This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

नई दिल्ली , अगस्त 9 अगस्त 15, 2009, शनिवार/ श्रवण18- श्रावण 24 , 1931 NEW DELHI, AUGUST 9-AUGUST 15, 2009 , SATURDAY/SRAVANA 18-SRAVANA 24, 1931 सं. 33 ] No. 33 ]

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 maybe filed as a separate compilation

भाग 11 खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड (ii) PART 11 Section 3-Sub- section (ii)

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

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 31 जुलाई, 2009

का.आ. 2156.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम, 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए झारखण्ड राज्य सरकार, गृह विभाग की अधिसूचना सं. 361 /एचएससी/2009 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से श्री अविनाश कुमार द्वारा संचितं बेमेल सम्पत्ति के तथाकथित आरोप और किन्हीं अन्य उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधों और भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम, 1988 के प्रावधानों के अंतर्गत उनके द्वारा किए गए अपराधों और/ अथवा अन्य अधिनियमों के तहत अपराधों के संबंध में , भारतीय दण्ड संहिता की धारा 120 - बी, 420 और भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम , 1988 की धारा 13 ( 2 ) संगठित 13 ( 1 ) ( घ) के संबंध में, भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम , 1988 की धारा 13 ( 2 ) पठित 13 ( झ ) ( ङ ) के तहत जांच के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और अधिकारिता का विस्तार एतद्वारा सम्पूर्ण झारखण्ड राज्य पर करती है ।

[.सं. 228 /41 /2009 - ए.वी.डी. II ]

चन्द्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL , PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department ofPersonnel and Training)

New Delhi , the 31st July, 2009

S.O. 2156.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub section ( 1 ) of Section 5, read with Section 6, ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent ofthe State

(4619)

2811 G1/2009 4620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] Government of Jharkhand, Home Department vide Notification No. 361 /HSC/2009 dated 30-7-2009 , hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police to the whole State of Jharkhand for the investigation u/s 13/2 r/ w 13 (i ) ( e ) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , in respect of disproportionate assets alleged to have been amassed by Shri Avinash Kumar and any other offences in the aforesaid transaction and U/s 120 - B , 420 IPC and Section 13(2) r/w 13 ( 1 ) (d ) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , in respect of offences committed by him under the provisions ofPrevention of Corruption Act, 1988 , and/or offences under any other Acts .

[No. 228 /41 /2009 - AVD . II ] CHANDRA PRAKASH, Under Secy.

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue)

(Central Board of Direct Taxes )

CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi , the 5th August, 2009

S.O. 2157. In the Notification Number 57/2009 dated 09-7-2009 the words and figure " with effect from 1-4-2009 " may be corrected to read as " with effect from Assessment year 2009-10 " .

Other terms and condition of the said notification remain unchanged.

[F. No. 203/9/2008 - ITA. II ]

DR . SANJAY KUMAR LAL, Under Secy . ( ITA. II )

नागर विमानन मंत्रालय

(ए ए आई अनुभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2158.-भारतीय विमानपत्तन आर्थिक विनियामक प्राधिकरण अधिनियम , 2008 ( 2008 के 27 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 6 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार , एतद्वारा श्री यशवन्त एस. भावे को पांच वर्ष की अवधि तक अथवा 65 वर्ष की आयु तक या अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , दिनांक1-08-2009 ( पूर्वाहन ) से 80,000/- रुपये ( निर्धारित ) प्रति माह के वेतनमान में अध्यक्ष , भारतीय विमानपत्तन आर्थिक विनियामक प्राधिकरण ( एईआरए ) के पद पर नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. संख्या एवी-24015/001 /2009- एएआई ]

ओमानंद, अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF CIVIL AVIATION

(AAI Section)

New Delhi , the 4th August, 2009

S.O. 2158.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (6 ) of Section 3 of the Airports Economic RegulatoryAuthority of India Act , 2008 ( 27 of 2008 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri Yashwant S. Bhave, to the post of Chairperson , Airports Economic Regulatory Authority (AERA) in the Pay Scale of Rs . 80,000/- ( fixed) per month w.e.f. 01-08-2009 ( FN ) for a period of five years or till the age of 65 years or until further orders , whichever is the earlier.

[ F. No. AV. 24015/ 001 /2009 - AAI ]

OMA NAND , Under Secy .

स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्यऔर परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

( दंत चिकित्सा शिक्षा अनुभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 7 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2159.केंद्र सरकार , दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 3 के अंतर्गत प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारत सरकार, स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय के दिनांक 24 जनवरी 1984 के का. आ. सं. 430 की अधिसूचना में एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , अथर्थात्:-

4621 भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

उक्त अधिसूचना में क्रम संख्या 5 और तत्संबंधी प्रविष्टियों के लिए " धारा 3 के परंतुक के साथ पठित खंड ( क ) के अंतर्गत निर्वाचित " शीर्षक के अंतर्गत निम्नलिखित प्रतिस्थापित किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:

निर्वाचित पंजाब दंत चिकित्सा परिषद्17-12-2007 "

" 5. डॉ. सुरिंद्र पाल सिंह सोढ़ी

58/2, हरिंद्र नगर , फरीदकोट, पंजाब

[फा. सं. वी-12013/1/2009-डी.ई. ]

आर. शंकरन , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department of Health and Family Welfare )

(Dental Education Section )

New Delhi , the 7th July, 2009

S.O. 2159. In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 3 of the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) , the Central Government hereby makes the following amendment in the notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare No. S.O. 430 dated 24th January, 1984 namely :-

In the said notification under head " Elected under clause (a) read with proviso to Section 3 " for Serial No. 5 and the entries relating thereto , the following shall be substituted therein, namely :

Elected Punjab Dental Council 17-12-2007 " .

"5. Dr. Surinder Pal Singh Sodhi , 58/2, Harindra Nagar, Faridkot, Punjab

[F. No. V. 12013/1 /2009 -DE ] R. SANKARAN, Under Secy .

पोत परिवहन मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 31 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2160.-केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा और राजमार्ग मंत्रालय को 1 अगस्त, 2009 से 30 कार्यभार संभालने हेतु नियुक्त करती है । श्री अरविन्द कुमार, भारतीय अर्थ सेवा , सदस्य ( परिवहन अनुसंधान विंग ) , सड़क परिवहन सितम्बर , 2009 की अवधि के लिए महापत्तन प्रशुल्क प्राधिकरण के सदस्य का अतिरिक्त

[सं. पी.आर. -14019/14/2009-पी.जी. ]

राकेश मल्होत्रा , उप सचिव

MINISTRY OF SHIPPING

New Delhi , the 31st July, 2009

S.O. 2160. The Central Government hereby appoints Shri Arvind Kumar , IES , Member (Transport Research Wing) Ministry of Road Transport and Highways to hold additional charge as Member , Tariff Authority for Major Ports for a further period from 1st August, 2009 to 30th September, 2009 .

[No. PR- 14019/14/2009 -P.G . ] RAKESH MALHOTRA, Dy. Secy.

उपभोक्तामामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 3 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2161.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम ( 5 ) के उप - नियम (6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द कर दिया गया है :

4622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA 24, 1931

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता क्रम संख्या

लाइसेंस संख्या सी एम/एल

01 2377663 मैसर्स ओसवाल पाइप्स, प्लॉट क्र इ-13 , एम आइ डी सी एरिया , हिंगणा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , हिंगणा रोड , नागपुर, महाराष्ट्र-440028

02 7729693 मैसर्स सेंट्रल केबल्स लि.

प्लॉट क्र इ एल -12 , एम आइ डी सी हिंगणा इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , नागपुर, महाराष्ट्र-440016

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

अनुसूची

रद्द करने की तिथि लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/प्रक्रम, सम्बद्ध

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

17-11-2008 पेय जल की आपूर्ति के लिए असुधद‌यित पी वी सी पाइप-विशिष्टि आई एस 4985 : 2000

02-01-2009 एरियल बच केबल फॉर वर्किंग वोल्टेजेस अप टु एन्ड इन्क्लुडिंग आई एस 14255 : 1995 1100 वोल्ट्स

[सं. सीएमडी-13 : 13 ]

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

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 3rd August , 2009

S.O. 2161.- In pursuance ofsub-regulation (6) of the Regulation 5 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled/ suspended with effect from the date indicated against each :

Name ofAddress of the Licensee SI . No.

Licences No. CM/L-

01 2377663. M/ s. Oswal Pipes ,

Plot No. E- 13 , MIDC Area ,

Hingna Industrial Area, Hingna Road , Nagpur , Maharashtra-440028

02 . 7729693 M/s . Central Cables Ltd. , Plot No. E- 12 , MIDC Hingna Industrial Area, Nagpur, Maharashtra-440016

SCHEDULE

Date of Article/Process with relevant

Cancellation Indian Standards covered by the

licence cancelled/suspension

17-11-2008 Unplasticized pvc pipes for

potable water supplies-

IS 4985 : 2000

02-01-2009 Aerial bunched cables for working

voltages upto and including 1100 volts

IS 14255 : 1995

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

नई दिल्ली , 4अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2162.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम , 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है. कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं :

4623 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्रम संख्या

31मई, 2009

संशोधन सं. 1 , मई , 2009

1. आई एस 15803 : 2008 श्वसन संरक्षी युक्तियां--स्वतः पूर्णबंद परिपथ श्वसन उपकरण, रसायन ऑक्सीजन ( KO₂ ) टाइप , स्वतः उत्पादन , स्वतः रेस्कुयर्स-विशिष्टि

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

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 08/ आई एस 15803 ] ई, देवेन्द्र, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

New Delhi , the 4th August, 2009

S.O. 2162.-In pursuance of clause (b) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

No. and year of the amendment

No. and year of the Indian Standards

SI. No.

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

31May, 2009

Amendment No. 1 , May, 2009

1 . IS 15803 : 2008 Respiratory Protective Devices- SelfContained Closed Circuit Breathing Apparatus Chemical Oxygen (KO₂), Type , self Generating, SelfRescuers-Specification

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

[Ref : CHD 08 /IS 15803 ]

E. DEVENDAR, Scientist F & Head (Chemical )

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2163.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खखंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

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

क्रम संख्या

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

31 जनवरी , 2009 1. आईएस 15850 : 2009 नाभिकीय ग्रेड बोरोन कारबाइड- विशिष्टि

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

[संदर्भ: सीएचडी 30/आई एस 15850 ]

ई. देवेन्द्र , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख (रसायन ) 4624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 / SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 4th August, 2009

S.O. 2163.- In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SI . No.

No. & year of the Indian Standards Established

1. IS 15850 : 2009 Nuclear Grade Boron Carbide- Specification

SCHEDULE

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

31 January, 2009 Copy ofthis Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi , Kolcatta , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref : CHD 30/IS 15850 ] E. DEVENDAR, Scientist F & Head ( Chemical )

नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2164.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

( 1)

(2)

1. आईएस 15839 : 2009 आईएसओ 13520 2002 आस्टेनिटिक स्टेनलैस इस्पात गढाइयों में फेराइट की मात्रा का निर्धारण

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने कीतिथि (3)

(4)

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

[संदर्भ : एमटीडी 22/टी-15 ] पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ई एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी )

New Delhi , the 4th August, 2009

S.O. 2164. 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 of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl . No. & year of the Indian Standards

No. Established

( 1)

(2)

1 . IS 15839 : 2009 /ISO 13520 : 2002 Determination ofFerrite Content in Austenitic Stainless Steel Castings

Date of Established No. & year of Indian Standards , ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(3)

(4)

28 February, 2009 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

4625 भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

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

[Ref: MTD 22/T - 15 ]

P. GHOSH, Scientist ' E' & Head (Met Engg)

नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2165.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खखंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि अनुसूची में दिये गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/ किये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि (1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

3 अगस्त 2009

संशोधन संख्या 1 अगस्त 2009

आईएस 280 : 2006 सामान्य इंजीनियरी अनुप्रयोगों के लिए मृदु इस्पात की तार (चौथा पुनरीक्षण )

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

[संदर्भ: एमटीडी 4/टी -17 ]

पी. घोष, वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी)

New Delhi , the 4th August, 2009

S.O. 2165. In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub -rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

No. & year of the amendment (s)

No. & year of the amendment

Sl . No.

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

3 August 2009

Amendment No. 1 August 2009

IS 280 : 2006-Mild steel wire for general engineering purposes ( fourth revision)

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

[Ref: MTD 4/T- 17]

P. GHOSH, Scientist ' E' & Head (Met Engg) 4626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 /SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II SEC. 3(ii ) ]

349 1बी

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 11 जुलाई , 2009

370

2बी

370 1डी 0

1सी

370

1बी

370

1ए

370 5सी

[फा. सं. आर-25011/11/2006- ओ.आर-1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव का. आ. 2166. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिजं पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गयी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 12 , तारीख 23 दिसम्बर, 2008 द्वारा तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मनाली रिफाइनरी से मीनाम्मवक्कम एयरपोर्ट तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एवीऐशन टर्बाईन फ्युयल (ए टी एफ) पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उक्त अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ।

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS New Delhi, the 11th July , 2009

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 24-01-2009 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी ।

और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अनुसरण में सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दीहै ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाना चाहिए ।

S.O. 2166. Whereas , by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and NaturalGas number S.O. 12 dated the 23rd December , 2008 issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , (hereinafter referred to as the saidAct) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the lands specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Aviation Turbine Fuel ( ATF) petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Meenammabakkam Airport in the State of Tamil Nadu , by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

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

And whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public from 24-1-2009;

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

यह और कि केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि के उपयोग का अधिकार इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाय सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त हो कर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

And whereas , the Central Government , after considering the said report is satisfied that the Right of User in the Land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

अनुसूची

तालुका : श्रीपेरुम्बुदूर जिला कांचीपुरम राज्य : तमिलनाडु

गांव का नाम

हेक्टर

सर्वेक्षण उप

वर्ग

एयर

सं. खण्ड खण्ड सं.

मीटर

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

सं.

348

2बी2 0

79,कोला-

प्पक्कम

349

349 3ए

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby directs that the Right of User in the said Land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

4627 भारत का राजपत्र: अगस्त 15 , 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

अनुसूची

Taluk:

District : Kanchipuram State : Tamilnadu

जिला : दाहोद

राज्य: गुजरात

तहसील: लीमखेड़ा

Sriperumbudur

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

गांव का नाम

क्र.सं.

Are

Square Meter

Hec- tare

Name ofthe Village

Sur- vey No.

00.1458

44/8

1. घरपाटा

Sub- Divi- sion No.

00.0343

418

2. मानली

177/2

00.0240

3. आगरा

2B2

348

00.0540

46/2 पैकी

4. प्रतापुरा

79 Kola- pakkam

00.2355

9/पैकी2

349

00.3510

72.

46/पी/21

349

00.1520 349

7/3

5. पटवान

370

00.3778

370

00.5000

7/पैकी 3

6. टींबा

370

00.2100

7/पैकी 14

370

00.2560

13/7

370

00.0900

7/पैकी

370

00.2850

7/4/पैकी

[F. No. R-25011 /11 /2006-OR- 1 ]

00.3200

7/पैकी

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

00.3000

7/पैकी

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त , 2009

00.3060

717/पैकी

00.4150

7/पैकी

00.3600

7/4

का.आ. 2167 , केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार से मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक क्रूड ऑयल के परिवहन हेतु भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

00.3750

7/6/पैकी

00.6150

7/पैकी

00.4200

7/20पैकी

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

00.2850

7/पैकी

00.2400

7/पैकी

00.2100

7/पैकी

00.2100

7/पैकी

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पैट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमिमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

00.1000

7/पैकी

00.2000

7. बीसलंगां

00.5000

82/13

00.7800

92/पैकी

8. जाडाखेरीया

00.3300

92/22/पैकी/1

[फा. सं. आर.- 31015/26/2009- ओआर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एस. के. ब्रह्मभट्ट , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , वाडीनार बीना क्रूड ऑयल पाइपलाइन परियोजना , भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड , 18 , शांतिनिवास सोसायटी, प्रभा रोड, गोधरा -389001 ( गुजरात ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

2.811 G1 /09-2 4628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART 11---SEC. 3(ii) ]

1 2

New Delhi , the 12th August, 2009

7 /6/Paiki

00.3750

7/Paiki

00.6150

7/20Paiki

00.4200

7/Paiki

S. O. 2167. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that fortransportation of crude oil from Vadinar in the State of Gujarat to Bina in the State of Madhya Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by Bharat Oman Refineries Limited;

00.2850

7/Paiki

00.2400

7/Paiki

00.2100

7/Paiki

00.2100

7 /Paiki

00.1000 And whereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

00.2000

7. Vislanga

82/13

00.5000

92/Paiki

00.7800

8. Jadakheriya

92/22/ Paiki/ 1 00.3300 Now, therefore , in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

[ F. No. R-31015 /26/2009 - OR - II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त , 2009

का.आ. 2168.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार से मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक क्रूड ऑयल के परिवहन हेतु भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this Notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S. K. Brahmbhatt , Competent Authority , Vadinar- Bina Crude Oil Pipeline Project, Bharat Oman Refineries Limited , 18 , Shantinivas Society , Prabha Road, Godhra- 3890051 (Gujarat ) .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Limkheda District : Dahod State: Gujarat

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

Area in Hectare

Survey No.

Sl . Name of No. Village

1 2

44/8

1. Parpata

00.1458

2. Manli

418

00.0343

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

177/2

00.0240

3. Agara

46/2Paiki

00.0540

4. Pratappura

9 Paiki 2

00.2355

46/ P/21

00.3510

5. Patwan

7/3

00.1520

00.3778

6. Timba

7/Paiki/ 3

00.5000

7/Paiki 14

00.2100

कोई भी व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एस. के. ब्रह्मभट्ट , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , वाडीनार बीना क्रूड ऑयल पाइपलाइन परियोजना , भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड , 18 , शांतिनिवास सोसायटी , प्रभा रोड , गोधरा -389001 ( गुजरात ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 13/7

00.2560

अनुसूची

7/Paiki

00.0900

तहसील : दाहोद

जिला : दाहोद

राज्य : गुजरात 7/4/Paiki

00.2850

क्र.सं. गांव का नाम

सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में 7Paiki

00.3200

1 2

00.3000

1. बावका

184/1

00.2460

00.3060

238/1

7/Paiki

00.0900 004150

235/4

00.3600

00.0050 4629

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

98पैकी

00.5245 2. भुतोओ

143

00.0951 3. गडोइ

151

4. नगराला

00.1000

128/1

5. मोटीखरज

00.1134

41/1-2-3

00.4373 6. जालत

00.2070

116/1

20/2

00.1840

20/1

00.0250

156

00.4185

157

00.2300

121/1

00.0990

48/पैकी

7. चंदवाना

00.0100

00.1657 8. कठला

199

210

00.0300

88/1/बी

9. बरबाडा

00.0400

10. खंगेला

00.0200

10/2

00.0651

10/3

00.0885

10/6

00.1110

00.2108

146/1

00.0800

119/1

[फा. सं. आर. -31015/28/2009- ओआर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 12th August , 2009

S. O. 2168. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for transportation of crude oil from Vadinar in the State ofGujarat to Bina in the state of Madhya Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by Bharat Oman Refineries Limited;

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

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

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this Notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying ofthe pipeline under the land to Shri S. K. Brahmbhatt, Competent Authority , Vadinar -Bina Crude Oil Pipeline Project, Bharat Oman Refineries Limited, 18 , Shantinivas Sociéty, Prabha Road, Godhra- 389001 (Gujarat).

SCHEDULE

District : Dahod State:

Tehsil: Dahod

Gujarat

Area in Hectare

Survey No.

S. No.

Nameof Village

1 2

184/1

00.2460 1. Bavka

00.0900

238/1

00.0050

235/4

98Paiki

00.5245 2. Bhutodi

143

00.0951 3. Gadoi

00.1000

151

4. Nagrala

128/1

00.1134 5. Motikharaj

41/1-2-3

00.4373

116/1

00.2070 6. Jalat

20/2

00.1840

00.0250

20/1

156

00.4185

157

00.2300

121/1

00.0990

48/Paiki

00.0100 7. Chandwana

199

00.1657 8. Kathala

210

00.0300

88/1/B

00.0400 9. Varbada

00.0200

10. Khangela

10/2

00.0651

00.0885

10/3

10/6

00.1110

00.2108

146/1

00.0800

119/1

[F. No. R- 31015/28 /2009 -OR - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 12 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2169.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार से मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक क्रूड ऑयल के परिवहन हेतु भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में, जो इससे 4630

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA 24, 1931

New Delhi, the 12th August , 2009 उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है . उपयोग के अधिकार काअर्जन किया जाए;

S.O. 2169.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that fortransportation of crude oil from Vadinar in the State of Gujarat to Bina in the state of Madhya Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by Bharat Oman Refineries Limited;

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

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

कोई भीव्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र. की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एस. के. ब्रह्मभट्ट , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , वाहीनार बीना क्रूड ऑयल पाइपलाइन परियोजना , भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड, 18 , शांतिनिवास सोसायटी , प्रभा रोड, गोधरा -389003 ( गुजरात ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : योधरा

जिला : पंचमहल सर्वे नंबर

क्र.सं. गत्रि का नाम

राज्य : गुजरात क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

00.8695

1/52

1. भीमा

00.0960

2. गवाची

1/78

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date onwhich copies of the Gazette of India containing this Notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S. K. Brahmbhatt , Competent Authority , Vadinar -Bina Crude Oil Pipeline Project, Bharat Oman Refineries Limited, 18 , Shantinivas Society , Prabha Road , Godhra - 389001 (Gujarat).

SCHEDULE

00.0175

3. अंबाली

233/0/4

Tehsil : Godhra District : Panchmahal

00.1407

233/ए/5 .

State : Gujarat 72/1

00.1012

4. भामैया

Area in Hectare 324

00.3300

No.

Survey No.

Name of Village

5. गांधरा

674

00:1152

1 2

00.3642

996

00.8695 1070

00.2910

1/52

1. Bhima

1/78

188/पैकी 2 00.3300

00.0960 6 गांविंदी

2. Gavachi

233/A/4

00.0175

3. Ambali

188 पैकी

00.1950

233/A/5

00.1407

00.1200

171/पैकी 1

00.1012

4. Bhamaiya

00.2250

176

00.3300 269पैकी

00.4500

7. जाफराबाद

5. Godhra

00.2000

304

00.1152 00.3642 269/पैकी

00.0500

72/1 324 674 996 1070

00.2910 269/पैकी 3 00.0200

188/P/2

00.3300

6. Govindi

00.0200

16/2

8. गढ़

188/P

00.1950 113/पैकी

00.0471

9. केवडीया

171/P/ 1

00.1200

00.2250

00.0696

377

10. ओरबाडा

00.4500

7. Jafrabad

00.1500

427/बी

11. सालीया

176 269/P 304

00.2000

00.0500

140/2

269/P

00.0500 [फा. सं. आर. - 31015/29/2009- ओआर -11 ]

269/P/3

00.0200 ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव

16/2

00.0200

8. Gadh 4631

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1 2

00.0471

113/P

9. Kevadiya

00.0696

377

10. Orvada

00.1500

427/B

11. Saliya

00.0500

140/2

[F. No. R- 31015/29/2009 -OR- II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस्त, 2009

का. आ. 2170.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गयी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2705 , तारीख 24 सितम्बर , 2008 , जो भारत के राजपत्र तारीख 27 सितम्बर , 2008 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार संस्थापन से मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक कच्चे पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए वाडीनार- बीना पाइपलाइन परियोजना के माध्यम से भारत ओमान रिफाईनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के अपने आशय की घोषण की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 1 दिसम्बर , 2008 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

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

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

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

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

राज्य : मध्य प्रदेश

अनुसूची जिला : धार

तहसील : बदनावर

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वे नंबर

क्र. ग्राम का नाम

हैक्टेयर में सं.

1 2

0.78

670पी

1. दौत्र्या

0.08

829

0.06

830

0.09

1282

0.02

1319/2

0.20

1319/3

0.02

2. बखतपुरा

0.08

0.10

321

0.17

3. टीटीपाड़ा

0.26

729/2

4. संदला

0.04

1193/1

5. तिलगारा

1.85

569

6. मुल्थान

023

910

0.34

1286

2596/2

0.21

0.03

673

7. काछीबड़ौदा

0.20

678

0.05

8. करोदा

0.08

56/3

[फा. सं. आर. - 31015 / 13/2008 - ओआर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th August, 2009

S.O. 2170.- Whereas by a notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 2705 dated the 24th September , 2008 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , published in the Gazette of India dated the 27thSeptember, 2008 , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for transportation of Crude Oil through Vadinar- Bina Crude Pipeline Project from Vadinar inthe State ofGujrat to Bina in the State of Madhya Pradesh byBharat Oman Refineries Limited;

And whereas the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on the 1stDecember , 2008 ;

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

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

4632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

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

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

SCHEDULE

Teshil : Badnawar District : Dhar State : Madhya Pradesh Name ofVillage

SurveyNo.

S. No.

Area in Hectare 1

4 1 . DOTRIY A

670P

0.78

829

0.08

0.06

830

0.09

1282

1319/2

0.02

0.20

1319/3

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] राज्य में बीना तक क्रूड ऑयल के परिवहन हेतु भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एस. के. ब्रह्मभट्ट , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , वाडीनार बीना क्रूड ऑयल पाइपलाइन परियोजना , भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड , 18 , शांतिनिवास सोसायटी , प्रभा रोड, गोधरा -389001 ( गुजरात ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : सावली

2. BAKHATPURA

0.02

0.08

321

0.10 3. TITIPADA

0.17 4. SANDLA

729/2

0.26 5. TILGARA

1193/1

0.04

जिला : वडोदरा

राज्य : गुजरात क्र.सं. गांव का नाम सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में 12

1. वरसडा

134/1

00.0568

00.0822

105/63ए

105/63 बी

00.0267

173

00.0175 2. जांबुगोरल

6. MULTHAN

569

1.85

910

0.23

1286

0.34

2596/2

0.21 7. KHACCHIBARODA 673

0.03

678

0.20 8. KARODA

0.05

56/3

0.08

[ F. No. R- 31015/ 13 /2008 -OR- II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 13 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2171.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार से मध्य प्रदेश [फा. सं. आर. - 31015/22/2009 - ओआर-11 ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th August , 2009

S. O. 2171. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for transportation of Crude oil from Vadinar in the State of Gujarat to Bina in the state of Madhya Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by Bharat Oman Refineries Limited;

Andwhereas it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4633

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

अहमदाबाद -380051 , ( गुजरात ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

अनुसूची

तहसील : मातर

जिला : खेड़ा

राज्य : गुजरात

क्र.सं. गांव का नाम सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

1. असामली

457

00.1328

483/2

00.0315 Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may , within twenty one days froin the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this Notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S. K. Brahmbhatt , Competent Authority , Vadinar - Bina Crude Oil Pipeline Project, Bharat Oman Refineries Limited , 18 , Shantinivas Society, Prabha Road , Godhra- 389001 (Gujarat).

SCHEDULE

2. असलाली

82/बी

00.0444 Tehsil : Savli District : Vadodara State:Gujarat

3. त्रान्जा

00.0400

4. हेरंज

567

00.0427 SurveyNo.

Name ofVillage

Sl . No.

Area in Hectare

5. खांधली

00.0740 1

322

00.0481 134/1

00.0568

1. Varsada

354

00.1456 105/63A

00.0822

335

00.0175 105/63B

00.0267

361

00.0369 173

00.0175

2. Jambugoral

6. मलियातज

00.0208 [F. No. R-31015/22/2009 -OR- II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

[फा. सं. आर. - 31015/27/2009-ओआर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव नई दिल्ली , 13 अगस्त, 2009

New Delhi , the 13th August, 2009 का.आ. 2172.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार से मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक क्रूड ऑयल के परिवहन हेतु भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

S. O. 2172.- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that fortransportation of Crude oil from Vadinar in the State of Gujarat to Bina in the State of Madhya Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by Bharat Oman Refineries Limited;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में, जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government thatfor the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

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

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

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this Notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S. K. Brahmbhatt , Competent Authority, Vadinar - Bina Crude Oil Pipeline Project , Bharat Oman Refineries Limited , 14 & 14-A, Krishna Bungalow, Near Prahladnagar , B /h . V.S.N.L. , Bldg. , Ahmedabad- 380051 (Gujarat) .

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एस. के. ब्रह्मभट्ट , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , वाडीनार बीना क्रूड ऑयल पाइपलाइन परियोजना , भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड , 14 , 14 -ए. कृष्णा बंग्लोज , प्रहलादनगर , 4634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA24, 1931

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Matar District : Kheda

State: Gujarat

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

अनुसूची

जिला : आणंद

तहसील : उमरेठ

SurveyNo.

Name ofVillage

राज्य : गुजरात

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क्र.सं. गांव का नाम

Area in Hectare Sl . No.

00.1328

457

1. Asamali

00.0315

483/2

00.0444

82/B

2. Aslali

00.0400

3. Tranja

00.0427

567

4. Heranj

00.0740

5. Khandhli

00.0481

322

00.1456

354

00.0175

335

00.0369

361

00.0208

6. Maliyataj

[F. No. R-31015/27/2009-OR- II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस्त, 2009

866 पैकी

00.0248 1. पणसोरा

866पैकी

00.0473

876

00.0434 2. थामणा

00.1049

1134/2

00.1563

803/3

00.0134

179/3

3. उमरेठ

180/2

475पैकी

00.1134

00.2214

601/1

00.0274

602/1

00.0008

841

838

00.1172

836

00.0232

00.3304

921

154

00.0055

00.0300

465

00.0152

257/3

4. वणसोल

का.आ. 2173.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार से मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक क्रूड ऑयल के परिवहन हेतु भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाईपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एस. के. ब्रह्मभट्ट, सक्षम प्राधि कारी, वाडीनार बीना क्रूड ऑयल पाईपलाइन परियोजना , भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड , 14 , 14- ए. कृष्णा बंग्लोज , प्रहलादनगर , अहमदाबाद -380051 , ( गुजरात ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

00.0539

267/3

00.0303

269

00.0440

238/5+ 6

238/3 +4

00.0388 [फा. सं. आर. - 31015/23/2009- ओआर-11 ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th August, 2009

S. O. 2173.-Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for transportation of crude oil from Vadinar in the State of Gujarat to Bina in the State of Madhya Pradesh , a pipeline should be laid by Bharat Oman Refineries Limited;

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

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this Notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S. K. Brahmbhatt , Competent Authority, Vadinar - Bina Crude Oil Pipeline Project , Bharat Oman Refineries Limited , 14 & 14 -A , Krishna Bungalow, Near Prahladnagar , B/h . V.S.N.L. , Bldg. , Ahmedabad-380051 (Gujarat) .

SCHEDULE

Tehsil: Umreth District : Anand

State : Gujarat

SurveyNo.

S. Name ofVillage

Area in Hectare No.

1 2

866P

00.0248

4635 करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाईपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एस. के. ब्रह्मभट्ट, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , वाडीनार बीना क्रूड ऑयल पाईपलाइन परियोजना , भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड , 14 , 14- ए. कृष्णा बंग्लोज , प्रहलादनगर, अहमदाबाद-380051 , ( गुजरात ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

तहसील : सायला

1. Pansora

866P

00.0473

राज्य: गुजरात

अनुसूची जिला: सुरेन्द्रनगर

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क्र.सं. गांव का नाम

00-0434

876

2. Thamna

00.1049

1134/2

00.1563

803/3

1 2

00.0871

74/1

1. चित्रालांक

00-0134

179/3

3. Umreth

00.0653

40पैकी

2. ईश्वरिया

00.0100

180/2

475 P

00.1134

00.2214

601/1

00.0274

602/1

841

00.0008

00.1172

838

00.0232

836

921

00.3304

00.0055

154

00.0300

465

00-0152

257/3

4. Vansol

00-0539

267/3

269

238/5+6

00-0388

238/3+4

[F. No. R- 31015 /23 /2009 -OR- II]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 13 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2174.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार से मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक क्रूड ऑयल के परिवहन हेतु भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाईपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और, केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसी पाईपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि में , जो इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , जिसमें उक्त पाईपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग 281191 / 09-3

00.0732

40पैकी

00.3400 3. चोरविरा ( थान) 359

00.4950

35/1

343/2 पैकी 00.0001 [फा. सं. आर. - 31015 /24/2009- ओआर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th August , 2009

S. O. 2174. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for transportation of crude oil from Vadinar in the State of Gujarat to Bina in the state of Madhya Pradesh, a pipeline should be laid by Bharat Oman Refineries Limited;

And whereas it appears to the Central Government thatfor the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;

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

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this Notification are made available to the public, object inwriting to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S. K. Brahmbhatt , Competent Authority , Vadinar- Bina Crude Oil Pipeline Project , Bharat Oman Refineries Limited , 14 & 14 -А , 4636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

Krishna Bungalow, Near Prahladnagar , B /h . V.S.N.L. , Bldg. , Ahmedabad- 380051 (Gujarat).

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Sayla District : Surendranagar State: Gujarat Name of Village SurveyNo.

S. No.

Area in Hectare 1

74/1

1. Chitralank

00.0871

40P/ 1

00-0653 2. Ishwariya

40P

00.0732

359

00.3400 3. Chorvira (Than)

35/1

00-4950

343/2P

00.0001

[F. No. R-31015/24/2009-OR- II ]

A. GOSWAMI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 13 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2175 ,-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि गुजरात राज्य में वाडीनार से मध्यप्रदेश राज्य में बीना तक क्रूड ऑयल के परिवहन हेतु भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाईपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज़ पाईपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाईपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री एस. के. ब्रह्मभट्ट, सक्षम प्राधि कारी , वाडीनार बीना क्रूड ऑयल पाईपलाइन परियोजना , भारत ओमान रिफाइनरीज लिमिटेड , 23-24. पहली मंजिल ," प्रमुख स्वामी आर्केड ", मालवीया चौक, राजकोट-360 001 ( गुजरात ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील : जामनगर जिला : जामनगर

राज्य : गुजखत क्र.सं. गांव व नाम सर्वे नंबर

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टेयर में 1

i . गागवा

00.0210

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 1 2

2. वसइ

00.0383

00.2280

37/2

00.2592 3. नाधेडी

5 पैकी

00.0500

5 पैकी

00.3812

12पैकी

00.7331

294

00.1673 4. कनसुमरा

00.1420 5. मोरकंडा

180

00.0490

165

00.3965

232

00.3000

233

00.1800

174

00.1500

174

00.1620 6. ठेबा

108पैकी

00.0906

84/2पैकी

00.0502

83 पैकी 00.0710 7. मोटा थावरीया 400पैकी

00.0124

285

00.2125

199

00.0260

151 पैकी

00.0287

151 पैकी

00.0425

152

00.1290 8. अलीयाबाडा

130

00.1150

143

00.0300

142/1 पैकी 00.1150

142/1 पैकी 00.2650

146पैकी

00.1101

146पैकी

00.1590

163/1 पैकी 00.2360

193 पैकी

00.0200

293 पैकी

00.0400

401 पैकी

00.3810

164/2पैकी 00.1907

142/3पैकी 00.0700 9. मोडा

453 पैकी

00.2430

454

00.3700

456

00.1485

474

00.0945

15/2

00.0419

86 पैकी

00.0199

86 पैकी

00.0911 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4637

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

316 पैकी

10. लाखाणी मोटावास

00.2000 1 2

5Paiki

3. Naghedi

390पैकी 2 00.1000

389

00.1196

431पैकी

00.0930

5Paiki

00-3812

12Paiki

00-7331 4. Kansumra

426

00.4559 11. लाखाणी नानावास 232 पैकी

00.0860

233

00.4183 [फा. सं. आर. - 31015/25/2009- ओआर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 13th August, 2009 S. O. 2175. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that fortransportation of crude oil from Vadinar in the State of Gujarat to Bina in the state of Madhya Pradesh, a pipeline should be laid by Bharat Oman Refineries Limited;

294

00-1673

00-1420 5. Morkanda

180

00-0490

165

00-3965

232

233

00-1800

174

00-1500

174

00-1620

00-0906

108 Paiki

6. Theba

84/2Paiki

00-0502

83Paiki

00-0710

00-0124 7. Mota Thavaria 400 Paiki

285

00-2125

199

00-0260

151 Paiki

00-0287

151 Paiki

00-0425

152

00-1290

130

00-1150 8. Aliyabada

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

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

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this Notification are made available to the public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri S. K. Brahmbhatt , Competent Authority , Vadinar - Bina Crude Oil Pipeline Project , Bharat Oman Refineries Limited , 23-24 , Wing - B, Ist Floor , Pramukh Swami Arcade , Malaviya Chowk, Rajkot- 360001 (Gujarat) .

SCHEDULE

143

142/1 Paiki 00-1150

142/1 Paiki 00-2650

146Paiki

00-1590

163/1 Paiki

00-2360

193 Paiki

293Paiki

401 Paiki

00-3810

164/2Paiki

00-1907

142/3 Paiki

9. Moda

453 Paiki

00-2430

454

00-3700

456

00-1485

474

00-0945

15/2

00-0419

86Paiki

00-0199

86Paiki

00-0911

316Paiki

10. Lakhani

Tehsil : Jamnagar District : Jamnagar State : Gujarat S. Name of Village Survey No.

No.

Área in Hectare I 2

4 Motawas

390Paiki 2

389

00-1196

431 Paiki

00-0930

426

00-4559 11. Lakhani

00-0210 1- Gagwa

2. Vasai

00-0383

00-2280

37/2

00-2592

00-0860

232Paiki

233

Nanawas

00-4183

[F. No. R-31015 /25/2009-OR- II ]

A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 /SRAVANA 24, 1931

4638

AWARD

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2009

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

का.आ. 2176 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान मशीन टूल्स लिमिटेड, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 246/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

2. Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents against his terinination in 20-9-99 . Не submitted that he joined the Respondent department as electrician in November , 1994. He prayed this court to set aside the oral termination and direct the Respondents to take him back into service with all consequential benefits .

३ सं. एल -42025/10/2009- आई आर (डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 20th July, 2009

3. Counter was filed by the Respondents . It is submitted that there is no einployer employee relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents . The Petitioner was engaged depending upon the exigency work. That no recruitment took place since about 1983. Hence , the petition is liable to be rejected .

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidences . On 16-2-2009 Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present . In absence of Petitioner or hiswitness the evidence is closed. Since , there is no evidence from side of the Petitioner Respondent's evidence is also closed. Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

S.O. 2176 .---in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. LCID 246/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute betweert the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Machine Tools Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Governmeni on 20-7-2009.

