal ofhis VRS . It is stated by the 2nd Party that, if at all Ist Party has decided to retire him it could not have permitted him to work beyond-March, 1999 or till the end of April , 1999. So it is stated that, the decision taken by 1st partycompelling 2nd Party to retire was not consideredby the 1st Party properly and it reveals that , he was permitted towithdraw it and to treat him in the employment ofthe 1st Party tilf his retirement on attaining the age of superannuation. It is stated that, however, decision taken by the 1st Party surprisely intimating 2nd. Partyto retire him w.e.f. 1-5-1999 is illegal . It is stated that, 1st Party cannot ask 2nd Party to retire as per its whims and ideas. It is stated that, Ist party cannot stop the 2nd Party concerned workmen in reporting on duty when he went to report as his application dated 22-3-1999 for withdrawal of VRS was pending, It is stated by the 2nd Party that , decision taken bythe 1st Party in retiring 2nd Partyw.e.f. 1-5-2001 be treated as termination and direct Ist Partyto reinstate him with benefits of continuity of service and back wages .

"Whether the action of the management of ONGC Ltd. , Mumbai , in terminating the services of Mr. Devendra Sharma, w.e.f. 1-5-1999 is legal and justified? Ifnot , what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

2. To support the subject - matter referred in the reference, second party filed Claim Statement at Exhibit 5 making out the case that, he joined 1st Party employer in the month of March , 1966 as a " High Skilled Technician 'Grade ' " I and served for about 33 years continuously with clean and unblemished record.

5. This is disputed by the 1st Party by filing reply at Exhibit 6-A making out the case that, on the request of the 2nd Party he was retired . It is stated that, the 2nd Parry is not a ' workman' within the meaning ofSection 3 (2) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. At the time of his retirement, hewas workingwith 1st Party as a Deputy Superintending Engineer (Civil ) hence he is not a ' workman' . It is stated that, the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 cannot be made applicable to the 2nd Party since he is not a ' workman' , when he was retired as Dy. Superintending Engineer (Civil) when retired and when he was performing supervisory, managerial and administrative duties . It is stated that, when he opt for VRS his salary was 3. He further states that , in the year 1998 1st Party issued a circular to its workers asking them to consider the Voluntary Retirement Scheme and invited employees to opt it .Accordingly 2nd Party submitted his option by letter dated 1-1-1999 requesting 1st Party to permit him to opt for Voluntary Retirement Scheme to take effect from 31-3-1999,

2570 G1/09-12 4396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JULY 25,2009RAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

is shocking and let Party ounnet do it. Whereas case of the 1st Party is that, the 2nd Party is not a 'workman " . He is not entitled to protection under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and cannot come within the pwview of the Industrial Disputen Art, 1947. According to lat Partyand Party was working onthe post of Deputy Superintending Engineer (Civil) anhen he opted for VRS in does not permit him Dias Act, 1947 strictly applicable to the employees of workers Rs. 16,000 and his work and the designation coupledwith salary doesnot permithim to elain as a ' workman and as such provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted to him. It is further stated that, while accepting the amount of VRS to the tune of Rs . 29 lakhs and odd he did not accept it under protest. Even while accepting that, he opt option of taking medical benefits forhintself and hiwfamily against some lurup suns payment. Even hoopt for other options whichwere applicable tothe Kemployees whxepted for WRS. When allthose facilities of retirementonesepted by the 2nd Party , while opting for MRS and while 2nd Partyreampotpray to withdraw the VRS 22-94999tisthertieth that, daidwas not Ist Partywant he was illegally forced to retine on 1-5-1990. It is dentisth that the doololesofthe Ise Party in accepting offer ofMRS ofduty and 2nd Party is untitled toget benefit of it. that, auchParty is entitled to with bow VRS asidewithalirestions to the hoParty

It is prapuchthatpthe reference be rejected.

7stheview of the above pleading following a were framed by my Ld. Predecessor atbildot answhetkase as under :

BUES

koder Stahshawwise weduwan

Unwithers thomsonning of Sestion 2( 8)

the Industrial Disputes Act?

en his Warentes WRS 2134999.It is by State davit at mot dby the IV. tion of lary he RS . Ming in 2003 litics 23 24 om all janding shis Echibit

der of 29 of 35

Yes

Whether the Management proves mathht Sharma voluntarily retired on -145-99 and thewefoew.reference is wat-maintainable as aveared in para 1.5of the Weitten Statenvent?

3Whether Sharma proves tha

ementterminated him on 1-899?

22. that, 36 of 4. Whether the action of the Manage- ....mentof ONGC Ladyumbai in

terminating the envises of

csés legakanakjatified?

dlief.

Sharkontitled to?

24 witness hibit story status rismot a RIBBONS :

ve and mined fhis about hopeet of oding Duty's tinmade by Jad Party fontitledral ofVRS wondef his case thuat, nothing was infinned by RS drew tis about his prayer of VRS. He also stuter that devision taken by Ist Party compelling him to retire we.f. 1-5-1999 4397

भारत का राजपत्र जुलाई 25, 2009/ावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

Ra 26 hadsandudadeumulasbenefits of VRS . Even his Ifwe consider all these thingsiamonиза benefits of VRS of Rs. 29 skha in add and adulat Party says that, 2nd Partyismenawarkan badi mbin 2ndParty is totally silentineonila ponitiumworamsider all this it is clear that , 2nd Party is novas worlumnWhen he is noua/ worlunan innsibiscerned workman is not entitled to the prospathouder the provisions ofthe Industrial Diapines Mon, 194 tismithla teana 'workman' .

dated 22-3-1999was received by it but was not putup by him before the General Managor It is alleged thatpusid application of VRS was collected by the concerned workman and was not put up for orders. To support that 1stParty examined Mrs. Mantri by filing her affidavit at Exhibit27whowas working as HelperGrade II. Who states that, 2nd Party requested said Mrs. Mantri to take entry of the said application dated 22-3-1999 for withdrawal ofVRS and took it personally to submit before General Manager but did not submit it. In the cross ha triento bring it on rocond the said story made out by the and Puty of withidiwwinging dination of VRS dated00-3-1999 How it is not pravak by lending evidertenOntire conte admlielunsugivoby the 2nd Bartymul ook of scompti amount of Rs: 309/ Mlis and added nailing othersanding Bottaring for medical facility for himedia his family everafter VRS reveals that , he accepted Even it is proves that , he accepted the same without any protestwhich reveals that; he was trying to take chanof withdrawing hisghis VRS even after getting allbenefits without any protest or complaints .Even he applied to: 1st Pastyana requestedto reduce his pension by encashing it. All thi reveals that, he accepted propcard of Ist Bastyssstodon accordingly andnow decided to challenge it justes extract morebenefits .