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

[No. L-42025/10/2009 - IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Dictated to Smt . P.Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16th day of February, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

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

Witnesses examined for the : Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 16th day of February , 2009

NIL

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 246/2004

BETWEEN

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Sri S. Siva Sankaram , S/o Venkata Rao , H. N. SRT - 763 , Sanathnagar ,

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

Petitioner

Hyderabad

नई दिल्ली , 20 जुलाई , 2009

And

1. The General Manager ,

Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. , Balanagar , Hyderabad.

...Respondents

2. i he Joint General Manager , (Personnel- in - charge) , Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. , Balanagar , Hyderabad

APPEARANCES

का.आ. 2177.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एयर फोर्स स्टेशन , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

For the Petitioner

M/ s. V.S.Subramanayam & R. S. S. Reddy , Advocates

[सं. एल -14012/20/2008- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009 For the Respondent : M/s. P. Nageswar Sree, K. Raghuram Reddy, Ch. Venkata Raju & T. Vijaya Rao, Advocates

S.O. 2177. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

4639 Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 21/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, No. I, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofAir Force Station and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-07-2009 .

[No. L- 14012/20/2008 - IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

4. Management submitted its written statement to the terms ofreference . It was claimed that Indian Air Force isneither an Industry nor Rajesh Kumar was an Industrial Employee. It was agitated that there was no industrial dispute. , which could be referred by the appropriate government for adjudication . A claim was made that service of Shri Rajesh Kumar were availed on day to day basis as peravailability of the work. When work came to an end , he was not called to render services . There was no obligation onCommanding Officer, Air Force Station , Rajokari Delhi to regularize Rajesh Kumar in the services , bye passing Central Government Recruitment Rules . Claim of Rajesh Kumar was devoid of merits and there is no substance in it.

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

I.D. No. 21/2009

Rajesh Kumar S/ oLate Shri Piare Lal C/oGeneralMazdoor Lal Jhanda Union, 3, VPHouse , Rafi Marg,

NewDelhi

...Workman

Versus

TheCommanding Officer,

25Wing,

AirForce Station,

Rajokari , Delhi.

Management

AWARD

5.As projected Rajesh Kumar was engaged on day to day basis by Commanding Officer , Air Force Station , Rajokari Delhi , as per availability of work. He worked as Carpenter on casual basis . When work came to an end , Rajesh Kumar was not called by the Commanding Officer to render his services . Question for consideration comes as towhether Commanding Officer , 25 Air Force Station , Rajokari Delhi can be called an " Industry. " To answer that proposition the court has to see as to whether activities of AirForce Station , Rajokari Delhi satisfies the triple test of systematic activity, co-operation between employer and employee and production of goods and services , as laid down by the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply case (AIR 1978 SC 540). Air Force Station Rajokari does not produce goods and render services to the public at large. It does not carry out any systematic activity for the purpose ofproduction of goods or services . Under these situations itwould be wrong to say that the activities carried out at Air Force Station , Rajokari , Delhi answers the test of " Industry" as contemplated within the meaning of clause (j ) of Section 2 ofthe Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( in short theAct).

Rajesh Kumar was engaged as a Carpenter , on daily wagebasisby Commanding Officer , 25 -B, Air Force Station, Rajokari , Delhi . His services were utilized , as and when there was work for him . When work came to an end, he was not engagedby the Commanding Officer Air Force Station, Rajokari , Delhi after Ist ofOctober, 2007. Rajesh Kumar felt aggrieved by the said action and raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed the appropriate government referred a dispute to this Tribunal vide letter No. L- 14012/20/2008- IR (DU) dated 2-3-2009 with the following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of Commanding Officer, 25 Wing, Air Force Station , Rajokari Delhi in terminating the services of their workman Shri Rajesh Kumar S/o Late Shri P. Lal w.e.f. 1-10-2007 is legal and justified. If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ."

2. The appropriate government directed the workman to file his claim statement within a period of 15 days from the date of reference , i.e. 2nd of March , 2009. Despite the directions the workman opted not to file any claim statement.

6. To term the dispute between Rajesh Kumar and the Commanding Officer Air Force, Station Rajokari , New Delhi as an industrial dispute , it is incumbent upon the workman to show that functions performed by the Commanding Officer were not soverign functions and he was carrying out any business, trade or undertaking , or was rendering service to the public . Admittedly Commanding Officer, Air Forece Station , Rajokari , Delhi was carrying out soverign function of the Government and cannot be called an ' Industry' . Law to this effect was laid inMohan ( 1994 ILR 169) . When Air Force Station was not an industry , it cannot be said, that dispute between Rajesh Kumar and Commanding Officer , Air Force Station , Rajokari New Delhi was an industrial dispute.

3. A notice was sent to the workman by registered post on 9-6-09 , calling upon him to file his claim statement before this Tribunal . Neither postal article was received back nor anyone appeared on behalf of the workman. Every presumption lies in favour of the fact that Rajesh Kumar was served with the notice . Despite service of the notice Rajesh Kumar opted not to file any claim statement in the matter.

7. Soverign functions performed by Commanding Officer , Air Force Station , Rajokri , Delhi were perceived by the appropriate Government as ' Industry ' within the meaning of clause (j ) of Section 2 of the Act , which fact makes it clear that the reference was made without application ofmind. There was no industrial dispute between 4640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

Shri Rajesh Kumar and the Commanding Officer , Air Force Station, Rajokari, Delhi , which can be referred to this Tribunal Adjudicating clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Act. Consequently it is concluded that there was no industrial dispute between the parties and as such no adjudication is called for from this Tribunal , to decide as to whether the action of the Commanding Officer in terminating the services of Rajesh Kumar w.e.f. 1-10-07 was legal and justified. In view ofthese findings no relief is to be according to the workman . Reference is answered accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2009

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2. The ChiefGeneral Manager , Telecom. , BSNL, A.P. Circle , Door Sanchar Bhawan , Nampalli, Hyderabad- 1 .

3. The General Manager Telecom District, BSNL , Khammam- 507050.

4. The Sub-Divisional Officer , Telecom. BSNL, Kothagudem.

Respondents APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : Nil

Nil

For the Respondent

का.आ. 2178.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40025/20/2009- आईआर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009

S.O. 2178.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. LCID 29/2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-7-2009 .

[No. L-40025/20/2009 -IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

AWARD

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

2. Petitioner filed this petition to declare the contract oflabour supply as fictitious , camouflage , subterfuge , etc. , and also declare that the applicant to be employee of the principal employer (BSNL) and to direct the Respondents for conferment of temporary status and regularization to the applicant w.e.f. 1-8-1998 with monetary benefits and with continuity of service and other service benefits .

3. On 3-2-2009 both parties called absent. Since Petitioner is absent and no adjournment application has been moved, as such the case is dismissed in absence of parties . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 3rd day of February, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 16th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute L. C.No. 29/2008

BETWEEN

Sri Chelikani Srinivasa Rao

S/ o Late Satyam ,

R/o Aswapuram-507116 ,

Petitioner Khammam District .

AND

1. The Managing Director , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Sanchar Bhawan , 20 , Ashoka Raod, New Delhi - 1

Respondent

Nil

Documents marked for the Petitioner Nil

Documents marked for the Respondent Nil

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2179.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान मशीन टूल्स लिमिटेड , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

4641

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

संख्या 249/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

fitter on 1-2-1995 . He prayed this court to set aside the oral termination and direct the Respondents to take him back into service with all consequential benefits .

[सं. एल -42025/7/2009- आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

3. Counter was filed by the Respondents . It is submitted that there is no employer employee -relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents . The Petitioner was engaged depending upon the exigency work . That no recruitment took place since about 1983. Hence, the petition is liable to be rejected.

New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009 S.O. 2179. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. LCID 249/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Machine Tools Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-7-2009 .

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidences . On 16-2-2009 Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present. In absence of Petitioner or his witness the evidence is closed . Since there is no evidence from side ofPetitioner Respondent's evidence is also closed. Hence, Nil Award is passed in absence ofevidence .

[No. L-42025/7/2009 - IR (DU)]

Award passed accordingly . Transmit.

ANNEXURE

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16th day of February, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for the Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 16th day of February , 2009

for the Petitioner

Respondent

Industrial Dispute L.C.No. 249/2004

Nil

BETWEEN

Documents marked for the Petitioner Nil Documents marked for the Respondent

Nil

Petitioner

Sri D.V. Srinivasa Rao , S/o D. Sambasivarao , H. No. 5-7-61 , Sanathnagar, Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

AND

नई दिल्ली , 20 जुलाई, 2009

1. The General Manager , Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. , Balanagar , Hyderabad.

Respondents

2. The Joint General Manager, (Personnel- in-charge) , Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. , Balanagar , Hyderabad APPEARANCES

का.आ. 2180.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान मशीन टूल्स लिमिटेड, के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 248/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

For the Petitioner : M/ s. V.S. Subramanayam and R.S.S. Reddy, Advocates .

[सं. एल-42025/8/2009-आईआर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी For the Respondent

New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009

: M/ s . P. Nageswar Sree , K. Raghuram Reddy, Ch . Venkata Raju and T. Vijaya Rao , Advocates .

AWARD

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

SO. 2180.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. LCID 248/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Machine Tools Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-7-2009.

2. Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents against his termination on 20-7-2000 . He subinitted that he joined the Respondent department as

[No. L-42025/8/2009 -IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer 4642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2009 / SRAVANA 24 , 1931

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 16th day of February, 2009

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )] Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant , transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16th day of February , 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

Industrial Dispute L.C.No. 248/2004

BETWEEN

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Nil

for the Petitioner

Nil

Sri K. Ramakrishna ,

S/o Veeraiah ,

R/ o 3-26/2, Gokulnagar , Gollabasti , Patancheruvu ,

... Petitioner Medak District .

AND

1. The General Manager, Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. , Balanagar , Hyderabad .

Respondents 2. The Joint General Manager , (Personnel - in - change) , Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. , Balanagar , Hyderabad

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. V.S. Subramanayam and R.S.S. Reddy , Advocates .

For the Respondent M/s . P. Nageswar Sree , Κ. Raghuram Reddy , Ch. Venkata Raju and T. Vijaya Rao, Advocates .

AWARD

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

2. Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents against his termination in January, 1996. Не submitted that he joined the Respondent department as helper in the year, 1980. He prayed this court to set aside the oral termination and direct the Respondents to take him back into service with all consequential benefits .

3. Counter was filed by the Respondents . It is submitted that there is no employer employee relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents . The Petitioner was engaged depending upon the exigency work. That no recruitment took place since about 1983. Hence , the petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidences . On 16-2-2009 Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present . In absence of Petitioner or his witness the evidence is closed. Since there is no evidence from side of Petitioner Respondent's evidence is also closed . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence.

Documents marked for the Petitioner Nil Documents marked for the Respondent Nil

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2181.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान मशीन टूल्स लिमिटेड , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एलसीआईडी 247/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42025/9/2009 - आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009

S.O. 2181. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. LCID 247/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers inrelation to the management of Hindustan Machine Tools Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-7-2009.

[No. L-42025/9 /2009- IR (DU)] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 16th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C.No. 247/2004 BETWEEN

... Petitioner Sri P. Satyanarayana , S/o P. Kondayya, R/o 5-740 , Bhavaninagar, Old Alwal , Hyderabad .

AND

1. The General Manager , Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. , Balanagar , Hyderabad.

4643

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2. The Joint General Manager , (Personnel - in -charge) , Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. ,

Balanagar, Hyderabad

... Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

: M/s. V.S. Subramanayam and R.S.S. Reddy, Advocates .

For the Respondent : M/ s . P. Nageswar Sree . K. Raghuram Reddy, Ch. Venkata Raju and T. Vijaya Rao , Advocates .

AWARD

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

2. Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents against his termination in 20-2-1997 . He submitted that he joined the Respondent department as electrician on 19-11-1991 . He prayed this court to set aside the oral termination and direct the Respondents to take him back into service with all consequential benefits .

3. Counter was filed by the Respondents . It is submitted that there is no employer employee relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents . The Petitioner was engaged depending upon the exigency work . That no recruitment took place since about 1983. Hence , the petition is liable to be rejected.

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidences . On 16-2-2009 Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present . In absence of Petitioner or his witness the evidence is closed . Since there is no evidence from side of Petitioner Respondent's evidence is also closed. Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assitant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16th day of February, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Nil

Documents marked for the Petitioner Nil

Documents marked for the Respondent Nil

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2182.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान 2811 GI /09-4

मशीन टूल्स लिमिटेड , के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एलसीआईडी 250/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42025/6/2009- आईआर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009

S.O. 2182.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. LCID 250/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Machine Tools Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-7-2009 .

[No. L-42025/6/2009 - IR (DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 16th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 250/2004

BETWEEN

Sri P.V. Satyanarayana ,

S/ o Satyanarayana,

... Petitioner R/o LIG -88 , Dharmareddy Colony , Phase - I , Kukatpally, Hyderabad.

AND

1. The General Manager , Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. , Balanagar , Hyderabad.

....Respondents 2. The Joint General Manager , (Personnel - in- charge) , Hindustan Machine Tools Ltd. , Balanagar , Hyderabad

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Petitioner

: M/s. V.S. Subramanayam and R.S.S. Reddy, Advocates .

For the Respondent : M/ s . P. Nageswar Sree, K. Raghuram Reddy, Ch . Venkata Raju and T. Vijaya Rao , Advocates .

AWARD

This is a case taken under Sec . 2A(2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989dated 4644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 /SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Praga Tools Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-7-2009 .

[No. L-42025/ 5 /2009 -IR (DU)]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer 2. Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents against his termination on 20-9-1999 . He submitted that he joined the Respondent department as fitter on 1-3-1993 . He prayed this court to set aside the oral termination and direct the Respondents to take him back into service with all consequential benefits .

ANNEXURE

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

3. Counter was filed by the Respondents . It is submitted that there is no employer employee relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondents . The Petitioner was engaged depending upon the exigency work . That no recruitment took place since about 1983. Hence , the petition is liable to be rejected.

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of February , 2009

Industrial Dispute L. C.No. 256/2004

BETWEEN

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidences . On 16-2-2009 Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present. In absence of Petitioner or his witness the evidence is closed . Since there is no evidence from side of Petitioner , Respondent's'evidence isalso closed . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence.

... Petitioner

Sri D. Venkata Reddy, 'S/ o D. Narayana Reddy, R/ o H. No. 219 , L.I.G.H. Bharath Nagar Colony, Sanath Nagar , 1.E. (Ρ.Ο. ) Hyderabad-500018 .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

AND

Dictatedto Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant, transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by me on this the 16th day of February , 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

TheManaging Director, M/s . Praga Tools Limited , (A public sector undertaking, under the M /o Heavy Industries and Public Enterprises , a subsidiary Unit of HMTLtd.) Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Kavadiguda , Secunderabad -500080

...Respondent Nil

Nil

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

Documents marked for the Petitioner Nil

: M/ s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy, P. Srinivasulu and B.V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates

For the Respondent

Documents marked for the Respondent Nil

नई दिल्ली , 20 जुलाई , 2009

: M/ s . P. Nageswar Sree , K. Raghurama Reddy, Ch . Venkata Raju and T. Vijaya Rao , Advocates .

AWARD

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

का.आ. 2183.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. प्रागा टूल्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एलसीआईडी 256/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42025 /5/2009 - आई.आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] सरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Della, me 20th 2009

5.O. 2183-1o pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. LCID 256/2004) of the Central Government Industrial

2. Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents against his termination w.e.f. 21-10-1987 . He submitted that he was appointed in the Respondent department as casual clerk on 26-8-1986 without any appointment order . That though he worked continuously till 21-10-1987 , he was not allowed to join his duties w.e.f. 21-10-1987 . Hence , he prayed this court to direct the Respondents to take him back into service with all consequential benefits .

4645

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3. Counter was filed by the Respondents . It is submitted that the petitioner was engaged on casual basis w.e.f. August, 1986 in exigency of work. It is submitted that the Petitioner approached this tribunal after a gap of 19 years ofhis alleged termination dated 21-10-1987. Hence , the petition be dismissed.

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidences . Petitioner filed his evidence affidavit . On 5-2-2009 , Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel present. Petitioner is not present for cross- examination, as such the evidence of Petitioner is closed. Hence, Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected and pronounced by me on this the 5th day of February , 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent WW1 : Shri D. Venkata Reddy Nil

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Nil

Documents marked for the Respondent

Nil

नई दिल्ली , 20 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2184.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार डाक विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 56/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-40025/ 19/2009- आईआर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009

S. O. 2184. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. LCID 56/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Posts and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 20-7-2009 .

[No. L -40025/ 19 /2009 - IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , PresidingOfficer Dated the 12th day of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 56/2007

BETWEEN

SriU. Devasundaram, S/o U. Giddaiah ,

C/o M/ s . M. Venkanna ,

..... Petitioner Advocate, 2nd floor , Bhagyanagar Junior College , Vegetable Market Road, Nallakunta , Hyderabad .

AND

1. The Chief Postmaster General , A.P. Circle , Hyderabad- 1 .

2. The Postmaster General , Kurnool Region , Kurnool-5 .

3. The Supdt. of Post Offices , Kurnool Division , Kurnool - 1 .

4. The Head Post Master , Kurnool Head Post Office, Kurnool- 1 .

Respondents APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

: Ms. M. Venkanna, Dr. Raghu Kumar and B. Pavan Kumar, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s . P. Ravinder Reddy and M. Mallikarjun , Advocates

AWARD

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

2. Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents against his termination dated 30-4-1988 (AN) . He submitted that he was appointed in the Respondent department to the post of Contingent Part Time Chowkidar (Day time), Kurnool Head Post Office w.e.f. 25-7-1981 . As per the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal order dated 10-6-1988, he continued till 9-5-1998 . Hance, he prayed this court to direct the Respondents to take him back into service with all consequential benefits .

4646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on20-7-2009 .

3. Counter was filed by the Respondents . It is submitted that the Petitioner was engaged as part time day watchman , Kurnool H.P.O. on 25-7-1981 and discharged duties upto 9-5-1998 and that this contingent arrangement is purely temporary . The Respondent quoted different letters/ circulars of Respondent, and orders of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal .

[No. L-40025/ 18 /2009 - IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidences . On 12-2-2009 Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel present. Since Petitioner is absent and no adjournment application has been moved , as such the evidence of Petitioner is closed. Since there is no evidence on behalf of Petitioner , Respondent is also not willing to file evidence . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 24th day of June , 2009

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 72/2005

BETWEEN

Dictated to Sint . P. Pahani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 12th day of February, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

...Petitioner

Sri G. Satish , S/ o Deshram, R/ o4-5-296/ 4 , Valmiki Nagar, Karimnagar.

Appendix of evidence

AND

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

TheSub -Divisional Officer (SDOP - I ), Telecom , Telephone Bhavan , OldBuilding, Karimnagar

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

Documents marked for the Petitioner

For the Petitioner :

NIL

For the Respondent :

Sri K. Srinivasa Rao , Advocate Sri Karoor Mohan , Advocate

AWARD

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2009

Sri G. Satish has filed this petition under Sec.2 A (2) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No.8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others challenging his disengagement dated 1-8-2003 as illegal , arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and for his reinstatement in the service with full back wages .

का. आ. 2185,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 72/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40025/ 18/2009- आईआर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th July , 2009

S. O. 2185.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. LCID 72/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure

2. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that he joined in the service of the Respondent organization as scavenger in the year 1984 and he worked continuously till his services were terminated w.e.f. 1-8-2003 without assigning any reason or without issuing any notice . He alleged that he used to work from 6 AM to 11 AM his nature of duty was cleaning of the premises and scavenging work . Though the Petitioner has been reporting for the duty but the Respondent has prevented the Petitioner from entering into the premises of the Respondent . That amounts to oral termination which is illegal and unjust and violative of principles ofnatural justice .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4647

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. WI: Copyof representation given to SDO , Karimnagar dtd. 18-11-2000

Ex. W2: Service certificate dtd . 20-11-2000

Ex. W3 : Service certificate dtd . 22-11-2000 3. Respondent has filed counter statement wherein they have alleged that the Petitioner neither worked since 1984 continuously nor he was terminated on 1-8-2003 . Neither Petitioner ever reported for duty nor he was ever prevented from entering into the premises of the Respondent management. Petitioner has got no legal right to seek regularization . No illegality has been committed by the Respondent.

Ex. W4: Service certificate dtd . 31-12-1985

Ex.W5: Copy of legal notice dtd . 22-6-2005 4. Parties were directed to produce their evidence. Petitioner G. Satish has filed his affidavit and presented himself for cross examination .

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई, 2009

का. आ. 2186. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40025 / 17/2009- आईआर(डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009 5. On the date of argument, neither the parties nor their counsels appeared , as such , arguments has been closed . I have gone through the claim petition , counter statement and evidence of the Petitioner . The Petitioner has filed service certificate Ex . W2 and W3 to prove that he has worked w.e.f. January , 1992 to June, 1994 and July , 1994 toMay, 1998 at Old Telegraph Exchange , Karimnagar. However, the department alleges that the Petitioner has never worked in the department . The Respondent has challenged this service certificate and they have suggested that last line in the alleged service certificate has been typed afterwards by another machine , though the Petitioner has denied to this suggestion , but a look at the service certificate goes to show that the content " and the payment was made by ACG - 17 " was typed by another machine in all the three service certificates who has issued this certificate has not been proved by the Petitioner . The Petitioner himself has admitted that he has not filed any appointment letter or termination order .

S. O. 2186. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. LCID 69/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-7-2009 .

[No. L-40025/ 17/2009 - IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

6. Though he has denied the suggestion that he was not engaged by the department nor he worked under the department but he has not produced any certificate or any document to show that he has worked in the department ofSub- Divisional Officer, Telecom Old Building for any stretch of the time or he has been disengaged by any oral order . As such , he has not been able to prove either his appointment or his termination by the department and he can not claim any relief on hypothetical statement. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

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

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

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 23rd day of March , 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 69/2006 BETWEEN

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

WW 1 : Sri G. Satish

Sri Akula Mallesham , S/o Narasaiah , 4648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 /SRAVANA 24, 1931

C/ o A. Sarojana , Advocate ,

...Petitioner Flat No.G - 7, Rajeshwari Gayatri Sadan , Opp: Badruka Girls Jr. College, Kachiguda, Hyderabad .

AND

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] Award passed accordingly . Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 23rd day of March, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

1. The General Manager , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Southern Telecom Region , 6-1-85 / 1 0 , Sai Nilayam, Saifabad, Hyderabad.

2. The Divisional Engineer , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Southern Telecom Region, Karimnagar.

...Respondents 3. The Sub Divisional Engineer , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Southern Telecom Region , Old Telephone Exchange Building , Karimnagar.

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner: M/s . A. Sarojana and K. Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates

For the Respondent : Sri R.S. Murthy, Advocates

AWARD

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

2. Petitioner filed this petition stating that he worked as full time mazdoor in the office of the 3rd Respondent from July , 2001 onwards to 30-4-2005 and from 1-5-2005 he was disengaged orally . He requested to direct the management to reinstate him with back wages and all attendant benefits .

3. Respondents filed counter denying averments made by the Petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never engaged by the bank . That there is no scope to engage him in the name of M. Rangaiah and pay him the wages is against departmental rules. Hence , it is prayed to dismiss the petition .

4. Parties were directed to adduce their respective evidences . On 16-2-2009 Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present . There is none to file affidavit on behalf of Petitioner as such , Petitioner's evidence is closed. Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence ofany evidence .

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2187.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -40025 / 16/2009-आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009

S. O. 2187.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. LCID 10/2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-7-2009 .

[No. L -40025/16/2009- IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 2nd day of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 10/2002 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4649

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

(Old I.D. No. 44/99 Transferred from Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Visakhapatnam)

BETWEEN

Sri Sarika Sanyasi Rao ,

C/o Sri Rapeti Rama Rao ,

Advocate ,

Ex.W1 to W8 . Ex. W1 is the copy of the Lawyer's notice and Ex . W2 to W8 are original copies of the muster roll note book . Petitioner was cross examined and case is fixed for further evidence of Petitioner . Sri M. Naveen Kumar, R/o Gopala Patnam was examined as WW2 and cross examined by the Respondent . Management filed affidavit as examination in chief of Sri U. Rama Krishna , Sub- Divisional Engineer .

...Petitioner

D.No.14-2-10 , Kaspa Street , Anakapalle .

AND

1. The Chief General Manager,

Telecom, A.P. ,

Hyderabad.

2. The Sub -Divisional Officer ,

Telecommunications ,

Chodavaram.

Visakhapatnam District.

5. On 2-2-2009 , when case is called for cross examination ofMWI , both parties called absent . Ordersheet transpires that Petitioner as well as Respondent are not attending to this case for last three years , as such evidence is closed . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit.

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner:

M/ s . A. Venkateswara Rao & Rapeti Rama Rao , Advocates

M/ sM. Ramkoti & For the Respondent :

M. Madhava Rao , Advocates

AWARD

This is a case taken under Sec.2 A (2 ) of the 1.D. Act , 1947 by the Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court , Visakhapatnam in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No.8395 of1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa andM/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others and transferred to this Court in view of the Government of India , Ministry of Labour's order No.H- 11026/1 /2001 IR(C- II) dated 18-10-2001 bearing I.T.ID. No.44/1999 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D.No. 10/2002 .

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating his services w.e.f. 30-8-84 without any notice or order . He stated that he joined in the Respondent organization we.f. 1-2-1984 and he worked without break for six months . He prayed this court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him with back wages , continuity of service etc.

3. A counter was filed denying the allegations made by the Petitioner in the claim petition . It is submitted that the workman is a casual employee on daily wages only . Hence, the petition be dismissed.

4. Petitioner filed rejoinder reiterating the facts mentioned in his petition . Parties were asked to produce their respective evidences . Petitioner filed his chief examination affidavit as WWI and marked documents Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 2nd day of February, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

MWI: Sri U. Rama Krishna WW1 : Sri Sariki Sanyasi Rao WW2 : Sri M. Naveen Kumar

Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1:

Copy of Lawyer's notice

Ex .W2 to W8: Original muster roll note book issued by SDOT, Chodavaram .

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नईदिल्ली , 20 जुलाई, 2009

का. आ. 2188. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 209/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40025/ 15/2009 - आईआर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009

S. O. 2188.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. LCID 4650

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 /SRAVANA 24, 1931

casual mazdoor in September , 1997 at Hyderabad and later he was transferred to Visakhapatnam in January , 1999 and worked upto 31-8-2002 . He prayed this court to set aside the oral termination and direct the Respondents to take him back into service with all consequential benefits .

209/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-7-2009 .

[No. L-40025/ 15/2009 - IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. Counter was filed by the Respondents . It is submitted that there is no documentary proof regarding Petitioner's appointment or termination . That the department used to engage casual labour for intermittent works at installation wing of the department on daily wages . No casual labour has completed 240 days in a calendar year. Hence , the petition be dismissed.

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of February, 2009

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidences . Petitioner filed his evidence affidavit in 2006 . On 17-2-2009 both parties called absent . Since Petitioner is not present for cross examination as such the evidences of parties are closed. Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence ofevidence .

Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 209/2004

BETWEEN

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Sri P. Bhaskar Rao ,

S/o P.N. Murthy,

Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 17th day of February, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer

...Petitioner

C/o M/ s . M. Panduranga Rao , Advocate , H.No.2-2-18/40/10 , DD Colony, Bagh Amberpet , Hyderabad.

Appendix of evidence

AND

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

WWI: Sri P. Bhaskar Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner 1. The Chief General Manager , Telecom , BSNL , A.P. Circle , Door Sanchar Bhawan , Nampalli , Hyderabad -1.

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

.Respondents

2. The General Manager , O/ o General Manager , Telecom District , BSNL , Visakhapatnam.

APPEARANCES

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2009

For the Petitioner :

M/s. M. Panduranga Rao & M. Srikanth , Advocates

Sri V. Rajeswara Rao , Advocate

For the Respondent

AWARD

का. आ. 2189.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दूर संचार विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 210/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-40025/14/2009- आईआर( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009

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

S. O. 2189. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. LCID 2. Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents against his termination w.e.f. 31-8-2002 . He submitted that he joined the Respondent department as 4651 भारत का राजपत्र: अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

casual mazdoor in September , 1997 at Hyderabad and later he was transferred to Visakhapatnam on 1-12-1998 and worked upto August, 2003. He prayed this Court to set aside the oral termination and direct the Respondents to take him back into service with all consequential benefits. 210/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on20-7-2009.

[No. L-40025/14/2009 - IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. Counter was filed by the Respondents . It is submitted that there is no documentary proof regarding Petitioner's appointment or termination . That the department used to engage casual labour for intermitent works at installation wing of the department on daily wages . No casual labour has completed 240 days in a calendar year. Hence, the petition be dismissed.

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of February, 2009

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidences . Petitioner filed his evidence affidavit in 2006. On 17-2-2009 both parties called absent. Since Petitioner is not present for cross - examination as such the evidences ofparties are closed. Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence ofevidence .

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 210/2004

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

BETWEEN

Sri G. Durga Pratap ,

S/o Prabhakara Rao ,

Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her , corrected and pronounced by me on this the 17th day of February , 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix ofevidence

... Petitioner

C/o M/s . M. Panduranga Rao , Advocate , H.No.2-2-18/40/10 , DD Colony, Bagh Amberpet , Hyderabad.

AND

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Witnesses examined for thePetitioner

NIL

WW 1 : Sri G. Durga Pratap

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

1. The Chief General Manager , Telecom , BSNL , A.P. Circle , Door Sanchar Bhawan , Nampalli , Hyderabad - 1 .

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

...Respondents

2. The General Manager, O/o General Manager , Telecom District , BSNL , Visakhapatnam.

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2009

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : M/ s . M. Panduranga Rao & M. Srikanth , Advocates

For the Respondent : Sri V. Rajeswara Rao , Advocate

AWARD

का. आ. 2190.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 224/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40025 /13/2009- आईआर(डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी This is a case taken under Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgment ofthe Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No.8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009

S. O. 2190.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central 2. Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents against his termination in August , 2003. He submitted that he joined the Respondent department as

2811 Gl/09-5 4652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 /SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[ PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii)) Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. LCID 224/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-7-2009 .

in terminating him . He submitted that he was engaged as casual mazdoor by the Telecom department in the month ofJune , 1997 and from 2-2-2001 he was engaged as Motor Driver . It is submitted that he was orally terminated on 4-6-2004 . He prays this court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him into service with full back wages and other attendant benefits .

[ No. L-40025/ 13/2009 - IR( DU ) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer

3. As against this , the Respondent filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was engaged on casual basis from June , 1997.It is submitted that pursuant to instructions contained in Lr . No.270-6/84 - STN dated 30-3-1985 , Respondent stopped engagement of casual labour from 1-4-1985 and the Petitioner might have been taken for a particular work and for a particular period on casual basis . Hence , the petition be dismissed.

Dated the 17th day of February , 2009

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 224/2004

BETWEEN

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support oftheir respective contentions . Petitioner filed his chief examination affidavit and got marked Ex. Wl to W6 documents and he was cross examined by the Respondent .

Sri K. Babulal,

S/o K. Ramulu,

5. On 17-2-2009 both parties called absent . Witness also absent as such , evidence is closed. Hence, Nil Award .is passed in absence of evidence .

C/ o M/ s . M. Panduranga Rao , Advocate, H.No.2-2-18/40/20 , DD Colony, Bagh Amberpet, Hyderabad .

..Petitioner

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

AND

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant , transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 17th day of February , 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer 1. The Chief General Manager , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Door Sanchar Bhawan, Nampally, Station Road, Hyderabad.

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

thePetitioner

the Respondent

2. The Deputy General Manager , Installations , Appointment Circle, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Nampally, Station Road, Hyderabad .

WW I : Sri K. Babulal NIL

..Respondents

APPEARANCES

Documents marked for the Petitioner

For the Petitioner :

Ex. WI : Copy of certificatedt.5-9-2001

M/ s. M. Panduranga Rao & M. Srikanth , Advocates

Ex. W2: Copy of certificate dt . 15-7-2002

For the Respondent : Sri V. Rajeswara Rao , Advocate

AWARD

Ex.W3: Copy of Ir. No.T A/TI - HD /BSNL/ G - 1 /02-03/12 dated 31-1-2003

Ex. W4: Copy of certificate dated 10-5-2003

Ex. W5 : Copy of certificate dated 14-6-2004

Ex.W6: Vehicle logbook

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No.8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4653

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 20 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2191.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 211/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40025/ 12/2009 - आईआर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009

S.O. 2191.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.211/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Governrnent on 20-7-2009.

[No. L-40025/ 12/2009 - IR ( DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 17th day of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 211/2004 BETWEEN

Sri Y. Srinivasa Rao , S/o Subba Rao ,

C/ o M/ s . M. Panduranga Rao , Advocate, H. No. 2-2-18/40/10 , DD Colony, Bagh Amberpet , Hyderabad.

....Petitioner

AND

1. The Chief General Manager , Telecom , BSNL , A.P. Circle, Door Sanchar Bhawan, Nampalli , Hyderbad- 1 .

2. The General Manager, O/ o General Manager , Telecom District , BSNL , Visakhapatnam .

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner :

M/s. M. Panduranga Rao & M. Srikanth , Advocates For the Respondent : Sri V. Rajeswara Rao , Advocate

AWARD

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

2. Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents against his oral termination dated 15-3-2002 . He submitted that he joined the Respondent department as casual mazdoor in August, 1997 at Hyderabad and later he was transferred to Visakhapatnam on 31-12-99 and worked upto 15-3-2002 . He prayed this court to set aside the oral termination and direct the Respondents to take him back into service with all consequential benefits .

3. Counter was filed by the Respondents .It is submitted that there is no documentary proof regarding Petitioner's appointment or termination . That the department used to engage casual labour for intermittent works at installation wing ofthe department on daily wages . No casual labour has completed 240 days in a calendar year. Hence, the petition be dismissed .

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidences . On 17-2-2009 both parties called absent . Since Petitioner is absent and no adjournment application has been moved , as such the evidence is closed . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of parties .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 17th day of February, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondnet

NIL NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL 4654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA 24 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 20 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2192.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्थ ईस्टर्न रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/43/2000- आईआर ( बी 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th July, 2009

S.O. 2192. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of North Eastern Railway and their workınan , which was received by the Central Coverunent on 20-7-2009 .

[No. L-41012/ 43/2000- IR(B- 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW Present : N. K. Purohit , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 61/2000 Ref. No. L -41012/ 43/2000/IR ( B-1)

dated : 17-08-2000

BETWEEN

Shri Jagan Nath

5/ o Shri Madhoram Rio Dharaincha Bazar, Sitapur

AND

1 The Divisional Railway Manager , North Eastern Railway, DRM Office , Ashok Marg, Lucknow

2. The Assistant Engineer , AEN Office , Sitapur

AWARD

30-06-2009

1. By order No. L -41012/ 43 /2000 / IR( B - I ) dated: 17-08-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour, New Delhi in exercise ofpowers conferred by clause

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (d) ofsub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section, 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Jagan Nath S/o Shri Madhoram , R/ o Dharaincha Bazar , Sitapur and the Divisional Railway Manager , North Eastern Railway , DRM Office, Ashok Marg , Lucknow and the Assistant Engineer , AEN Office , Sitapur for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is :

"Whether the Action of North Eastern Railway in Terminating the services for Shri Jagan Nath, Casual Khallasi from 01-07-1984 was Legal and Justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 3. In brief, the workman's case is that he was initially appointed as casual Khalasi on 16-08-1976 under IOW, Sitapur. He performed duties up to 30-06-1984 at Sitapur and his total working days in total service come to 751 days. He has already completed more than 120 days continuous service before 01-07-1984 and as such he has acquired status of temporary railway servant much before 01-07-1984 and thus , his services would not be disengaged w.e.f. 01-07-1984 by DRM , NER, Lucknow without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. He has also stated that neither the work has stopped nor there has been shrinkage of cadre . He has alleged that no seniority was displaced before his retrenchment . Neither any seniority list was prepared nor the first come last go rule was observed. Various juniors to the workman have been given appointment . His termination is in violation of Rule 149 of Railway Establishment Code Vol. I and Section 25 F , G , H of the I. D. Act. The workman has further stated that he made several representations to the concerned authorities but the opposite party did not give any response .

4. The workman has further submitted that he was not sufficiently literate to understand the implications of the delay , therefore , he approached to concerned officials during intervening period but the administration did not reply. In between he also suffered from various ailments; as such he had great difficulty in collecting money for taking proper legal steps in raising industrial dispute . In such circumstances the delay in raising the dispute be condoned . He has alleged that matter has been delayed on account of the opposite party .

5. The opposite party in its written statement besides denying the claim of the workman , has raised preliminary objection regarding his initial engagement as casual labour on 16-08-1976 and has submitted that the same is not factually correct as verified from records of the concerned working unit . Thus , his claim be rejected for claiming wrong particulars . It is further stated that the claim is lawfully time barred and not maintainable on any score . It has been submitted that due to abnormal long intervening period of time since 17-08-76 no relevant record can be possible to भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

locate , moreover , as per directions of the Railway Board, Ministry ofRailway vide their circular dated 22-11-1984 no casual labour is entitled to any relief if he has not worked on Railway again in the preceding two complete calendar years .

6. In rejoinder, the workman besides reiterating his earlier averments made in the statement ofclaim , has also stated that Casual Labour Card was issued to him wherein actual working days have been mentioned deliberately and malafidely and their artificial breaks have been given . Actual period ofworking can be verified from attendance register, live register , muster roll and pay slips . He has further stated that his name is mentioned at SL . No. 18 in the list of year 1981 for casual labourers working in Section Engineer (Works) , Sitapur . In the said list working days of the workman has been verified on 24-10-96by Section Engineer (Works) on the basis of live register in pursuance to circular ofRailway Board for re - absorption .

7. In support ofhis claim the workman has examined himself as witness ; whereas in rebuttal the management has examined Sh . S.N. Bajpai , Asstt. Divisional Engineer , NER. Both the sides have also produced documents in support of their respective cases .

8. Heard the arguments advanced by the learned representative of both the sides and perused the relevant records .

9. Learned representative on behalf of the workman has contended that from the oral statement of the workman and Casual Labour Card issued to the workman , it is well proved that workman had worked as Khalasi from 16-08-1976 . As per list of casual workers in the year 1981 the name of the workman is at SL . No 18 and his date of engagement has been mentioned as 16-05-78 and it has also been shown that total working days at that time to be 751. He has further argued that the workman had worked continuously for 120 days during the period 16-05-1976 to 16-09-78 thus ; he had acquired the temporary status as per provisions of the Railway Manual . Moreover , the workman has also worked for more than 240 days in each year during the said period 16-5-1976 to 30-6-84 . Thus , his termination is arbitrary and illegal and in violation of Section 25 F , G , H ofthe I.D. Act . He has further contended that on the basis of delay claim cannot be rejected. The provision of Limitation Act are not applicable in the matter of industrial dispute. Moreover , workman has explained the reasons for the delay. In support of his contention he has also placed reliance on the following case law :

(i ) 1981 SCC ( L & S) 478 Mohan Lal Vs M /s . Bharat Electronics Ltd.

( ii) 1976 SCC ( L & S ) 132 State Bank of India Vs. N. Sundara Money.

4655 (ii) 1985 SCC (L& S) 975 H.D. Singh Vs. Reserve Bank of India & others .

(iv) 2001 (88) FLR 508 Deep Chandra Vs. State of U.P. & another .

(v) 2001 ( 88 ) FLR 274 M/ s . Scooters India Ltd. Vs. M. Mohammad Yaqub & another .

(vi) 2001 ( 19) LCD 116 Sitapur Eye Hospital, Faizabad & another Vs. Industrial Tribuanl ( II ) UP , Lucknow & another .

(vii) 1992 SCC (L & S ) 611 Uol & others Vs. Basant Lal& others . New

(viii) 1999 SCC ( L& S) 1054 Ajaib Singh Vs. Sirhind Co-operative Marketing -cum -Processing Service Society Limited & another .

10. Per contra, the learned representative on behalf of the opposite party , has argued that on the directives issued by the CPO , NER, Gorakhpur a list of persons was prepared on the basis laid down for re - absorption of the casual labour/substitute to ascertain if there was any use in future when need arise , 61 out of such workers were reabsorbed , the workman could not be found eligible as he was not on rolls on the date of screening, therefore , his name cannot be considered as per direction and policy of Headquarter . He has further argued that due to large number of candidates on various quota , further screening have beenkept in abeyance as per direction dated 29-3-01/20-4- 01. He has also contended that merely on the ground of inordinate delay in raising industrial dispute the workman's claim is liable to be rejected. He has further argued that the workman has abandoned his engagement himself. He has furthermore argued that due to abnormal delay his claim is not tenable in the light of verdict of Hon'ble Superem Court dated 13-5-93 in Civil Writ Petition No. 71/92 .

11. The contention of the learned representative of the management that due to long abnormal intervening period of 25 years the claim of the workman is liable to be rejected in view of the verdict of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 13-5-93 in Writ Petition (Civil) 71/92 Ratan Chandra Sammanta & others Vs. Uol & others is not sustainable . The management has produced an uncertified copy of said judgment . Moreover, the facts of the said case laws were different . This question was not under consideration whether provisions of limitation are applicable in the matter of industrial disputes . In 1999 SCC ( L & S) 1054 relied by learned representative ofthe workman , Hon'ble Apex Court has observed that employer's plea of delay in seeking reference unless causing real prejudice to him is not sufficient to deny relief to the workman . Hon'ble Apex Court has further observed that:

"The provisions of Article 137 ofthe Limitation Act, 1963 are not applicable to the proceedings under 4656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 /SRAVANA 24, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

principle laid by the Hon'ble Apex Court , the claim ofthe workman may not be rejected merely on the plea of delay.

13. The questions which arise for consideration are as to whether the workman has continuously worked for more than 240 days in the preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination and whether he had worked continuously more than 120 days and acquired temporary status as claimed by him ?

the Industrial Disputes Act . The relief under the Act cannot be denied to the workman merely on the ground of delay. The delay if raised by the employer is required to be proved as a matter of fact by showing the real prejudice and not as a merely hypothetical defence . No reference to the Labour Court can be generally questioned on the ground of delay alone. Even in a case where the delay is shown to be existing, the tribunal , labour court or board , dealing with the case can appropriately mould the relief by declining to grant back wages to the workman till the date he raised the demand regarding his illegal retrenchment/ termination or dismissal . The court may also in appropriate cases direct the payment of part of the back wages instead of full back wages ."

14. The workman in his statement on affidavit has stated that he was employed as casual Kahalasi on 16-08-1976 and had worked as such continuously from 16-08-1976 to 30-6-84 and his services have been terminated orallyw.e.f . 01-07-84 without any notice or compensation . He has further stated that he had worked for 751 days as shown in list of casual workers in the year 1981 under Section Engineer ( Works ) , Sitapur. To substantiate his claim he has produced his original Casual Labour Card and copies of list of year 1981 pertaining to Casual worker working under Section Engineer ( Works ), NER, Sitapur.

15. The management witness. Sh . S. N. Bajpai , Asstt. Engineer , NER, Sitapur has admitted in his cross- examination that as per record available the workman has worked from 16-8-76 to December, 78 ; out of which workingw.e.f. May, 78 to December , 78 is certified. He has also stated that he himselfhas certified 235 days ' working in respect of the workman upto December, 78 .

16. The details of working days and period mentioned in his Casual Labour Card as under :

12. In the present case the workman has alleged that his services have been terminated in the year 01-07-1984 whereas in present reference under adjudication the industrial dispute has been raised after lapse of 14 years . The reasons given for inordinate delay that despite several representations being submitted by the workman , the concerned management of railway did not give any response and other reasons such as his financial condition , his illness and other constrains due to which he could not raise present dispute are not cogent and satisfactory . The copies of representations said to be sent to the railway authorities have not been produced . He has produced only photocopies of some UPCs , postal receipts which are not legible . Although explanation given by the workman for delay of such a long period is not plausible , but in light of

Casual Labour Card

Date of initial employment 16-8-1976

From

Period

Total Days

16-8-76

15-9-76

31 days

May, 78

December , 78

205 days

0 yr 6 mth 22 days

Total upto 31-12-78 Total upto 30-6-79

0 yr 9 mth 26 days

1-7-79

31-9-79

79 days

Total upto 31-12-79

1 yr 0 inth 15 days

1-1-80

30-6-80

138days

0 yr 4 mth 18 days

Total upto 30-6-80

1 yr 5 mth 03 days

1-7-80

31-10-80

84days

Total upto 31-10-80

602days

18-8-82

15-11-82

88 days

Total upto 15-11-82

719 days

1-1-84

30-6-84

32days

Total upto 30-6-84

751 days 4657 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

120 days are entitled to be regularized as temporary workman and railway cannot deny them temporary status on ground that they have been employed as casual labourer in a project work and not in construction work in open line as such they acquire temporary status on completion of 360days .

22. It is not disputed that casual labourers who have worked continuously for 120 days in open line acquire temporary status and they will be entitled to rights and privileges admissible to the temporary status railway servants as laid down in Clause XXIII of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual . Rule 149 (6 ) of Railway Establishment Code also laid down that termination of services of temporary employee should be in terms of provisions of I. D. Act

17. In 1991 SCC L & S 478 Hon'ble Apex Court has held that termination simplicitor of a temporary workman , not falling within the excepted or excluded categories mentioned in section 2 ( oo) would amount to retrenchment and if immediately preceding the date of termination of service, such workman actually worked for not less than 240 days with in a period of 12 months , he will be deemend to be in continuous service for one year under section 25- B (2 ) ( a)( ii) and termination of his services without complying with Section 25 - F would render the order of termination void -ab- initio. In 1976 SCC L& S 132 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that in Section 2( oo) , the words ' termination.......... for any reason whatsoever ' are the key words , whatever the reason , every termination spells retrenchment . In 1985 SCC ( L & S ) 975 , in the matter of Tikka Mazdoor , Hon'ble Apex Court observed that striking off name of the Tikka Mazdoor from rolls who have worked for more than 240 days amounts to retrenchment covered by Section 25 - F. In other case laws cited by the learned representative on behalf of the workman it has been observed that if a workman has worked for more than 240 days in the required period he cannot be retrenched without complying the provisons of Secction 25 - F of the I.D. Act .

18. Thus , it is settled legal position that if a workman has worked for 240 days in preceding 12 months from date ofhis alleged termination, his services cannot be terminated without compliance of section 25- F.

23. It is evident from the entries in Casual Labour Card of the workman that he had not continuously worked for 120 days within a period of four months . This contention of the learned representative on behalf of the workman is not sustainable that management had deliberately not mentioned the actual working days and artificial breaks have been shown to deprive the workman from his legitimate rights. The workman himself has pleaded in his rejoinder that entries in his Casual Labour Card had been made on the basis of Live Register . He has not alleged that his actual working days were not mentioned in the said registers . Further , he has never represented regarding entries in respect of working days in his card . He has not produced any receipt or any other document or oral evidence to establish that during alleged breaks which are said to be artificial break, he was on authorized leave or he had actually worked on those days .

19. But in present case upon a perusal of the entries made in the Casual Labour Card, it is not evident that the worker had worked continuously for 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date of his alleged termination i.e. 1-7-1984 . As per entries in Casual Labour Card the workman had worked for 32 days only during said twelve months . Thus , the workman has failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days in the said period .

20. The learned representative on behalf of the workman has contended that as per circulars of NER an open line casual labourer is to be granted temporary status on completion of 120 days of continuous service and in calculating the above period , unauthorized absence ofthree days and authorized absence of 20 days is not to be considered as break in casual labourer's service . He has further contended that the workman had continuously worked for 120 days but the management has deliberately shown artificial breaks in the Casual Labour Card to deprive the workman for grant of temporary status . He has further contended that during period 16-05-78 to 16-09-78 the workman had worked for 123 days and it should be presumed that he had worked continuously for 120 days during said period .

24. This contention of the learned representative on behalf of the workman is also not acceptable that as per Casual Labour Card the workman had worked for 122 days during period 16-05-78 to 16-09-78 , thus , it should be presumed that he had continuously worked for 120 days during said period . As per entries in the Casual Labour Card the workman had worked form 16-05-78 to 15-07-78, during this period he remained absent on 26-05-78 . In period from 27-05-78 to 31-12-78 it is not mentioned how many days he had actually worked. His total working days from 16-08-1976 to 31-12-78 have been mentioned as 6 months 22days only and working days from 1-7-79 to 31-9-79 have been mentioned as 79 days only . Thus , it cannot be presumed that out of period of 6 months 22 days , the workman had worked continuously from 16-05-78 to 16-09-78 in absence of actual working day's during period 16-7-78 to 16-9-78 . the burden was on the workman to prove that he had remained in the employment of the management not only on the days he had worked but also on the days on which he had not worked either on account of his inability or on account of his being prevented by the employer for working .

21. In 1992 SCC ( L& S) 611 relied by the learned representative on behalf of the workman , Hon'ble Apex Court has also observed that the casual labourer employed by railway who had continuously worked for more than 4658

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 / SRAVANA 24, 1931

नई दिल्ली, 21 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2193.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 128/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12014/1 /2009- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st July, 2009

S.O. 2193.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 128 / 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-7-2009 .

[No. L - 12014/ 1 /2009 - IR ( B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 25. This contention of the learned representative on behalf of the workman is also devoid of any force that since Live Register have not been produced by the management , an adverse inference should be drawn against the management . Upon a perusal of the statement of the management witness it is evident that at the time of examination of management witness , Casual Labour Register for the period May, 78 to December , 78 was produced . As regard remaining period the case of the management is that after lapse of period of over 25 years the records could not be located . As pointed out earlier the workman has failed to explain inordinate delay in raising the industrial dispute . Apart from this the workman has admitted in his rejoinder that list of casual workers working inSection Engineer ( Works ) , Sitapur in the year 1981 was prepared in year 1996 and his name is mentioned at serial No. 18. He has also pleaded that said list was prepared on the basis of entries in the Live Register and other record . The total period of working days shown in the above list and mentioned in the Casual Labour Card are same i.e. 751 . He has not alleged that number of working days in the said list or in the Register on the basis of which the list was prepared, were not mentioned correctly. He himself has produced the said list to substantiate his claim . In such circumstances , if the management has failed to produce the Casual Labour Register or Live Register for remaining period , no adverse presumption can be drawn against the management .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS TRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated, the 24th day of February , 2009 26. The initial burden was on the workman to prove that he had continuously worked for 120 days and thus he was entitled for grant of temporary status . Unless the workman proves his claim , the opposite party cannot be called upon to disprove it . As discussed above the workman has failed to prove that he had ever worked continuously for 120 days during 16-5-78 to 16-9-78 .

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 128/2005

BETWEEN

Sri Ragulapalli Chinna Mallaiah,

S/o R. Sunkanna ,

R/o Yedruru Village , Pamidi Mandal ,

(ViaPedda Vaduguru ) ,

Petitioner

AnantpurDistrict - 515 401 .

27. In view of the above discussions , the workman has failed to prove that he had worked continuously for 240 days in preceding twelve months from the date of his alleged termination and he has also failed to establish that he had ever worked for 120 days . Thus he was neither entitled for any notice or retrenchment compensation . The workman has also failed to prove that his services have been terminated in violation of Section 25 F , G & H or in contravention of any provisions of Railway Manual and any action of the ruanagement was unjust or illegal . Resultantly, he is not entitled for any relief claimed by him .

AND

The Deputy General Manager ,

28. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

29. Award as above .

State Bank of India,

Lucknow . 30-06-2009

...Respondent

ZonalOffice , Renigunta Road , Tirupathi.

N. K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer 4659 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Appendix ofevidence

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner NIL

: M/s. C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy, G. Srinivasa Reddy and S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates

For the Respondent :

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

M/s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy and B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocate

AWARD

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL नई दिल्ली , 21 जुलाई , 2009

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

का. आ. 2194.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 125/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12014/ 1/2009- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st July, 2009

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Non-Messenger on 18-6-90 in SBI Gooty Branch of the respondent bank. He worked in different spells from 18-6-90 to 5-2-91 for a period of 87 days. He was empanelled in the year 1992 and was absorbed by the Respondent in the year 1992. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997. He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

S.O. 2194. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 125/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 21-7-2009.

[No. L- 12014/ 1 /2009-1R (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the peti- tioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper- cum- water boy/ watch- man by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31.3.1997. It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub- staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories, panels were prepared. It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed.

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

Present : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Dated the 24th day of February, 2009

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 125/2005 BETWEEN

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in sup- port of their respective contentions . On 24-2-2009 peti- tioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present . Petitioner is not attending to this case for last two years , as such , his evidence is closed . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

SriG. Venkataramannappa, S/o G. Munuswamy, R/ o 8/841 , New Harijana Colony ,

GootyMandal,

... Petitioner Dictatedto Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant , transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 24th day ofFebruary, 2009 .

Anantpur District -515401

AND

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

2811 GI /09-6 4660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

TheDeputy General Manager ,

State Bank of India, Zonal Office. Renigunta Road, Tirupathi

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

M/ s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy, G. Srinivasa Reddy & S. Vijay Advocates . Venkatesh , For the Respondent

M/ s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocate.

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 ( 3 ) LL1 Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and Mis . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

2.4 . Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in ton sating bin. He submitted that he was appointed as Viescoger on 124-83 in SBI Gooty Branch of the respon- dent bank . He worked in different spells from 12-4-83 to 6-8-85 for a period of 175 days . He was empanelled in the year 1989 and was absorbed by the Respondent in the year 1989. He was temnated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this Courtto direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular camplovee wish all consequential benefits .

3.As sajust this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the a gations in the claim statement of the pethone . It atted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger / sweeper- cum- water boy/watch- man by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub- staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were pre- pared it subnated that the petitioner has not worked int the towerof day, as shown by him in his claim this pet hon is liable to be dismissed were daucted to produce evidence in spective contentions . On 24-2-2009 pe-- odles while Respondent's counsel is attending to this case for last two dence is closed . Hence , Nil Award see menet or evidence .

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ) Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

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

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Prasiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for thePetitioner

Witnesses examined for theRespondent NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली. 21 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2195,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का ।4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 126/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12014/1 /2009- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st July, 2009

S. O. 2195.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 126/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 21-7-2009 .

[No. L - 12014/ 1 /2009 - IR ( B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated, the 24th day of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 126/2005 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4661 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

BETWEEN

Sri Kandala Subbarayudu ,

petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown byhim in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed.

S/ o K. Obuleshu ,

...Petitioner

R/ o 9/976 , Harijana Street, GootyMandal , Anantpur District - 515 402.

AND

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in sup- port of their respective contentions . On 24-2-2009 peti . ioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present . Petitioner is not attending to this case for last two years , as such , his evidence is closed. Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

The Deputy General Manager ,

Award passed accordingly . Transmit.

State Bank of India, Zonal office , Renigunta Road , Tirupathi .

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

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

Forthe Petitioner

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

: M/ s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy, G. Srinivasa Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates

For the Respondent

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent : M/ s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar ,

NIL

Advocates

Documents marked for the Petitioner AWARD

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL NIL

This case was taken in view of the judgment ofthe Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 ( 3 ) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No.8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

नई दिल्ली , 21 जुलाई, 2009

का. आ. 2196.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 127/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-12014/ 1/2009- आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Non-Messenger on 6-4-1981 in SBI Gooty Branch of the respondent bank. He worked in different spells from 6-4-81 to 6-2-84 for a period of 158 days . He was empanelled in the year 1989 and was absorbed by the Respondent in the year 1989. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this Courtto direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

New Delhi , the 21st July, 2009

S. O. 2196.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 127/ 2005) of the Central Governinent Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , lyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-7-2009 .

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum- water boy/ watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service an 31-3-1997 .It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the

[No. L - 12014/ 1 /2009 - IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer 4662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2009 / SRAVANA 24 , 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS- TRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR-COURT AT HYDERABAD

Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Present :

Dated the 24th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 127/2005

BETWEEN

Sri Kullaya Babu ,

S/ o J. Subbarayudu ,

R/ o 7/476 , 7th Ward ,

Behind Balaji Lodge,

..Petitioner Gooty, Anantpur District -515401 .

AND

The Deputy General Manager ,

State Bank of India ,

Zonal Office, Renigunta Road ,

...Respondent Tirupathi.

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

: M/s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy, G. Srinivasa Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh, Advocates .

[PART IH-SEC. 3 ( i ) ] 3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the peti- tioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner was never ap- pointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum- water boy/watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared. It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in sup- port of their respective contentions . On 24-2-2009 peti- tioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present. Petitioner is not attending to this case for last two years , as such , his evidence is closed. Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

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

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

For the Respondent : M/s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates .

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3 ) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Non -Messenger on 4-11-87 in SBI Gooty Branch of the respondent bank. He worked in different spells from 4-11 -.87 to 31-12-88 for a period of 86 days . He was empanelled in the year 1989 and was absorbed by the Respondent in the year 1989. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

theRespondent NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NH नई दिल्ली , 21 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2197.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12012/ 140/2007- आई. आर.-( बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 4663 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

New Delhi , the 21st July, 2009

sides . Both sides entered appearance through their advocates and filed their claim and counter statement respectively.

3. The averments in the Claim Statement necessary for discussion are as follows :

S.O. 2197. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 69/ 2007) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-7-2009 .

[No. L - 12012/ 140/2007 - IR-(B- I ) ]

AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday, 3rd July , 2009

Present : A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 69/2007

( In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub -section 2( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of State Bank of India and their Workman) .

BETWEEN

: I Party/Petitioner

Sri R. Sundararaju

Vs.

II Party/Respondent

The Dy . General Manager State Bank of India, Region - 1 , Zonal Office , Dr.Ambedkar Road, Madurai -625002

APPEARANCE

Forthe Petitioner

: Sri S. Vaidyanathan

Sri . S. Kannaiah

For the Management :

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12012 / 140/ 2007 IR ( B - I ) dated 30-10-2007 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

The Petitioner initially appointed as Clerk under the Respondent/Bank , thereafter promoted as Head Clerk in 1993 while was working at Usilampatti Branch was charge sheeted on 03-01-2000 with having committed gross misconduct in terms of Para - 521 ( 4 ) (J ) of Sastry Award read with Para- 18.28 of Desai Award . He explained as regards first and second charges that the overdraft has since been regularized by him and that mistake was purely due to mistaken impression . Third charge was refuted by him . An enquiry was thereafter held and in the finding dated 21-06-2001 Charge Nos . 1 and 2 were held proved and Charge No. 3 not proved . Disciplinary Authority on 23-10-2001 implemented his proposed punishment of removal from service . The appeal preferred only affirmed the punishment. Out of panic , he could not raise an ID and he was compelled to sit content with his terminal benefits received under protest. Thus there occurred delay for raising conciliation which having failed the present reference is occasioned . After having given a punishment transfer his removal from service is one in double jeopardy. The delinquent act if proved would amount only to misconduct under Para - 521 (4 ) (J ) of Sastry Award . It does not attract extreme punishment awarded. Charge sheet is not clear . Clause 521 ( 4) ( J) reads as " Doing any act prejudicial to the interests of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss" . A charge sheet cannot be a conclusive statement . It clearly exposes vindictiveness and pre- determination ofthe Disciplinary Authority. The delinquent act may at the most come under the minor misconduct under Para- 521 (6)( d) which reads " breach of any rule of business of the bank or instruction for running of a department" inviting punishment of a warning or a censure , or recording an adverse remark or stoppage of increment for not more than 6 inonths . The enquiry proceedings are not fair and proper and are against the principles of natural justice . The relied documents were not introduced through competent witnesses who were also not cross -examined. The documents were allowed to be marked in spite of objection . The enquiry is sham and farce . The charges framed are :

" Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Usilampatti Branch , Madurai in awarding the punishment of removal from service to Shri R. Sundararaju w.e.f. 03-11-2001 , is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman concerned isentitled?"

(i) that my current account ( overdraft) was running irregular since 1997 to the tune of Rs . 51,250 to Rs . 64,743 due to withdrawal of maturity proceeds of NSCs amounting to Rs . 60,450 . Thus it is alleged that I had unauthorisedly utilized a higher overdraft facility to the extent of Rs . 64,743 with mala fide intention .

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 69/2007 and issued notices to both 4664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA24 , 1931

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

The bank lost confidence reposed on the petitioner . The petitioner has no locus - standi to compare his case alongwith others with totally different facts . The petitioner cannot claim equality in illegality and fraud . There is no merit in the claim and the same is to be dismissed .

5. Points for determination are :

(i) Whether the action of the management in awarding the punishment of removal from service to the petitioner , is legal and justified?

(ii) that I had failed to have my salary credited into my current account as per the laid down instructions ofthe bank, though I was in charge of the establishment section and that I had partly credited my salary into my current account and partly into savings bank account despite specific instructions given to me through the branch note with a view to avoid scope of my salary being adjusted towards the irregularity in the current account .

(ii) To what relief the petitioner is entitled ?

6. On the side of the petitioner, Ex. W1 to Ex . W6 were marked and on the side ofthe Respondent Ex.M1 to Ex.M13 were marked , both on consent. The petitioner on his submission had claimed for hearing on the preliminary issue as to " whether the domestic enquiry conducted is fair and proper" ? While it stood for hearing on preliminary issue, the petitioner's learned counsel did not press for hearing on the preliminary issue and in fact advanced his arguments onthe main dispute . The other side also was heard.

Point No. 1

It is under a mistaken impression that the face value and accrued interest on NSCs purchased by him and given as security to the Bank would themselves secure the interests ofthe Bank against such drawings from his said account . Thus he happened to credit his salary into his SB Account as a practice prevailing . He has not withdrawn proceeds of NSC amounting to Rs . 60,450 . He made credits of Rs . 30,325 on 19-02-1998 and Rs . 10,000 on 28-03-1998 to reduce overdraft . There was no unauthorized withdrawal at any time. Authority for fixing the drawing power is the sole responsibility of a supervising official only . The charge sheet issued after the memorandum dated 03-06-1999 is silent about the role of Accountant at PB Division . P.Ex.111 to P.Ex.IX produced at the enquiry relate only to the staff members belonging to Clerical Cadre and below and not to Officers cadre . Had the documents in entirety been produced , the practice at the branch of crediting the salary to SB Account would have come to light . There is official bias . P.Ex.XII sanction of an overdraft of Rs . 1,94,100 does not bear date or signature of the authority. The actual quantum ofdrawing power in his Current Account Overdraft to hold him guilty that he utilized a higher overdraft facility has not been proved . The finding on Charge No. 2 was not conclusively proved . The bank officials were not produced as witnesses in the enquiry . Similar delinquents in Madurai module were let off with minor punishments as in the case of P. Mookaiah and 5 others . The punishment imposed is disproportionate.

4. In the Counter Statement the following contentions areraised:

7. The claim of the petitioner is challenged as being unsustainable on various grounds such as being highly belated, as being estopped by reason of the fact that the petitioner received all his service benefits and has also started drawing his monthly pension , that the explanation for the delay offered is not genuine and that the delinquent has categorically admitted the charges . He is also not entitled to claim equality in respect of illegality and fraud committed. According to the petitioner , the irregularity occurred in the Overdraft Account is due to a mistaken impression . Again according to him, due to panic out of thepunishment imposed, he could not raise the 1.D. in time and he rested content with his terminal benefits which he received under protest but which according to the Respondent is not one received under protest. While the petitioner attributes double jeopardy in punishment upon him taking into account his transfer also according to the Respondent the transfer was not a punishment which was given in exigency of public service . The enquiry was not held proper and was against the principles of natural justice .

8. The contention that the enquiry was not fair and proper or that it was held against the principles of natural justice sought to be considered as a preliminary issue was later not pressed for and accordingly arguments were advanced on either side on the main dispute as to the finding of the guilt and the awarding of the punishment of removal from service of the petitioner. A perusal of the enquiry proceedings and the finding goes to show that there has not been anything wrong with them and that the finding has been correctly rendered holding the petitioner guilty of Charges 1 and 2 which have been discernibly The petitioner has filed the case after a lapse of several years on untenable grounds and false and misleading statements . He has received all his service benefits and is drawing monthly pension , Explanation for delay is not genuine and has been one to capture the sympathy of the Tribunal . The petitioner's claim that he was given punishment transfer to Madurai branch is false , misleading and is denied. The same was a transfer under exigency of service . The enquiry was fair and proper and the finding was also based on categorical admission by the petitioner . Exoneration from Charge No.3 will not automatically relieve him from Charge Nos . 1 and 2. The misconduct is not a ininor one. The petitioner discernibly conceded the charges .

4665 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15 , 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.MI

03-06-1999 Show cause notice to the Petitioner

Ex.M2

26-06-1999 Explanation ofthe Petitioner

Ex.M3

03-01-2000 ChargeMemo

29-01-2000

Ex.M4

Reply given by the petitioner

Ex.M5

23-06-2000 Enquiry Proceedings

Ex.M6

21-06-2001 Findings of the Enquiry Officer

Ex.M7

14-08-2001 Explanation ofthe Petitioner

Ex.M8

20-09-2001 Notice for personal hearing issued by the Disciplinary Authority

Ex.M9

23-10-2001

conceded by the delinquent . His challenge against it after a lapse of 4 years is not with any genuine explanation . He has received all the service benefits and he is getting monthly pension regularly . His contention that he could not raise any 1.D. with panic does not sound to reason.His claim for treatment of his case with similar cases in which "his so called counterparts " such as P. Mookaiah and 5 Others without actually being shown that he stands equally on the same footing with reference to the facts and circumstances cannot be upheld . His claim amounts to treating illegality and fraud equally. Now at this distance of time the petitioner cannot be heard to say or countenanced with any such contentions which are an outcome of an afterthought after his having chosen to suffer the punishment awarded to him long back vis - a - vis the benefits enjoyed and continues to enjoy. There is no meritin the claim ofthe petitioner . Therefore , it is only to be held that the action of the Management in removing the petitioner from service is only legal and justified and it is so found.

Further explanation submitted by the Petitioner to the Disciplinary Authority Point No. 2

Ex.M10 03-11-2001 Orders of the Disciplinary Authority

The next point to be decided to what relief the workman is entitled ?

Ex.M11

18-12-2001 Appeal of the Petitioner to the Appellate Authority 9. In view of the above finding, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

Ex.M12

31-12-2001

10. Thus the reference is answered accordingly.

Further representation of the Petitioner to the Appellate Authority

Ex.M13

04-01-2002 Orders of the Appellate Authority

(Dictated to the P. A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 3rd July , 2009)

नई दिल्ली , 21 जुलाई , 2009

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :-

: None

For the 1 Party/ Petitioner

: None

For the 11 Party/Management

Documents Marked: -

On the Petitioner's side

का.आ. 2198.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । Date

Ex.No.

Description

[सं. एल-12011/34/2007- आई. आर.-(बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी Ex. WI

New Delhi , the 21st July , 2009 Extract of current account statements from January 1997 to September 1999

Ex.W2

20-02-1997 Creditvoucher for Rs . 60,450/

Ex.W3

Loan application unsigned bytheofficial

Ex.W4

19-02-1998 Credit voucher for Rs . 30,225/

S.O. 2198. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.17/2008 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 21-7-2009 .

28-03-1998

Ex. W5

CreditVoucher for Rs . 10,000/

Ex.W6

[No. L- 12011 /34/2007-1R-(B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer Extract of Para 521 ( 6)(d ) and 521 (7 ) of Sastry Award 4666

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA 24, 1931

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 7th July, 2009

Present : A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 17/2008

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947( 14 of 1947) , between theManagement of State Bank of India and their Workman)

BETWEEN

The Dy. General Secretary :

I Party/Petitioner

State Bank's Staff Union ( CC)

C/o SBI , Zonal Office , Dr. Ambedkar Road

Madurai-2

Vs.

The Dy. General Manager

State Bank of India, Region - I , Zonal Office

Dr.Ambedkar Road, Madurai - 625002

II Party/Respondent

APPEARANCE

For the Petitioner :

Sri S. Vaidyanathan

Sri Kannaiah

For the Management :

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12011 /34 /2007 - IR(B -I) dated 28-02-2008 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India , Madurai in treating the periodfrom 19-09-1986 to 28-06-1991 i.e. the , date ofdismissal to the date of reinstatement in respect of Sri P. Murugan , Othakadai Branch as break of service , is justified or not ? If not , what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ? "

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 17/2008 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsels and filed their Claim and Counter Statement respectively .

3. The case of the petitioner in the Claim Statement bereft of unnecessary details is as follows:

date as a result of which the dismissal had no effect and the petitioner was again placed in the active service of the bank. As per the High Court direction , the Disciplinary Authority ought to have put the petitioner in the position before the dismissal on 19-09-1986 , which was not done . Yetthe disciplinary proceedings were started from the 2nd Show Cause stage treating him to be in active service then as provided by the awards and settlements regarding service conditions . It was deemed that the petitioner was again back to active service with the relationship of master and servant restored . The petitioner was again served with a 2nd Show Cause proposing the ' same punishment of "dismissal without notice " which was again confirmed after a personal hearing on 28-06-1991 . On appeal , the Appellate Authority reinstated him into service by modifying the punishment of dismissal without notice to stoppage of increments for 2 years on 18-12-2001 with the direction to treat the period of date of dismissal upto the date of reinstatement as break of service and also to treat suspension period from 19-09-1985 to 19-09-1986 as suspension only. As per High Court order it was for the Disciplinary Authority to decide ultimately as to how to treat the from suspension till final orders are passed. Since it was not so decided, it is to be safely concluded that the said period of suspension is to be treated as service only . The petitioner's representation to rectify the error of the Appellate Authority in the order dated 18-12-1991 to treat suspension period as duty was erroneously interpreted as anorder ofthe Appellate Authority to treat the period from the date of first dismissal (20-09-1986 ) to the date of reinstatement ( 02-01-1992 ) as break in service and period of suspension ( 19-09-1985 to 19-09-1986 ) as suspension only . The bank erred to assume that the petitioner was out of service from 20-09-1986 to 02-01-1992 . With the setting aside of the dismissal by the High Court, the petitioner is automatically brought to his original position . Appeal disposed of was only in respect of the punishment of dismissal and not in relation to the dismissal set aside by the High Court . Date of dismissal in the direction of the Appellate Authority meant only 28-06-1991 and not 19-09-1986 . The stand of the bank is against the spirit of High Court judgment and amounts to double punishment . As per the Appellate Authority's orders , the petitioner is entitled to full backwages and all attendant benefits and service for the period from 19-09-1986 to 28-06-1991 . He was not even deemed to have been suspended from 20-09-1986 to 28-06-1991 and paid the relative subsistence allowance as per High Court judgment . It is prayed that the period between 19-09-1986 to 28-06-1991 be directed to be

treated as on duty or on suspension .

4. In the Counter Statement, the averments bereft of unnecessary details are as follows:

In the Writ Order , the High Court had also directed the Disciplinary Authority to decide as to how to treat the The petitioner while was working as Senior Assistant atOthakadai branch of Respondent/ Bank, then with about 28 years ofservice was suspended on 19-09-1985 on certain misconduct and thereafter dismissed on 19-09-1986 . Appeal only confirmed the punishment on 12-09-1987 .In Writ Petition No. 6624/87 , High Court of Madras set aside the disciplinary proceedings from the 2nd Show Cause Notice 4667

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

challenges the power of the Appellate Authority to do so according to whom such power is only with the Disciplinary Authority as to how to treat the period of service of suspension till final orders are passed . The prayer of the petitioner is that since it was not so done , the period of suspension is to be treated as service only . According to the petitioner it was for the Respondent Bank to assume that the petitioner was in service from 20-09-1986 to 02-01-1992 . When once the dismissal was set aside by the High Court petitioner automatically gets reinstated into his original position. The petitioner further contends that appeal disposed of was only in respect of punishment of dismissal . The stand of the bank is assailed by the petitioner as being against the spirit of High Court judgment and amounting to double punishment . The petitioner claims entitlement to full backwages and attendant benefits and service from 19-09-1986 to 28-06-1991 . It is also emphasized on behalf of the petitioner that he was not even deemed to have been suspended from 20-09-1986 to 28-06-1991 .

period of absence from date of suspension till final orders and awarded punishment of dismissal again on 28-06-1991 , which in appeal was modified into stoppage of increment for two years treating the period as suspension only from 19-09-1985 to 19-09-1986 and the period from 20-09-1986 to 02-01-1992 as break of service reinstating the petitioner on 03-01-1992. The petitioner is not entitled to automatic reinstatement as per High Court order . It is false that the petitioner is deemed to be in service after setting aside of the dismissal by the High Court . The spirit of High Court order is not open to challenge once it was accepted by the petitioner . He was not at all entitled to rejoin duty during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings . Appellate Authority has power to modify order of Disciplinary Authority. After having accepted the order of Appellate Authority and having rejoined duty it is not open to him to dispute the validity of the same that too after a lapse of several years . The order of Appellate Authority worked itself out and the petitioner is acquiesced and estopped from questioning it . For the period actually not on duty, he cannot claim any benefit . The claim is to be dismissed.

5. Points for consideration are :

(i) Whether the treatment of the period from 19-09-1986 to 28-06-1991 i.e. date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement of the petitioner as break of service is legal and justified ?

(ii) To what relief the petitioner is entitled ?

8. As against this , the prime contention of the Respondent is that the petitioner is not entitled to automatic reinstatement or is to be deemed so . He is not entitled to joinduty during the pendency of disciplinary proceedings . The right of the petitioner to challenge the spirit of the High Court order that too after having rejoined duty is challenged by the Respondent. It further points out that the order of the Appellate Authority worked itself out and the petitioner is estopped from questioning it . The entitlement of the petitioner to claim any benefit during the period not actually on duty is also denied .

6. On the side of the petitioner EX.WI to EX.W15 were marked . On the side of the Respondent no document is marked. No oral evidence has been adduced on either side .

Point No. 1

9. Bestowing my undivided attention on the rival contentions of the parties , I am led to the conclusion that the predominant force is on the contentions raised by the petitioner than that of the Respondent . It was argued on behalf of the petitioner by his learned counsel that when once the first dismissal order was set aside by the High Court, that is at the stage of 2nd Show Cause Notice, the position then obtaining in relation to the petitioner is one of suspension . When once the dismissal order is set aside by the High Court, though the Respondent/Bank does not by an express order puts him back into the position of suspension stage or back into active service in the absence ofan order putting him back into active service his status quo ante position as on date of 2nd Show Cause Notice which is stage of suspension has either to be restored to him or he has to be assumed to be in the stage of suspension only. It is a settled position of law that once an employee is out of service by dismissal or otherwise a disciplinary proceeding cannot be continued against him . This point was highlighted before me by the learned counsel of the petitioner . This position could be altered only in the event ofan order being passed by the Respondent/ Management by putting him back into active service by an express order 7. The precise question for consideration is whether the action of the Management in having treated the period from 19-09-1986 to 28-06-1991 that is the date of dismissal to the date of reinstatement in respect of the petitioner as break of service is justified or not. Admittedly the High Court of Madras set aside the disciplinary proceedings from the 2nd Show Cause Notice stage . According to the petitioner as a result of said order of the High Court the dismissal order lost its effect thereby meaning that the petitioner is placed in active service . The date of dismissal is 19-09-1986 and at 2nd Show Cause Notice stage prior to that the position of the petitioner at that stage is of suspension . According to the petitioner , the petitioner has then to be reckoned as in active service with the relationship ofmaster and servant interse him and the Respondent Management . Though the same punishment of dismissal was awarded to the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority modified and reduced the punishment to stoppage of increment for two years treating the period of dismissal upto the date of reinstatement as break of service and to treat the suspension period from 19-09-1985 to 19-09-1986 as suspension only. The petitioner

2811 GI/09-7 4668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

period of suspension only and as not as break of service . So ordered .

11. Thus the reference is answered accordingly. (Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 7th July, 2009)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnessees Examined

None

For the 1st Party/Petitoner

None

For the 2nd Party/Management :

Documents narked

Onthe petitioner's side

Date

Ex. No.