14. 2nd Partydoes not whisper anything or lead ovidauss about his position as 'workuspak still in tries to place reliance on the citations pubilalindin 2000/11 CLR page 35 of Matiras High Court lothesmondgement, Chamah Saki Nagildan, on the anrcitation published 200 Hon ble High Goutain the same of Al Thomes Cook IndinLtd.,citation publis page 138 ofour Hon'ble High Catani Singh Vs Reliance Parrot angitting A Four CLR 2001 Gupta Vs P.O. , Labour Cart Faridabadushanta Ma whisper about his status and load any vishwara anything about his duties sa fwordpress to ingeniosidered view simply placing reliance on tuomitatouazu being him under the definition of workshopgillatit help the 2nd Partyto claim as a buduth .

15. Ifconsider all this coupounde outby both , I conclude that , the 2nd cota workman and cannot attract the pandeamber the provisions ofthe Indipend mid does not permit hiri in any that the 2nd Party is not-athwdecathlon::

ISSURE NOS I TO SU

11. Apart from that, 1st Party is challenging, the claim of the 2nd Party on the ground that, he is nota 'workman' and cannot seek protection undersho putosisie ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In that respont, ifwe peruse the evidence lead by both as stated above, 2nd Party is totally silent on the point of ' workman' . Hednesd not bother to refute the said claim ofthe Ist Party aswellas does not bother to say anything in his affidavit. He simpha in the written arguments that too in para 6 of his written argument he states that , he was continued even aftanMRS w.e.f. 31-3-1999. No other evidence is led. Even he ditnet whisms about his 'status as a ' workman ! Even Raste doesonot bother to say anything about his duties whit attract hiss on take him ander the definition ofthe works as given in the provisions of the Industrink Dispet 1946% Suntan begimingnint Barty of the

12EP beginning

issues need not he comingchi Unsteanwhtconsider the casemade out by the 2nd Panjathatpha opted for VRS and tried to withdraw it by application dated 22-3-1999 and story wandinout by 1st Party that , he did not pressed that applicationsdated 22-3-1999 for withdrasval ofVRS, we find that, the gase made out by 1st Party is acceptable.In the evidents and Party admitted that, he got benefits of VRS. He admits that, VRS was accepted by 1st Party and thedues were paid to him. Even after retirement he did not protest to the adwipt ofthe amount of VRS while accepting it. Even he states that , he applied for medical facility for himself and his family even after retirement . He does not whisper about the acceptance of VRS under protest and moreover he does not accept the said VRS tinder protest and even it is not his case als

retind Suet digualtone) 2nd Party Eved the centroch that heild not notevany objection while coeptanche amounts viz a viz he states that , he received 4398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/SRAVANA 3, 1931

17. If consider all this coupled with the stand taken by the 1st Party and the story made out by the 2nd Party of accepting all benefits of it , in my considered view, 2nd Party now cannot challenge the action taken which he has accepted by accepting the benefits of VRS.

18. Besides he tries to make out the case that, the Management instead of considering his case for VRS 1st Party ought to have accepted his withdrawal application for VRS. However, he has not made out specific case in what circumstances the accepted VRS and in what circumstances he decided to withdraw it? He expected from the Management that, they should have applied its mind while accepting VRS when he had applied for widsdrawal of it. However, if the decision of accepting the VRS is illegal but it is not provedby the 2nd Party which we have to accept is late. On the contrary claim of the 1st Party is that, application dated 22-3-1999 though it was send by him was collectedby the 2nd Party personally and did not submit it to the General Manager though he was personally pursuing the said applicationby making entry of it in the inward/outward registers and taking specific remarks on it. Even on that point evidence is lead by the ist Party of its witness. When that is the case of the 1st Party and when evidence is against him and when there is no rivary shown as to why the witnesses are depositions in favour ofthe Management and against hirn require to consider . In this scenario I am of the opinion that, here the evidence ledby the 1st Party should be accepted on that point. Besides citations relied by 2nd Party published in 2000( 3 ) LLN page 759 of Gujarat High Court in case of Manager , Air Control E. C. Ltd. Vs. Kanaiyalal G. Kunvaria and citation published in 2000 (2) LLN page 800 ofRajasthan High Court inthe case of Rambag Palace Hotel Vs State of Raiasthan and anr. are not explaining as to why the same are reliedby the2nd Party.

19. If consider all this coupled with the case made byboth, I am of the opinion that, 2nd Party has not made outanycase to clam any relieffrom I st Party. So I answer these issues to that effect and passes the following order:

ORDER

Reference is rejectedwith no order as to its costs .

Bombay,

A.A. LAD, PresidingOfficer 28thApril,2009 .

नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2032-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , कैन्द्रीय सरकार एयरपोर्ट ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , पुणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] संख्या 462/2003 ) को प्रकाशित कारती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-6-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-11011/ 12/2003-आईआर (एम ) ]

कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi, the 2nd July, 2009

S.O. 2032-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Gevusment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.462/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Pune now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Airport Authority of Indial and their workason, which was received by the Central Government 30-6-2009.

[No. L -11011 /12/2003 - IR(M)] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANDRE

BEFORE THE FIRST LABOUR COURT AT PUNE REF. IDA No. 462/2003 BETWEEN

Airport Authority of India

National Airport Division , Lohagaon,

Pune Airport, Pune-411032

... 1st Party AND

Theirworkmen representedby

PuneZillaMazdoor Sangh,

185, Shanivar Peth, Pune -411030

... IIParty Comm: ShriN. B. Yenurkar, PresidingOfficer

Advocats: Shri R. Y. Joshi , Advocate for 1st party, Shri A. Y. Shikarkhane , Adcocate for II Party

AWARD (17-12-2008)

This reference is made to this Court byGovernment of India /Bharat Sarkar, Ministry of Labour / Shram Mantralaya,New Delhi under Clause (d) ofsub- section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of ID Act, 1947 for adjudication of dispute between above parties over the demand mentioned in the schedule.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the demand of the union to declare that the arrangement in which the 14 workmen (as per anasuure) are deployed by the Airport Authority of India, Lohagaon, Pune since 1989 onwards is sham and bogus and the concerned workmen who have worked continuously for the past 10 years in the Estt. ofAirportAuthority of India, Pune should not 4399

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रावण 3 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

beterminatedand their services should be regularised by the AA1 , Pune is legal and justified ? If yes , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled and form which date?"

ofthese six security guards was to carry out security duty at the arrival gate, departure gate , main gate, cargo gate, visitor gate and to make entries and to close the gates as per schedule. Even after the induction ofCentral Industrial Security Force from 21-7-2002 they are performing their duties as the CISF is entrusted with duty ofsecurity ofthe main gate and checking passengers . ".