Description

07-02-2007

Ex.W1

Industrial Dispute under Section 2(k) of the I.D. Act before the Conciliation Officer

Ex.W2 19-09-1985 Suspension Order

Ex. W3 19-09-1986 Dismissal Order

Ex. W4 12-01-1987 Order of the Appellat Authority

Ex.W5 01-02-1991 Order in WP No. 6624/87

28-06-1991

Ex.W6

Order ofDismissal

Ex.W7 18-12-1991 Orderofthe Appellate Authority reducing the punishment

16-02-2006

Ex.W8

Letter ofthe bank to P. Murugan

Ex.W9

10-07-2007 Additional Statement under Section 2 ( k ) before the Conciliation Officer

Ex.W10 19-08-2006 Bank's reply before the Conciliation Officer

Ex.WI1 10-07-2007 Minutes of the conciliation proceedings

Ex. W12 30-11-2007 Cor Conciliation Failure Report

28-02-2008

Ex. W13

Order of reference by the Ministry of Labour

07-03-2008

Ex.W14

Notice from the Office of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal in 1. D. No. 17/2008

Ex.W15 26-03-1991 Letter of the Respondent/Bank after the dismissal has been set aside by the High Court directing further , disciplinary proceedings to be continued atthe- stage of 2nd Show caause Notice or by a deeming provision . Evidently the Respondent Bank did not put back the petitioner into active service pursuant to the High Court judgment . In such case , I am of the view that as rightly argued by the learned counsel of the petitioner , the petitioner has to be deemed to be at the stage of suspension only. The argument on behalf of the Respondent to the contra according to me cannot be sustained . Even if the petitioner is not entitled to automatic reinstatement into service , he is rightly entitled to be deemed to be in service or under suspension . There is also no force in the contention of the Respondent that the petitioner has no locus - standi to dispute the validity of the order of the Appellate Authority to treat the period as break of service after he has rejoined duty. It is equally fallacious to argue onbehalf of the Respondent that the order of the Appellate Authorityworked itself out and the petitioner is acquiesced and is estopped from questioning it because discernibly the conduct of the petitioner in having rejoined duty and thereafter only having challenged the impugned direction of the Appellate Authority does not make any flagrant violation or departure of a reasonable or normal conduct of a human being similarly placed . The challenge of the action as being one taken after a lapse- of several years is also not sustainable for the reason that the petitioner has come forward with the action within a reasonable time . Discernibly the petitioner could be found to have acted reasonably by accepting that part of the order of the Appellate Authority which was advantageous to him leaving the objectionable part to be questioned later in a reasonable time . The act of the petitioner in rejoining duty could not have been a matter relegated to be done by him only after having questioned the objectionable part of the direction of the Appellate Authority. According to me none of the contentions on behalf of the Respondent sounds to reason to tilt a decision against the petitioner and in favour of the Respondent . On a well considered view of the matter as discussed above , I am of the opinion that the treatment ofthe period of dismissal of the petitioner from 19-09-1986 to the date of reinstatement viz . 28-06-1991 as break of service is not legal or justified . The petitioner is entitled to the above said period to be treated as period of suspension and the petitioner is entitled to the relief as above.

OntheManagement's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

Point No. 2

Nil

नई दिल्ली, 21 जुलाई , 2009

10. The next point to be decided is to what relief the petitioner is entitled ?

In the light of the above finding, the petitioner is entitled to the period of dismissal to the date of reinstatement i.e. from 19-09-1986 to 28-06-1991 treated as

का.आ. 2199.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के 4669

भारत का राजपत्र: अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

[भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण -1 , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12011/16/2006- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st July, 2009

S.O. 2199. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40/2007) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court - I , Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Patiala and their workmen , received by the Central Govemment on21-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12011 / 16/2006- IR-(B -I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDNIG OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDSUTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT - NO. I, NEW DELHI , KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 40/2007

The General Secretary, State Bank of Patiala Employees Union , C/o H.No. 1901 , Sector-9 , Faridabad ( Haryana) .

Workman

Vs.

The Dy . General Manager , State Bank ofPatiala , SCO- 70, Sector-5, Panchkula (Haryana) .

Management

AWARD

Working hours of bank employees from Monday to Friday were decided to be 6-1 /2 hours daily (7 hours -1/2 hour for lunch ) and on Saturday for 4 hours only as per various Bipartite Settlements between Bank Employees Union and Indian Bankers Association . In case ofovertime work , overtime wages were to be paid . Rajbir Singh , Manish Kumar , Amit Kumar , Ramesh Kumar , Raj Singh, Rabinder Singh , Vijay Dahia, Niranjan Kumar , O. P. Chauhan , Maha Ram , Ashok Kumar , Prem Kumar , Pyare Lal and Smt. Geeta were working in various branches of State Bank of Patiala . They were made to work overtime at different intervals , but no overtime wages were paid to them . When their request was tumed down and overtime wages were not paid to them , they raised a dispute before

the Conciliation Officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed, Central Government Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12011 / 16/2006- IR( B - I) dated 15-3-2007 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

"Whether the action ofthe management ofState Bank ofPatiala in not paying the overtime wages (as per annexure) to the claimant workmen is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"

2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of the above workmen, wherein it was projected that the management made them to work overtime at different intervals , for which periods they are entitled to overtime wages. Accordingto them a sum of Rs . 116400/- is yet to be paid towards overtime wages , for the work performed by them.

3. Management was called upon to present its stand over the matter . During that period, a settlement was arrived at between the parties . Shri Kirpa Ram Sharma A/R, ,General Secretary, State Bank ofPatiala Employees Union submitted that the dispute between the General Secretary , State Bank of Patiala Employees Union and management has been resolved amicably. He further presents that now there remains no dispute to be adjudicated. His statement wasrecorded in the following terms:

"Statement of Shri Kirpa Ram Sharma, S/o Shri D. D. Sharma , aged 58 years , R/ o 1103 , Sector 8 , Faridabad, Haryana . On S.A.

1 am the Deputy General Secretary of State Bank of Patiala Employees Union , Haryana State . I have been authorised by Shri Prabhu Dayal , General Secretary, State Bank of Patiala Employees Union , Haryana State , to appear before this Tribunal and to make a statement in the matter . As such I am authorized to make a statement in the matter . 1 state that dispute between the State Bank of Patiala , Punchkula, Haryana and the General Secretary , State Bank of Patiala Employees Union , Haryana State has been resolved amicably. In view ofthe settlement overtime payment of employees posted in 18 branches of State Bank of Patiala , throughout Haryana , has been made . Since payment of overtime wages has beenmade by the State Bank of Patiala , Panchkula , Haryana , now no grievances remained to be adjudicated . Consequently , the matter may be answered as settled and grievances satisfied . " 4. Inview ofthe statement made by Shri Kirpa Ram , Deputy General Secretary of the State Bank of Patiala Employees Union , it is apparent that grievances between the parties stands settled and satisfied . Consequently , a No Dispute Award is passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

DR. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer 4670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] नई दिल्ली, 21 जुलाई, 2009

का.आ. 2200. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 155/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-41012/ 102/93-आई आर( बी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 21st July, 2009

S.O. 2200. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.155/2000) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Railway and their workinen, receivedby the Central Government on 21-7-2009 .

[No. L-41012/102/93 - IR(B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT / NGP / 155/ 2000 Date : 30-8-2007

PartyNo. 1

Petitioner: Shri Prakasit Shantaram Pahurkar, Rio . Behind Sindhi Colony, New Town , Badnera , Distt . Amravati (M.S. ) .

Versus

Respondent : The Chief Inspector of Works, Central Railway, Murtizapur , Maharashtra .

PartyNo. 2

(3) Petitioner approached this Tribunal with the contentions that he was working with the recognized and subsidized consumer society's canteen at Badnera since January, 1980 to 1-3-1989. Then considering his career and performance of duties , he was employed as casual labour under the Inspector of Works , Central Railway, Bhusawal Division at Murtizapur from 20-6-1989 continuously on open line . From 20-6-1989 to 29-11-1989 he worked for more than 120 days as a Casual Labour and has become legible for status of permanent temporary employee. On 7-11-89 letter no (NG ) II /80 / CL/ 25 dated 20-10-80 . He was legible for being brought on monthly rated casual labours . As such he was entitled for the benefits of permanent casual labour under the Railway Establishment Code . In a Decasualization Schemedt . 26-11-1989 he was discharged and was asked to report to X.E.N. Central Railway, Manmad. There were others 59 employees also were discharged . All the 60 employees were asked to report at Manmad but when he along with other employees went to join at Manmad, they all were sent back informing that there was no vacancy to absorb them . Then they contacted the Assistant Engineer , Central Railway, Akola but they were not allowed to resume the duties at Manmad. Latter on all the 60 employees were reemployed . The Petitioner requested the Assistant Engineer (E) , Akola , however he kept mum and did not allow him tojoin . He also made further attempt through the union because in the mean time the remaining 59 workers were reemployed but , in spite of his request , under a false pretext the management did not allow him to join the duties . He was not served with the notice about the availability of the work at Manmad. Thus according to the petitioner he has been retrenched by the respondent though he was entitled for regularization without following the procedure ofretrenchment , which according to him is illegal and he is entitled for the reinstatement as well as regularization . Finally he has prayed to direct the Respondent/department to allow him to resume his duties alongwith continuity in service with a full back wages .

AWARD

Dated the 30th August , 2007

The Central Government after satisfying the existence of disputes between Shri Prakash Shantaram Pahurkar , Party No.1 and The Chief Inspector of Works , Central Railway, Murtizapur , Maharashtra, Party No. 2 , referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its Letter No. L-41012/ 102/ 1993-1R( B - I ) , Dt . 28/03/1995 under clause ( d) of sub section ( 1) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes , Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule:

(2) "Whether the action of the management for not issuing notice to Shri Prakash Santaram Pahurkar, workman to report for duty in Central Rly . Bhusawal , is proper and justified? Can it be treated as Retrenchment and violation ofSection 25F of the 1. D. Act , 1947 ? If not what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

(4) The management appeared and resisted the claim by filing his Written Statement. The respondent denied that the applicant has completed 120 days and he had obtained a permanent status . On the contrary he has voluntarily abandoned the services and thus he is not entitled for any regularization . It has denied that he was engaged as casual labour considering his earlier service or his performance during his service with the Consumer Society's Canteen is as he was not working with railways . It has denied that the service of the applicant with the Consumer Society's Canteen is under Inspector of Works ofRailways . It has also denied that it is a wing or branch of Railway Organization . A person employed by Co - operative Consumer Society cannot be treated under the control and in service of Railways . The petitioner was never employed by the Railway Administration. Similarly it has denied that the petitioner has completed continuous work for 120 days .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4671

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

question is whether the petitioner had worked continuously for more than 120 days during the period from 20-06-1989 to29-11-1989.

Hewas absent and was on unauthorized leave for 29 and 1 / 2 days during the period from 20-6-1989 to 29-11-1989 . Excluding the unauthorized absence he worked only for 104 day . He being surplus casual worker was discharged from 30-11-89 on compilation ofthe work along with other 59 surplus casual labours as provided in the rules . As the work was not available at Manmad, all the employees were asked to report on work of the bridge work at Borgaon . Accordingly all other 59 workers reported at Borgaon but the applicant did not turn and join the duties. As he has not completed 120 days continuous service he has not achieved a status of permanent temporary employee of the Railways . At the material time there was instruction to engage the casual workers the management reemployed 59 workers . All the 60 persons were asked to go to Borgaon for bridge work . On 1-4-1990 accordingly all the 59 workers except the petitioner joined the work. They were reemployed since the petitioner did not attend work. Thereafter he was continuously absent from the work. The other 59 employees were continued . As the petitioner did not attend he could be sent for Medical Examination . Since the petitioner himself abandoned the service he is nether entitled for the benefits under Section 25 - F of I.D. Act. Therefore there is no question of compliance of the provisions of retrenchment. The management has finally prayed to answer the claim in negative.

(5) In order to prove the respective contentions, the petitioner examined himself and respondent examined Mr. Khandare S.M. , Junior Engineer Gr . 1 .

(6) At the outset it can be said that the contentions of the petitioner regarding the earlier service from January, 1980 to 1-3-1989 has no relevance because it was not at all a service under Railway/ respondent. It seems that the father of the petitioner was working in the Consumer society's Canteen and he might have engaged in the canteen but it even by stretch of imagination cannot be a in the service of Railways even though it might be recognized and subsidized. Even the petitioner is claiming 120 days excluding the period of service in the canteen . The submissions of the petitioner in this respect cannot be accepted .

(8) In fact the submissions ofthe petitioner are vague and not disclosing the exact the order when notice was necessary . He has simply mentioned at the time of calling for duty in Central Railway . He has not disclosed the place where he could not joined due to the non receipt of notice . The management after completion of work at Murtizapur , asked all the 60 casual labours to attend the work firstly on a bridge at Manmad. Later on as the work was not available atManmad, they were directed to report at Borgaon where the work was available . Accordingly all the 59 casual labours reported on the work at Borgaon and they were engaged or given reemployment . The management was ready to provide the work to the petitioner also but according to it the petitioner did not attend and he voluntarily abandoned the work . His name was struck off from the Master Roll after 3 days of his absence. The management has denied that the petitioner had gone either to Manmad or to Borgaon. As he was absent he could be confirmed though his juniors who joined the work at Borgaon were later on made permanent . Thus the submissions of the petitioner are vague enough as to when he was expecting a notice . Whether it was regarding to attend the work at Manmad or at Borgaon ? The petitioner is claiming that he had gone to Manmad along with other 59 casual labours , but the Engineer sent them back. If he had really gone to Manmad , it means he had a notice of availability ofwork at Manmad . So far as the availability of work at Borgaon is concerned, all the casual labours were informed at Manmad and they all except the petitionerjoined the duty at Borgaon . If he had gone to Manmad , he must have a notice regarding the availability of the work at Borgaon along with the other 59 workers . This indicates that the petitioners had not gone to attend the work at Manmad though he had a notice . It also proves that the management had given the notice of the availability of the work at Borgaon . As per rules the notice is expected to be displayed on Notice Board and even oral notice can not be ruled out . When all were informed at Manmad to join at Borgaon it was oral notice to all . It can not be said that there was no notice at all . It is not at all necessary to serve each member with a written notice obtaining the receipt thereof.

(7) Main grievance of the petitioner is that the management did not issue any notice to him asking to reportfor duty in Central Railway, Bhusawal . Accordingto him it was obligatory on the management to issue a notice or at least display on the Notice Board mentioning where the work was available and to remain present . Since the management did not issue such notice and did not allow him to join the work in spite of his written request dated 06-1-1990 , 7-1-1990 and 17-1-1990 , is amounting to retrenchment for which the compliance of Section 25 - F of 1.D. Act was necessary . Similarly the engagement of his juniors is also a breach of mandatory provisions of 1. D. Act . While according to the management he has never acquired the status of permanent casual labour as he had not completed 120 days continuous service . Therefore the

(9) The management has denied that the petitioner has gone to Manmad . The evidence of Mr. Khandare supports it. Similarly one casual labour from the 59 workers namely Bhimrao Shivram has filed his affidavit disclosing the petitioner was not with them either at Manmad or at Borgaon as he had not come at all . It seems that the petitioner taking advantage of returning all 59 workers due to non availability of the work is making false statement that he had gone to Manmad . There is ample evidence to prove that he had not gone either to Manmad or to Borgaon 4672

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2009 / SRAVANA 24, 1931

though the management has displayed the notice about the availability of the work at Manmad as well as at Borgaon .

had again approached to CAT with the same prayer and the Hon'ble CAT had rejected the prayer of the petitioner on merit . The Hon'ble CAT had also concluded that the petitioner can not claim that he has completed 120 days . The petitioner while approaching before the Hon'ble CAT had suppressed the pendency of the reference before CGIT and he suppressed though he has amended the Statement ofClaim after considerable delay when the final arguments were heard . He was allowed to amend but the amended Statement of Claim is also silent about the orders of the Hon'ble CAT.

(10) Now let us turn to the another aspect of the case regarding 120 days continuous working of the petitioner . Heclaims to have worked for more than 120 days between the period from 20-6-1989 to 29-11-1989 and he achieved the status of permanent temporary employee , while the management is denying it . According to it he was absent for 29 and 2 days unauthorizedly during the above period which amounts to break and cannot be excluded while considering the continuous service . While according to the petitioner his absence was authorized . It means there are no disputes regarding the facts that the petitioner worked between the period 20-06-1989 to 29-11-1989.

(13) The counsel for the petitioner had submitted that he had made representation on 06-1-1990 , 07-1-1990 and 17-1-1990 requesting the management to allow him to join the work but as he was absent for continuous 3 days , his name was struck off from the Muster and he was not allowed to join. According to the counsel for the petitioner there is no rule to struck off the name after 3 days and therefore according to him there was no reason for not allowing to join the service . Here is question whether the petitioner has completed 120 days continuous service as a Casual Labour for obtaining a status of permanent Casual Labour . Undisputedly previously he was Casual Labour on daily wages . No doubt there is no rule prescribing the particular number of days of absence but it can not be at the sweet-will of the Casual Labour to attend the work on the days after remaining unauthorized absence . In such circumstances it can not be said that the management has wrongly removed his name when he was absent from the work particularly when he was directed to attend. Therefore the defence of the management that he abandoned the work voluntarily appears to be proper . It does not amount either to the termination or to the retrenchment . Therefore in my humble view he can not claim on the basis of his attendance which is less than 120 days, a permanency in the service and the benefits of Section 25 - F of 1.D. Act . In the result the reference deserved to be rejected. According 1 pass the negative Award.

Date:30-8-2007

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 21 जुलाई , 2009

( 11 ) There are disputes regarding the actual date when he was discharged but even the Statement of Claim is not clear enough to disclose the exact date on which he wasdischarged . It makes no difference for counting the days . Similarly there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner was on authorized leave . Besides this the management has produced a statement showing the attendance of the petitioner in each month and on calculation according to the management he was absent for 29 and 2 days which was unauthorized absence . As indicated above the petitioner no doubt petitioner has denied it but there is nothing on record to indicate that he was present on all the days i.e. 130 days and absence ifany was authorized. The management has filed a copy of a circular of Govt. of India , Ministry of Railways (Rail Mantralaya) , Railway Board , dtd . 8-6-1981 . On page No. 06 at a caption - C , the break in service is described. This indicates that for the purpose of counting of 120 days continuous employment the absence of workman under Medical treatment in connection with the injuries sustained on duty covered by the provisions under the Workman's Compensation Act and authorized absence not exceeding 20 days including 3 days unauthorized absence for personal reason will not be considered . It means even the authorized absence for more than 20 days can not considered and only 3 days unauthorized absence with in those 20 days only can be ignored . Here the petitioner was absent for 29 and ½ days and therefore it will amounting to a break without even considering aspect of permanency on completion of 120 days . However it is clear that there is no evidence to show that he was taking any treatment that too for the injuries sustained while on duty .

का.आ. 2201.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आल इंडिया रेडियो के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 69/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42011/107/2007-आई. आर. ( डी.यू. ) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी (12) It is pertinent to note that the applicant though he had approached to the CGIT had filed a Original Application bearing No. 111/1995 before the Central Administrative Tribunal at Mumbai with the prayer of reinstatement and that was dismissed by the Hon'ble CAT. The applicant filed a Review Petition again before the Hon'ble CAT and that was also dismissed . Again the management has filed at Annexure 8 , a copy of order of the Original Application No. 664/1999 which shows that he [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 21st July, 2009

S.O. 2201. -In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.69/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, No.New Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between theemployers in relation to the management of All India Radio and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 21-7-2009.

4673

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15 , 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

[No. L-42011/ 107/2007- IR(DU) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFFICER , CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT NO. 1 , NEW DELHI KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 69/2007

Shri Rishi Pal ,

Workman Through Shri B.K. Prasad, Janvadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union , C/o. Room No. 95 , Barrack No. 1/10 , JamNagar House , New Delhi - 110011 .

Versus

The Executive Engineer ,

All IndiaRadio,

Metro Division-I , Kingsway Camp, Delhi- 110009.

Management

AWARD

Rishi Pal joined services with C.P.W.D. as muster roll beldar on 1-5-86 . His services were terminated on 30-6-86 . Aggrieved by that order he moved an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal , which was granted. He was reinstated in services w.e.f. 18-9-92 . Om Wati , a muster roll beldar was engaged by CPWD on 24-10-88. Her services were regularized on 8-1-94. Similarly Thakur Das was employed as muster roll beldar on 1st of November , 88, whose services were regularized on 8-1-94 . Rishi Pal claimed regularization of his services with the management, since his juniors were regularized . His request was not conceded to . Janwadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union espoused his claim and raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal vide order No. L -42011/107 /2007 - IR (DU) dated 20-9-2007 with following terms:

"Whether the demand of the Janwadi General Kamgar Mazdoor Union for regularization of services of Shri Rishi Pal , w.e.f. 8-1-94 , by the management of All India Radio is legal andjustified ? If yes , to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. Rishi Pal filed his claim statement detailing there in that he joined services with the management as beldar on 1st ofMay, 86. His juniors , namely Smt . Om Wati and Thakur Dass were regularized w.e.f. 8th of January, 94 . Thakur Dass was also granted financial upgradation under A.C.P. scheme after completion of 12 years of regular service on 7-1-06 . Request was made to the management vide letter dated 7-6-06 seeking regularization of his services , which request was not responded to . It was pleaded that the action of the management in not regularizing, his services criminatory, unjustified and illegal . Heclaims regularization of his services w.e.f. 8-1-94 , in the pay scale of Rs . 2550-3200, besides financial upgradation inthe scale of Rs . 3050-4590 .

3. Instead of filing written statement to the claim of the workman , the management submitted a letter written by the Executive Engineer ( Civil), Metro Division No. II , CivilConstruction Wing, All India Radio , Kingsway Camp, New Delhi , wherein it is mentioned that services of Rishi Pal beldar has been regularized w.e.f. 19th of March , 93 as per order dated 9th of July, 2009 , alongwith the said letter order No.EE( C - II )/WC/ 1 /2009-10/972 dated 9-7-09 has been filed. Thus , the management projected that service of Rishi PalBeldar has been regularized w.e.f. 19-3-93 .

4. Shri A.P.Gupta A/ R for the management also confirmed those very facts in his statement recorded by the Tribunal . His statement is reproduced in extenso as follows:

" Statement of Shri A.P. Gupta A/ R of the management, chamber No. 287 , Delhi High Court Chambers , Shershah Road , Delhi . without oath .

I am authorized representative of the management , hence competent to make statement on their behalf . Services of Shri Rishi Pal has been regularized w.e.f. 19th ofMarch , 1993. A communication to this effect has been sent by Executive Engineer , Metro Division II , Civil Construction Wing, All India Radio , Kingsway Camp , New Delhi , which is Ex.M -1 . Letter issued by Shri B.K.Behra, Executive Engineer ( Civil ) A.K.B , regularising services of Rishi Pal w.e.f. 19-3-93 is Ex.M - 2 . Since services of Shri Rishi Pal has been regularized w.e.f. 19th of March , 1993 , now there remains no dispute between him and the management . Reference may be answered accordingly. "

5. In view of these facts it is apparent that services ofRishi Pal has been regularized by the management w.e.f. 19th of March, 93. Certain apprehensions are raised by the workman contending that order EX.M2 speaks of his regularization in service from the date of his joining . In view of the statement made by Shri Gupta, it is expedient to command that when Shri Rishi Pal would submit hisjoining report it would give effect of services deemed to have been joined on 19-3-93 , in pursuance of regularization orders .

4674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 / SRAVANA 24, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

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

He would be paid wages in the scale of Rs . 250-940 , which has been revised to Rs . 2550-3200. Financial upgradation would be given to him under ACP scheme on completion of 12 years of regular service on 19-3-2005 , in the pay scale ofRs . 3050-4590 . An award is accordingly passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: 17-7-09

DR . R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 21 जुलाई , 2009

2. Though both sides entered appearance the management has not filed written statement and the management is remaining absent continuously . There is not even a representation for the management when the case came up today for written statement ofthe management after repeated postings . It has to be presumed from the circumstances that the management is not seriously disputing the claim. It is unnecessary to keep the case pending without even the submission of written statement by the management . Therefore I find that the termination ofthe worker from service w.e.f. 1-3-1997 without following the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is illegal and unjustified.

का.आ. 2202.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं मैसर्स एन. ई.पी.सी. एअर लाईन्स के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , ईरनाकुल्लम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -11012/9/2008- आई. आर. ( सी. !) ] स्नेह लता जवारः डेस्क अधिकारी

In the result ån award is passed finding that the action of the management of NEPC Airlines , Chennai in dismissing the workman Sri . Phillips C. Abraham from service w.e.f. 1-3-1997 is illegal and unjustified and he is entitled to be reinstated with back wages with all consequential benefits .

New Delhi , the 21st July, 2009

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

Dictated to the personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 6th day of July, 2009.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer Appendix-Nil

S.O. 2202. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 17/2008 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between theemployers in relation to the management of M/ s . NEPC Airlines and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-7-2009.

नई दिल्ली, 21 जुलाई , 2009

[No. L- 11012/9 /2008-1.R. (C- I ) ] SNEH LATA NAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

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

का.आ. 2203.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ओ.एन.जी. सी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 175/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । (Monday the 6th day of July , 2009 , 15th Asadha , 1931 ) I. D. No. 17/2008

[सं. एल-30012/ 131/1998- आई. आर. (सी. - 1) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st July, 2009

Worker : Shri Philips C. Abraham , Mulakilethu House, Kottakkam , Mavelikara- 690 101 , Kerala

By Adv . Shri . C. Anilkumar .

Management : M/ s . NEPC Airlines , 36, Wallajah Road , Chennai .

By Adv . Shri P. Veeramuthu .

S.O. 2203. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 175/ 2002) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ONGC and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-7-2009.

[No. L- 30012/ 131 / 1998 -I.R. (C -I ) ] SNEH LATA NAWAS , Desk Officer This case coming up for hearing on 06-07-2009 , this Tribunal- cum - Labour Court on the same day passed the following.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 24th day of March , 2009 Industrial Dispute No. 175/2002

BETWEEN:

The General Secretary,

ONGC Contract Worker's Union , (INTUC), D.No. 47-2-8/ 1 ,

Gandhipuram, Rajahmundry - 533103 . ... Petitioner/Union And

The General Manager , ONGCLtd. , K.G.Project , Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry -533103 ....Respondent/Management APPEARANCES

Forthe Petitioner : Sri S. V. Somalingam , Advocate For the Respondent Sri M. N. Aditya, Advocate

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its orderNo. L-30012/ 131 /98 - IR (C-I ) dated 30-3-1999 referred the following dispute under Section 10( 1 ) (d) of the 1.D. Act, 1947 for adjudication to the Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Visakhapatnam transferred to this Court in view of the Government of India, Ministry of Labour's order No.H - 11026/ 1 /2001 - IR(C - II) dated 18-10-2001 bearing 1.T.I.D. (C) , No. 10/99 and renumbered in this Court as 1.D. No. 175/2002 between the management of ONGC Ltd. , and their workmen. The reference is ,

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of ONGCLtd. , Rajahmundry in not regularizing the services of 122 contract labour (List enclosed ) who are working in a permanent and perennial nature of work in ONGCLtd. , K.G. Project , Rajahmundry in contravention to the notification issued by the Government of India is justified ? Ifnot , to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled ? " 2. The Petitioner union submitted their claim statement stating that the 122 contract labour are workmen of the Respondent management and hence , they are entitled for regularization of their services in ONGC Ltd. , Rajahmundry.

3. Respondent filed counter. It is submitted that the work is purely project- wise and has no permanent work to be performed at Rajahmundry. It is further submitted that the persons listed in the annexure were being engaged by 2811 GI/098

4675 the contractors purely on temporary basis as the work of the management itself is project wise in nature . Hence , the reference be answered in favour of the management .

4. On 1-4-2003 , records pertaining to this case were transmitted to the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , as the Respondent management filed WP No. 24493/2002 as per Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad orders .

5. File received from Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad . On 24-3-2009 both parties called absent . Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , has quashed the term of reference and proceeding of this tribunal by its order dated 30-6-2008 , as such , the case is closed. Transmit .

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

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Respondent

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner NIL

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली , 21 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2204.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं मैसर्स एल.ए.एस.पी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 17/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 21-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -11012/ 15/2006- आई आर( सी.- 1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st July, 2009

S.O. 2204. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 17/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, No.1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Livewel Aviation Service (P) Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 21-7-2009 .

[No. L - 11012/ 15/2006 - IR(C- I) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer [PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii)] 4676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 / SRAVANA 24, 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT NO. 1 , NEW DELHI

I.D. No. 17/2006

medical certificate of his son . Original copy of leave application was taken . However he was not allowed to join duties . He raised a demand on 17-12-04 . When he went to Delhi office of the management , Manager talked on telephone at Bangalore Office . He was not taken on job . His earned wages were not paid . His termination is in violation of the provisions of Section 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. He claimed reinstatement of his services with continuity and full back wages .

... Workman

Shri Vinod Kumar S /o Shri Harish Singh, C/ o Delhi Pradesh Kamgaar Ekta Sangh (Regd . ) , RZF/ 53 , Sitapuri , Part- 11 , New Delhi - 110045.

Versus

....Management

M/s Livewel Aviation Service Private Limited , 8/2, Mehram Nagar, Opposite- Palam Airport , New Delhi.

AWARD

VinodKumar was working as sweeper at Delhi office of M/ s . Livewel Aviation Service Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the management) . He was paid monthly wages at Rs . 2863. He was transferred to Bangalore office of the management on 10-10-2004 . He claimed that his son fell ill and as such he came to Delhi for his treatment . On 26-11-04 he went to Delhi office of the managementto join his duties . He was not allowed to resume his duties . His services were terminated . Vinod Kumar raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. When Conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate government referred the dispute vide order No. L- 11012/ 15/2006 - IR( CM - 1 ) dated 01-06-2006 to this Tribunal with the following terms:

3. Contest was given to the claim by the management pleading that the management is a private limited company , having its corporate office at 9 , Naryan Udyog Bhawan , Lal Baug Industrial Estate , Dr. Ambedkar Road , Lal Baug , Mumbai -400012 . The management has its branch office at 8/2, Mehram Nagar , opposite Palam Airport, New Delhi . It has been pleaded that appropriate Government was the State Government , hence reference before this Tribunal is not competent . It is pleaded that the claimant was appointed as a " Trainee Utility Hand " in terms of appointment letter dated 27-10-03 . He had suffered misconducts and gross negligence during training period. He tendered written apology number of times . He did not improve his habit and conduct, therefore , he was not found fit to be absorbed permanently. He was sent to Banglore on 9-10-2004 for a period of six months on deputation from 10-10-04 to 31-3-05 . He was informed that he was entitled to travel back to Delhi at the cost of the management , after completion of six months deputation period . He left Banglore office without any prior information or permission of his superiors . He absented from duties and was suspended for three days from 31-10-04 to 2-11-04. He quarreled with his superiors on 2-11-94 and for that misconduct he tendered written apology. Considering his past conduct , he was relieved from services vide letter dated 8-2-05 . It is pleaded that the workman was not regularized in services . His services were dispensed with in pursuance ofthe terms of the appointment letter. He is not entitled for reinstatement in services .

"Whether the action of the management of Livewel Aviation Services Pvt . Ltd. , 8/141 , Mehram Nagar , Opp. Palam Airport , Ground Floor, New Delhi - 10 in terminating /discontinuing the services of Shri Vinod Kumar , S /o Shri Harish Singh , Utility Hand /Safai Karamchari w.e.f. 26-11-2004 is just, fair and legal ? If Not. to what relief is the concerned workman entitled? "

4. The workman had abandoned the proceedings . Registered notice was sent to him on 22-6-09 . Postal article was received back with the report that he was not residing at the given address . Notice was sent to the workman through Delhi Pradesh Kamgaar Ekta Sangh ( Regd. ) , RZ- F/53 Sita Puri Part -V, New Delhi, the address provided by the appropriate Government, in reference letter . Therefore, it is evident that the workman was not available at the given address . Consequently the Tribunal could not lay its hands on the workman to call him to prosecute his claim.

5. Affidavit of Shri Mahesh Kaushik was tendered in evidence on behalf of the management, wherein facts pleaded in the written statement has been reaffirmed . Out of facts sworn by Shri Mahesh Kaushik , it came to light that the management is a private limited company , engaged in providing services and manpower to its clients . Therefore , in relation to the dispute between Shri Vinod 2. Claim statement was filed by the workman pleading therein that he was an employee of the management and getting a sum of Rs . 2863 as his wages . The management deducted Rs.500 PM for continuous six months as security. His work was to the entire satisfaction of the management . He projeets that his signatures were obtained on some documents written in English as well as on some plain papers and thereafter he was taken to Bangalore in an aeroplane on 10-10-04. He was made to work in Banglore office of the management. No assurance was given to him concerning his return to Delhi . He received an information about ailment of his son . He moved leave application and asked for fare for inward journey . No fare was given . His leaves were not sanctioned. He was told orally that after treatment of his son he can join Delhi office of the managcinent . On 26-11-04 he went to Delhi office alongwith 4677 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

mine , an oil field , a Cantonment Board , or a major port , the Central Government , and

( ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute , the State Government . "

Kumar and the management , the Central Government is not the appropriate Government . Clause ( a) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short the Act) defines the appropriate Government . For the sake of convenience the said definition is reproduced as follows:-

" appropriate Government " means-

6. As projected by the management, it is a private limited company having its registered office at Mumbai and branch office at Delhi . It provides service and manpower to its clients . Therefore , affairs concernig the management nowhere falls within the ambit of Industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government . In that situation it is the State Government who is appropriate Government in relation to any dispute concerning the affairs of the management and the workman , as enacted by clause (a) of section 2 of the Act. It emerges over the record that without application of any mind the present dispute has been referred to this Tribunal .

7. As projected by Mahesh Kaushik the workman was employed as a " Trainee Utility Hand " , whose work and conduct was not found satisfactory . He misconducted himself, for which he tendered apology letters time and again. Considering his work and conduct the management opted not to continue him in the job . His services were dispensed with , in pursuance of terms and conditions contained in his appointment letter Ex.MW1/2 . Under these circumstances it emerges that services of the workman were dispensed with in accordance with the terms and conditions ofhis service .

8. In view of the fact that the Central Government was not appropriate Government in relation to the dispute between Vinod Kumar and the Management , the present reference is not competent . Under these circumstances it is not expedient to adjudicate the terins of the reference and to ascertain justifiability, fairness and legality of the action ofthe management , in terminating services of Vinod Kumar . The reference is accordingly answered . A copy of the award be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: 13-7-09 Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2205,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 122/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12014/1/2009- आई. ओर. ( बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी (i) in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority ofthe Central Government, or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948 ( 9 of 1948 ) , or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the Companies Act , 1956 ( 1 of 1956 ) or the Employees ' State Insurance Corporation established under section 3 ofthe Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) , or the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1948 (46 of 1948 ) , or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5 A and section 5B , respectively , of the Employees ' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952 ) , or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act , 1956(31 of 1956 ) , or the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the Companies Act, 1956 ( 1 of 1956 ) , or the Deposit Insurance and CreditGuarantee Corporation established under section 3 of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation Act , 1961 ( 47 of 1961 ) , or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under section 3 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 (58 of 1962) or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 of the Unit Trust of India Act , 1963 (52 of 1963 ) , or the Food Corporation of India established under section 3 , or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under section 16 , of the Food Corporations Act , 1964 (37 of 1964 ) , or the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of India Act, 1994(55 of 1994) or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 ofthe Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976), or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited , the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing Bank Act , 1987 ( 53 of 1987) , or an air transport service , or a banking or an insurance company , a THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

in the year 1989 and was absorbed by the Respondent in the year 1989. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997. He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

S.O. 2205. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 122/2005 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court. Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/1 /2009 - IR(B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum- water boy/ watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary - employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed.

Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

the 24th day of February , 2009

dustrial Dispute L.C. No. 122/2005

BETWEEN

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . On 24-2-2009 petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present . Petitioner is not attending to this case for last two years , as such , his evidence is closed . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

S/ D. Karranna ,

RH.No. 17, Gotla Village,

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

StiDuppada Krishnamurthy, Thengathanppara Post , Hina Mandal Mandalam,

.... Petitioner

District - 518 222 .

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

ANO

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer General Manager ,

Appendix of evidence

nal Office, RTC Complex ,

hef India , Visakhapatnam.

.....Respondent

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent APPEARANCES

NIL

For the Petitioner :

Documents marked for the Petitioner M/ s C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy and S. Vijay Venkatesh, Advocates

NIL

For the Respondent Sri B. G. Ravindra Reddy ,

Advocate

Documents marked for the Respondent. NIL

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

का.आ. 2206.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12014/1/2009-आईआर ( बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him. He submitted that he was appointed as Non-Messenger on 1-1-83 in SBI Hiramandalam Branch of the respondent bank . He worked in different spells from 1-1-83 to 31-7-88 for a period of 112 days . He was empanelled 4679

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S.O. 2206.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 7/2005 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009.

[No. L- 12014/1 /2009- IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C.No. 7/2005

BETWEEN

Sri Chandam Yogaiah ,

S/ o Musalaiah ,

R/ o Boreddipalli Junction ,

Boreddipalli (Post) ,

Tripuranthakam (M) ,

... Petitioner Prakasam District.

AND

The ChiefGeneral Manager ( Personal) ,

State Bank of India,

LocalHead Office ,

Bank Street , Koti ,

...Respondent Hyderabad.

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

: M/sS. Prasada Rao ,

C.V. Vysampayan , C. Bala Subramanyam & K. Bharathi , Advocates .

Forthe Respondent : : M/s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement, page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinappa and M /s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondent questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Water Boy in June , 1980 in Respondent organization at Hyderabad. He worked from June , 1980 to March, 1997 for aperiod of 317 days . He was empanelled in the year 1994 . Hewas terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/sweeper - cum- water boy/ watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared. It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed .

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support of their respective contentions. Petitioner filed his chief examination affidavit on 25-9-2006 . Later he did not turn up for cross examination .

5. On 5-2-2009 petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present . Petitioner is not attending to this case for the last three years , as such , his evidence is closed. Hence, Nil Award is passed in absence ofevidence .

Award passed accordingly , Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 5th day ofFebruary, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

WWI : Sri Chandam Yogaiah

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL 4680

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA 24, 1931

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 22 जुलाई , 2009

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

का.आ. 2207.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12014/1/2009- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd July , 2009

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondent questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him. He submitted that he was appointed as Messenger on 1-3-90 in SBI Govindrapeta Branch of the respondent bank. He worked in different spells from 1-3-90 to 29-3-90 for 25 days and from 19-8-91 to 18-9-91 for a period of 31 days . He was terminated orally on 29-3-1997 . He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

S.O. 2207. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9/2005 ) ofCentral Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/1 /2009- IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum - water boy/ watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 29-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed.

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 3rd day of February, 2009

Industrial Dispute L.C.No. 9/2005

BETWEEN

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support of their respective contentions . On 3-2-2009 none responded from the side of the petitioner while Respondent's counsel is present . The case is fixed for Petitioner's evidence who is absent as such , the case is dismissed in absence of workman .

Sri I Narayana, S/ o Yellaiah ,

Award passed accordingly , Transmit .

.... Petitioner

R/ o H. No. 125 , NTR Colony , Govindraopeta Village & Mandal, Warangal District -506 334.

AND

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant , transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 3rd day ofFebruary, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

TheAsst . General Manager , State Bank of India , Personnel& HRD, Local Head Office , Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad.

.Respondent

APPEARANCES

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

For the Petitioner

: M/s C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

For the Respondent

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

: M/s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy , P. Srinivasulu & B.V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

4681 नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

AWARD

का.आ. 2208.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ हैदराबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों ओर उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबन्ध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 68/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

This is a petition filed under Sec . 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others by Sri . P. Srinivas challenging the illegality and validity of the order passed by the Respondent dated 6-6-2005 thereby the services were orally terminated by the Respondent.

[सं. एल-12014/1/2009 - आई.आर. ( बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S.O. 2208. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.68/2005) ofCentral Govemment Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/ 1/2009-1R( B- 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer

Dated the 1st day of May, 2009

Industrial Dispute L. C.I.D. No. 68/2005

BETWEEN

SriP. Srinivas , S/ o Ramulu , C/ o A.P. Industrial Employees Union , " House of Labour " , King Kothi Road , Hyderabad- 29 .

.... Petitioner

AND

2. It has been stated by the Petitioner that he was appointed by the Respondent as casual labour from 18-6-1996 and was posted under 2nd Respondent where the Petitioner worked for more than 240 days continuously without any break in that year on a wage of Rs . 50 per day. The Petitioner has worked in that capacity for more than 14 years but he was not made regular. When the Petitioner insisted for regularization and asked for the correct payment ofwages then the services of the Petitoner were terminated on 6-6-2005 without any written order or following the due procedure . Before that the Petitioner made a representation dated 19-5-2005 to regularize his services and pay arrears of wages as per the wages paid to the casual labourer of Kakatiyanagar branch who raised ID No. 35/2001 which was decided on 24-9-2002 and the casual labour of the Kakatiyanagar branch were given wages as per rules and they were also paid arrears of the wages . The Petitioner moved a petition to follow the procedure of 1/3rd pay after two years one half of pay after another two years and 3 /4th pay after another two years . The Petitioner further served a reminder on 31-5-2005 but no action was taken by the Respondent management. The action of the management in orally terminating the services of the Petitioner is illegal and against the principles of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Hon'ble High Court of A.P. in WP No. 15555/93 directed the Respondent to consider the cases ofthe Petitioners of that case . Another WP No. 18436/2004 decided on 11-10-2004 , the Hon'ble High Court ofA.P. , directed the Respondent to pass appropriate order on the observations of the regular employees . But the Respondent has not obeyed that order also . Hence , this petition.

1. The Dy . General Manager ,

Personal Department , State Bank of Hyderabad , Gunfoundry Head Office , Hyderabad .

2. The Branch Manager , State Bank of Hyderabad, Bellavista Branch, Somajiguda Branch , Hyderabad.

.Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

: M/s . N. Meenakshi , C.

Lavanya & G. Sailaja, Advocates

For the Respondent : Sri Ch. Siva Reddy, Advocate

3. The Respondent management has filed counter statement. They have challenged the maintainability ofthe claim petition . The Respondent has submitted that the Petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days . He was not on the rolls of the bank as such, the, question of termination of the services did not arise , the allegation to this effect is baseless and misconceived . The bank has never engaged Petitioner in their employment nor the vacancies were notified, the Petitioner was engaged for casual work when his services were required by the bank. He was never employed as regular or a full day worker .He is not entitled for the benefit Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , because he was engaged to work as and when the bank required services of the Petitioner , he [PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 4682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

was employed for that date only. The Petition has no force and deserves to be rejected or dismissed. The Petitioner can not claim any advantage from the order passed in WP No. 15555/93 or WP No. 18436/2004 because the Petitioner was not a party to this petition.

suggestion but the Petitioner on his own has not filed any documentary or other reliable evidence which may prove thatthe Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding date of his termination . Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that it is the duty of the Petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding the date of termination of the services then. only the Petitioner's shall be entitled for the benefit of Sec.25F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Petitioner ofthis case has not been able to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days preceding the date of his termination as such , the provisions of Sec.25F of the In- dustrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not applicable in the present case and non - observance of the procedure of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 does not made the order ofdisengagement illegal.

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidence . Petitioner filed his affidavit as examination in chiefand presented himself for cross examination. He has filed documents marked as Exs . W1 to W23 . Respondent bank has filed affidavit of Mr. Ch. Surender Raju as MW 1 , as examination in chief and presented him for cross exarnination. Respondent has also filed xerox copy of the award dated 24-9-2004 passed in ID No. 35/2001 . Copy of the order of Hon ' ble High Court of A.P. passed in WP No. 15555/93 between Vishnu Kumar and K. Raju Vs. M.D. , State Bank of Hyderabad . Letter of the Personnel depart- ment No. PER.GR.VI/7777 dated 28-3-2005 to Sri N. Rama Krishna and another letter addressed to Sri V. S. Krishna Chary, another letter to Sri K. Vijaya Kumar informing them that the bank is not in a position to absorb them in the bank's services .

6. The Petitioner has filed Ex . W3 xerox copy of the Identity card issued to the Petitioner as casual labour, when this I Card was issued is not clear. When the Petitioner was appointed is not clear . Ex . W 19 is recommendatory letter of the Respondent, the Branch Manager recommending for the absorption of P. Srinivas on consolidated wages . Ex .WI letter dated 11-3-89 for absorption of three employees which is not concerned with the present petition Exs . W 11 and W 12 are not concemed with the present case. Exs . W 11 to W 14 are letters for re - sending and receiving the clearing bags through the Petitioner in the year 2002. Exs . W 17 and W 18 are letters to deliver high value clearance through P. Srinivas . Ex .W 22 is the letter of Respondent to the State President , A.P. Industrial Employees Union informing him that K. Santosh Kumar , P. Srinivas , V.S. Krishnachary, Bhuraram and Sri N. Ramakrishna are not workmen within the meaning of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 because they are engaged on day to day basis depending upon contingency and they have no right for regularization . On the basis of these docu- ments , the Petitioner's counsel has argued that the Peti- tioner has worked from 2002 to 2005 regularly and he has completed 240 days, this shows and proves that the Peti- tioner has been engaged on those dates when there is work available with the Respondent . There is no document to prove that the Petitioner has continuously worked for more than one day at one stretch of a time, this proves the conten- tion of the Respondent that the Petitioner was engaged only on those dates when there was work available with the Respondent and thus the nature of engagement of the Peti- tioner was for a single day . He was engaged at the begin- ning of the date and his services were disengaged on the close ofthe day . Thus there is no proof or evoat of evidence to substance the contention of the Petitioner that he was continuously working for 240 days or even for single week.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has further argued that the Petitioner has no right to claim regularization or absorption in the services because he was never appointed as a regular casual labour or daily 5. I have heard counsels for both the parties and have perused the relevant claim and counter statements of the parties , documentary and oral evidences filed by them . It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner thatthe Petitioner has challenged the oral order of termina- tion without following the procedure laid down u/ s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 because the Petitioner has already put in more than 240 days of service under the man- agement and control of the Respondent Nos . 1 and 2. Thus , non-observance of the provision of Sec . 25F in this case is fatal and it cut the very root of the termination order because the compensation u/s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has not been paid in this case . As against this argu- ment of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner , the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the Petitioner ofthis case has not been able to show and prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding the alleged date of termination of his services . The Petitioner has not produced any appointment letter to show as to when hewas appointed in the bank's services. The Learned Coun- sel for Respondent has cited the statement of the Petitioner dated 1-3-2006 wherein , during cross exarnination the Peti- tioner has admitted that he was not given any appointment order. The Respondent's counsel has further cited the oral statement ofthe Petitioner dated 1-3-2006 wherein the Pe- titioner has stated that he was not assured in the writing for regularization . The Petitioner has stated that he worked on the extension counter of the Respondent bank at R TI office. The Petitioner has stated that Respondent bank has not recruited anybody as temporary employee for the last five years . A suggestion has been given to the Petitioner by the Respondent that he has not worked for more than 240 days in a year, though the Petitioner has denied the 4683 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15 , 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

wage worker. Since the Petitioner was not engaged on the regular basis he cannot claim benefit of absorption or regularization . The services of Petitioner were on the day to day basis , thus , he has no legal right to claim regularization or claim the benefit of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

9. On the basis of above two case laws of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted before this court that if this tribunal comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner was daily rate worker , even though in the light of the judgment of Umadevi , dailywage worker have no enforceable legal right to claim for absorption. More so , in this case , the Petitioner has not been able to prove that he was a regular daily wage worker . But from the evidence available on the record it is clear that the Petitioner was engaged by the Respondent management for only those days when there was work available with the management . Thus , the nature of employment ofthe Petitioner was that of a purely daily rate worker, whose employment was terminated at the end of the day and thus he was not entitled to claim even daily wage work from the Respondent management . Thus , the disengagement of the Petitioner , who was not appointed following rules of appointment is not fit to be governed by the principles of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The disengagement cannot be questioned before this tribunal because Petitioner was not a workman within the meaning ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

10. I have considered the above argument and I have also come to the conclusion that form the evidence on record it is proved that Petitioner was engaged for the day'swork and his services or engagement were terminated by the end of the day. As such , the Petitioner cannot claim regularization on the basis of such casual engagement . The action of the management in disengaging the services ofthe Petitioner is neither illegal nor against the principles of Industrial Disputes Act . It cannot be questioned before this tribunal , the Petitioner has not been able to prove his case for declaring the action of the management as illegal or arbitrary and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Award pased accordingly. Transmit.

Dictatedto Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her , correctedby me on this Ist day of May, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the respondent

MW1 : Sri Ch . Surender

WWI : Sri P. Srinivas

Raju

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. W1 : Copy of Ir . No. PER/ GR . VI /F . 22/2279 from the Personnel Manager , Admn . to the Regional Manager, for permanent absorption under 1.D. Act dt. 11-3-1989 .

8. I have considered the above argument of the Learned Counsels for the parties and have also gone through the documents cited above and the statement of the Petitioner. In his statement, the Petitioner has nowhere stated that he has continuously worked for more than 240 days . He himselfhas admitted that no appointment letter was given to him and within last five years no person has been employed by the Respondent bank as temporary em- ployee . This statement was recorded on 1-3-2006 from the own admission ofthe Petitioner it is proved that since 2001 onwards nobody was employed by the Respondent bank or recruited by the Respondent bank. Hence , the contention of the Petitioner that he is working since 2001 or beyond 2001 is misconceived based on no evidence and not fit to be believed by this Tribunal. It is undisputed that the Petitioner has been engaged when the Respondent bank has work to be done on a particular date, thereby the Petitioner was engaged for a day's work as and when required by the Respondent management . The Petitioner was never appointed or recruited as a regular employee ofthe bank, his services were disengaged on the close of the day as such , he cannot claim the benefit of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and Respondent bank has not committed any illegality in not following the provisions of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Since the Petitioner was engaged for a day's work after the close of the day Petitioner did not remain the employee of the bank, therefore, he has not completed more than 240 days in the year preceding the date ofhis disengagement from the employment . There was no need to follow the procedure of Sec.25F , Petitioner's disengagement is neither illegal nor it is in violation of the principles of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and no interference can be done in the action of the management . The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has cited case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2008 ( 10 ) page 1 Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has quashed the appointment ofa company paid staff because they have not come through the proper channel and by their absorption in the service , meritorious persons were not given opportunity or could not avail the opportunity to compete for the best . He has further cited the case law reported in 2006(1 ) Decisions Today (SC) page 493 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter between the Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & others , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the public employment should be made in accordance with the rule - Temporary employees or daily worker or contractual workers have no enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed into service .

2811 GI/09-9 Face F OF INDIA AUGUST 15 , 2009 /SRAVANA 24, 1931

119-121 . Absorption of tem congees on consolidate wage

ExW20 : Copy of demand notice dt.19.5 WW 1to the Respondents for his to to next grade.

eron copies

LxW26 Copy of circulardt. 3-6-2005 No.PEAV Misc./1297 issued by lead Office of all the branches to terminate the candidates Respondens fr. to Chief deparing Fetitioner to take 10-15-09

Mificate to the Petitioner to take de learing bags .

Ex . W22 Copy of fr. of D. M ../Per . & HRD totta. Num President . A P. Industrial Employers to that the casual labour are not woramer en ver the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

Mespondent's Ir. to A.G.M. , representation along with

2011-10-99

Ex. W23 : Copy of note on augmentation of sub - staff sweepers , for date of appointment continuation Ex . dt . 6-5-99. ad

Documents marked for the Respondent

proposal submitted by Respondent M, recommending Petitioner for water boy postdt. 26-7-2001 ,

Ex.M1 Copy of award of CGIT- cum - Laboin Court, Hyderabaddt. 24-9-2002

Ex.M2 Copy of order in WP No 15553/1993 lt 28-3 97

proposal submitted by Respondent el , recommending Petitioner for

Garewater boy postdt.27-9-2001 .

Ex.M 3 Copy of order in WP No. 18436/2004 dt. 11-10-200-4.

JAG.M., to the Branch Manager , i appointing Sri K. Shanker Babu as w worker

Ex.M4 Copy of Ir of State Bank of Hyderabad Head Officeto Sri N. Rama Krishna dt . 28-3-2005s

ExM5 Copy of Lr . of State Bank of Hyderabad to Sri VS Krishnacharydt. 28-3-2005 Alt of Respondent Np.F/ 3 /430 drawing herletter d1,27.9.2001 and sending the epeal for appointment of Petitioner .

Ex.M6 Copy of Ir . of State Bank of Hyderabad to Sri K. Vijay Kumar dt. 28-3-2005.

ps Respondent's letter to Chief Manager, branch deputing the Petitioner 10000

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 20004

p of Respondent's letter to ChiefManager , iranch đẹputing the Petitioner

का, आ. 2200, श्रीधानिक विचार अधिनियम, 194194 ) Pipondent's letter to Chief Manager , Tranh deputing the Petitioner

का 14 ) की धातु 17 धरणी सरखारट ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंगतत्र व संबद्ध निकाऔर उनके कर्मका अनुबंध में विधायक विधान में बद्रीय सरकारक अधिकरण, हैनगवानसख्या 134/2005 ) का प्रकाशित करती है, जी काही सरकार 22.7.2009 को प्राप्त हो० था । 10 podent's letter to Chief Manager , march deputing the Petitioner

1404 2014 /12000 - ज़ाई कर

अजय कुमार, इस्ता गाण soutarda S6-2002 No. PER/2002 disa by Head Office to pay

New Dib , the 22nd July, 2009 pondem a letter to Chief Manager , Branch depuing the Petitioner

Kespondent's letter to Chief tiger, Service branch deputing the 17-8-2002 .

8.0. 2209.in pursuance of Section 1.31 Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the tenral Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1B4 2005) of Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal - cum - labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the manageinent of State Bank of India and then workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 22-7-2000

devil's letter to Chief Manager, AJermaing the Petitioner

[No. L - 12014/ 1 /2009-1K( B- 1j Respondent recommending the Pranportmant di. 24-3-2004,

AJAY KUMAR , Desk Oficer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

4685

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15 , 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 3rd day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 134/2005

BETWEEN

Sri Nallapothala Ramanjaneyulu ,

S/ N Obilesu.

R puram Village ,

Panch Madalam,

Astrict.

....Petitioner AND

The Deputy General Manager ,

State Bank of India ,

Zonal Office , Renigunta Road,

Tirurathi, Chittoor District

Respondent

APIRARANCES

ioner

: Sri S. Vijay Venkatesh, Advocate

For the Respondent : : M/s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3 ) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Messenger on 18-8-1988 in SBI Gooty Branch of the respondent bank . He worked in different spells from 18-8-88 to 5-7-90 for 169 days and from 20-5-91 to 28-7-91 for a period of 70 days . He was empanelled for regularization in the year 1992 and was absorbed as Messenger in 1992. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997. He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum- water boy / watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub -staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared. It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed.

Award passed accordingly , Transmit .

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistart, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 3rd day ofFebruary , 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

thePetitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 22 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2210.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 130/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12014/1 /2009- आई. आर. ( बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd July , 2009

S.O. 2210.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 130/ 2005) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009.

[No. L- 12014/ 1 /2009-1R (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 / SRAVANA 24 , 1931

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 24th day of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 130/2005

BETWEEN

.... Petitioner Sri D. Devadanam, S/ o D. Chinna Keshanna , Reil.No. 26/9 , Chigaramanpeta , Done, Kurnool District - 518222 .

AND

Tne Asstt . General Manager , State Bank of India .

Personnel & HRD, Local Head Office, Bank Street , Koi, Hyderabad.

.Respondent APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

: M/s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy , G. Srinivasa Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates

For the Respondent : : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (6 ) LL.J Supplement, page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terniinating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Messenger on 24-5-1988 in SBI Done Branch of the respondent bank . He worked in different spells from 24-5-88 to 2-12-88 for a period of 88 days . He was empanelled in the year 1989 and was absorbed by the Respondent in the year 1989. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this Courtto direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a reguiar employee with all consequential benefits .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement. As such this petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support of their respective contentions . On 24-2-2009 petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present . Petitioner is attending to this case for last two years , as such , his evidence is closed. Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

Award passed accordingly , Transmit .

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

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for thePetitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 22 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2211.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 129/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12014/1/2009- आई.आर. ( बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S.O. 2211. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 129/ 2005) of Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/1 /2009-1R (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4687

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT ATHYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 24th day of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 129/2005

BETWEEN

Sri Thappela Aveeranna ,

temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed .

Award passed accordingly , Transmit .

.... Petitioner

S/ o T. Chinnagagilappa , R/ o H.No. 202 , 7th Ward , Harijana Veedhi , Gooty, Anantpur District - 515401

AND

The Deputy General Manager ,

State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunata Road , Tirupathi

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

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

.Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

: M/s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy, G. Srinivasa Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3 ) LLJ Supplement, page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Non-Messenger on 9-4-81 in SBI Gooty Branch of the respondent bank. He worked in different spells from 9-4-81 to 31-12-82 for a period of 178 days . He was empanelled in the year 1989 and was absorbed by the Respondent in the year 1989. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2212.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 123/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12014/ 1/2009- आईआर ( बी.1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S. O. 2212.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 123/ 2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/ 1 /2009 - IR(B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 4688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA 24, 1931

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

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

Dated the 24th day of February , 2009

Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 123/2005

BETWEEN

Sri Gudisa Pedda Erranna ,

S/o G. Nettikallu ,

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . On 24-2-2009 Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel present . In absence of Petitioner or his witness , his evidence is closed . Hence . Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence.

Award passed accordingly Tronsати.

..... Petitioner

R/ o 8-3-78 , 10th Ward, Gooty, Anantpur District -515401 .

AND

Dictatedto Sat. P. Phant Gowri . Personal Assa transcribed by her and corned by me has d 24th day of February, 2004.

1. The Deputy bloger,

VED PEAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer Story Bank

Zonal ofhce, Roiganta Rood.

Witnesses examinel

Tinpathu.

Respondent

for the

for the Petitioner

APPEARANCES

NIL

For the Perda : M/s. Vijaya Shekar Redily

Det norked for the Petitioner NIL

G. Srinivasa & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates

Documents marked for the Respondent

Forthe Respondent : Shri B. G. Ravindra Reddy & B. V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement, page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

का. आ. 2213.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 124/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12014/ 1/2009- आईआर ( बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

2. Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him. He submitted that he was appointed as Non-Messenger on 7-7-81 in SBI Gooty Branch of respondent bank . He worked in different spells from 7-7-81 to 30-9-81 for a period of 86 days . He was empanelled in the year 1989 and was absorbed by the Respondent in the year 1989. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997. He prays this court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

S. O. 2213.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 124/ 2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009.

[No. L- 12014/1 /2009 - IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger / sweeper- cum- water boy / watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take 4689

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

Dated the 24th day of February , 2009

exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub -staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized. According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number ofdays as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed.

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 124/2005

BETWEEN

Sri BandarıNagendra ,

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . On 24-2-2009 Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present. Petitioner is not attending to this case for last two years , as such , his evidence is closed. Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

.....Petitioner

S/o Bandarı Thippanna, R/ 0 664, 8th Ward, Behind Old SBI , Gooty. Anantpur District-- 515401 .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

AND

The Deputy General Manager,

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

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer

Appendix ofevidence

Respondent

State Bank of India, Zonal office , Renigunta Road, Firupathi.

Witnesses examined Witnesses examined for the Respondent

APPEARANCES

NILL

for the Petitioner NII.

For the Petitioner :

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

M/s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy, G. Srinivasa Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh, Advocates

Documents marked for the Respondent NII ,

For the Respondent

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

M/ s . B. O. Ravindra Reddy &B. V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3 ) LLJ Suppleinetit , page 1141 in W I. No. 8393 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

का. आ. 2214, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 को अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ हैदराबाद प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम व्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सख्या 69/2005 ) की प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुओं था।

[ सं. एल-12014/1/2009 - आईआर ( बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009 2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating hun. He submitted that he was appointed as Non Messenger on 1-1-81 in SBI Gooty Branch of the Respondent bank . He worked in different spells from 1-1-81 to 31-12-81 for a period of 88 days . He was empanelled in the year 1989 and was absorbed by the Respondent in the year 1989. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997. He prays this court to direct the Respondents to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

S. O. 2214. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 69/2005 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009,

[No. L- 12014/1 /2009 - IR( B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petnjoner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum- water boy / watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under 4690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA24 , 1931

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

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

Dated the 1st day of May, 2009

Industrial Dispute L. C. I. D. No. 69/2005

BETWEEN

SriBhuraram,

S/o Babaram , C/o A. P. Industrial Employees Union , "House of Labour" , King Kothi Road, Hyderabad-29.

..... Petitioner

AND

dated 19-5-2005 to regularize his services and pay arrears ofwages as per the wages paid to the casual labourer of Kakatiyanagar branch who raised ID No. 35/2001 which was decided on 24-9-2002 and the casual labour of the Kakatiyanagar branch were given wages as per rules and they were also paid arrears of the wages . The Petitioner moved a petition to follow the producer of 1 / 3rd pay after two years one halfof pay after another two years and 3/4th pay after another two years . The Petitioner further served a reminder on 31-5-2005 but no action was taken by the Respondent Management, the action of the management in orally terminating the services of the Petitioner is illegal and against the principles of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . The Hon'ble High Court of A. P. in WP No. 15555/93 directed the Respondent to consider the cases of the Petitioners of that case . Another WP No. 18436/2004 decided on 11-10-2004, the Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , directed the Respondent to pass apporopriate order on the observations of the regular employees . But the Respondent has not obeyed that order also . Hence , this petition.

1. The Dy. General Manager , Personal department, State Bank of Hyderabad , Gunfoundry Head Office , Hyderabad.

2. The Branch Manager , State Bank of Hyderabad , Bellavista Branch , Somajiguda Branch , Hyderabad.

.....Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : M/ s . N. Meenakshi , C. Lavanya and G. Sailaja , Advocates

For the Respondent : Shri Ch . Siva Reddy , Advocate

AWARD

3. The Respondent management has filed counter statement. They have challenged the maintainability of the claim petition . The Respondent has submitted that the Petitioner has not worked for more than 240 days . He was not on the rolls of the bank as such, the question of termination of the services did not arise , the allegation to this effect is baseless and misconceived . The bank has never engaged Petitioner in their employment nor the vacancies were notified, the Petitioner was engaged for casual work when his services were required by the bank. He was never employed as regular or a full day worker . He is not entitled for the benefit Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , because he was engaged to work as and when the bank required services of the Petitioner, he was employed for that date only . The Petition has no force and deserves to be rejected or dismissed . The Petitioner can not claim any advantage from the order passed in WP No. 15555/93 or WP No. 18436/2004 because the Petitioner was not a party to this petition.

This is a petition filed under Sec . 2A (2) of the I.D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others by Sri K. Santhosh Kumar challenging the illegality and validity of the order passed by the Respondent dated 6-6-2005 thereby the services were orally terminated by the Respondent.

4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidence . Petitioner filed his affidavit as examination in chief and presented himself for cross examination . He has filed documents marked as Ex. Wl to W7 . Respondent bank has filed affidavit of Mr. Ch . Surender Raju as MWI , as examination in chief and presented him for cross examination. Respondent has also filed xerox copy of the award dated 24-9-2004 passed in ID No. 35/2001 . Copy of the order of Hon'ble High Court of A.P. passed in WP No. 15555/93 between Vishnu Kumar and K. Raju Vs. M.D. , State Bank of Hyderabad . Letter of the Personnel department No.PER.GR. VÍ / 7777 dated 28-3-2005 to Sri N. Rama Krishna and another letter addressed to Sri V. S. Krishna Chary , another letter to Sri K. Vijaya Kumar informing them that the bank is not in a position to absorb them in the bank's services .

2. It has been stated by the Petitioner that he was appointed by the Respondent as casual labour in May, 2001 and was posted under 2nd Respondent where the Petitioner worked for more than 240 days continuously without any break in that year on a wage of Rs . 50 per day. The Petitioner has worked in that capacity for more than 14 years but he was not made regular . When the Petitioner insisted for regularization and asked for the correct payment ofwages then the services of the Petitioner were terminated on6-6-2005 without any written order or following the due procedure . Before that the Petitioner made a representation 4691

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

consolidate wage. Ex. W4 is the letter dated 1-7-2002 proposal - cum - application for appointment forwarded to Head Office , by the Respondent No.2 for the Petitioner . On the basis of this document , the Petitioner's counsel has argued that the Petitioner has worked from 2002 to 2005 regularly and he has completed 240 days , Respondent's counsel argued that the Petitioner has been engaged on those dates when there is work available with the Respondent . There is no document to prove that the Petitioner has continuously worked for more than one day at one stretch of a time , this proves the contention of the Respondent that the Petitioner was engaged only when there was work available with the Respondent and thus the nature of engagement of the Petitioner was for a single day. He was engaged at the beginning of the date and his services were disengaged on the close of the day. Thus there is no proof or evoat of evidence to substance the contention of the Petitioner that he was continuously working for 240 days or even for single week.

7. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has further argued that the Petitioner has no right to claim regularization or absorption in the services because he was never appointed as a regular casual labour or daily wage worker . Since the Petitioner was not engaged on the regular basis he cannot claim benefit of absorption or regularization . The services of Petitioner were on the day- to-day basis , thus , he has no legal right to claim regularization or claim the benefit of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

5. I have heard counsels for both the parties and have perused the relevant claim and counter statements of the parties , documentary and oral evidences filed by them . It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that the Petitioner has challenged the oral order oftermination without following the procedure laid down u/ s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 because the Petitioner has already put in more than 240 days of service under the management and control of the Respondent Nos . 1 and 2. Thus , non - observance of the provision of Sec . 25F in this case is fatal and it cut the very root of the termination order, because the compensation u /s 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has not been paid in this case. As against this argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner , the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that the Petitioner of this case has not been able to show and prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding the allegeddate of termination of his services , because the Petitioner has not produced any appointment letter to show as to when he was appointed in the bank's services . The Learned Counsel for Respondent has cited the statement of the Petitioner dated 1-3-2006 wherein during cross- examination the Petitioner has admitted that he was not given any appointment order . The Respondent's counsel has further cited the oral statement of the Petitioner dated 1-3-2006 wherein the Petitioner has stated that he was not assured in the writing for regularization . The Petitioner has stated that he worked on the extension counter ofthe Respondent bank at RT1 office. The Petitioner has stated thatRespondent bank has not recruited anybody as temporary employee for the last five years . A suggestion has been given to the Petitioner by the Respondent that he has not worked for more than 240 days in a year , though the Petitioner has denied the suggestion but the Petitioner has on his own has not filed any documentary or other reliable evidence which may prove that the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding date of his termination . Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that it is the duty of the Petitioner before the Industrial Tribunal to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding the date of termination of the services then , only the Petitioner shall be entitled for the benefit of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The Petitioner of this case has not been able to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days preceding the date ofhis termination as such, the provisions of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not applicable in the present case and non - observance of the procedure of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 does not made the order of disengagement illegal .

2811 GI /09-10 4692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

the day Petitioner did not remain the employee of the bank , therefore , he has not completed more than 240 days in the year preceding the date of his disengagement from the employment . There was no need to follow the procedure ofSec.25F, Petitioner's disengagement is neither illegal nor it is in violation of the principles of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and no interference can be done in the action of the management . The Learned Counsel for the Respondent has cited case of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in 2008 ( 10) pages 1 Official Liquidator Vs. Dayanand and others wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has quashed the appointment of a company paid staff because they have not come through the proper channel and by their absorption in the service , meritorious persons were not given opportunity or could not avail the opportunity to compete for the best . He has further cited the case law reported in 2006( 1 ) Decisions Today ( SC) page 493 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter between the Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & others , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that the public employment should be made in accordance with the rule - Temporary employees or daily worker or contractual workers have no enforceable legal right to be permanently absorbed into service .

9. On the basis of above two case laws of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India , the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has submitted before this court that if this tribunal comes to a conclusion that the Petitioner was daily rate worker , even though in the light of the judgment ofUmadevi , daily wage worker have no enforceable legal right to claim for absorption . Moreso , in this case , the Petitioner has not been able to prove that he was a regular daily wage worker . But from the evidence available on the record it is clear that the Petitioner was engaged by the Respondent management for only those days when there was work available with the management . Thus , the nature ofemployment of the Petitioner was that of a purely daily rate worker , whose employment was terminated at the end ofthe day and thus he was not entitled to claim even daily wage work from the Respondent management . Thus , the disengagement of the Petitioner , who was not appointed following rules of appointment is not fit to be governed by the principles of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. The disengagement cannot be questioned before this tribunal because Petitioner was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947.

10. 1 have considered the above argument and I have also come to the conclusion that from the evidence on record it is proved that Petitioner was engaged for the day'swork and his services or engagement were terminated by the end of the day . As such , the Petitioner cannot claim regularization on the basis of such casual engagement . The action of the management in disengaging the services of the Petitioner is neither illegal nor against the principles of Industrial Disputes Act. It

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] cannot be questioned before this tribunal , the Petitioner has not been able to prove his case for declaring the action ofthe management as illegal or arbitrary and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 1st day of May, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined forthe Respondent WW 1 : Sri Bhuraram

MW1 : Sri Ch . Surender Raju Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.WI : Copy of Ir. No.PER/ GR.VI/ F.22 /2279 from the Personnel Manager , Admn . to the Regional Manager, for permanent absorption under ID Act, dt . 11-3-1989 .

Ex.W2 : Copy of Ir . Dt . 29-12-99 reg . Absorption of temporary employees on consolidate wage .

Ex.W3 : Coy of Circular for payment of bonusdt . 5-6-2002.

Ex.W4 Copy of proposal for appointment forwarded to Head Office by the Respondent No. 2 dt. 1-7-2002 .

Ex.M5 : Copy of Ir . of personnel department to all the branch managers etc. directing to terminate immediately dt. 3-6-2005.

Ex.W6 Copy of reply to WW I's union President on representation made by the union dt . 2-7-2005 Ex.W7 Copies of Petty cash vouchers .

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex.MI : Copy of award of CGIT cum Labour Court, Hyderabad dt 24-9-2002.

Ex.M2 : Copy of order in WP No. 15555/1993 dt. 28-3-97 .

Ex.M3 Copy of order in WP No.18436/ 2004 dt.11-10-2004 .

Ex.M4 Copy of Ir . of State Bank of Hyderabad head office to Sri N. Rama Krishna dt 28-3-2005.

Ex.M5 : Copy of Ir. of State Bank of Hyderabad to Sri V.S. Krishnachary dt . 28-3-2005 .

Ex.M6 Copy of Ir . of State Bank of Hyderabad to Sri K. Vijay Kumar dt. 28-3-2005.

4693 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement, page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

का. आ. 2215.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 226/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12014/1/2009-आईआर ( बी. Ⅰ ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Water Boy in April , 1981 in Respondent organization at Hyderabad . He worked from April, 1981 to March , 1997 for a period of359 days . He was empanelled in the year 1994 . He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

S. O. 2215. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 226/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/1 /2009 - IR(B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3.As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum- water boy / watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared. It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed .

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

Dated , the 5th day of February, 2009

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . Petitioner filed his chief examination affidavit on 20-10-2006 . Later he did not turn up for cross examination .

Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 226/2004

BETWEEN

Sri V. Deva Dasu ,

5. On 5-2-2009 Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present. Petitioner is not attending to this case for the last three years , as such , his evidence is closed . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

..... Petitioner

S/o Ramulu, R/o 7-1-632/24/1 , Bapu Nagar , Sanjeeva Reddy Nagar , Hyderabad-500 038

AND

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 5th day ofFebruary, 2009.

The Chief General Manager ( Personal ) ,

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

State Bank of India , Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad.

Respondents

APPEARANCES

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent For the Petitioner :

NIL

WW 1 : SriV . Deva Dasu

M/s. S. Prasada Rao , C.V. Vysampayan & C. Bala Subramanyam , Advocates

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

For the Respondent : M/s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy &B. V. Chandra Sekhar ,

Advocates .

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL 4694

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 / SRAVANA 24 , 1931

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement, page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

का. आ. 2216. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 234/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12014/1/2009- आईआर ( बी.Ⅰ ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

2. Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents interminating him. He submitted that he was appointed as Messenger on 22-3-91 in SBI Vajrakarur Branch , Anantpur District of the respondent bank . He worked in different spells from 22-3-91 to 14-6-91 in total 75 days . He was empanelled for regularization in the year 1992 and was absorbed as messenger in 1992. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this court to direct the Respondents to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

S. O. 2216. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 234/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009.

[No. L- 12014/1/2009- IR (B - 1 ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum- water boy / watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared. It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed.

Dated the 3rdday of February , 2009

Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 234/2004

BETWEEN

Sri M. Pullanna ,

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . On 3-2-2009 none responded from the side of the petitioner while Respondent's counsel is present. There is no adjournment application , as such , Petitioner's evidence is closed. Hence, Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence.

..... Petitioner

S/ o M. Vannurappa , R/ o 1-120 , Vajrakarur ( Vill . & Mandal ) Anantapur District-515832 .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

AND

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant , transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 3rd day ofFebruary, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer .....Respondents

The Asst. General Manager , State Bank of India , Zonal Office , Renigunta Road , Tirupathi.

Appendix of evidence

APPEARANCES

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

For the Petitioner

Witnesses examined forthe Respondent : M/s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy& S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates

NIL

For the Respondent : M/s.Shri B. G. Ravindra Reddy

Documents marked for the Petitioner & B. V. Chandra Sekhar ,

Advocates .

NIL 4695 भारत का राजपत्र: अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

AWARD

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others.

का. आ. 2217.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 237/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12014/1/2009- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd July , 2009

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents interminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Messenger on 8-3-89 in SBI Shyampeta Branch, of the respondent bank . He worked in different spells from 8-3-89 to 3-2-90 in total 102 days . He was empanelled for regularization in the year 1992 and was absorbed as messenger in 1992. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this courtto direct the Respondents to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

S. O. 2217.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 237/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/1 /2009 - IR(B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper- cum- water boy / watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub -staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed .

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

Dated the 3rd day of February , 2009

Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 237/2004

BETWEEN

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . On 3-2-2009 none responded from the side of the petitioner while Respondent's counsel is present . Petitioner is not attending to the case for about more than three years , as such , Petitioner's evidence is closed. Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

Sri Gajji Sadaiah , S/o G. Pochaiah ,

Award passed accordingly . Transmit.

..... Petitioner

R/ o 4-9, Pathipaka Village , Shyamapeta Mandal , Warangal District-506319. AND

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 3rd day ofFebruary , 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

Respondents

The Asst. General Manager State Bank of India , Personnel & HRD , Local Head Office , Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad.

forthe

APPEARANCES

Respondent

NIL

Petitioner NIL

For the Petitioner : M/s . C. Vjaya Shekar Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh ,

Advocates

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

For the Respondent : M /s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy & B. V. Chandra Sekhar ,

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

Advocates 4696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA24 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii )] नई दिल्ली , 22 जुलाई, 2009

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment ofthe Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

का. आ. 2218.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 238/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12014/1/2009- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd July , 2009

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Messenger on 1-1-82 in SBI Urvakonda Branch, of the respondent bank . He worked in different spells from 1-1-82 to 31-12-83 for 89 days . He was empanelled in the year 1989 and was absorbed by the Respondent in the year 1992. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997. He prays this courtto direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

S.O. 2218. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 238/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12014 /1 /2009 - IR(B - 1 ) ]

AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper- cum- water boy/ watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub -staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement. As such this petition is liable to be dismissed .

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer

Dated the 3rd day of February, 2009

Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 238/2004

BETWEEN

Sri G. Tyagaraju .

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . On 3-2-2009 none responded from the side of the petitioner while Respondent's counsel is present. The case is fixed for Petitioner's evidence who is absent as such , the case is dismissed in absence of evidence .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

S/ o . G. Sumitraiah , R/ o 9-3-288/F , Ambedkar Nagar, Urvakonda , Anantapur District-515812.

..... Petitioner

AND

Dictated to Smt . P. Pahani Gowri , Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 3rd day ofFebruary, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of Evidence

The Asst . General Manager , State Bank of India . ZonalOffice. Renigunta Road, Tirupathi .

..... Respondent

Witnesses examined

for the Petitioner

APPEARANCES

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

For the Petitioner

NIL

M/ s . C. Vjaya Shekar Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates.

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

For the Respondent : M/ s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy & B. V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates .

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL 4697

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2219.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 258/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12014/1/2009- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S.O. 2219. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 258/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/1/2009 - IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated, the 5th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 258/2004

BETWEEN

Sri T. Chenchu Babu ,

Petitioner S/o T. Chenchuramaiah , R/o 12-5-563 , Krishnadevarayanagar, Tirupathi . Chittoor District . AND

Hyderabad. He worked from August , 1989 to March, 1997 for a period of593 days . He was empanelled in the year 1994. Hewas terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum- water boy/ watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed .

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . Petitioner filed his chief examination affidavit on 25-9-2006 . Later he did not turn up for cross examination .

5. On 5-2-2009 petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel is present. Petitioner is not attending to this case for the last three years , as such , his evidence is closed.Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 5th day ofFebruary, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Nil

WW1 : Sri T. Chenchu Babu

Documents marked for the Petitioner

...Respondent

The Chief General Manager ( Personal ), State Bank of India, Local Head Office , Bank Street Koti , Hyderabad.

APPEARANCES

: M/ s. S. Prasada Rao , C.V. For the Petitioner

Vysampayan , C. Bala Subramanyam , K. Jhansi Rani

& K. Bharathi , Advocates

: M /s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & For the Respondent

B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment ofthe Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement, page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M /s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others ..

NiL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NiL

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2220.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12014/ 1/2009- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी 4698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA 24 , 1931

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S.O. 2220. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governrnent hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 10/2005) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. L - 12014/1 /2009- IR(B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 3rd day of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 10/2005

BETWEEN

..... Petitioner Sri Bulusu Srinivasa Rao , S/ o Late , B. Krishnamurthy, R/ o 50-81-22 /2 , Seethampeta Main Road , Visakhapatnam-530016 .