2.Second party appeared and filed its S.C.atExt 5. Case of second party in brief is that first party owns and maintains all the Airports in India including the work at Pune. It provides various services at the Air Ports. For the said purpose, it employees direct and indirect employees . The 14 employees mentioned in Annexure A have been employed at Pune Air Port for more than 10 years through various contractors by the first party. Though the 1st party changed the contractors from time to time it did not affect the service conditions of the employees . Services of the employees were not terminated . Each time one contract ended and another commenced. Thus the contractors were themere name lenders and the paper arrangementwas made bythe first partyto defeat the claim ofpermanency andthe direct employee status of these employees, The first party directly employs many employees at Pune and other places and their service conditions are more better than that of these employees .

3. Second party has also submitted that the appropriateGovernment by notification dt. 9-12-1976 issued u/s 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act 1970 prohibited the employment of contract labour in the employment of sweeping, cleaning, dusting and security inthe establishments of the first party. Inspite of the said prohibition the first party has continued to engage the employees named in Annexure -A at Sr. Nos . 1 to 8 as sweepers and at Sr. Nos. 9 to 14 as Security Guards . These employees are doing perennial work all round the year and there is sufficient work for all of them. They are cleaning theAir Port building and its utilities and also looking after the watch and ward duties .

2 5.These employees have joined the second party union on or about March 1996. The union raised a demand for the regularisation for services of these employees on or about 29-3-1996. The demand was admitted in conciliation on4-11-111-1997. That onton 21-7-1998 on the assurance given by the first partythe conciliation officer closed the conciliation proceeding till 31-12-1998 . That however , the first party did not regularise their services and thus the union again approached the conciliation officer to restart the conciliation proceeding, which he did. In the mean while the first party byits letterdt . 20-5-1999 informed that the employees will not be retranched until final decision is taken . That however, on 21-7-2002 the Central Industrial Security Force has taken over the security duties at the Air Port as also at other Airports. Therefore, the first party communicated that the services ofthese 14 employees would be terminated from31-3-2009. Thus the present union and the concerned employees approached the Hon'ble High Court byway of WritPetitionto protect their services and the Hon'ble High Court ordered the status -quo . Thereafter the present reference has been made by the Appropriate Government . Thus all the employees involved in the present reference are at present in employment at Pune Air Port continuously since their first date of employment . The permanent employees employed as sweepers and securityGuards are being given daily over time of two hour's as there is sufficient work. The work is still available all round the year and thus there is no reason to terminate their services . Proposed termination is by way of victimisation, in colourable exercise of employer's right and for patently false reasons. It has further submitted that its demand for regularisation of employees is justified. That the second party has claimed for direction to regularise the 14 employees in its employment as direct permanent employees and to pay them wages and allowances on par with its permanent employees, from 29-3-1996 i.e. from the date oftheir demand.

6. The first party has filed its written statement at Ext.14 and resisted the claim of second party. The first party has submitted that it is a statutory corporation formed by and urider the authority of the Union of India. It owns variousAirports located in the country and operates them. However, it does not own the Airport at Pune . It merely operates the civil enclave in the Airport owned by the Indian Airforce. It has denied that the said 14workmen are employed by the first party for more than 10 years . It has submitted that it merely runs the Airport. Specialised services are obtained by the first party through different 4. Second party has also stated that employee named at Sr.No. 1 ofAnnexure-A Smt . Kesarbai Waghmare hasjoined the employment ofthe first party in 1989 and so have the other sweepers as shown in Annexure-A. Similarly, theemployee at Sr. No. 9 Shri DhananjayGholap has joined the employment in 1990 and so have the other as shown in the Annexure-A. That though these employees were initially employed through the contractors and continued to be employed through different contractors , contracts are sham and bogus as the employment of such contract labour was prohibited by notification way back in 1976. These employees are working under the control and supervision ofthe direct employees of the first party. It is further submitted by the second party that the first party employs three permanent employees as sweepers and they supervise the work of these sweepers employed through the contractor. They are working in two shifts . Similarly, the first party employed three permanent employees as SecurityGuards. All these six SecurityGuards are working alongwith perrianent employees in three shifts . The duty 4400

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009 /SRAVANA 3 , 1931

can not be absorbed as direct employees of the first party and there is no question whatsoever of extending them the same benefits and allowances . For all these reasons it has urged to reject the demand of second party as regards these 14workmen.

9. In view of these pleadings, my Ld. Predecessor has framved the following issues at Exh. 25. I record my findings on then and the reasons therefor are as under:

FINDINGS

ISSUES

contractors. Thus it used to award contracts relating to sweeping, cleaning, maintenance and security to various contractors by following necessary guidelines . Various contractors have worked with the first party from time to time. It has submitted that these 14 employees listed in Annexure-A might have worked with different contractors. When a new contract is awarded to a new party, the same new party normally execute the said contract with the help ofthe existing workmen because continuity is ensured and the concerned workmen have knowledge with regard to thework. Ithasdenied that the employees were continued by the first party inspite of the contract being changed from time to time . It as denied that it wanted to defeat any claim of permanency of the said employees . It has its own set of employees for carrying out the work . Their terms and conditions of services are different from the aforementioned 14 workmen because the nature ofwork performed by these employees is also different.

1. Whether the demand of the union to declare the arrange- ment in which the 14 workmen (as per Annexure) are deployed by the Airport Authority of India, Lohagaon , Pune since 1989 onwards is sham and bogus and the concerned workmen who have worked continuously for the past 10 years in the establishment of Airport Authority of India, Pune should not be terminated and their services should be regularised by the AAI, Pune is legal and justified ?