AND

..Respondent The Deputy General Manager , State Bank of India, Zonal Office , RTC Complex, Visakhapatnam .

APPEARANCES

Forthe Petitioner

: M/s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy and S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy P. Srinivasulu and B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement, page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Messenger on 1-3-79 in SBI AU Campus Branch . Visakhapatnam . He worked in different spells from 1-3-79 to 20-1-81 for a peroid of 170 days . He was empanelled in the year 1989 and absorbed by the Respondent as Massenger . He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this Courtto direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] appointed as messenger / sweeper- cum - water boy/ watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service of 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed .

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . On 3-2-2009 none responded from the side of the petitioner while Respondent counsel is present . The case is fixed for Petitioner's evidence who is absent as such , the case is dismissed in absence of workman .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 3rd day of February, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 22 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2221.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 259/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12014/ 1 /2009- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S. O. 2221. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 259/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/ 1 /2009 - IR(B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 4699

अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

भारत का राजपत्र [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 259/2004

BETWEEN

Sri K. Venkateswarlu ,

..... Petitioner S/o Ramulu, R/ o Prakash Nagar, 3rd Ward ,Chirala Prakasam District .

AND

The ChiefGeneral Manager (Personal) , State Bank of India, Local Head Office , Bank Street Koti , Hyderabad.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe Petitioner : M/sS. Prasada Rao , C.V. Vysampayan , C. Bala Subramanyam , K Jhansi Rani & K. Bharthi , Advocates For the Respondent : M/s. B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3 ) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Messenger in September , 1987 in Respondent organization atHyderabad. He worked from September , 1987 to March , 1997 for a period of 359 days . He was empanelled in the year 1994. He was terininated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum - water boy / watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized. According to 2811 GI /09-11

categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed .

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support of their respective contentions . Petitioner filed his chief examination affidavit on 25-9-2006 . Later he did not turn up for cross examination .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her, corrected by me on this the 5th day of February,2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL WW1 : Sri K. Venkateswarlu

Documents marked for the Petitoner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2222.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट ट्रेडिंग कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , न. 1 नई दिल्ली के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 17/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -42011 /50/ 2008- आई- आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S. O. 2222. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 17/2009) of the Central Govemment Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court, No. 1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Trading Corporation of India Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009.

[No. L-42011/50/2008 - IR(DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer 4700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 /SRAVANA 24, 1931

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

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

I.D.No. 17/2009

Shri Gopal Singh & Ors . ,

C/ o STC of India Ltd. ,

22, Rajpura Road, Civil Lines ,

NewDelhi

Workmen

Versus

The ChiefManager (Pers .) ,

State Trading Corporation of India Limited, Jawahar Vyapar Bhawan , Tolstoy Marg, New Delhi- 110001 .

Management

AWARD

The management filed its stand in response to the terms of reference , detailing therein that subscription of the union was deducted from monthly salaries , in pursuance of Memorandum of Settlement signed between the management and the solitary Union in 1973. On 20th of November , 2007, a letter addressed to Deputy General Manager ( Finance) , Finance Division , State Trading Corporation of India Limited was received, wherein it was detailed that in General Body Meeting of State Trading Corporation Employees Union held on 20-11-07 , it was decided that monthly membership contribution ofthe union may be deducted from salary of the member employees @ Rs . 30 PM . In pursuance of the communication , the management duducted monthly membership contribution form the salaries of the member employees . The management projects that its action in that regard is in consonance with the Memorandum of Settlement signed on 17-5-73 . No illegality was committed in that regard . To substantiate its stand, copy of letter written by A.K. Rajora . General Secretary, the State Trading Corporation of India Employees Union and extract of copy of Memorandum of Settlement dated 17-5-73 are annexed.

5. Out of facts projected by the management, it came to light that it had acted in pursuance of Memorandum of Settlement dated 17-5-73 and request made by General Secretary, the State Trading Corporation of India Employees Union , on 20-11-07 . Under these circumstances one cannot attribute illegality or unjustifiability to the action of the management in that regard . For want of claim statement/contest from the side of the workmen , stand projected by the management is found to be justified and legal. An award is accordingly passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

State Trading Corporation of India Employees Union had its emergent general body meeting on 20th of November, 2007, wherein it took a decision that monthly contribution from its members may be deducted from their salaries @ Rs . 30/-PM instead of Rs . 15/- PM . In pursuance of Memorandum of Settlement entered into between the State Trading Corporation Employees Union , and the management, the latter started deduction of Rs . 30/- PM from salary of its employees as membership contribution of the union . Gopal Singh and his thirty associates filed a complaint with the management on 21-2-2008 in that regard. They raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer. When Conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the disputeto this Tribunal vide order No. L-42011 /50/2008 IR (DU) dated 16-02-2009 with following terms:

DR . R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : 20-7-09

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

"Whether the action of the management of the State Trading Corporation, New Delhi in enhancing the amount for deduction of the subscription for the union from the salary of their employees listed in Annexure , from Rs . 15 /- to 30/- , deduction of Rs. 100/- from the salary for the month of November , 2007 and Rs . 600/- from the amount of interim relief paid to them in February, 2008 , is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to ?"

का. आ. 2223.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई.सी.आई. सी. आई. बैंक लिमिटिड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या 57/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

2.Gopal Singh and his associates were directed by the appropriate Government to file a claim statement with relevant documents before this Tribunal within 15 days of the receipt of order of reference . Despite directions so given. No claím statement was filed.

[सं. एल -12014/ 1 /2009- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी 3.Notice of the reference was sent to the workmen .

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

GopalSingh appeared in person on 29th of May, 2009 and sought time file claim statement . Matter was adjourned for 19-6-09 to file a claim statement . On 19-6-09 none appeared onbehalf of the workmen . No claim statement was filed in the matter . Since the terms of reference ar regarding legality and justifiability of the action of the management , the management was called upon to present its stand before the Tribunal . Matter was adjourned for 26th of June, 2009 .

S. O. 2223. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 57/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of ICICI Bank Ltd. and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

4. Workmen abandoned the proceedings after 29th ofMay , 2009. Though the case was adjourned four times thereafter but none appeared on behalf of the workmen.

[No. L- 12014/ 1 /2009-1R(B - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 16th day of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 57/2004

BETWEEN

SriBhupatiraju Ravindra Raju ,

..... Petitioner S/o Sri B.Bangar Raju , D.No. 3-283/ 1 , Adarsanagar , Visakhapatnam-40

AND

1. The Chairman and Managing Director , ICICI Bank Ltd. , ICICI Towers , South Tower , 4thfloor, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra ( E ) , Mumbai-400051 .

2. The Regional Manager , ICICI Bank Ltd. , Nevella House , No. 4, Nagarajuna Hills , Panjagutta , Hyderabad- 500482 .

3. The Branch Manager , ICICI Bank Ltd. , D.No. 47-14-18 , Isnar Satyasri Complex, Main Road , Dwarakanagar , Visakhapatnam -530016. Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . Ch . Venkateswara Rao and Ch. V.S.N.Murthy, Advocates For the Respondent : M/ s.M.N.Aditya , D. Jagannadha Murty and K. Someswara Rao , Advocates

AWARD

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

2. Petitioner filed this petition stating that he was appointed as casual clerk in full time in the office of Respondent No. 2 , for a total period of 631 days during the period from 17-5-2000 to 13-2-2002 . It is submitted that he has informed the management bank on 13-2-2002 orally thathe was resigning to his job. Though he requested later to allow him to continue he was not allowed to enter his duties . He requested to direct the managementto reinstate him with back wages and all attendant benefits .

3. Respondents filed counter denying averments made by the Petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never engaged by the Bank . That there is no employer and employee relationship between the Respondents and the Petitioner . It is submitted that on behalf of the contractor i.e. , M/ s Kleen House Keeping and Landscaping at Vishakhapatnam on whose behalf the Petitioner used to visit the branches of the Respondents as a representative ofthe Contractor . Hence , it is prayed to dismiss the petition.

4701

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

4. Parties were directed to adduce their respective evidences . Petitioner filed his evidence affidavit and case isfixed for his cross examination and marking ofdocuments on 16-2-2009 . For several dates and also on 16-2-2009 Petitioner called absent . Petitioner's witness not present for cross as such , evidence is closed. Similarly, evidence of Respondent is also closed . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P.Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 16th day of February, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appenix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner Respondent

WW1 : Sri B.Ravindra Raju NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

नई दिल्ली , 22 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2224. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार श्री रामा ग्रामीण बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-12014/1/2009- आईआर( बी.- 1 ) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S. O. 2224.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 48/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Sri Rama Gramina Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009.

[No. L- 12014/1 /2009 - IR(B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 48/2004

BETWEEN

Sri J. Krishna , S/o Manik Rao ,

R/ o 3-11-40 , Big Bazaar, Armoor,

Nizamabad District .

..... Petitioner 4702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2009/ SRAVANA 24, 1931

AND

The Chairman,

Sri Rama Gramina Bank H.O. Khaleelwadi , Nizamabad-503003 .

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : M/ s.G. Vidya Sagar , K. Udaysri , P. Sudheer Rao , B. Shiva Kumar , T.Premchander Rao and D. Madhusudhan , Advocates For the Respondent : M/ s . S.Udayachala Rao ,

S.Vikramaditya Babu and S.Mujib Kumar , Advocates

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] not proceed . Since Petitioner is absent and he has not moved amendment application after seeking so many adjoumments , as such, this case is closed for want of proper party. Hence , Nil Award is passed.

Award passed accordingly , Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri . Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 5th day of February, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix for evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Petitioner

AWARD

WWI : Sri J. Krishna

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

2. Petitioner filed this petition against deletion of his name from the rolls by the Respondent . He has joined the Respondent organization as temporary part time sweeper by order dated 24-3-1990 . It is submitted that he was issued withorders dated 7-5-1996 deleting his name from the rolls of the bank on the ground of unauthorized absence from duty as voluntary vacation of service which is illegal , arbitrary and against principles of natural justice . Hence , he prayed this court to direct the Respondent to reinstate the Petitioner into service with all other attendant benefits .

3. A counter was filed by the Respondents denying all the allegations made by the Petitioner therein. It is submitted that in response to his application dated 9-3-1987 he was informed that subject terms and conditions mentioned he would be empanelled for appointment as temporary part time sweeper on daily wage basis . It is submitted that as per the appointment order he was terininated for his unauthorized absence and on his failure to repeated public notices to report for duty . Hence , it is prayed that the petition be dismissed .

4. Parties were asked to adduce their respective evidences . Petitioner filed his chief examination affidavit reiterating the averments mentioned in his petition . He marked Ex . WI to W13 documents and marked Ex . M1 to M17 in his cross examination . Respondent also filed their chiefexamination affidavit of Sri . D. Rama Mohana Rao , Senior Manager, Head Office , Nizamabad .

5. When the case is called for MW l's cross examination it was informed to this court that Respondent bank got merged into Deccan Gramina Bank . Petitioner's counsel requested to allow him to file amendment petition .

6. On 5-2-2009 , Petitioner called absent while Respondent's counsel present . The case is fixed for filing of amendment application and production of evidence Respondent's counsel submitted that Sri Rama Gramina Bank is not in existence as it has been amalgamated in Deccan Gramina Bank which is not party , as such , case can

Witnesses examined for the Respondent MW1 : Sri D. Rama Mohana Rao Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. WI : Copy of appointment Ir. dt . 9-3-87

Ex. W2: Copy ofregularization Ir . dt . 24-3-90

Ex. W3 : Confirmation order dt . 2-3-91

Ex . W4: Medical prescriptiondt . 27-1-95

Ex. W5 : Another medical prescriptiondt.27-1-95 Ex. W6: Copy of medical certificate dt . 1-2-95

Ex. W7: Lr . reg . Sanction of sick leave dt . 13-4-95 Ex. W8 : Copy ofjoining report for dutydt . 5-2-99 Ex. W9 : Copy of another joining report dt . 5-2-99 Ex. W10: Lr . of voluntary vacation of servicedt. 10-6-99 Ex. W11: Copy of representation of WWIdt. 11-9-2000 Ex. W12: Copy of another representation WWI dt. 11-10-2000

Ex . W13 : Copy of another representation of WW1 dt.20-9-2003

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex.Ml : Lr .dt . 3-9-1994 served on Petitioner to report for dutyimmediately

Ex. M2: Copy of lr . dt . 24-10-1994 served on Petitioner to report for duty not later than 31-10-94 Ex. M3 : Copy of Ir . dt . 17-5-95 served on Petitioner to report for duty on or before 27-5-95

Ex. M4: Postal cover returned from Petitioner's address , as given by him in the office .

Ex. M5: Leave letter of Petitioner dt. 27-5-95

Ex . M6 : Replyto Ex. M5 dt . 4-7-95

Ex. M7: Representation for leave by Petitionerdt . 21-7-95 Ex. M8: Medical certificate from Dr. R. Venkateshwar Rao Ex. M9: Copy of Ir . dt . 28-8-95 served on Petitioner to report for duty on or before 31-8-95

Ex.M10 : Registered letter to Petitioner returned to Respondent unserved

Ex.M11 : Publication made by the Respondent for Petitioner in paper ' Poddu ' 4703

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Ex. M12 : Lr .dt. 3-11-95 reg . Voluntary vacation of Petitioner

Ex. M13 : Copy of Ir . to Petitioner for payment of dues to Respondentdt . 7-5-96

Ex. M14: Petitioner's representation dt . 29-12-98 Ex. M15 : Postal cover

Ex.M16 : Lr . dt . 10-6-99 to Petitioner for repayment of loans

Ex. M17: Lr . dt . 28-9-2000 to Petitioner for repayment of loans

नई दिल्ली , 22 जुलाई, 2009

का. आ. 2225.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 196/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12014/1/2009- आईआर ( बी. - 1 ) ]

अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S. O. 2225. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.196/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/ 1 /2009 - IR(B - 1 ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 3rd day of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No.196/2004

BETWEEN

Sri A.Venkata Swamy,

S/o A. Siddaiah ,

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : M/ s C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy and S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates For the Respondent : Smt . B. Lalitha Kumari , Advocate

AWARD

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri . U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Messenger on 22-10-90 in SBI Madanapalle Branch of the respondent bank . He worked in different spells from 22-10-90 to 18-12-90 for 57 days and from 26-8-94 to 20-10-95 for a period of 200 days . He was empanelled for regularization in the year 1992 and was absorbed as messenger in 1992. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997. He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits.

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger /sweeper- cum- water boy/ watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub-staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized. According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement. As such this petition is liable to be dismissed.

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . On 3-2-2009 none responded from the side of the petitioner while Respondent's counsel is present . The case is fixed for Petitioner's evidence who is absent as such , the case is dismissed in absence of evidence .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 3rd day ofFebruary, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for thePetitioner

Witnesses examinated for the Respondent

..... Petitioner

R/ o Kothapeta Veedi , Vayalpadu (Valmikipuram) Mandal , Near Seetharam Talkies , Chittor District .

AND

The Asst . General Manager , State Bank of India, Zonal Office , Renigunta Road ,

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

....Respondent

Tirupathi Chittor District .

4704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2009/SRAVANA 24, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

का.आ. 2226. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 190/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12014/1//2009- आई. आर. (बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Messenger on 1-7-89 in SBI Yellareddyguda Branch ofthe respondent bank . He worked in different spells from 1-7-1989 to 31-5-95 in total 604 days . He was empanelled for regularization in the year 1992 and was absorbed as messenger in 1992. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

S.O. 2226.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 190/ 2004) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-07-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/ 1 /2009 - IR (B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum- water boy/ watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement. As such this petition is liable to be dismissed .

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 5th day of February , 2009

Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 190/2004

BETWEEN

Sri S. A. Goverdhan ,

S/o S. M. Anjaiah ,

R/o6-3-341 / 1 , Balapura Basthi , Near Erramanzil Colony, Hyderabad -82.

... Petitioner

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions. Petitioner workman filed his affidavit on 24-1-2005 and marked xerox copies of documents Ex. Wl to W10 which are as follows : Ex . Wl is paper notification, Service certificates are Ex . W2 , W5 , W6 and W7 . Ex . W3 is the interview call letter . Ex . W4 is panel list . Ex . W8 is marks memo of X class . Ex. W9 is caste certificate and Ex. W10 is transfer certificate . Thereafter , the petitioner did not appear before this court for cross examination . Hence , petitioner's evidence is closed.

AND

5. On 5-2-2009 none responded from the side of the petitioner while Respondent's counsel is present . Petitioner is not attending to the case for about more than three years , assuch , Petitioner's evidence is closed . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

The Asst . General Manager , State Bank of India , Personnel & HRD , Local Head Office, Bank Street, Koti , Hyderabad.

Respondent

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : M/ s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy and S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant , transcribed by her and correctedby me on this the 5th day ofFebruary, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer For the Respondent: M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy and B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates

AWARD

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for thePetitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon' ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3 ) LLJ Supplement, page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989

WWI : Sri S. A. Goverdhan MWI : Nil 4705 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

AND

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. Wl : Copy of paper notification

The ChiefGeneral Manager (Personal ) ,

State Bank of India,

Ex. W2: Copy of service certificate for 47 days before interview.

LocalHead Office ,

Ex. W3 : Copy of interview call letter .

Bank Street , Koti ,

Ex. W4: Copy ofPanel list

...Respondent

Hyderabad.

APPEARANCES

Ex. W5: Copyofservice certificate for the period from 22-2-93 to 2-10-93 for 200days

: M/sS. Prasada Rao ,

For the Petitioner

Ex. W6: Copy ofservice certificate for the period from 26-4-94 to 19-11-94 for 198 days

Ex. W7 : Copyofservice certificate for the period from 6-12-94 to 31-5-95 for 159 days

C.V. Vysampayan & C. Bala Subramanyam, Advocates

Ex. W8 : Copy of Marks memo of X class

For the Respondent :

Ex. W9: Copy of caste certificate

M/s. B. G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates Ex. W10 : Copy of transfer certificate

AWARD

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 22 जुलाई , 2009

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No.8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995between Sri U. Chinnappa and M /s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

का.आ. 2227- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12014/1//2009- आई. आर. ( बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents interminating him. He submitted that he was appointed as Messenger in August, 1991 in Respondent organization at Cuddapah . He worked upto 31st March , 1997. He was empanelled in the year 1994. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997. He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits.

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S.O. 2227. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 18/ 2005 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal -Cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-07-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/1 /2009 - IR (B- 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. As against this , the . Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger / sweeper - cum- water boy / watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared. It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer

Dated the 17th day of February, 2009

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support of their respective contentions . Petitioner filed his chiefexamination affidavit on 25-9-2006. He filed additional chief examination affidavit and marked EX.Wl to W12 documents. Later he did not turn up for cross examination.

Industrial Dispute L.C. No.18/2005

BETWEEN

Sri C. Subbarayudu ,

S/ o C. Laxmaiah ,

D. No. 1/125 , Ramarajupalli (Vill . & PO)

...Petitioner

5. On 17-2-2009 petitioner called absent though 10 days time was given for cross examination of WWl. Both parties are not present today, as such , evidence is closed in absence of parties . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence ofevidence . Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Cuddapah - 516001 .

4706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 / SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant, transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 17th day ofFebruary, 2009.

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT AT HYDERABAD VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Present : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Dated the 20th day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 42/2005 Witnesses examined for thePetitioner

BETWEEN

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Nil

WWI : Sri C. Subbarayudu

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. WI : Copy of representation of WWIdt . 3-7-2002

...Petitioner

Sri Karlapudi Swathantra Rao , S/ o K. Nageshwara Rao , R/ o H. No. 16-6-38 , Chrisianpeta, OldGuntur, Guntur - 522 004.

AND

Ex. W2 Copy of discharge summary of Sri Satya Sai Institutte ofHigh Medical Sciences

Ex. W3 Copy of out patient report

Ex. W4 Copy of notice of recruitment Roll No. 1649 dt . 13-10-95

The Asst . General Manager , State Bank of India , Zonal Office Personnel & HRD , Vijayawada.

...Respondent Ex. W5 Copy of absorption notice dt . 19-7-89

APPEARANCES

Ex. W6 Copy of Ir . WW1 Dt . 8-6-96

Forthe Petitioner

Ex. W7 Copy of letter of selection dt . 15-11-95

: M/s C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates Ex. W8 Copy of service certificate dt . 25-7-89

For the Respondent M/s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & Ex. W9 Copy of service certificate dt . 6-8-86

Ex. W10 : Copy of caste certificate

B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates AWARD

Ex. WII : Copy of Transfer certificate bearing No. 9917

Ex. W12 : Copy of marks certificate

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement , page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2228.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Messenger on 1-1-80 in SBI Guntur Main Branch of the respondent bank . He worked in different spells from 1-1-80 to 31-12-84 for a period of 77 days . He was empanelled in the year 1989 and was absorbed by the Respondent in the year 1989. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

[सं. एल-12014/1//2009- आई. आर.(बी. 1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S.O. 2228. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 42/ 2005) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22-07-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/ 1 /2009-1R (B - 1 ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper- cum- water boy / watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized. According to categories , panels were prepared . It is submitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement. As such this petition is liable to be dismissed .

4707 भारत का राजपत्र: अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

AND

The Asstt . General Manager ,

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . On 20-2-2009 both parties absent . In absence of parties their evidence is closed. Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

State Bank of India, Personnel & HRD, Local Head Office ,

...Respondent

Bank Street , Koti , Hyderabad .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit.

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

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

: M/s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy & S. Vijay Venkatesh , Advocates VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

For the Respondent : M/ s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for

AWARD

Respondent

the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement, page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M /s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2229. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 21/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as Non -Messenger on 17-5-88 in SBI Waddepalli Branch, Warangal District . He worked in different spells from 17-5-88 to 12-7-88 for a period of 56 days and from 30-1-89 to 24-4-89 for a period of 85 days .He was empanelled inthe year 1991 and absorbed by the Respondent as messenger . Hewas terminated orally on 31-3-1997. He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

[सं. एल-12014/1//2009- आई आर ( बी-I ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S.O. 2229.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 21/2005 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-07-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/ 1 /2009 - IR (B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner. It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/sweeper- cum - water boy/ watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub- staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared. It is subinitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement . As such this petition is liable to be dismissed.

ANNEXURE

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

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . On 3-2-2009 none responded from the side of the petitioner while Respondent's counsel is present. The case is fixed for Petitioner's evidence who is absent as such , the case is dismissed in absence of workman .

Present : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Dated the 3rd day of February, 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 21/2005

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

BETWEEN

Sri J. Mohan,

S/o J. Kanakaiah ,

Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant , transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 3rd day ofFebruary, 2009 .

R/ o 15-2-205 / 2 , Rangampet Post,

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

...Petitioner

Hanumakonda, Warangal- 560 130.

2811 GI/09-12 4708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 15 , 2009 / SRAVANA 24, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] Appendix of evidence

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for thePetitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

:M/ s . C. Vijaya Shekar Reddy, Advocates

NIL

For the Respondent : M/s . B.G. Ravindra Reddy & B.V. Documents marked for the Petitioner

Chandra Sekhar , Advocates NIL

AWARD

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 22 जुलाई , 2009

This case was taken in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in 1997 (3) LLJ Supplement, page 1141 in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

का.आ. 2230.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12014/1//2009- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents in terminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as NonMessenger on 24-4-80 in SBI Mangalagiri Branch of the respondent bank . He worked in different spells from 24-4-80 to 21-7-80 for a period of 74 days . He was empanelled in the year 1989 and was absorbed by the Respondent in the year 1989. He was terminated orally on 31-3-1997 . He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular einployee with all consequential benefits .

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S.O. 2230.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 43/ 2005 ) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 22-07-2009 .

[No. L- 12014/1 /2009 - IR ( B - 1 ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. As against this , the Respondents filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner was never appointed as messenger/ sweeper - cum- water boy / watchman by the respondent and never terminated from service on 31-3-1997 . It is further submitted that under exigencies and in leave vacancies bank used to take temporary sub - staff and further explained the stipulated rules , agreements and settlements under which the temporary employees were categorized . According to categories , panels were prepared . It is subrnitted that the petitioner has not worked for the number of days as shown by him in his claim statement. As such this petition is liable to be dismissed .

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

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . On 20-2-2009 both parties absent , as such , evidence is closed . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

Present : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer

Award passed accordingly . Transmit.

Dated the 20th day of February , 2009

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 43/2005

BETWEEN

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

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Sri R. Durga Road, S/o R. Pullaiah , R/ o 16-11-33 , Park Road , (4thWard Road) , C/o Police Guruvaiah House , OldGuntur, Guntur-522004

...Petitioner

NIL

AND

The Asstt . General Manager , State Bank of India, Personnel & HRD , Zonal Office , Vijayawada.

...Respondent

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL Documents marked for the Respondent NIL भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15 , 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 जुलाई, 2009

का.आ. 2231- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ हैदराबाद के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-12014/1//2009- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S.O. 2231.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 51 / 2004) of Central Government Industrial Tribunal-Cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of State Bank of Hyderabad and their workmen , received by the Central Govemment on 22-07-2009.

[No. L- 12014/1 /2009 - IR ( B - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 22nd day of June , 2009

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 51/2004

BETWEEN

Sri K. Ramakrishna ,

4709

AWARD

Sri K. Ramakrishna has filed this petition under Sec.2 A(2) of the I. D. Act, 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa andM/ s. Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

2. Petitioner is challenging his termination order dated 31-8-2003 . It has been alleged that the Petitioner joined the services of the Respondent bank as Messenger on 31-3-98 . Since then , he has been discharging his duties to the entire satisfaction of his superiors . After completion of one year the Petitioner made a representation to the Respondent bank to regularize his services but no action was taken . The Petitioner made several representations for the regularization of his services but his services were not regularized on the other hand, he was terminated from the services from 31-8-2003 without assigning any reason and without following the rules and regulations prescribed under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. No notice was issued to the Petitioner , nor compensation under Sec.25F of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has been given to the Petitioner . The order of termination is illegal , arbitrary and unjust. It has been alleged that juniors to the Petitioner has been retained by the Management bank . The Petitioner being senior to many of the temporary employees was disengaged . Thus , the principles of service law has been violated by the management bank. The management bank has not followed the principle of last come first go . The bank is making appointments to the candidates of his choice violating all the norms of the principles of natural justice . Theorder ofthe termination of the service dated 31-8-2003 is illegal , arbitrary, unjust and against the principles of natural justice and liable to be set aside and Petitioner is liable to be reinstated Industrial Tribunał he services of the bank.

... Petitioner

S/o Late Manik Rao , R/ o 1-25 , R.C. Puram Village, Patancheru , Medak District .

AND

1. The General Manager ,

State Bank of Hyderabad ,

Gunfoundry, Abids , Hyderabad .

2. The Branch Manager ,

State Bank of Hyderabad , ICRISAT Branch , Patancheru , Medak District .

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner :M/s. G. Viday Sagar ,

K. Udayasri , P. Sudheer Rao ,

B. Shiva Kumar , T. Premchander Rao & D. Madhusudhan , Advocates

For the Respondent : Sri P.A.V. Balaprasad, Advocate

3. The Respondent filed their counter and have stated that the Petitioner was engaged as casual labour for attending petty work like cleaning bank premisesetc. , as and when the necessity arose. The Petitioner was not engaged in any permanent regular vacancy nor he was appointed in any permanent regular vacancy. As such , no question of retrenchment arises in this case . The Respondent bank in the last week of July , 2003 after ascertaining the prevailing position of the branch discontinued the utilization of the services of several persons of the branch . The branch is posted with six permanent subordinate staff, there is no much work to engage casual labourers , the Petitioner's services were disengaged for want of work. Since Petitioner's services were utilized on the casual basis he has not acquired any substantive right to the post and in terms of appointment his services were liable to be discontinued at any time without any notice. No illegality has been committed, no provision of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has been violated by the Respondents .

4710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[ PART II-SEC . 3( ii ) ] 4. Parties were directed to produce their respective evidences . Petitioner has filed documents Ex . Wl to W8 containing the service certificate , his representation, identity card and acknowledgements . As oral evidence he has filed his affidavit and produced himself for the cross examination . The Respondent bank has produced the affidavit of Sri P.V.S. Sasidhar, Deputy Manager and produced him for cross examination .

Petitioner was disengaged due to the arbitrariness of the Respondent bank. Against this argument of the Petitioner's counsel , Respondent's counsel has argued that Petitioner himself has admitted in his cross examination that only two people were working as temporary attendars , the Petitioner and another man. The other man is still working in the bank but used to work prior to the joining of the Petitioner . This amply proves that the allegation of the Petitioner thatjuniors to the Petitioner were retained in the bank and Petitioner's services were terminated arbitrarily is incorrect and against the factual position stated by the Petitioner himself. Thus Petitioner can not claim priority over his junior because no junior to the Petitioner has been allowed to work in the bank . So the Petitioner's claim of parity is hypothetical . I am in the full agreement with the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that Petitioner himself has admitted during his cross examination that only two temporary attendars were working in the bank out of which one is the Petitioner who is junior to the other person who is working in the bank. Thus , the Petitioner claimed that junior to him has been retained by the bank is unfounded , baseless and hypothetical . No other ground has been pleaded or put forward by the counsel for the Petitioner. Thus , from the above discussion I have come to the conclusion that the Petitioner's services were utilized bythe bank when there was necessity of an extra hand , the Petitioner was never engaged as a regular employee . He used to be paid his wages when he worked with the bank . He has not been able to prove that he worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding date of his disengagement, as such, the provision of Sec . 25F is not applicable in the present case and the Petitioner is not entitled to claim the benefits under Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . Thisclaim petition is baseless , misconceived and based on hypothetical grounds . The services of the Petitioner were disengaged for want of the sufficient work and no illegality or irregularity has been committed by the Respondent bank and the Petitioner is not entitled for relief. The Petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 22nd day of June, 2009.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Respondent WWI : Sri K. Ramakrishna MW1 : Sri P. V. Sasidhar

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. WI : Copy of service certificate

Ex. W2 Copy of representationdt . 21-2-2004

Ex. W3 Copy of Acknowledgement

Copy of Acknowledgement Ex. W4

Copy of Transfer certificate Ex. W5

Ex. W6 Copy of employment exchange card

Ex. W7 Copy of conduct certificate

Ex. W8

Identity card

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

5. I have heard Learned Counsel for both the parties and perused the documentary and oral evidence of the parties . It is undisputed between the parties that the Petitioner of this case was engaged by the bank management on casual basis as and when the work was available with the bank . The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner has been working with the bank since the year 1998 and he has acquired the status ofa temporary employee. Thus , in case of his termination of his services it was bounden duty of the Respondent bank to follow the principles of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. As against this argument of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner the Respondent counsel has argued that the Petitioner has no where either in his claim petition or in his own oral evidence stated that he has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding the date ofhis disengagement from the service as such , the Petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Since it is the duty of the workman to prove before the Industrial Tribunal that he has worked for 240 days in the ycar preceding the date of disengagement from the service , he can not get the benefit of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Dispres Act , 1947. I am in full agreement with the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that it is duty of the workman to plead and prove before the Industrial Tribunal that he has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding date of his disengagement to claim the benefit ander Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the light of this legal proposition I have gone through the claim petition and oral evidence of the Petitioner . The Petitioner has nowhere stated either in his claim petition or in his examination in chief that he has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding date of his disengagement from the service . The Petitioner has admitted in his cross examination that he used to be paid whenever he worked in the bank . He was paid daily wages and payment was made weekly . This admission of the Petitioner prove that the Petitioner was not engaged on regular basis but his services were utilized as and when it was felt necessary by the Respondent bank. The Petitioner has not attended any interview this fact has been admitted by the Petitioner during his cross examination . He has further admitted that he was not appointed through employment exchange and no appointment letter was issued to him . No where in his examination in chief or cross examination he has stated that he worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding date of his disengagement . As such , I am of the view that the Petitioner was not entitled for the benefit of Sec . 25F of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 his services were utilized when it was required by the bank and the payment was used to be inade when he worked in the bank. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that juniors to the Petitioner has been retained by the bank whereas the 4711 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली , 22 जुलाई , 2009

Sri A. Nageswara Roa has filed this petition under Sec.2 A(2) ofthe I.D. Act, 1947 in view ofthejudgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

का.आ. 2232.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार साऊथ सेन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 115/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12014/1/2009-आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd July, 2009

S.O. 2232- in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.115/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of South Central Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 22-7-2009 .

[No. D. 1-12014 / 1 /2009 - IR (B- I )] AJAY KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present: Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer

Dated the 23rdday of June , 2009

Industrial Dispute L.C. No.115/2005

BETWEEN

Sri A. Nageswara Roa ,

....Petitioner

S/o Veeraswamy , Railway quarter No. 801 , North Lalagudga, Secunderabad

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager ,

..Respondent

South Central Railway , Sanchalan Bhavan , Secunderabad Division Secunderabad

APPEARANCES

2. It has been alleged that the Petitioner was screened and empanelled and engaged as substitute Khalasi against the regular vacancy of Group 'D ' vide DPO/BG/SC Lr . No. CP/ 407/C & W/Sub/83 of 8-2-1983 and posted as C&W Khalasi in Mechanical Department of South Central Railway of Secunderabad along with other candidates . Petitioner joined his duty and worked from 28-2-1983 to 7-6-84 continuously on regular basis under Chief Railway Examiner of South Central Railway , Nampally. The Petitioner fell sick from 26-11-84 to 6-7-89 and 7-7-89 to6-10-2004 . He was sick under depression and continued in sick list to the said period for which medical certificate has been submitted to the competent authorities , hence, he was unable to perform his duty . The Respondents were well aware that Petitioner was under sick list and he was under treatment , his name was struck off from the rolls of substitute Khalasis w.e.f. 26-11-84 . Inspite of repeated representations to the concerned authorities to put back the Petitioner on duty no action has been taken by the Respondent management . The Respondent has failed to observe the rules . Neither any show cause notice was given to the Petitioner nor any enquirywas conducted in the matter . The removal order wasby way of striking the name of the Petitioner from the rolls of the substitute Khalasis which is highly irregular , arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of the rules of the natural justice . It has further been alleged that the Petitioner has no source of income , had no movable or immovable property to support his family . He is a member of the backward class facing financial hardship to maintain his family . He produced medical certificate before the authority but no action has been taken by the authorities . It has been alleged by the Petitioner that Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in case of Bhagwan Lal Arya , Visakhapatnam . Commissioner ofPolice , Delhi and others reported in ATJ 2004 (3 ) SC P 555 ( DB) has held that absence from duty on the medical grounds is not a grave misconduct . He has further relied on the case law reported in SLJ 1999 (3 ) SCP-219 in the matter of Ajaib Singh Vs. The Sirhind Co- operative Marketing-cum- Processing Service Society Ltd. , and another , where it was held that limitation act is not applicable to the references under I.D. Act and no relief can be denied merely on the ground of latches and delay. The Petitioner has prayed that his termination be held to be illegal and he be reinstated with full back wages :

M/s . G. S. Rao ,G. Pavanamurthy &

Forthe Petitioner:

G.Arunashree , Advocates .

3.The Respondent has filed their written reply and they have stated that Petitioner has originally field a OA Forthe Respondent : Sri A. Prithvi Raj ,Advocate .

4712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 /SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )]

examination . The cause of action for which the Petitioner has filed this ID before this tribunal has already been challenged before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and Learned Tribunal has already dismissed the Petitioner's petition or O.A. , as such, the present petition isnot maintainable . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has not been able to show before this Court that the present petition is maintainable before this tribunal though the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal has already dismissed the petition of the petitioner in the year 2005 , as such , this tribunal is of the opinion that the present industrial dispute or reference is not maintainable in view ofthejudgment of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19-8-2005 and more over the Petitioner has not taken any step to challenge his dismissal order dated 26-11-94 for 21 years and no action was taken by him.

No. 622/2005 before Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad for the relief claimed in this petition and the tribunal has dismissed OA by their detailed order dated 19-8-2005 , a copy of which is annexed an enclosure R 1. They have further raised objection that the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed on the principles of res judicata . The Respondent has further alleged that if the Petitioner is aggrieved with the order dated 19-8-2005 he should have approached Hon'ble High Court of A.P. , Hyderabad by filing a writ petition against the order of the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal . It has further been alleged by the Respondent that the cause of action arose in the year 1984 and present petition is filed in the year 2005 after a delay of21 years and hence this petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches . It has further been alleged by the Respondent that the record of the Petitioner has already been destroyed because as per the rules the record could have been preserved for more than 10 years .

4. Parties have been directed to produce their evidence . Petitioner has filed documents Exs . Wl to W20 whereas the Respondent has filed copy of the judgment of Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal passed in OA No. 622/2005 between A. Nageswara Rao Vs. Union of India and others .

5. Petitioner has filed his affidavit as his examination- in- chief and has presented himself for the cross examination , having cross examined by the Respondent at length. The Respondent has produced Sri . B. H. Reddy and has presented him for the cross examination .

6. I have heard Learned Counsels for the parties and has gone through the oral and documentary evidence produced by the parties before this tribunal . It is admitted fact between the parties that the Prtitioner was engaged as a substitute khalasi who worked from 28-2-83 to 7-6-84 . Thereafter the Petitioner did not attend to his duties and his name was struck off from the rolls of Substitute Khalasis on 26-11-84. It is also admitted between the parties that Petitioner challenged his termination order before Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal vide OA No. 622/2005 whichwas dismissed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal vide its order dated 19-8-2005 . Thereafter the Petitioner has filed this petition before this tribunal .

7. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Respondent that this present petition is not maintainable because the Petitioner filed OA challenging the termination order before Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal which was contested by the Respondent before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal and upholding the objections raised by the Respondent , Learned Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed Petitioner's O.A. vide its order dated 19-8-2005 . The Petitioner has admitted this fact during his cross

8. So far as the merit of the case is concerned the Petitioner has not been able to prove before this tribunal nor he has raised any such objection regarding non observance of the provisions of Sec . 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 or violation of any other rule before this tribunal nor the Petitioner has pleaded any violation in his claim petition or oral evidence or that the Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days as Substitute Khalasi in the year preceding the date of his disengagement from the post of Substitute Khalasi . Since it is duty of the Petitioner workman to prove that he has worked for more than 240 days in the year preceding date of termination of hisservices the Petitioner or workman cannot claim the benefit under Sec . 25 F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the present case , the Petitioner has no where stated that he worked for 240 days preceding the date of his disengagement from the service as such , he was not entitled for the benefits of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. As regards the alleged sickness of the Petitioner , the Petitioner alleges that he fell sick on 26-11-84 to6-7-89 and 7-7-89 to6-10-2004 but he has not explained his absence from the duty from 8-6-84 to 25-11-84 . His name was struck from the rolls of Substitute Khalasis on 26-11-1984 because he remained absent from the duty without any information or sanctioned leave from 8-6-84 to 25-11-84 . As such , the contention ofthe Petitioner that he was sick during the period of his absence from the duty neither appears to be true not it has been explained by the Petitioner or proved by the Petitioner. Since the services of the Petitioner were engaged on the substitute basis and he remained absent for more than five months without any information , the Respondent management has not committed any illegality in striking down his name from the rolls of Substitute Khalasis as he abandoned the job. It was duty of the Petitioner to explain his absence w.e.f. 8-6-84 to 25-11-84 which has not been explained by the Petitioner . No medical certificate has been produced by the Petitioner for he is absent during this period , as such , the contention of the Petitioner that he was medically unfit [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

4713

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M1: Copy of order passed by Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal , Hyderabaddt . 19-8-2005

नई दिल्ली, 24 जुलाई , 2009

or he was sick during the period of his absence does not find support from the oral or documentary evidence ofthe Petitioner. As such , the Petitioner's disengagement due to his absence or abandonment of the duties is neither illegal nor unjustified . The Petitioner is not entitled for any relief and petition deserves to be dismissed . As such , petition is dismissed.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 23rd day of June, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer

का.आ. 2233-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. एच पी सी एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

[सं. एल -30025/4/2009- आई.आर. ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी WW1 : Sri A. Nageswara Rao

New Delhi , the 24th July, 2009 Witnesses examined for the Respondent

MWI : Sri B. H. Reddy

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. WI : Copy of lr . No. CP/407/C& W/Sub/83 ofDPO/BG/ SCdt . 8-2-83

Ex . W2: Copy of service certificate dt . 26-2-86

S.O. 2233- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.51 /2005 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . HPCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-7-2009 .

Ex. W3 : Copy of medical certificate dt. 30-5-88

Ex. W4: Copy of medical certificate dt . 6-7-89

Ex. W5: Copy of Ir . to DRM/SCdt. 6-7-89

[No. L- 30025/4/2009 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

Ex. W6 : Copy of medical certificate dt. 29-9-05

Ex. W7: Copy of Ir . to DME/C& W/SCdt. 8-6-90

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

Ex. W8: Copy of Ir . to DRM/SCdt . 25-8-89

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Ex. W9 : Copy of lr . to DRM/ SCdt . 10-3-90

Dated the 30th day of June , 2009 Ex. W10: Copy of Ir . No.SCRMD/C& W dt . 17-7-90

Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 51/2005 Ex. W11: Copy of Ir . to DME/ C & W/SCdt . 26-6-91

[Old I. D. No. 113/2002, transferred from Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Visakhapatnam ] Ex. W 12: Copy of Ir. to CPO/SCdt . 2-3-92

BETWEEN

Ex. W13 : Copy of lr . to CPO /SCdt. 13-10-92

Ex. W14: Copy of Ir. to CPO/SCdt . 24-2-2003

Ex. W15: Copy of Ir . toGM/ SCdt.7-10-94

Ex . W16 : Copy of MP Ir . to GM/ SCdt.27-3-2005

Sri G. Satyanarayana , S/ o Late Surya Roa , R/ o Kanithi R. H. Colony, Vadlapudi Kurmannapalem , Opp . Rythu Bazar ,

.... Petitioner

Visakhapatnam - 530 046

Ex. W17: Copy ofS.S.Cdt.2-5-97

AND

Ex. W18: Copy of Ir . to MRO/Dornakaldt . 31-1-1997

Ex. W19: Copy of intermediate marks memo

1. The Senior Regional Manager (Gas- Sales ), M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Company Limited , Filling Plant, Malkapuram , Visakhapatnam - 530011

Ex. W20: Copy of lr. No. DIS . No. C/ 1215 /2000 of MRO/ Dornakal 4714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

2. The Manager (Mr. M.A. Gafar)

M/ s . Sree Vijaya Durga Gas Agency

(H.P. Gas Dealers) , Autonagar Visakhapatnam - 530 012

....Respondents APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner :

Sri K. Balakrishna , Advocate For the Respondent: M/s . K. Srinivasa Murthy , V.Umadevi & M.V.L Narasiah , Advocates for Respondent No.1 , Sri Y. Venkata Rao , Advocate for Respondent

No. 2

AWARD

Sri G. Satyanarayana has filed this petition under Sec . 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court , Visakhapatnam in view ofthe judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No.8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others challenging the order of termination of his services dated 1-12-2001 as illegal , arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice which was transferred to this Court in view of the Government of India , Ministry of Labour's order No. H - 11026 / 1 / 2001 - IR ( C - II ) dated 18-10-2001 bearing I.D. No. 113/2002 and renumbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 51/2005 .

2. It has been alleged by the Petitioner in his claim petition that his employer is a principal employer whereas 2nd Respondent is an agent/dealer of the 1st Respondent . The Petitioner was appointed as gas mechanic by the 2nd Respondent on 24-5-96 before that he was given training by the 1st Respondent . A certificate to that effect has been issued by the Ist Respondent and given to 2nd Respondent . On 1-12-2001 2nd Respondent verbally informed the Petitioner that his services are terminated from thatday. No notice or salary in lieu of notice was given to the Petitioner. No compensation was paid nor any departmental enquiry was held nor any reason for his termination was disclosed by the Respondent . He has further stated that the 2nd Respondent initially used to pay him Rs.750 as wages but he has prepared vouchers for Rs.1850 . At the time of termination of services Petitioner used to get Rs . 1250 whereas on the vouchers Rs.2400 used to be written by the Respondent . The Respondent has fabricated a receipt of Rs . 12000 claiming to have made payment to the Petitioner and coerced the Petitioner to withdraw the petition . 2nd Respondent has been defrauding the customers . The termination order is illegal without any basis and fit to be quashed .

3. Respondent has filed counter statement and has alleged that the 1st Respondent is a Government of India enterprise and a company registered under the Indian

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] Companies Act. It has appointed dealers all over India including the 2nd Respondent for the purpose of marking . The dealerships are given on the basis of the selections made by dealer selection board. The 2nd Respondent was also appointed and he is also Governed by the terms and conditions of the dealership agreement . As per agreement the 2nd Respondent has to make his own arrangement for construction of godown for storing LPG cylinders and he has to employ workers as per his requirements . The Petitioner was not appointed by the Respondent. There is no relationship of master and servant between the Respondent and the Petitioner . The petition is misconceived, no relief to be granted to the Petitioner against the Respondent No.1 .

4. 2nd Respondent also filed counter statement and has challenged the maintainability of the petition . It has also contended that Ist Respondent is a principal employer whereas 2nd Respondent is an agent of the 1st Respondent. 2nd Respondent has contended that Petitioner is not a mechanic and 2nd Respondent has not terminated his services . The Petitioner himself was irregular to his duties , he was absented himself habitually without leave and he was warned several times by the Respondent . Since he could not attend to his duties properly Respondent No.2 has lost confidence in him . The Petitioner has voluntarily left the job by taking full and final settlement of his services . Since no conciliation proceedings has been taken place in this case , as such this court can not directly entertain the petition directly . The Respondent No.2 establishment is registered under A.P. Shops & Establishments Act . The applicant was appointed as delivery boy and his services are Governed under Sec.47 and 48 of the A.P. Shops & Establishments Act . Petition is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed .

5. Parties were directed to file their respective evidences . Petitioner has filed photo copy of identity card Ex . W1 and he filed his affidavit as examination in chief. The Petitioner presented himself for corss examination. The Respondent management has filed as many as 31 documents Ex.M1 to M12 and M14 to M29 leave applications of the Petitioner . Ex.M13 resignation letter and full and final settlement letter . Ex.M30 is copy of the petition filed before the labour department by the Petitioner and Ex.M31 minutes of the meeting before the labour authority . The Respondent has not filed their affidavit nor have presented any witness for cross examination .

6. On the date of the argument, none of the parties appeared to argue the case as such , the argument was closed. I have gone through the claim petition, counter statement of R1 and R 2 , documentary as well as oral documentary evidence of the Petitioner and Respondent management . It has been contended by the Petitioner in his claim petition that he was appointed on 24-5-96 by 2nd Respondent and his services were terminated by 4715 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Appendix ofevidence

Witnesses examined

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

for the Respondent

NIL

WWI : Sri G. Satyanarayana

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. W 1 : Copy of identity card WWI

Ex.W2: Lr . No.C/478/2001 dt . 8-3-2002 by Labour Officer , Circle- II , Visakhapatnam .

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M1 : Leave application of WW1 dt . 6-4-99

Ex. M2: Leave application of WW1 dt . 8-6-2000

Ex. M3 : Leave application of WW1dt . 15-6-2000

Ex. M4: Leave application of WW1dt . 10-7-2000

Ex. M5 : Leave application of WW1dt . 19-7-2000

Ex. M6 : Leave application of WW1 dt. 26-7-2000

Ex. M7: Leave application of WW1dt.2-8-2000

Ex. M8: Leave application of WW1 dt . 23-8-2000

Ex. M9: Leave application of WW1 dt . 6-10-2000

Ex.M10 : Leave application of WW1dt . 12-10-2000

Ex.M11 : Leave application of WW1dt . 17-10-2000

Ex.M12: Leave application of WW1 dt . 23-10-2000

Ex. M13: Agreement letter dt. 9-12-2001 by WW1

Ex. M14: Leave application of WW1 dt . 2-5-2000

Ex. M15: Leave application of WW1dt . 22-5-2000

Ex.M16: Leave application of WW1 dt . 2-6-2000

Ex. M17: Leave application of WW1 dt . 9-10-2000

Ex.M18 : Leave application of WW1 dt . 13-1-2001

Ex. M19: Leave application of WW1 dt . 24-1-2001

Ex.M20 : Leave application of WW1 dt. 1-2-2001

Ex. M21 : Leave application of WW1 dt. 12-3-2001

Ex. M22 : Leave application of WW1 dt . 29-3-2001

Ex.M23: Leave application of WW1 dt . 16-4-2001 2nd Respondent . This fact is not disputed by the 2nd Respondent . 2nd Respondent has filed counter statement wherein it is accepted that the Petitioner was appointed by the 2nd Respondent in his gas agency as a delivery boy since Petitioner was habitual absentee he voluntarily left the job after receiving full and final settlement on 1-12-2001 . It has to be seen by this court whether the Petitioner's services were terminated by the 2ndRespondent or Petitioner himself has relinquished the job after receiving full and final settlement on 1-12-2001. The Respondent management has filed paper No.32 as Ex.M13 dated 9-12-2001 which is alleged to be agreement letter of G. Satyanarayana in favour of the Respondent management . He has accepted that on the letter 9-12-2001 his signature is there . However he has stated that it is not written in his hand writing. Ex.M13 is the agreement letter . The witness has accepted the signature on this letter also. In this letter the Petitioner has himself accepted that he has voluntarily and happily reliquishing the job and he is receiving Rs . 12,000 as a compensation from the 2nd Respondent in lieu thereof and nothing is due to him from the company now onward . This shows that the Petitioner has himself relinquished his job and he has accepted Rs . 12,000 as compensation in lieu of his dues for relinquishing the company's services . As such , the contention of the 2nd Respondent that Petitioner himself has left the job and he received Rs.12,000 as compensation in lieu of his dues is correct. Respondent has filed as many as 27 leave applications of the Petitioner filed before the 2nd Respondent for his absenteeism and he has accepted in his cross examination that all these leave applications Ex.Ml to M12 , Ex.M14 to M29 bears his signature and they are his leave applications . This also proves that the Petitioner was a habitual absentee , he himself has relinquished the job , his services were not terminated by the 2nd Respondent . He has received the compensation of Rs . 12,000 from R2 and nothing is due to him . As such , this tribunal is of the opinion that though the Petitioner was appointed by the 2nd Respondent there was relationship of master and servant between 2nd Respondent and Petitioner but said relationship was broken by the Petitioner himself. He himself has relinquished his job after accepting Rs.12,000 in lieu of his dues on 9-12-2001 and thus the Respondent No.2 has not committed any breach of Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and there is no illegality or irregularity or violation ofprinciples of natural justice in disengagement of the Petitioner . The action of the management is fully justified and no interference is necessary in this case . Petition has no force and deserves to be dismissed . Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

Ex. M24: Leave application of WW1 dt . 8-5-2001 Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

Ex.M25 : Leave application of WW1dt . 19-5-2001

Ex.M26: Leave application of WW1 dt . 4-6-2001

Ex .M27: Leave application of WW1dt . 11-6-2001 Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 30th day ofJune , 2009.

Ex. M28: Leave application of WW1 dt . 24-8-2001 VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

2811 G1/09-13 4716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 15 , 2009 / SRAVANA24, 1931

Ex. M29: Leave application of W W1 dt . 20-10-2001 Ex. M30: Lr . By Labour Officer for conductingjoint meeting dt.21-1-2002 with copy of representation of WW1 Ex .M31: Copy of proceedings of joint meetings नई दिल्ली , 24 जुलाई, 2009

का.आ. 2234.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिमेन्ट कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 251/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29025/4/2009- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th July, 2009

S.O. 2234. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.251 /2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cement Corporation of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 23-7-2009 .

[No. L- 29025 /4 /2009 -IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 24th day of February , 2009 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 251/2004

BETWEEN

Sri A. Devappa . S/ o A. Mallappa , C/ o M/ s . C. Mallikarjun , H.No.2-2-1105 /Α/ 9 ( 633 ) ,

.... Petitioner Tilaknagar , Nallakunta , Hyderabad

AND

1. The Personnel Manager, Cement Corporation of India ,

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii) ] Post Karankota , Tandur Mandal , Ranga Reddy District .

2. T. Ramulu , S/ o Late Narsimulu, Govemment licensed Electrical Contractor , Cement Corporation of India, PostKarankota , Tandur Mandal , Ranga Reddy District .

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe Petitioner :

M/s. C.Mallikarjun , C. Kalarchana & D. Madhu- sudhan , Advocates For the Respondent: M/ s . N. Narasimha Rao & K. S. Sarma, Advocates forR1 Sri M. Giri , Advocate for R2

AWARD

2. The Petitioner filed this petition against the Respondents questioning the action of the Respondents interminating him . He submitted that he was appointed as helper in Respondent No.1 corporation in Electrical Department in the year 1984. That he was allotted P.F. No.82088 and deductions were started from the year 1991 . It is submitted that he was unable to attend his duties for one year due to an accident due to which his right leg was fractured on 26-1-2003 . Though he informed the management he was not allowed to resume his duties he was refused to take in duties . He prays this Court to direct the Respondent to reinstate him as a regular employee with all consequential benefits .

3. As against this , the Respondent No.1 filed a counter denying the allegations in the claim statement of the petitioner . It is submitted that the Petitioner is not an employee of RI . It is submitted that there was no master and servant relationship between the Petitioner and R1 . Hence, the petition be dismissed . Respondent No.2 did not file their counter , hence , Respondent No.2 was set exparte.

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support their respective contentions . On 24-2-2009 both parties called absent. They are not attending to the case since 20-8-2007 , as such , their evidence is closed . Hence , Nil Award is passed in absence of evidence .

Award passed accordingly . Transmit.

4717

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

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

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली, 24 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2235.-औद्योगिक़ विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार नॉरदन रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण । चंडीगढ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1 से 3/22 एवं 24 से 30/98) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/69 से 79/97 - आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th July, 2009

S.O. 2235. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1 to 3/22 &24 to 30/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- 1.D. No.

Sr. No.

Reference No.

cum-Labour Court - I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 24-7-2009.

[No. L-41012/69 to 79 /97-1R (B - I ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. 1/98 and 10 others

Sh . Radhey Shyam , C/ o Sh . N.K.Nagar , 101 , Distt . Court , Chandigarh 160017 and 10 others ...Applicant

Versus

The Divisional Engineer , Northern Railway - 1 , Ambala Cantt. 134001

..Respondent

APPEARANCES

SriN. K. Nagar

For the workman :

Sri R. S. Rana

For the management:

AWARD

Passed on : 30-6-09

This award shall disposed off 11 references of different workmen referred by the Central Government . The 11 references which are being disposed off by this award are as follows :-

Date

Name of the parties

1/98

L-41012/70/97 - IR (B -I )

2/98

L-41012/69/97 - IR(B -I)

3/98

L-41012/71 /97 - IR(B - I)

22/98

L-41012/74/ 97 - IR (B - I )

24/98 L-41012/77 /97 - IR (B - I)

25/98

L-41012/76/97 - IR(B - 1)

26/98

L-41012/72/97 - IR (B -I)

27/98

L-41012/78/ 97 - IR (B- I)

28/98

L-41012/75/97 - IR (B -I )

29/98

10.

L-41012/73 /97 - IR (B - 1 )

30/98

11.

L-41012/ 79 /97 - IR (B - I)

2-1-90

Sh . Radhey Shyam Vs. Northern Railway

2-1-90

Sh . Nihal Singh Vs. Northern Railway

2-1-90

Sh . Sohan Lal Vs. Northern Railway

21-1-90

Sh . Turashan Pal Vs. Northern Railway

21-1-90

Sh. Bangli Bapu Vs. Northern Railway

21-1-90

Sh . Varinder Singh Vs. Northern Railway

21-1-90

Sh. Hakam Singh Vs. Northern Railway

21-1-90

Sh. Digamber Vs. Northern Railway

21-1-90

Sh. Hari Singh Vs. Northern Railway

21-1-90

Sh . Mohan Singh Vs. Northern Railway

21-1-90

Sh. Rakesh Kurnar Vs. Northern Railway 4718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 / SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

and after conducting a fair inquiry , inquiry report was submitted . The disciplinary authority on the basis of the inquiry report and after affording the opportunity of being heard awarded the punishment for termination of all the workmen from services . Every workman preferred the appeal which was also dismissed . The workmen raised the industrial disputes and on the failure of conciliation report , Government of India referred all the 11 industrial disputes regarding the legality of termination of the workmen .

All the 11 references namely I.D. No.1 /98 Sh . Radhey Shyam Vs. Northern Railway, I.D. No.2/98 Sh. Nihal Singh Vs. Northern Railway , I.D. No.3/98 Sh . Sohan Lal Vs. Northern Railway , I.D. No.22/98 Sh . Turashan Pal Vs. Northern Railway, I.D. No. 24/98 Sh . Bangli Bapu Vs. Northern Railway , I.D. No. 25/98 Sh . Varinder Singh Vs. Northern Railway , I.D. No. 26/98 Sh . Hakam Singh Vs. Northern Railway, I.D. No. 27/98 Sh . Digamber Vs. Northem Railway I.D. No.28/98 Sh . Hari Singh Vs. Northern Railway , I.D. No.29 /98 Sh . Mohan Singh Vs. Northern Railway , I..D . No.30/98 Sh . Rakesh Kumar Vs. Northern Railway , are taken up for adjudication simultaneously .

In all the references , common question of law and facts are involved hence , the references are being disposed off by this award.

The main question for determination in all the references is whether the initial appointment of the workınen was bad in law being obtained by a fraudulent and forged document for three months working at Etawah? The consequential issue is also raised whether the termination on this ground is illegal and void.

It is evidently clear that common question of law and facts were involved in all the 11 references , and accordingly all the 11 references were consolidated. I.D. 1/98 Sh . Radhey Shyam Vs. Northern Railway was made the leading file . On perusal of order dated 23-12-2008 , it is also clear that inquiry report and proceedings were set aside by this Tribunal by speaking order and the parties were directed to adduce the evidence before this Tribunal for proving the charges labeled against the workmen. Every possible opportunity for adducing evidence was given . The managerment of Northern Railway was directed to adduce his evidence first , and thereafter, every workman was examined .

I have heard the evidence for the parties in detail . Learned counsel for the workmen has argued that every workman has served the Railway Department for more than 10 years and they have not produced any fictitious card, accordingly they deserve to remain in service . It is also argued by learned counsel for the management that hundred of other workers having the same charges are still working with the Railway Department . A vigilance inquiry was conducted and on the basis of the vigilance inquiry report , departmental proceedings against all the 11 workmen were initiated , whereas , rest all the workmen are still enjoying the fruits of Railway services .

Learned counsel for the management has argued that every workman obtained the job through fictitious service cards having bogus entries .

It iscontendedby the workmen that in the year 1973- 74, the workmen along with many other similarly placed persons met Sh. Amrik Singh PWI/PQRS . Sh Amrik Singh directed all of them to join under him . He obtained the thumb impression/ signatures of the workmen and the workmen accepted the appointment because they were in dire need of employment to avoid the starvation of the family. In the year 1989 a charge - sheet was given to the every workman for securing employment through unfair means by producing fictitious causal labour card containing the signatures of the every workman prior to the appointment under PW1 / 1 /PQRS/DST . Every workman has replied to the charge - sheet and not satisfying with the Teply, departmental inquiry was conducted . Workmen being illiterate do not know about the procedure of inquiry . No witness was examined by the enquiry officer and just on the statement of the workmen inquiry report was given and on the basis of inquiry report the disciplinary authority terminated the services of every workman on 23-7-1994 . The workmen preferred an appeal which was dismissed by the appellate authority on 2-8-1996 .

Firstof all , it is to make clear that before directing the parties to adduce evidence , every workman was heard in person in conciliation proceedings and in open Court . Every workman was acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case and it was in their notice for what they were charged?

On the basis of pleadings and evidence (oral and documentary ) of the parties , I am of the view that termination order did not suffer with any illegality and theworkmen are not entitled for any relief. I am reaching to the conclusion that workmen were rightly terminated from the services and they are not entitled for any relief on the following grounds :-

The management in its reply stated that all the workmen obtained the appointment in the Railway Department through Sh . Amrik Singh the then PQI/PQRS / Safdarganj Delhi and secured appointment letters as gangman under him as per the policy of railway on the basis of fictitious casual labour cards . It is also contended by the management that on disclosure of this fictitious labour cards explanation of all the workmen was sought and dissatisfying with the explanation an inquiry was ordered . The enquiry officer during inquiry afforded all possible opportunity of being heard to all the workmen

1. That the initial appointment of every workman was based on fictitious entries in their job cards . It is 4719

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

also give an apportunity to the workmen to complaint to the prescribe authority regarding the persons who are still working with the railway department on illegal appointments . But, as stated earlier, this action cannot validate the illegal appointment of the workmen based on fictitious entries in their job cards.

very well proved by three witnesses of the management namely Sh . Vijay Kumar posted as Section Engineer /P. Way , Etawah; Sh . A.K. Roy and Sh . Subash Chander that none of the workmen had ever worked in Etawah in any of the sections of the railway.

2. Itis admitted by the workman that they have never worked in Etawah in Railway Department .

3. The documents filed by the management of railway relating to the working of the workmen at Etawah also proved that the present workmen had never worked in Etawah with Railway Department.

4. The initial appointments in Safdarganj at Delhi were based on the fictitious entries in their job card , thatthey worked for railway at Etawah for substantial period oftime and it was on their working at Etawah , they were appointed by the Railway Department . Every workman became eligible for appointment because of their working at Etawah , but none of them had worked at Etawah .

Thus, on the basis of above , I am of the view that once initial appointment of any workmen is found to be illegal , it cannot at all be validated by such circumstances as alleged by the workmen in the present references . Workmen presented himself to be an old and experienced workmen while obtaining the appointment letters , but in factthey had never worked on the places shown in his job cards . The initial appointment was obtained on fictitious docements . One more argument raised by the workmen that Sh . Amrik Singh who appointed the workmen was not evengiven charge-sheet . There is no material on record to prove even prima facie that Sh . Amrik Singh was anyhow involved in illegal appointments of the workmen . Moreover , this issue cannot validate the illegal appointments of the workmen. At the cost of repetition, the act and conduct of the workmen shall be taken into consideration by this Tribunal under the scope of the reference referred by the Central Government .

5. Thus, the initial appointments ofthe workmen were illegal as obatined on the basis of fictitious documents . Ifthe initial appointment of any workmen islegal , it cannot be legalized on rendering by him a substantial priod of service . Thus , I am inclined to accept the contention of the workmen that they have worked for more than 10 years in the railway and are entitled for continue in the services . An illegal appointment always remains illegal and it cannot be legalized or validated by continuously rendering the services for substantial period.

Thus , on the basis of above observation, I am of the view that the management of Northern Railway has proved the charge lebelled against the workmen before this Tribunal by adducing the reliable and cogent evidence . The termination of the workmen from the services seems to be only appropriate remedy. Thus, workmen are not entitled for any relief as they all have been rightly terminated from the services . Let the Central Government be approached for publication of the award and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 जुलाई , 2009

6. I am not inclined also to accept the contention of the workman that all the workmen having similar cards are still working with the department. The role of this Tribunal is limited to the act of the workmen and the action taken by the prescribed authority against them. Moreover , the jurisdiction by this Tribunal is created by the references refereed by the Central Government and unless in exceptional circumstances where justice delivery warranted to do so, this Tribunal cannot travel beyond the scope ofthe reference .

का.आ. 2236.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार द काथोलिक सेरेएन बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , एरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 16/2007- आई.आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 24th July, 2009

S.O. 2236. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2007) The reference is regarding the illegal termination of 11 workmen and once it is found that their initial appointment was illegal , it cannot be the good defence that some other similarly placed persons are working with the railway department . Meaning thereby, an illegal appointment cannot be validated on the ground that some other persons on illegal appointments are working with the Railway Department . It is open for the railway department for taken appropriate disciplinary action against other workmen , if found necessary . Moreover , this may 4720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 15 , 2009/SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 24-7-2009.

[No. L- 12012/ 16/2007 - IR (B- I ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

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

(Tuesday the 14th day of July , 2009/23rd Asadha , 1931 )

I. D. No.13/2007

Workman:

part time sweeper . She continued to work until her termination from service on 13-4-2006 . The termination is challenged on the ground that it is against the recognised procedure and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act. The demand of the worker for regularisation and increase in pay irritated the management and they were looking for a chance to smoke her out. No enquiry was conducted. The action was taken by the management during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before District Labour Officer . According to the management the worker had lodged a complaint with District Labour Officer that she was compelled to overwork. Since the worker started delaying the work with some ulterior motive which caused inconvenience in the smooth functioning of the bank a show cause notice was issued to her asking her to explain as to why her service shall not be dispensed with . Since no reply was submitted an order of termination was issued . There is no illegality in disengaging the worker as she was only a ternporary part time sweeper and her service was dispensed with after giving notice .

Mrs. K. Usha Kumari ,

Valakkudi House , Chackai , Pettah , Trivandrum.

3. In the light of the above contentions the only point that arises for consideration is :

By Adv. Shri T. P. Deyananthan .

Whether the termination is legal ?

Management:

The Chairman - cum-Managing

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of MW1 and the documentary evidence of Exts.M1 to M14 (a) on the side of the management and WW1 and Exts . W1 to W- 21 on the side of the worker .

Director, The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. , Head Office , Trichur , Kerala.

By Adv . M/ s . B. S. Krishnan Associates .

Thiscase coming up for hearing on 10-7-2009 , this Tribunal - cum - Labour Court on 14-7-2009 passed the following:

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the management of the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. , with its head office at Trichur in terminating the services of Mrs. K. Usha Kuinari , temporary part - time Sweeper of Pettah , Trivandrum branch of the bank w.e.f. 13-4-2004 is proper andjustified? If not, to what relief the worker is entitled ? "

5. The Point : The fact that Smt . K. Usha Kumari was a temporary part time sweeper is admitted . But according to the worker she was engaged initially during the leave vacancy of her mother Kousalya who was a part time sweeper in Pettah branch . While so , Smt . Kausalya died on 9-4-1996 . Since then Smt . Usha Kumari was working continuously till her termination from service . But the management denies engagement of the worker prior to 9-4-1996 . But that cannot have any bearing on the issue referred. It is admitted that from 9-4-1996 till termination on 13-4-2006 she had been working continuously . There is no case or record to show that someone else was also working as part time sweeper during this period . No regular hands were also appointed . Thus she worked continuously for a period of 10 years as temporary part time sweeper . But according to the management the initial appointment was for a period of 6 months and was being renewed on application for the following periods of six months each. That at any rate does not affect continuous service defined under Section 25 - B of I.D. Act because there is no break in service .

6. Ext.M1 is the application of the worker for employment as part time sweeper . Ext.M2 is the 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :- Smt . K. Usha Kumari was temporary part - time Sweeper in Petta Branch of Catholic Syrian Bank . Her mother was a part time sweeper of the branch till her death on 9-4-1996. In that vacancy Usha Kumari was engaged as temporary 4719

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

also give an apportunity to the workmen to complaint to the prescribe authority regarding the persons who are still working with the railway department on illegal appointments . But , as stated earlier , this action cannot validate the illegal appointment of the workmen based on fictitious entries in their job cards .

very well proved by three witnesses of the management namely Sh . Vijay Kumar posted as Section Engineer /P . Way, Etawah ; Sh . A.K. Roy and Sh . Subash Chander that none of the workmen had ever worked in Etawah in any of the sections of the railway.

2. It is admitted by the workman that they have never worked in Etawah in Railway Department .

3. The documents filed by the management of railway relating to the working of the workmen at Etawah also proved that the present workmen had never worked in Etawah with Railway Department .

4. The initial appointments in Safdarganj at Delhi were based on the fictitious entries in their job card , thatthey worked for railway at Etawah for substantial period oftime and it was on their working at Etawah, they were appointed by the Railway Department . Every workman became eligible for appointment because of their working at Etawah , but none of them had worked at Etawah .

Thus, on the basis of above , I am of the view that once initial appointment of any workmen is found to be illegal, it cannot at all be validated by such circumstances as alleged by the workmen in the present references . Workmen presented himself to be an old and experienced workmen while obtaining the appointment letters , but in fact they had never worked on the places shown in his job cards . The initial appointment was obtained on fictitious docements . One more argument raised by the workmen that Sh . Amrik Singh who appointed the workmen was not even given charge- sheet . There is no material on record to prove even prima facie that Sh . Amrik Singh was anyhow involved in illegal appointments of the workmen . Moreover , this issue cannot validate the illegal appointments of the workmen . At the cost of repetition , the act and conduct of the workmen shall be taken into consideration by this Tribunal under the scope of the reference referred by the Central Government .

5. Thus, the initial appointments ofthe workmen were illegal as obatined on the basis of fictitious documents . If the initial appointment of any workmen is legal , it cannot be legalized on rendering by him a substantial priod of service . Thus , I am inclined to accept the contention of the workmen that they have worked for more than 10 years in the railway and are entitled for continue in the services . An illegal appointment always remains illegal and it cannot be legalized or validated by continuously rendering the services for substantial period.

Thus , on the basis of above observation , I am of the view that the management of Northem Railway has proved the charge lebelled against the workmen before thisTribunal by adducing the reliable and cogent evidence . The termination of the workmen from the services seems to be only appropriate remedy . Thus , workmen are not entitled for any relief as they all have been rightly terminated from the services . Let the Central Government be approached for publication of the award and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2009

6. I am not inclined also to accept the contention of the workman that all the workmen having similar cards are still working with the department . The role of this Tribunal is limited to the act of the workmen and the action taken by the prescribed authority against them . Moreover , the jurisdiction by this Tribunal is created by the references refereed by the Central Government and unless in exceptional circumstances where justice delivery warranted to do so , this Tribunal cannot travel beyond the scope of the reference .

का.आ. 2236. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार द काथोलिक सेरेएन बैंक लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , एरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/16/2007 - आई.आर. ( बी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 24th July, 2009

S.O. 2236. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 13/2007 ) The reference is regarding the illegal termination of 11 workmen and once it is found that their initial appointment was illegal , it cannot be the good defence that some other similarly placed persons are working with the railway department . Meaning thereby , an illegal appointment cannot be validated on the ground that some other persons on illegal appointments are working with the Railway Department .It is open for the railway department for taken appropriate disciplinary action against other workmen, if found necessary. Moreover , this may 4720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2009/SRAVANA24, 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 24-7-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 16/2007 - IR(B - 1 ) ]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri P. L. NORBERT, B.A. , LL B. , PresidingOfficer

(Tuesday the 14th day of July , 2009/ 23rd Asadha , 1931)

I. D. No.13/ 2007

Workman:

part time sweeper . She continued to work until her termination from service on 13-4-2006. The termination is challenged on the ground that it is against the recognised procedure and provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . The demand of the worker for regularisation and increase in pay irritated the management and they were looking for a chance to smoke her out . No enquiry was conducted. The action was taken by the management during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before District Labour Officer . According to the management the worker had lodged a complaint with District Labour Officer that shewas compelled to overwork. Since the worker started delaying the work with some ulterior motive which caused inconvenience in the smooth functioning of the bank a show cause notice was issued to her asking her to explain as to why her service shall not be dispensed with. Since no reply was submitted an order of termination was issued . There is no illegality in disengaging the worker as she was only a temporary part time sweeper and her service was dispensed with after giving notice .

Mrs. K.Usha Kumari ,

Valakkudi House, Chackai , Pettah , Trivandrurn .

3. In the light of the above contentions the only point that arises for consideration is :

By Adv. Shri T. P. Deyananthan .

Whether the termination is legal ?

Management :

4. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of MW1 and the documentary evidence of Exts.M1 to M14 (a ) on the side of the management and WWI and Exts . W1 to W- 21 on the side of the worker .

The Chairman -cum-Managing Director, The Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. , Head Office , Trichur , Kerala.

By Adv . M/ s . B. S. Krishnan Associates .

This case coming up for hearing on 10-7-2009 , this Tribunal - cum- Labour Court on 14-7-2009 passed the following:

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the management of the Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. , with its head office at Trichur in terminating the services of Mrs. K. Usha Kumari , temporary part- time Sweeper of Pettah , Trivandrum branch of the bank w.e.f. 13-4-2004 is proper andjustified? If not, to what relief the worker isentitled ? "

5. The Point : The fact that Smt . K. Usha Kumari was a temporary part time sweeper is admitted. But according to the worker she was engaged initially during the leave vacancy of her mother Kousalya who was a part time sweeper in Pettah branch . While so , Smt . Kausalya died on 9-4-1996 . Since then Smt . Usha Kumari was working continuously till her termination from service. But the management denies engagement of the worker prior to 9-4-1996. But that cannot have any bearing on the issue referred . It is admitted that from 9-4-1996 till termination on 13-4-2006 she had been working continuously . There is no case or record to show that someone else was also working as part time sweeper during this period. No regular hands were also appointed . Thus she worked continuously for a period of 10 years as temporary part time sweeper. But according to the management the initial appointment was for a period of 6 months and was being renewed on application for the following periods of six months each . That at any rate does not affect continuous service defined under Section 25 -B of I.D. Act because there is no break in service .

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : - Smt . K. Usha Kumari was temporary part- time Sweeper in Petta Branch of Catholic Syrian Bank . Her mother was a part time sweeper of the branch till her death on 9-4-1996. In that vacancy Usha Kumari was engaged as temporary

6. Ext.M1 is the application of the worker for employment as part time sweeper . Ext.M2 is the भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

appointment order . Ext.M3 is a report of Branch Manager to the Chairman of the bank regarding joining of duty by the worker . Ext.M4 is a show - cause notice issued by the bank on 18-1-2006 . Ext.M4 ( a) is the postal acknowledgement card . According to the bank the worker failed to reply to Ext.M4 notice . Hence on 6-3-2006 an order of termination was issued which is Ext.M5 . It is submitted by the learned counsel for the worker that to Ext.M4 the worker had sent a reply. However there is no evidence to show that the worker had replied . Immediately after the order of termination the worker had made a representation to the Branch Manager on 10-3-2006 which is Ext.M6 . There , nothing is mentioned about a reply having sent to Ext . 4. She only sought reinstatement by Ext.M6 . The question is whether by merely issuing a show cause notice a temporary worker can be thrown out from service without a domestic enquiry . Admittedly the worker was a temporary part time sweeper all along . The very nature of the status invites the risk of termination at any movement , but following the procedure for termination under I.D. Act . If the worker has put in a continuous service of 240 or more days in a calendar year her service as temporary employee can be dispensed with only in compliance with S.25 - F of 1. D. Act . However unlike a regular employee no domestic enquiry is required in respect of a temporary hand . Therefore there is no illegality in terminating the service without an enquiry . As per records produced by the management she was given an opportunity of hearing by issuing a notice and calling for an explanation . The worker did not avail the opportunity by replying to the allegations in the show- cause notice .

7. Since the worker had worked continuously for more than 240 days every year till her termination she can be sent away only in accordance with S.25 -F of I.D. Act . Definitely a notice contemplated under Section 25 -F was givento the worker by Ext . M4 dated 18-1-2006 . The order of termination was issued only on 6-3-2006 after more than one month . But S.25 - F (b ) is also to be complied with by the management i.e. , she has to be given retrenchment compensation equivalent to fifteen days ' average pay for every completed year of continuous service . Admittedly the 2nd part of the provision is not complied with by the management. i.e. is not enough to complywith this provision subsequent to the order of termination . It is a mandatory provision and its violation makes the order ab initio void.

8. That apart at the time of termination a conciliation proceeding was pending with District Labour Officer . In

4721 para 4 of the claim statement it is mentioned that the worker had lodged a complaint with D.L.O. , Trivandrum on 13-12-2005 . While that complaint was pending with D.L.O. she was terminated from service by order dated 6-3-2006 . She had filed another complaint on 10-3-2006 to D.L.O. complaining about the termination . Ext.M7 is the complaint . The D.L.O. had issued a notice on the complaint to the management on 20-3-2006 and copy ofthe notice is Ext.M8 . There is an allegation by the worker that what prompted the management to terminate her service is due to the complaint lodged by her with D.L.O. To support the contention Ext . W- 13 is produced by the worker . It is a letter of Branch Manager to the worker dated 6-8-1999 asking her to withdraw the complaint lodged with the D.L.O. in 1999 so that the management would consider her for appointment as part time sweeper . However the show - cause notice was issued only in 2006 and termination order was also issued in 2006. Therefore the first complaint lodged with the D.L.O. in 1999 has no immediate link to the action initiated in 2006. But the action was taken pending a complaint with the D.L.O. lodged in 2005. S.33 of the I.D. Act says that the service conditions have to remain unchanged during the pendency of conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer or a Board or Arbitrator or a Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal or National Industrial Tribunal except with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending . No. permission was obtained by the management for terminating the service of the worker . Smt . Usha Kumari being a workman within the definition of S.2(s) of I.D. Act it was necessary to obtain permission of D.L.O. before terminating the service . On that ground also the termination is illegal .

In the light of the reasons stated above I find that the termination is illegal and in violation of the provisions of S.25 - F and 33 of I.D. Act and hence the worker is entitled to be reinstated .