Negative

2. Ifyes, towhat relief the concerned workmen are entitled and from which date ?

Not entitled.

7. First partyhas also submitted that the categories in which contract labour was prohibited by the Central Government are entirely different category than those for which theworkmen at Sr. No. 1 to 8 are employed. All the employees employed through the contractors have been extended the statutory benefits . It is denied by first party that the said contracts are bogus or sham . It is also denied that the employees engaged through contractors are workingunder the control and supervision ofthe first party. Itisthe contractor who has recruited the said workamen, who allocates them the work, supervises their work and paidthemwages in addition to extending all other statutory benefits. First party has nothing to do with the terms and conditions of service of the said 14 employees . It is also denied that the work of those sweepers is supervised by three permanent sweepers employees.

What order?

Asper finalerder .

REASONS

10. In support ofits case the second party examined the 12wordenen amongst 14 named in Annexure-Amand to the refuense. It also examined Blai SanjayNilkinsuay, the Suentary of second party union. The first partyaiso mined its witnes Shri S. Suryanarayan , Asci

11. ISSUE NO. 1: In this enes, it is the undisputed 8. The first party has substitted that on account of changed scenario world over after the incident of World Trade Center in the U.S.A. it was decided at the highest level that the securities of the Airports should be stengthened and accordingly the services of Central Industrial Security Force were availed in place of local police force or security guards. Thus , with offest from 21-7-2002 CISFhas replaced the security guards and other workforce atPune Airport. On account of the same, the words at Sr. No. 9 to 14 of the Annons have become saplus. It has denied that said workmen were engaged in violation ofary notification issuedby Central Government.It has also denied that the said ocuplayers are carrying out duties alongwith permanent workomen. Ishes submittedthe novacantpost inwhich it can also the mid14 These 14 employees were in fast sentinued on account of the status que from the Harble High Court . It has denied that proposedtorminationwould be hy way of victimienti in colourable exercise of employer's right on for patently false reasons. It has submitted that the demand for regularisation of the said employees is misplaced. They

fact that the employees at St. No 1 to 8 viz. Kesharbai Wagleware, Alkaburi Parande, Glandabai Khainoy Bavita Awans were engaand arthe Air Port atPute Swaps through contractor, it is also undisponifaisti ployees at Sc. No. 9 to 16tandin A vis. Dhananjay Gholap, Hediment Rattando, Bhapat Wallin, Vistmas Zol, Maleppa Dejani milk Buljiwanya ware engaged at the Air Port at Pune through contra as-a-Security Guards. It is also admitted fact that sherworde ofcleaning ofAir Port was given so different.contractors भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 25, 2009/आपण 3, 1931

[भाग खण्ड 3(ii) ]

for a specific period and the employees at Sr. No. 1 to 8 worked as a Sweeper at the said Air Port through different contractors from time to time. Similarly, it is also the admitted fact that the employees named at Sr. No. 9 to 14 were engaged as security guards through contractor from time totime. The period for which they alleged to have worked under different contractors is detailed as under:

Name ofthe Contractor Period

1. 1-01-1989-30-11-1990 Goodwill Conservancy Services

Sumit Enterprises 21-12-1990-31-01-1997

M/s . Darshan Enterprises 3.1-02-1997-30-09-1997

RudraGroup.

41-10-1997-15-01-1998

No contractor

5. -16-1-1998-01-12-1998

Sumit Enterprises 6. 1-12-1998-31-05-2003

7.1-06-2003-31-12-2004 M/s . Promprt Industrial Services

12. That however, it is the contention ofsecond party thatall these employeenare working under the control and supervision of the direct emloyees ofthe first party. The work done by these employees is of perennial in nature. According to the second party, all these employees are in fact the employees of first party and the contracts are sham and bogus, the contractors are the name lenders and the paper arrangement just to defeat the claim of permanency and direct employee status of these employees. It is also the contention of second party that contract labour in sweeping, cleaning and dusting and also in security was prohibitedby notification way back in 1976. On the other hand, the first party has denied that the alleged work through the contractor has been prohibited by notification as alleged. That however, except the bare contention and pleadings in statement of claim there is no averments of any ofthe employees or the averment of the secretary of second party union examined by the second party about prohibition ofsuch work by any government notification. No such notification is filed on record . Moreover , the pitness of first party Shri S. Suryanarayan Assistant Menager (Personnel and Administration) has deposed that the work of sweeping and cleaning was not profilbited by anjogovernment notification. It is also averred by fhim that therwork which was prohibited was not entrusted to any contractor. That however, there is also no suggestion in crosscexamination of this witness from the second party about the denial of that fact . In view of these facts, have no hesitation to hold that the second party has failedto prove that the work of sweeping, cleaning and dusting for whichthe employees at Sr. No. 1 to 8 were engaged through contesetors and the work ofsecurity for which employees at SroNo. 9 to 14 were engaged through contractor at the asilahir Port was prohibited by a government notification and thereby failed to prove that the said contract labour

4401 was in contravention of provisions of Contract Labour (RA) Act, 1970. As such, I do not find any reason to disbelieve the evidence of first party that the work of sweepers for which the employees at Sr. No. 1 to 8 and also the services ofsecurity guards at Sr. No. 9 to 14 for which they were engaged through contractors was not prohibited by any notification under the provisions of the Contract Labour (R&A)Act, 1970. Thus the act ofthe first party in engaging the services of different contractors for the purpose is not contrary to the provisions of law..

13. The Ld. Advocate for the first party has argued that undisputedly employees named at Sr. No. 1 to 14 in the Annexure in reference have been engaged for the assigned work through different contractors . All these workmen in their cross examination including the secretary ofthe second party union in cross examination has admitted that the wages were being paid to all those workers by the contractors.It is argued by L.d. Advocate for the first party that since these workers were available through the contractors they have engaged their services even through the contractor was changed considering their experience and availability. That simply because they worked at the establishment of first party for a long period under different contractors does not mean that they are the employees of the first party or they have achieved the status of employees of the first party. It is the contention of first party that their services cannot be regularised for non availability ofthe sanctioned posts of the niture of their work for the cadre . Ld . Advocate for the first party argued that appointment on regularisation ofthese workers would amount to back door entry , which is not permissible under law. He relied on authority ofthe Apex Court in Umadevi's case. On the other hand, Ld. Advocate for the second party relied on the authority ofApex Court in case ofG.M. ONGC, Shilchar Vs. 014GC Contractual Workers Union, 2008-2-CLR-988 and argued that the services ofsaid workers are required to be regularised in view ofthe long standing service with the first party. He has further submitted that Umadevi's case does not applicable and relevant in this case.

14. That however, the arguments ofthe Ld . Advocate for second party are not convincing and appears to be devoid ofmerits. In the authority cited in a case ofG.M. , ONGC, Shilchar Vs. ONGC Contractual Worker's Union, the basic issue involved was the status of the workman as to whether they were the employees of ONGC or the contractor and not the issue of regularisation of the employees. Inthat case, itwas proved before the Tribunal that no contractor was appointedby the ONGC : The ONGC used to supervise and allot work to individual workers, it also took deliberate action and called for explanations from the workers, the workers were paid wages though they did net attend their duties and the wages were paid direct to the workers by the ONGC and the soquaintance roll was prepared by the management to make payment of the 4402

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25 , 2009/SRAVANA 3 , 1931

That however, for those reasons those workers do not get the status of the employees of the principal employer. In our case also these 14 workers are the workers of the contractors engaged by them from time to time by an independent contractor.

workmen. On these proved facts , Hon'ble Apex Court has held that those workers were in fact the employees ofthe ONGC and in that context the ratio of the judgment in Umadevi's case held to be not applicable . That however, in our case the second party union and the said 14 workers have admitted the appointment of these workers by the contractors , they are engaged for the assigned work of the first party through the contractors . Admittedly, all these workers were being paid the wages by the contractors . Thus , there is no nexus as to relationship of the first party with these workers . Except the bare contention that the contractors were the name lenders and paper arrangement to defeat the claim of permanency and direct employee status there is no cogent convincing and reliable evidence on record to that effect. Hence the authority cited by the second party in G.M. , ONGC case is not helpful to the second party in any way.

17. The second party has relied on the various correspondence made between the second party society and first party in respect of the demand of second party about regularisation of the contract labours . Those correspondence are at Exh . 42 to 51. From this correspondence, it appears that the first party tried their level best to examine the matter and to see as to whether the relief claimed by the second party about absorption of these contract labours in its services can be given . That however, it was found not feasible to accept the demand of absorptionthe contract labours to its regular services . It is the evidence of first party that it has no vacant post in which it can absorb the said 14 workers in its regular employment . The second party has failed to rebut this evidence to show that it has such number of posts and theyare vacantwherein these 14 workers can be absorbed . The appointment of the employee in regular employment depends on the number of sanctioned posts and their availability of vacancy. In absence of such sanctioned posts, the employer can get the work done ofemergency in mature by engaging the workers on contract labour . There is nothing legality in doing se. The conservancywork i.e. Sweeping and cleaning and thework of security at the Air Portoffirst partywas of emergent in nature for which the first party has engaged workers through contractors. In view of all these facts , it is evident that these 14 workers are the workers ongaged by the contractors and not the employees appointed by the first party. They does not get status ofemployees of the first party and thereby there is no question ofregalarisation of their services by the first party. Second party has failed to prove that the arrangement in which the said 14 workmen were deployed by the first party is sharm and begus .

15. Ld. Advocate for the second party has also relied on the authority of Apex Court in a case of U.P.State Electricity Board Vs. Puran Chandra Pandey& Ors . 2008- 11 -CLR- 147 and argued that the services of 14 employees are required to be regularised by the first party. That however, these arguments are not sustainable as the facts in the case cited and the facts in our case are different. In the case of U.P.State Electricity Beard the concerned employees were the daily wages employees ofCo-operative Electric Supply Society. That being the position the said society was taken over by the said electricity board and it was resolved that the daily wages employees ofthe society being taken over by the Board will start working in the ElectricityBoard in the same manner and position and that thereby those employees were absorbed in the service of Electricity Board and thereby those transferred employees are also entitled to get the benefit of the decision of the Electricity Board for regularisation of the employees working on daily wages. That however , facts in our case are quite different . The said 14 workers were engagedby thedifferent contractors from time to time . The first party never treated them their employees in any way. It is well settled that the contractual worker is not entitled automattically to get regularised unless it is established that the engagement and employment of labours through the contractor is mere camouflage to deprive the benefits to workers . It is required to be proved by the contract labours on the basis of requisite material . That however, the second party has failed to prove it .

18. Since the workers at Sr. No. 1 to8 were engaged bythe contractors , it is a choice of contractor to engage them or not. The first party cannot be directed to continue their services under the contract in its discretion . The first pasty can however in its discretion ask the contractor to utilize the services ofthose workers being expertise . So far as the workers i.e. security guards at Sr. No. 9 to 14, who were engaged through the contractors , it is the case of first partythat at its higher level it has been decided to strengthen the security at the Air Port and accordingly w.e.f. 21-7-2002 services of Central Industrial Security Force have been availed in place oflocal police force or security guards. The secretary of the second party union in his cross- examination has also admitted that the security at the Air Port was handed over to the Central Industrial Security Ferce on 21-7-2002. As such, services of these security guarda named at Sr. No. 9 to 14 through the contractor are 16. It is also worth to mention here that simply because the different contractors appointed by the first party fromtime totime have engaged the same 14 workers does not suggest that the contractors were the name lenders . The different contractors considering the experience and the availability of workers may give preference to engage the same workers . The principal employer sometimes to protect the interest ofworkers may also ask to the chaned contractor to engage their services .

4403

भारत का राजपत्र: जुलाई 25, 2009/श्रवण 3, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 15th June,2009

Present:A.N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 13/2009 not requiredby the first party . Thus the action in terminating the contract with the contractors is justified. In view of these facts , I hold that the demand of the second party union about declaration that these 14 workers are deployed by the first party and that the said arrangement is sham and bogus is not legal and justified . I also hold that the demand ofthe second party that those workers should not be terminated and their services should be regularizedby the first party is also not legal andjustified. Hence I answer this Issue No. 1 in the negative .

[In the matter ofdispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), betweenthe Management of National Insurance Co. Ltd. and their workman]

19. ISSUE No. 2 : In view of my aforesaid findings to the Issue No. 11 hold that the second party and the said 14 workers named in the Annexure are not entitled to any relief. Hence I answer this Issue No. 2 in the negative .

BETWEEN

:Petitioner/I Party

Smt . J. Kalyani

AND

20. ISSUE No. 3 : Under the facts and circumstances , I find it just and expedient that both the parties should bear their own costs . In view ofmy aforesaid findings , I proceed to pass following order:

:1stRespondent

1. The BranchManager

ORDER

Reference stands rejected.

National Insurance Co. Ltd. East Main Street Pudukottai

Parties to bear their own costs .

2nd Respondent Pune

2.The Regional Manager RegionalOffice

N. B. YENURKAR, Presiding Officer.

Dt. 17-12-2008

National Insurance Co. Ltd. No. 684, TrichyRoad Coimbatore.

नई दिल्ली, 2 जुलाई , 2009

APPEARANCE

M/s. Muthu Pandian

Forthe Petitioner

None

For theManagement

AWARD

का.आ. 2033. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल इंश्यूरेन्स कम्पनी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या-13 /2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-6-2009, को प्राप्त हुआ था।

TheCentralGovernment, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 17012/47/2008 - IR (M ) dated 13-10-2008 has referred,the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

[सं. एल-17012/47/2008- आईआर (एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 2nd July , 2009

"Whether the action of the National Insurance Company, Pudukottai and Coimbatore in terminating the services without assigning any reason in respect of Smt. J. Kalyani, Part Time Sweeper w.e.f. September, 2006 isjustified ? To what the relief the workman is entitled ?" Š.O. 2033. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2009) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court,Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of National Insurance Company and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on30-06-2009.

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 13/2009 . Pursuant to notice under RPAD , the petitioner entered apesarance. The respondents though were served with notice did not appear in spite of several adjournments given and therefore they are called absent and set ex parte.

3. The petitioner filed claim statement raising her [No. L- 17012/47/2008- IR (M)] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer contentions.

2570 GJ/09-13 4404

THE GARRITE OF A

3,1931

[Por Soc. 3 ( 6 ) ]

putitioner ordly without assigning tuy reason by the rompuudut is aut legal and justified. I am fortified in holding swin the light ofthe decision ofthe Apax count in Divisional Mounger, New India. AssuranceCo. Ltd. Vs. A. ( 09-411-362)

the The case of the petitioner in her chi t well as by way of her swear adliburit le Rousof chief examination is that she had boun-employed as swooper cum-office assistant on and from 15-03-2000 in the respondent's office, having already put in nearly 6years of service. By that time she was orally terminated:on 01-09-2006. She studied upto SSLC. She has bee weeklywage of Rs. 475. Herservicewas continue she was not made permanent. She has already statutory polod of savice under L.D. Ant, 1967. Her on

8: The positioner is therefore ontitled to

him, 4 The respondent being aboont and set the care ofthe petitiorawers to in the af byher in lieu of chickennusination, controverted isprimarily substant onEx: WI-Salay Voushes and purported to show her employme under theRingaudent

5. The pointefordetermiuntion.me

Whether the termination of movin petithewer as part timo awongior any reason is justified ?

(i) Towhat relief the petition is unt

ing the

titioner/ Ist

reve

be: Divisional 6 Now the Fespendet er with motive by RPAD, sut intvenienter ontez appearance adjoumaar haaving been given been called absent and set ex par the evidence adduced by in liewe@ichief examination bemand it proofofdiscla empleyavant status, onal too widient assigning had costhcous service of swwppu office assiste wager ofRs 475 as the listedsun though it is ar normal consent uncontroverted affidavit

2009

1917( 1947

शी coustimity ofsunk

7. On appreciation ofthe outd I am of the view that the termination of s Now Delhi, the 2nd haly, 2009 80.0034. Inpursuance of Boction 17 the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 16/2006) oftheContral Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court , Ouvaleti asahown in the Anncurs inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in existien to the mangorential Dansk Valley Onimants Ltd. and their wedish was received by the Onetaal Government

KAMALBAE

HEAL GOVERN

RNALISTIRALABOUR COURT, GUWAHATI, ASSAM

Present: Shri DiK. DobRay,MAILB .

PresidingOfficer, OGIT-cum -Labour Court, Gauhati .

Ref. Case No. 16.43006

In the matter ofan Industrial Dispatebate :

TheManagement ofBarak ValleyBensanta Iad, Moring

-Vro

Their workanen S Ram Karimganj .

APPEARANCES

Sri B. Malakar, Advocate. For the Workman

:Sri S. Dutta,Advocate.

For the Managormant

Smt. M.Roy, Advocate.

4405 3,1931

d. Hom, komempted to recall the case of the

DateofAward 19-06-2009

AWARD

the 1. The present reference is arising out fiel No.- L s-2006 , in exercise detaly

Hay tof f. 2 lingly 3. ked to

Sudama Ram (herein called balodman) bes diago that he was appointed on Halper (Methacinal) intind Baruk Valley Cements Ltd. (BVCL) in the year 2001 vedo deser dated 18-3-01 and was working sinously. The Gather cusc ofthe rearlosen is that he mastonminated from porvice on khs in the Piant comm his 12-9-04 desstool : place lyramoved him er he anceto 6.10.04 visedto which according to him was not osszert Thamster, the workman again wait to tive o ficcalong with madical fitness certificate to join kis duties out home-polumul to join on the ground that he abandoned his amico Thornedor, his sister Smt Rekha Ram submitted an appliantimuto the Manager on 2-3-05 requer ing for reinciatomentof her brother . The Manager in tus told hento direttomater with Mr. Mallick. But unfortunately Mrashimot take anystep in this Therosterthos athmanified a complaint against the BVCL totheskmismatLabour Commissioner (C) , Silchar on 3065065nmakanaordingly conciliation proceeding took placcalutamici noche sottled up and ultimately there formed to the Government of India, shinimasouthabour and Simplegment, New Delhi. Thomm thes father stated to his this regard. Thorntheethea Absence and troeting his acvisited is majest , collusive, arbitrary and totally liggal . The to reinstate kirin his originaispest.

5. Bmak Walley Con cats Ltd Choosin, called the Management ), contented the prosseding by filing Written Statement enesting the allegations of the workman. Assaddingtoifanagement, workman read up to Classs- Kambojainadin the BVCL in the year 2001 as Helper vide dated 18-3-01 and he was paid his dues aggularly. The Gather case of the Management is that the weckman Suderea Rain was found absent in office since 16-2-03 without any permission from the authority which amounts/ forseelous misconduct . Thereafter, he was asked tojoin within 24 hours but he did not join . That on 2-3-03 he bogged apology and assured the Management that he would not repeat this practice in future vide his letterdated 2-3-03.Thereafter , the workman was found absenting from duties since6-12-03 without any permission from the 4406

TIL JAZETTE OF INDIA : JULY 25, 2009 /BRAVANA 3 , 1931

[PART II-Sec.3 ( ii)] authority and he was asked to join his duties and he joined on 11-12-03 assuirng that he would not repeat the same practice în future. The further case of the Management is that the workman was a habitual absentee and while he was absenting from 12-9-04 without any permission from the authority he was asked to join his duties vide letter No. BVCL/P &A/4/114 dated 1-10-04 but he did not turn up though he received the letter on 3-10-04 . Again he was served with a letter No : BVCL/P&A/4/143 dated 25-12-04 andwas asked to give a reply as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him , but he did not tura up Accordingly another letter was sentes him vide No. BVCLA P&A/4/147 dated 1-11-04 asking him to join immediately by reproducing the earlier letter but he turned a deaf-earto that. According to the Management that the workman was a habitual absentee without any permission from the competent authority which presumes that he was not interested in the service and having given reasonable opportunities to him he was made voluntary abandonment from service on 1-11-04 and the charge against the employee as unauthorisedly absent since 12-9-04 . In support of that case proceeding is submitted by the Management . The Management also states that they have submitted the attendance sheets in respect of the said workman for the month of September and October, 2004. As per Provision ofIndustrial Disputes Act as well as Standing Orders for Workmenand other employed persons under Managerment and for infraction of Provision of Clause-23 , 24, 25 and27 ofthe Standing Orders the workman was terminated from service. Reasonable opportunities and Natural Justice was done to the workman before taking punitive action. The Management, therefore , prayed before this Court that there is no merit in the case of the workman and the Reference brought by the wormman may be dismissed.

6. The workman has examined himself as witness, on the other hand , the Management has examined 2 witnesses .

Management in the year 2001. His initial appointment was on probation for a period of six months and subsequently his service was regularized. An appointment letter was issued to him vide letter dated 18-3-01 (Ext: 1 ) . That on 12-9-04 while he was on duty in the Plant some accident. took place and he sustained some injuries and he was removed to Dedaspur Railway Hospital. Thereafter, he came to officeto resume his duties but he was not allowedtodo so rather hewas advised to take more rest. On 25-10-04he received a letter from the Management and accordinglyhe submitted a letter dated 26-10-04 (Ext . 2) for joining in Service . All on a sudden, he received a letter dated 1-11-04 terminating his survise vide Ext. 3. Thereafter, he submitted a repły vide his letter dated 2-11-04 along with medical fitness certificate(Ext . 5) . Thereafter, his sister Smt . Rekha Ram subunitted a representation dated2-3-05 (Ext. 6) for reinstatenbent of her brother but no action was taken . The workman has further stated that on 30-5-05 he submitted a complaint before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) , Cacher, Silchar against the Management. Ext . 7 is the complaint . Accordingly, conciliet.jon proceeding took place and both the parties participated out the matter could not be settled up inconciliation proceeding and the Assistant Labour Conunissioner (C) vide his letter dated 3-2-06 subenitted failure report to the Government and hence, this reference onse. Ext. 8 & 9 are the conciliation proceedings . Thiswitness has been cross-examined by the Management. This witnesse has admitted that he has not submitted any document to show that his service was regularized. He has also admitted that he remained absent from duty from 16-2-03 unauthorisedly. He received a letter from the Management to join in service. He wrote a letter to the Management on 24-2-03 requesting to pardon him for his unauthorized absence. The Management suggested this witness that for his unauthorized absence from 2-12-03 he wrote a letter dated6-12-03 to the Management begging apology. It is admitted that on 3-12-03 he received a warning letter from the Management not to remain absent even though he did not join. He has further admitted that he received a Telegram from the Management on 19-5-04 for his absence from 1-4-04 and he sought apology in writing on 25-9-04. It is also admitted by the workman that he received the charge-sheet issued on him on 1-10-04 for his absence from 12-9-04. He has also admitted that he received another change sheet on 25-4-04 directing him to join immediately. On 1-11-04 he was terminated by the Management, The Manngonment suggested this witness that for his unauthorized absence on several occasions the Management terminated him from service . The workman has admitted in cross - examination that his frequent absence from duty was pardoned by the Management and lastly his case was not considered and he was terminated from service .

7. Heard both the sides at the Bar. The learned Counsel appearing for the workman has submitted inter- alia that workman fell ill following an accident that took place in the Plant . There was no deliberate absenteeism on his part and the order of termination issued by the Management ex- facie appears to be illegal . This contention has been seriously controverted by the learned Counsel appearing for the Management, who on the other hand, has submitted that the workman was a habitual absentée though several notices were issued to him asking him to join but there was no rectification in his character. According to him, the workman has been rightly terminated by the Manaerment as per Provision contained in Clause- 23, 24, 25 and 27 of the Company's Standing order. Before entering into this controversy, I feel it convenient to discuss the evidence on record.

9. Now let me discuss the evidence of MW.1. According to him, initially the workman was appointed on 8. The workman in his evidence has said that he was appointed as Helper ( Mechanical ) under the 4407

भारत का राजपत्र : जुलाई 25, 2009/ श्रवण 3, 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

was appointed on 1-4-01 as Mechanical Helper on probation. Normally probation period is for six months. After the expiry of six months an employee may be regularized in his service subject to satisfactory performance..The performance of the workman was not satisfactory and his service was not regularized.According to him in the month of February, 2004 the workman sustained some eye injuries thereafter, he remained absent from dutytill 31st March, 2004. On 1-4-04 he resumed his duties and thereafter he was again found absent. The workman suggested this witness that the workman did not abandon his service voluntarily.

11. I have carefully gone through the evidence adduced by the workman vis -a -vis evidence of the Management . Plethora of documents has been proved by theparties. I have considered these documents .Thewhole case ofthe Management is that since the beginning ofhis career on probation the workman was in habit of regular absenteeism though ample scope was given to him for his rectification but nothing had happened. His habit remains thesame. From the evidence, it is seen that several notices were issued to the workinan in different occasions for his long absenteeism. It is admitted that in some occasions the workman submitted letters ofapology. The Management has proved Ext.G (in four sheets ) to show the period of absence in respect ofthe workmam Sudama Ram which are asfollows:

Inthe month ofJanuary , 20045 days,

Inthemonth ofApril, 2004 ....30 days,

Inthe month ofMay , 200431days,

Inthe month ofJune, 2004 . .....2 days,

Inthe monthofJuly, 2004. 13 days,

Inthemonth ofAugust, 2004 ...2 days,

Inthemonth of September, 2004 .......22 days,

Inthe month ofOctober , 2004. ........31days .

Total ..........136days

It isthus ,apparent that the workman remained absent forthe period of 136 days in the year 2004.

Inthe year 2003, he remained absent from duties as follows:

Inthemonth of January, 2003. ........... 6 days , probation of six months and during his probation period hewas inthe regular habit ofabsenting himselffromduties . According to him he remained absent from duty unauthorisedly for four days in the month of September, 2007 and 7 days in the month ofOctober, 2002 and thereafter he remained absent since 16-12-03 and the Management issued charge sheet for his unauthorized absence from 16-12-03 with a direction to join immediately. In response that the workman submitted a letter of apology dated 14-2-03 (Ext . A) to the Management . The Management then issued charge- sheet against the said workman on 6-12-03 forhisunauthorized absence from 2-12-03 with a direction tojoin duty, Ext . C is the letter . The workman again begged apology vide his letter dated 6-12-03 (Ext. D). Thereafter, theManagement issued warning letter dated 10-1-04 for his unauthorized absence for 13 days in the month of December, 2003 , (Ext . E) . Ext. El is the attendance sheet of the workman. Thereafter , the workman remained absent from duty since 1-4-04 and accordingly he was informed byaTelegram tojoin duty immediately (Ext. F).According to this witness the workman was a habitual absentee and he submitted several apology letters for pardoning him. According to him in the month of June, 2004 he remained absent for 2 days i.e. on 11 and 26 June. Again he remained absent for 13days in the Month of July, 2004 i.e. 10-7-04 and from 20-7-04 to 31-7-04, (Ext. D).The Management again . videhis letter dated 1-10-04 directed the workman to resume his and duties for his absenteeism from 12-9-04 , (Ext . H) and he received the same on 3-10-04 . The Management on 24-10-04 issued another charge-sheet with a direction to joinduty immediately because he neither replied nor joined his duty despite receiving of their letter dated 1-10-04, (Ext. I) .The Management was fed up with the conduct of the workman and Management presumed that the workman was not interested for the service and he might have joined somewhere else thus voluntarily abandoned his service in the Company on 1-11-04. He has referred Clause-23 (1 ) and (VI) ofthe certified Standing orders ofthe Company, Ext . J isthe Standing Order . According to the Management since inception the workman was found insincere and was in the regular habit of absenteeism and he never met an accident on 12-9-04 as alleged by him. He has admitted that, conciliationproceeding took place in the Office oftheALC, Cachar , Silchar , which culminated to a failure report. According to him as per Company's rules the workman is not legally entitled to any relief and his petition may be dismissed in limine . This witness has not been cross- examinedby the workman .

Inthe month ofFebruary, 2003 ..........20 days,

Inthe month of March, 2003 .....3 days,

Inthemonth ofApril, 2003 days,

In the month ofMay, 2003...............2 days,

Inthemonth ofJune, 2003..Nil, 10. Now let us consider the evidence of MW . 2, who said in his evidence that the workman was a habitual absentee in the Office. Different show cause notices were given to him and he submitted several letters of apology. This witness has corroborated the evidence of MW.1 . He has been cross -examined by the workman. In the Cross- examination this witness has said, initially the workman 4408

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AILY 25, 200MSRAMΑΝΑ 3 , 1931

[PART II SEC. 3(i) ] IntheMonth ofJuly, 2003..1 days,

..6days,

Inthe Month ofAugust, 2003 .

........4 days,

Inthe Month ofSeptember, 2003

3 consecutive days er over staying the sanctioned leave for a period not exceeding eight consecutive days without sufficient grounds or proper or satisfactory explanation . "

IntheMonth ofOctober, 200326days .

Reference maybe made in Clause 24 (iii ), 25 (b). IntheMonth ofNovember, 2003 . .........8 days,

In theMonth ofDecember, 2003 ..

13 ,

Total.........91 days .

13. From the plain reading of Clause-23 (vi ) it is soon that ifanemployee remains absent from duty without permission from the authority for not exceeding consecutive days the action ofthe workman comes within the ambit of " Misconduct " . Admittedly , initially intment of the wordsman was on probation for six There is absolutely no evidence to show that his servieswas regularised by the Management. The evidence of the hienngement clearly shows that his service was net reguluriand after empiry of six months due to his bad cs, which is evident from the long absenteeism It is thus seen that the workman Sudeme Ram remained absent from duties for 227 days in 2 years i.e. 2003 & 2004. The workman failed to justify his long absenteeism by cogent and convincing materials . From the conduct ofthe workman it is, thus , apparent that the workman was not interested for service and the Management rightly pressmed that he had voluntarily abandoned his service and in the mean time he might have joined somewhere else . The presumption of the Management in this regard can not be ruled out.

14. Having hoard botte sides andhaving considered entirety of the facts and circumstances ofthe case and etherlovent prevision of the standing andre ofthe Company, I am constrained to hold that the volunturily abandoned his service and the action ofthe Pilungsment appears to be justified . I do not find say sawit ofthe case of the workation and consequently 12. Learned counsel for the the course of argument has drawn my attention of Clause23 (1) &23 (VI ) ( misconduct ) ofStanding Ordemel theManagement (Ext.J) .

"23. Misconduct.

15. With the observation indicated above , the Refrence stands disposed of.

i. In-subordination or instigation or disobedience thereofwhether alone or in combination with another , of anylawful and reasonable order of a superior."

16. SendtheAward tothe Ministry inmediatelyas per low.

vi . Habitual absence without permission, or absence without permission for a period net exceeding

D. K. DEB ROY, Presiding Officer Printed by the Manager, Govt. of Indie Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi- 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.