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service of Smt . K. Usha Kumari , temporary part time sweeper of Pettah branch w.e.f. 13-4-2006 is illegal and improper and she is entitled to be reinstated with back wages and all other consequential benefits .

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

Dictated to the Personal Assistant transcribed and typed by her corrected and passed by me on this the 14th day ofJuly, 2009 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer 4722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 /SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii )] Appendix

W21 Letter dated 18-5-2006 of D.L.O. Thiruvanan- thapuram issued to worker .

Witness for the Workman

WW16-5-2009

Smt . Usha Kumari

Exhibits for the Management

Witnesses for the Management

MW18-7-2009

Smt . P. J. Thressiakutty

MI Application of the worker dated 10-9-1996 for engagement as part time sweeper .

Exhibits for the Workman

W1 PassBook of late Kausalya .

W2 Photocopy of pay slip of late Kausalya .

M2 True copy of the Letter No.3612/ 97 dated 16-5-1997 issued by the Staff Department of the Head office to the Branch Manager , Pallimukku .

W3 Character and conduct certificate issued from St. Anne's Church to Kausalya .

W4 Appointment letter issued to late Kausalya .

M3 True copy of the reply to the above letter dated 21-5-1997 issued by the Branch Manager . Pallimukku.

W5 Death Certificate of late Kausalya .

W6 Photocopy of the identity card of workman

M4 True copy of the show - cause notice No.S/7886/2006 dated 18-1-2006 issued by the Head Office to Smt . Usha Kumari .

W7 Original Pass Book of workman

W8 The photocopy of pay slip of workman.

M4(a) -True copy of the postal acknowledgement card (a) dated 23-1-2006 .

M5 True copy of the communication of disengage- mentdated 6-3-2006 issued to the worker .

W9 True copy of the representation submitted by the workman to the Manager of the Bank for releasing salary withheld from January, 1999 ,

M6 True copy of the letter dated 10-3-2006 submitted by Usha Kumari to the Branch Manager .

W10 Original Letter dated 17-3-1999 issued by the Bank dispensing with the service of workman .

W11 - True copy of the representation dated 20-3-1999 Workman addressed to the General Manager requesting to release the salary

M7 & 8 - True copy of the petition filedby Smt . Usha Kumari before the District Labour Officer , Trivandrum dated 10-3-2006 and the forwarding letter of District Labour Officer.

W12 Letter dated 26-3-1999 of Bank issued to the worker regarding disbursement of salary .

M9 True copy of the reply submitted by the Mana- gement dated 28-4-2006 before District Labour Officer.

W13 Letter dated 6-8-1999 issued by the Manager , demanding withdrawal of complaint.

M10 True copy of the petition filed by Smt . Usha Kumari before Abhaya Court , Trivandrum .

W14 Notice dated 16-9-1999 issued from the office of D.L.O. Thiruvananthapuram regarding conciliation to be held on 24-9-1999

M11 True copy of the reply to M - 10 submitted by the Management dated 16-6-2006 .

W15 Show- cause notice 18-1-2006 issued to the worker .

W16 Explanation dated 1-2-2006 to Ext .W - 15

M12 True copy of the representation dated 3-12-2005 submitted by Smt . Usha Kumari to the District Labour Officer, Trivandrum .

W17 Postal receipt dated 3-2-2006 .

W18 Postal acknowledgement card .

M13 True copy of the reply dated 21-1-2006 submitted by the management to the above representation.

W19 Order of termination dated 6-3-2006 of the Deputy General Manager issued to the workman .

M14 Failure report of the Astt . Labour Commissioner (Central) dated 17-1-2007.

M14(a) -Minutes of discussion before the Astt . Labour Commissioner (Central ) dated 15-1-2007 .

W20 - True copy of the representation dated 10-3-2006 submitted by the workman to the General Manager requesting reinstatement .

4723

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/श्रावण 24 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2237.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. वेस्टर्न इंडिया शिपयार्ड लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी -2/ 41 /2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -36011 /5/ 2000- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th July, 2009

S. O. 2237. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT- 2/41/2001 ) 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 M/ s. Western India Shipyard and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-7-2009.

[No. L- 36011/5 /2000 - IR(M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI Present : Shri A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-2/41 of 2001

Employers in Relation to the Management of M/s . Western India Shipyard Ltd.

The Managing Director

M/s. Western India Shipyard Ltd. Mormugao Harbour Mormugao Goa-403 803.

And

Their Workmen

TheGeneral Secretary

Vasco-da-Gama

Marmagoa Waterfront Workers Union Mukund Building, 2nd floor P.O. Box No. 90 Goa-403 802 .

APPEARANCES

: M/s . S. G. Kurup Advocate For the Employer

i/b

M/ s . Legal Associates .

2811 GI/09-14

For the Workmen : Mr. B.B. Lakhakar Advocate .

Mumbai , dated 5th June, 2009 .

AWARD PART - II

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour by its OrderNo.L- 36011/ 5/2000 - IR (M) dated 27-3-2001 in exercise ofthe 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 thisTribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of M/s. Western India Shipyard Ltd. , Goa in refusing employment to Shri Shivanand N. Desai , Fireman w.e.f. 9-5-2000 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled? "

2. Claim Statement is filed by the General Secretary , Marmagoa Waterfront Workers Union , Vasco.da-Gama at Ex - 5 stating that concerned workman worked on the post of Fireman in Fire & Safety Department with first party. He was served with letter dated 4-8-1999 where irregular attendance to duties from 7-7-1999 was mentioned . Management called upon the workman to resume his duties on 12-8-1999 and accordingly workman resumed his duties . According to union , concerned workman was having weekly off on 7-7-1999 and was present on duty on 8-7-1999 . It is case of the union that , on 9-8-99 , 10-08-99 and 11-8-99 due to knee injury he unable to report on duty and had intimated Sanjay Rao , Personnel Officer. It is submitted by union that, inspite of resuming duty on 12-8-1999 again concerned workman was issued charge sheet dated 16-11-1999 leveling charges of unauthorised absenteeism of 8 days upto August 1999 and charge of willful insubordination or disobedience of superiors and acts subversive of discipline . According to union , said charges where vague . In the said charge sheet, no sufficient time was given to him to reply the charges . It is submitted by the union that , again he was informed to attend the enquiry by letter dated 25-10-99 by fixing date of inquiry without giving sufficient time . It isalleged by the union , that during that relevant period, concerned workman appeared with representative in the enquiry by making preparation. Though dates were given, no body appeared from management side . It is alleged by the union that, from 6-4-2000 to 8-5-2000 concerned workman was suffering from jaundice and had intimated that with medical certificate to first party management . On 9-5-2000 when he reported to join duty , he was not allowed to join . Accordingto union, on such charges inquiry was conducted and without giving sufficient opportunity, finding was given by the Inquiry Officer by holding him guilty of unauthorised absenteeism . So it 4724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2009 / SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

Reasons

Issues Nos . 3 & 4:

6. By passing part- I award, enquiry was declared null and void and findings perverse .

is case of union that, said inquiry be declared null and void observing findings perverse . It is also stated that , punishment awarded of dismissal be set aside with cost and with direction to first party to reinstate him in the employment with benefit of backwages and continuity of service.

3. This is disputed by the first party by filing reply atEx-8 stating that , enquiry was fair and proper . It is stated that sufficient opportunity was given to concerned workman . It is alleged that it was not utilized by the concerned workman . It is stated that , he was having habit of remaining absent . He remained absent on number of instances without intimation and without prior permission. It is alleged that, charge sheet was served and opportunity was given . It is stated that , nobody appeared on his behalf and protested the action of the Management. It is case of the first party that , since concerned workman was working on sensitive post of Fireman and since he was having habit of remaining absent with out prior intimation and permission , his absenteeism affect on the administration of the management and it unable to cope up with that and provide a substitute to fill the absence of the concerned workman to update the Fire and Safety Department . So it issubmitted that, since concerned workman was irregular in attending his duties and frequently remained absent which he continued reveal that , he is not interested in the employment and management was left with no other option but to dismiss concerned workman from employment . So it submitted that , action taken of dismissal is just, proper and does not require to interfere.

4. Union filed Rejoinder at Ex -9 denying the case of the first party and asking management to prove the contention taken in the written statement .

5. In view of the above pleadings my Learned Predecessor framed issues at Ex- 10 . Out ofthose , issue of fairness of enquiry and perversity of findings were decided by passing part - l award on 14-7-2006 holding enquiry not fair, proper and findings perverse . In the said order, first party was asked to justify its action of dismissal . So the following issues i.e. issue Nos . 3 & 4 are now taken for consideration which are answered against it.

Issues

Findings

7. In this second attempt , first party, tried to justify its action of dismissal by leading evidence and had filed affidavitin lieu of examination - in- chief of Krishnan A. Thevar at Ex- 54 and of Rajesh Ajit Naik at Ex.71 who had stated in their respective affidavits that, concerned workman was having habit of remaining absent . Both in their respective affidavits have pointed out absenteeism ofthe concerned workman of July , 1998 to October , 1998 . They also stated that, management issued letter dated 23-10-1998 asking concerned workman to join the duty with explanation about absenteeism. They also stated that, by letter dated 02-01-1999 they pointed out absenteeism of concerned workman . They alleged that , concerned workman was in habit of remaining absent . They alleged that, number of opportunities were given to the concerned workman, but he did utilised it and show any improvement and he continued to remain absent . They claim that, even after enquiry , this workman continued to remain absent . They alleged that , in January , 1998 concerned workman remained absent for 3 days. They alleged that, in the month ofFebruary, 1998 he was absent for 10 days . They alleged that in March , 1998 , he was absent for 3 days , in April , 1998 for 4 days , in May, 1998 for 7 days , in June , 1998 , for 8 days , in July , 1998 , for 20 days , in August , 1998 for 8days, in September , 1998 , for 14 days , in October , 1998 , for 16 days , in November , 1998 for 5 days and in the month ofDecember, 1998 , for 10 days . They also alleged that, in January , 1999 concerned workman again remained absent for 22 days , in February, 1999 for 19 days , in March , 1999 for 24 days , in April , 1999 for 22 days , in May , 1999 for 18 days, in June 1999 for 2 days and in July, 1999 for 21 days . As far of this absenteeism is concerned , though witnesses management were made available in cross , it is pertinent to note that , except asking for producing original of muster roll and non - supplying of copies , nothing is putthose witnesses by concerned workman on charge of absenteeism . It is pertinent to note that said absenteeism was not denied by the concerned workman saying that he was present but he was purposely marked absent. Even he admits the address mentioned is service record . First party alleges that, most of correspondence were sent to workman's address but not claimed .

(iii) Whether the action of the management of M/ s. Western India Shipyard Ltd. , Goa in refusing employment to Shri Shivanand N. Desai , Fireman w.e.f. 9-5-2000 is

Yes.

legal andjustified?

(iv) What relief Shri Desai is entitled to?

Does not arise.

8. As far as absenteeism is concerned, and the absenteeism pointed out by these witnesses after enquiry which is not disputed by concerned workman reveals that , there was no improvement in the absenteeism of the concerned workman. It is pertinent to note that, concerned workman was working in Fire Department as Fireman . We know the importance of Fire Department [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

4725

11. Since decision taken by the first party is just and proper, in my considered view concerned workman is not entitled for any relief.

12. In view of above discussions , I conclude that, reference require to be rejected. Hence the order:

ORDER

Reference is rejected.

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

Date:05-06-2009

नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई , 2009

का. आ. 2238. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. ओ. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 49/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

and its emergency and its punctuality. If staff is not available in such Department, definitely question will arise inwhat way Fire Department can tackle the urgent call or emergency call to extinguish fire? With out staff and without proper equipment one cannot handle the situation of fire and it is not possible for the Fire Department to attend such emergency calls and tackle those . It is to be noted that, these 2 witnesses examined by first party management have repeatedly stated that , this workman had habit of remaining absent and there was no improvement in his absenteeism . When they have leveled charge ofabsenteeism and when concemed workman admit the charge of absenteeism , in my considered view the evidence led by first party is sufficient to justify its action ofdismissal. All these absenteeism reveals that he is not interested in the employment. Explanation given by him of his absenteeism does not reveal that, he had intimated first party and has obtained permission . Even he has not brought any single evidence on record to show that during above absenteeism on particular occasion , he obtained prior permission of first party or remained absent with intimation.

[सं. एल -30011/ 18/2007- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi, the 27th July, 2009

S. O. 2238. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 49/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, No. 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 23-7-2009 .

[No. L-30011 / 18/2007- IR(M )] KAMAL BAKHRU, 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 I. D. No. 49/2007

Ram Lakhan Sahni Through The President, GasWorkers Union , C/o CPWD Workers Union, Sector- IV, R. K. Puram, New Delhi- 110022.

....Workman

Versus

9. As stated above , if person like this remained absent from duty there will be problem for Department to substitute person in place of concerned workman . Besides it is not case that, it was rare occasion of his absenteeism . On the contrary, management witness referred above reveals that , on number of occasions he remained absent and he has not shown single example , or single instance where he has obtained permission during his absenteeism or remained absent with prior permission or intimation . In reply Second party filed affidavit at Ex - 80 . In the cross he admits that, he was absent from duty when he was dismissed from employment . He admits that he might be absent in July, 1998. Even he admits that, he has no evidence to show that, documents maintained by first party are not genuine and are fabricated . He admits that he has no evidence to show that, first party manages postal authority to create evidence about obtaining remarks " refused " on correspondence. Even he admits that, his address of Karvar and Vasco- da - Gaina were with First party, He stated that, he received one letter on that address . When this is the situation and when concerned workman admits that he remained absent from the post of Fireman which is very sensitive and important post, in my considered view decision taken of dismissal is just proper and does not require any interference .

The Sr. Plant Manager , IndianOil Corporation Ltd. ( IOCL), LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar, NewDelhi-110076.

M/s . Madhu Gas Agency, Shop No. 15, Indel Commercial Compllex, MainMarket Kondli ,

10. Though it was held that, enquiry was pot fair and proper and findings perverse , still first party management succeeded in justifying its action of dismissal . 1 accept the decision of the management holding it just and proper . So I conclude that decision taken by first party in dismissing concerned workman does not invite any interference .

New Delhi -110091 .

....Management [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15, 2009 / SRAVANA 24, 1931

4726

AWARD

Ram Lakhan Sahni was working with Mis . Madhu GasAgency, New Delhi , contractor of IOCL , LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur , Khadar . New Delhi , who were given work order for cylinder transportation as Madanpur Khadar plant of Indian Oil Corporation. He claimed that he was appointed by the management . In June , 2005 , his services were dispensed with . Feeling aggrieved by the said act he raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer . Since conciliation preceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred a dispute to this Tribunal vide letter No. L- 30011 / 18/ 2007 - IR ( M) dated 25-6-2007 with following terms: -

and employer between them , under these circumstances it cannot be said that services of the workman were terminated by the Indian Oil Corporation in June , 05. The reference itself proposes that service of the workman was terminated by M/s . Shiv Goods Carrier , New Delhi , who wereworking as contractor at LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar of the Corporation. Under these circumstances it is evident that no industrial dispute existed between the workman and the management of Indian Oil Corporation . Forwant of claim statement on behalf of the workman it emerges that the workman had given up his grivance in the matter . Under these circumstances an award is accordingly passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

DR. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 7-7-09

नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई, 2009

"Whether the termination of the workmen, Shri Ram Lakhan Sahni in June, 2005 , by M/s . Madhu Gas Agency, New Delhi contractor of IOCL , LPG , Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi isjust and legal ? If not , to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

2. The appropriate Government directed the workman to file his claim statement with his Tribunal within a period of 15 days vide letter dated 25th of June , 2007. Inspite of instructions issued in that regard, workman opted not to file any calim statement.

का. आ. 2239, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. ओ . सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 52/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-7-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30011/20/2007- आई.आर. ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी 3. Notice was sent to the workman to file his claim statement. Shri D. Sharma General Secretary , Gas Workers Union Sector 4 , R.K. Puram , New Delhi , appeared before this Tribunal on 13-9-07. Matter was adjourned for filing of the claim statement for 14-11-07 . Thereafter none appeared on behalf of the workman .

New Delhi , the 27th July, 2009 4. Fresh notice was sent to the workman by registered post on 12-6-09 , calling upon the workman to file his claim statement. Neither the postal article has been received back nor anyone appeared on behalf of the workman in pursuance of the notice . Every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the workman was served with the notice. No claim statement has been filed in the matter , on behalf ofthe workman .

S. O. 2239.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 52/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, No. 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-7-09 .

[No. L-30011 /20/2007 - IR(M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , 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

I. D. No. 52/2007

5.Management presented its written statement in an answer to the terms of the reference . It was claimed on behalf of the management that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and Indian OilCorporation . It was agitated that the workman may be an employee of M/ s . Shiv Goods Carrier , who were given work order for cylinder transportation at the Madanpur Khadar plant of the Corporation . It was projected that for want of privity of contract between the parties , there was no dispute , much-less on industrial dispute , to be adjudicated by this Tribunal . From facts projected by the management it emerges that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and Indian Oil Corporation .

.... Workman

Shri Jai Parkash Mandal Through The President, GasWorkers Union , C/o CPWD Workers Union , Sector-IV, R. K. Puram , New Delhi- 110022 .

6. Since the workman had not opted to put forward his claim and management denies relationship of workman 4727 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Versus

The Sr. Plant Manager ,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) ,

LPG Bottling Plant , Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi- 110076 .

2. M/ s . Mehra Roadways ,

TPT Centre ,

an employee of M/ s . Mehra Roadways , who were given work order for cylinder transportation at the Madanpur Khadar Plant of the Corporation . It was projected that for wantofprivity of contract between the parties , there was no dispute, much - less on industrial dispute , to be adjudicated by this Tribunal . From facts projected by the management it emerges that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and Indian OilCorporation.

.....Management

6,Punjabi Bagh , New Delhi

AWARD

Jai Parkash Mandal was working with M/s Mehra Roadways, New Delhi , contractor of IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi , who were given work order for cylinder transportation at Madanpur Khadar plant ofIndianOil Corporation. He claimed that he was appointed by the management . In June , 2005 , his services were dispensed with . Feeling aggrieved by the said act he raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer. Since conciliation preceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred a dispute to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-30011 / 20/2007 - IR ( M) dated 25-6-2007 with following terms:-

6. Since the workman had not opted to put forward his claim and management denies relationship of workman and employer between them , under these circumstances it cannot be said that services of the workman were terminated by the Indian Oil Corporation in June, 05. The reference itself proposes that service of the workman was terminated by M/s . Mehra Roadways , New Delhi , who were working as contractor at LPG Bottling Plant , Madanpur Khadar ofthe Corporation . Under these circumstances it is evident that no industrial dispute existed between the workman and the management of Indian Oil Corporation. Forwant of claim statement on behalf of the workman it emerges that the workman had given up his grievance in the matter . Under these circumstances an award is accordingly passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

DR . R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 7-7-09

"Whether the termination of the workmen , Shri Jai Parkash Mandal in June , 2005 , by M/ s Mehra Roadways , New Delhi contractor of IOCL, LPG, Bottling Plant , Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi is just and legal? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?"

नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई , 2009

2.The appropriate Government directed the workman to file his claim statement with this Tribunal within a period of 15 days vide letter dated 25th of June , 2007. Inspite of instructions issued in that regard , workman opted not to file any claim statement .

का. आ. 2240.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. ओ. सी. एल. 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 54/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-7-09 कोप्राप्त हुआ था ।

3. Notice was sent to the workman to file his claim statement . Shri D. Sharma, General Secretary, Gas Workers Union Sector 4 , R.K. Puram , New Delhi , appeared before thisTribunal on 13-9-07 . Matter was adjourned for filing of the claim statement for 14-11-07. Thereafter none appeared onbehalf of the workman .

[सं. एल-30011 /22/2007- आई. आर. ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th July, 2009 4. Fresh notice was sent to the workman by registered post statement on 12-6-09 , calling upon the workman to file his claim statement . Neither the postal article has been received back nor anyone appeared on behalf of the workman in pursuance of the notice . Every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the workman was served with the notice . No claim staternent has been filed in the matter, onbehalf of the workman .

S. O. 2240. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 54/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , No. - 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL . and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-7-09.

[No. L-30011 /22/2007-1R (M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer 5. Management presented its written statement in an answer to the terms of the reference . It was claimed on behalfof the management that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and Indian OilCorporation. It was agitated that the workman may be 4728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 / SRAVANA24 , 1931

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

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

statement . Neither the postal article has been received back nor anyone appeared on behalf of the workman in pursuance of the notice . Every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the workman was served with the notice . No claim statement has been filed in the matter , on behalf ofthe workman .

I. D. No. 54/2007

Shri Raja Mandal Through The President , GasWorkers Union , C/o CPWD Workers Union, Sector-IV , R. K. Puram , New Delhi- 110022 .

Workman

Versus

The Sr. Plant Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ( IOCL) , LPG Bottling Plant , Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi -110076.

5. Management presented its written statement in an answer to the terms of the reference . It was claimed on behalf of the management that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and Indian OilCorporation. It was agitated that the workman may be an employee of M/ s . Mehra Roadways , who were given work order for cylinder transportation at the Madanpur Khadar plant of the Corporation . It was projected that for want of privity of contract between the parties , there was no dispute , much-less the industrial dispute , to be adjudicated by this Tribunal . From facts projected by the management it emerges that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and Indian OilCorporation.

2. M/ s . Veena Gas Service , 2/30A, Sarajullina Okhla Road, New Delhi - 110025

.....Management

AWARD

Raja Mandal was working with M/ s . Veena Gas Service, New Delhi , contractor of IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi , who were given work order for cylinder transportation at Madanpur Khadar plant of Indian Oil Corporation . He claimed that he was appointed bythe management . In December , 2005 , his services were dispensed with . Feeling aggrieved by the said act he raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer . Since conciliation preceedings failed, the appropriate Govemment referred a dispute to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-30011 / 22/2007- IR(M ) dated 25-6-2007 with following terms:-

6. Since the workman had not opted to put forward his claim and management denies relationship of workman and employer between them , under these circumstances it cannot be said that services of the workman were terminated by the Indian Oil Corporation in December , 05. The reference itself proposes that service of the workman was terminated by M/s . Veena Gas Service , New Delhi , who were working as contractor at LPG Bottling Plant , Madanpur Khadar of the Corporation . Under these circumstances it is evident that no industrial dispute existed between the workman and the management of Indian Oil Corporation . For want of claim statement on behalf of the workman it emerges that the workman had given up his grivance in the matter. Under these circumstances an award is accordingly passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

DR . R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer "Whether the termination of the workmen , Shri Raja Mandal in December , 2005 , by M/ s . Veena Gas Service , New Delhi contractor of IOCL, LPG , Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi isjust and legal? If not , to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

Dated: 7-7-09

नई दिल्ली , 27 जुलाई , 2009

2. The appropriate Government directed the workman to file his claim statement with this Tribunal within a period of 15 days vide letter dated 25th of June , 2007. Inspite of instructions in that regard, workman opted not to file any claim statement .

का.आ. 2241.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. ओ . सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-7-09 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

3. Notice was sent to the workman to file his claim statement . Shri D. Sharma, General Secretary , Gas Workers Union Sector 4 , R.K. Puram , New Delhi , appeared before this Tribunal on 13-9-07 . Matter was adjourned for filing of the claim statement for 14-11-07 . Thereafter none appeared onbehalf of the workman .

4. Fresh notice was sent to the workman by registered post on 12-6-09, calling upon the workman to file his claim

[सं. एल-30011 /21 /2007- आई.आर. ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी 4729 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

New Delhi , the 27th July, 2009

S. O. 2241. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , No. - I , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workman , which was received Central Government on 23-7-09. by the

3. Notice was sent to the workman to file his claim statement . Shri D. Sharma General Secretary, Gas Workers Union , Sector 4, R.K. Puram , New Delhi , appeared before thisTribunal on 13-9-07. Matter was adjourned for filing of the claim statement for 14-11-07. Thereafter none appeared on behalf of the workman .

[No. L-30011 /21 /2007- IR(M)]

KAMAL BAKHRU , 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

4.Fresh noticewas sent to the workman by registered post on 12-6-09 , calling upon the workman to file his claim statement . Neither the postal article has been received back nor anyone appeared on behalf of the workman in pursuance of the notice . Every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the workman was served with the notice . No claim statement has been filed in the matter on behalf of theworkman.

I. D. No. 53/2007

.....Workman

Jagan Nath Paswan , Through The President , GasWorkers Union , C/o CPWD Workers ' Union , Sector-IV, R. K. Puram, New Delhi-110022 .

Versus

The Sr. Plant Manager , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ( IOCL) , LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi- 110076 .

5. Management presented its written statement in an answer to the terms of the reference . It was claimed on behalf ofthe management that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workman and Indian OilCorporation . It was agitated that the workman may be an employee of M/s . Shiv Goods Carrier , who were given work order for cylinder transportation at the Madanpur Khadar plant of the Corporation . It was projected that for wantofprivity of contract between the parties , there was no dispute , much - less on industrial dispute , to be adjudicated by this Tribunal . From the facts projected by the management it emerges that there was no relationship ofemployer and employee between the workman and Indian OilCorporation.

M/s. Shiv Goods Carrier , G.T. Road,

.....Management

Palwal (Haryana) .

AWARD

Jagan Nath Paswan was working with M/s . Shiv GoodsCarrier, New Delhi , contractor of IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur , Khadar, New Delhi , who were given work order for cylinder transportation at Madanpur Khadar plant of Indian Oil Corporation. He claimed that he was appointed by the management . In May , 2005 , his services were dispensed with . Feeling aggrieved by the said act he raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer . Since conciliation preceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred a dispute to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-30011 / 21 /2007 - IR(M ) dated 25-6-2007 with following terms :-

6. Since the workman had not opted to put forward his claim and management denies relationship ofworkman and employer between them , under these circumstances it cannot be said that services of the workman were terminated by the Indian Oil Corporation in May, 2005. The reference itself proposes that service of the workman was terminated by M/ s . Shiv Goods Carrier , New Delhi , who wereworking as contractor at LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar ofthe Corporation . Under these circumstances it is evident that no industrial dispute existed between the workman and the management of Indian Oil Corporation . Forwant of claim statement on behalf of the workman it emerges that the workman had given up his grievance in the matter . Under these circumstances an award is accordingly passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

DR . R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 7-7-2009

"Whether the termination of the workman , Shri Jagan Nath Paswan in May , 2005 , by M/ s . Shiv Goods Carrier, New Delhi , contractor of IOCL, LPG, Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled?" 4730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA 24 , 1931

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] नई दिल्ली , 27 जुलाई , 2009

for cylinder transportation as Madanpur Khadar Plant of Indian Oil Corporation . They claimed that they were appointed by the management . In June , August, June and November , 2005 respectively their services were dispensed with. Feeling aggrieved by the said act , they raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred a dispute to this Tribunal vide letter No.L- 30011 / 23/2007- IR(M) dated 25.6.2007 with following terms :

का.आ. 2242.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. ओ . सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30011/23/2007- आईआर( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th July, 2009

"Whether the termination of the workmen , Shri Raju Rai , Bhagya N arain , Bechan Dubey & Ashok Mandal in June, August , June and November 2005 "espectively by M/ s . K- 2 International, New Delhi contractor of IOCL, LPG , Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workinen are entitled ? "

2. The appropriate Government directed the workmen to file their claim statement with this Tribunal within a period of 15 days vide letter dated 25th of June, 2007. Inspite of instructions issued in that regard workmen opted not to file any claim statement .

S.O. 2242. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 51/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , No. - 1 , New Delhi , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their work , which was received by the Central Government on 23-7-2009 .

[No. L- 30011 /23 /2007 - IR (M)]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. Notice was sent to the workmen to file their claim statement . Shri D. Sharma General Secretary, ofGas Workers Union Sector 4 , R.K.Puram , New Delhi appeared before thisTribunal on 13-9-07 . Matter was adjourned for filing of the claim statement for 14-11-07 . Thereafter none appeared onbehalf of the workmen .

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

KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX , DELHI

I. D. No. 51/2007

4.Fresh notice was sent to the workmen by registered post to file his claim statement on 12-6-09 calling upon them to file their claim statement . Neither the postal article had been received back nor anyone appeared on behalf of the workmen in pursuance of the notice . Every presumption lies in favor of the fact that the workmen were served with the notice . No claim statement has been filed in the matter , onbehalf of the workmen .

Shri Raju Rai , Bhagya Narain , Bechan Dubey & Ashok Mandal , Through the President , GasWorkers Union , C/ o CPWD Workers Union , Sector - IV R. K. Puram , New Delhi - 110022 . ....... Workman

Versus

The Sr. Plant Manager, IndianOil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL), LPG Bottling Plant , Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi - 110076.

M/ sK- 2 , International , 255 A, Pocket-N , Sarita Vihar, New Delhi - 110076 .

.....Management

AWARD

5. Management has presented its written statement in an answer to the terms of the reference . It was claimed on behalf of the management that there was no relationship ofemployer and employee between the workmen and Indian OilCorporation . It was agitated that the workmen may be employees of M/ s K - 2 International , who were given work order for the cylinder transportation at the Madanpur Khadar plant of the Corporation . It was projected that for want of privity of contract between the parties there was no dispute much less the industrial dispute to be adjudicated by this Tribunal . From facts projected by the management it emerges that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workmen and Indian OilCorporation.

6. Since the workmen had not opted to put forward their claim and management denies relationship of workmen and employer between the parties , under these circumstances it cannot be said that services of the S /Shri Raju Rai , Bhagya Narain , Bechan Dubey and Ashok Mandal were working with M/ s . K- 2 , International , New Delhi , contractor of IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi , who were given work order भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

workman were terminated by the Indian Oil Corporation in June , August, June and November, 2005 respectively. The reference itself proposes that service of the workmen was terminated by M/s K - 2 International , New Delhi , who were working as contractor at LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar of the Corporation. Under these circumstances it is evident that no industrial dispute existed between the workmen and the management of Indian Oil Corporation . For want of claim statement on behalf of the workmen it emerges that the workmen had given up their grievances in the matter . Under these circumstances an award is accordingly passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer Dated: 7-7-2009

नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2243.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. ओ. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30011/19/2007- आई.आर. ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th July , 2009

S.O. 2243. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , No.-I. New Delhi , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-7-2009 .

[No. L- 30011 / 19/2007 - IR (M)]

KAMAL BAKHRU , 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 I. D. No. 50/2007

Shri Jeet Bahadur and Bipin Mandal , Through the President ,

GasWorkers Union ,

4731

Versus

The Sr. Plant Manager ,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ( IOCL) , LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar , NewDelhi - 110076 .

M/s. G. S. & Co. , D-203 , Sarita Vihar, New Delhi- 110076.

.....Management

AWARD

Jeet Bahadur and Bipin Mandal were working with M/s .G.S. &Co. , New Delhi , contractor of IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant, who were given work order for cylinder transportation at Madanpur Khadar plant of Indian Oil Corporation . They claimed that they were appointed by the management . However, in November and October , 2005, their services were dispensed with. Feeling aggrieved by the said act , they raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred a dispute to this Tribunal vide letter No. L- 30011 / 19/2007 - IR ( M ) dated 25-6-2007 with followingterms:

"Whether the termination of the workmen , Shri Jeet Bahadur and Bipin Mandal , in November and October, 2005 respectively by M /s .G.S. & Co. , New. Delhi contractor of IOCL , LPG Bottling Plant , Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ?" 2.The appropriate Government directed the workmen to file their claim statement with this Tribunal within a period of 15 days vide letter dated 25th of June , 2007. Inspite of instructions issued in that regard workmen opted not to file any claim statement .

3. Notice was sent to the workmen to file their claim statement . Shri D. Sharma General Secretary , of Gas Workers Union Sector 4 , R.K.Puram, New Delhi appeared before this Tribunal on 13-9-07 . Matter was adjourned for filing of the claim statement for 14-11-07 . Thereafter none appeared on behalf of the workman.

4. Fresh notice was sent to the workmen by registered post , calling upon them to file their claim statement by 7-7-09 . Neither the postal article was received back nor anyone appeared on behalf of the workmen in pursuance of the notice . Every presumption lies in favour ofthe fact that the workmen were served with the notice . No claim statement has been filed in the matter on behalf of theworkmen.

... Workman

C/ o CPWD Workers Union , Sector- IV R. K. Puram, New Delhi - 110022.

2811 GI/09-15

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

workman were terminated by the Indian Oil Corporation in June, August, June and November, 2005 respectively. The reference itself proposes that service of the workmen was terminated by M / s K- 2 International , New Delhi , who were working as contractor at LPG Bottling Plant , Madanpur Khadar of the Corporation . Under these circumstances it is evident that no industrial dispute existed between the workmen and the management of Indian Oil Corporation . For want of claim statement on behalf of the workmen it emerges that the workmen had given up their grievances in the matter . Under these circumstances an award is accordingly passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer Dated: 7-7-2009

नई दिल्ली, 27 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2243.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. ओ. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं.- I , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 50/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30011/19/2007- आई.आर. ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th July, 2009

S.O. 2243. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govemment hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 50/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court, No. - 1 , New Delhi , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-7-2009 .

[No. L- 30011 /19/2007 - IR (M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU, 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 I. D. No. 50/2007

Shri Jeet Bahadur and Bipin Mandal ,

Through the President,

GasWorkers Union ,

C/ o CPWD Workers Union , Sector - IV

4731

Versus

The Sr. Plant Manager,

Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (IOCL) , LPG Bottling Plant , Madanpur Khadar,

New Delhi - 110076 .

M/s. G. S. & Co. ,

D-203 , Sarita Vihar ,

New Delhi - 110076 .

.....Management

AWARD

Jeet Bahadur and Bipin Mandal were working with M/ s .G.S. & Co. , New Delhi , contractor of IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant , who were given work order for cylinder transportation at Madanpur Khadar plant of Indian Oil Corporation . They claimed that they were appointed by the management . However , in November and October , 2005 , their services were dispensed with. Feeling aggrieved by the said act, they raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred a dispute to this Tribunal vide letter No. L- 30011 / 19/2007 - IR (M ) dated 25-6-2007 with following terms:

"Whether the termination of the workmen , Shri Jeet Bahadur and Bipin Mandal , in November and October, 2005 respectively by M/s . G.S.& Co. , New . Delhi contractor of IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant , Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi is just and legal ? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled ? " 2. The appropriate Government directed the workmen to file their claim statement with this Tribunal within a period of15 days vide letter dated 25th of June , 2007. Inspite of instructions issued in that regard workmen opted not to fileany claim statement .

3.Notice was sent to the workmen to file their claim statement. Shri D. Sharma General Secretary , of Gas Workers Union Sector 4 , R.K.Puram , New Delhi appeared before this Tribunal on 13-9-07 . Matter was adjourned for filing ofthe clairn statement for 14-11-07. Thereafter none appeared on behalf of the workman .

4. Fresh notice was sent to the workmen by registered post, calling upon them to file their claim statementby 7-7-09. Neither the postal article was received back nor anyone appeared on behalf of the workmen in pursuance of the notice . Every presumption lies in favour ofthe fact that the workmen were served with the notice . No claim statement has been filed in the matter on behalf of theworkmen.

.......Workman

R. K. Puram, New Delhi - 110022 .

2811 GI/09-15

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009 /SRAVANA 24 , 1931

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

ANNEXURE

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

I. D. No. 63/2007

Oil Corporation . It was agitated that the workmen may be employees of M / s . Shiv Goods Carrier , who were given work order for the cylinder transportation at the Madanpur Khadar plant of the Corporation . It was projected that for want of privity of contract between the parties there was no dispute , muchless an industrial dispute to be adjudicated by this Tribunal . From facts projected by the management it emerges that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workmen and Indian Oil Corporation.

Shri Shiv Narain . Through the President, GasWorkers Union .

C/ o CPWD Workers Union , Sector- IV R. K. Puram , New Delhi - 110022 . Workman

Versus

The Sr. Plant Manager , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. ( IOCL) , LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi - 110076.

.....Management

AWARD

6. Since the workmen had not opted to put forward their claim and management denies relationship of workmen and employer between the parties , under these circumstances it cannot be said that services of the workman were terminated by the Indian Oil Corporation in November and October , 2005. The reference itselfproposes that service of the workmen was terminated by M/s . G.S. & Co. New Delhi , who were working as contractor at LPG Bottling Plant . Madanpur Khadar of the Corporation . Under these circumstances it is evident that no industrial dispute existed between the workmen and the management of Indian Oil Corporation . For want of claim statement on behalf of the workman it emerges that the workmen had given up their grievances in the matter . Under these circumstances an award is accordingly passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated : 7-7-2009

नई दिल्ली , 27 जुलाई , 2009

Shri Shiv Narain was working with M/s Shubh Laxmi Gas Service , A - 38 / 3 , Vikas Marg , Shakarpur , Delhi , contractor of IOCL, LPG Bottling Plant , Madanpur Khadar , New Delhi who was given work order for cylinder transportation at Madanpur Khadar plant of Indian Oil Corporation . He claimed that he was appointed by the management . In November and October , 2005 , their services were dispensed with . Feeling aggrieved by the said act , he raised an industrial dispute before the conciliation officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred a dispute to this Tribunal vide letter No. L-30011/43/2007 - IR( M) dated 27-8- 2007 with following terms:

का.आ. 2244.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई. ओ . सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. - 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 63/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the termination of Sh . Shiv Narain in April , 2005 by M/ s Shubh Laxmi Gas Service , A- 38/3 , Vikas Marg, Shakarpur , Delhi , Contractor of IOCL , LPG Bottling Plant , Madanpur Khadar, New Delhi is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled?"

[सं. एल-30011 /43/2007- आई.आर. ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th July, 2009

2. The appropriate Government directed the workman to file their claim statement with this Tribunal within a period of 15 days vide letter dated 27th August, 2007. Inspite of instructions issued in that regard workmen opted not to file any claim statement.

3. Notice was sent to the workman to file his claim statement . Matter was adjourned for filing of the claim statement for 12-11-2007 . None appeared on belalf of the workman.

S.O. 2244. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 63/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, No. - I , New Delhi , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of IOCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-7-2009 .

[No. L- 30011/ 43 /2007 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

4. Fresh notice was sent to the workman on 21-5-09 by registered post to file his claim statement on 18-6-09 calling upon him to file his claim statement . On 18-6-09 again notice was sent to the workman for 13-7-09 . Neither the postal article had been received back nor anyone 4733 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

appeared on behalf of the workman in pursuance of the notice. Every presumption lies in favour of the fact that the workman was served with the notice . No claim statement has been filed in the matter on behalf of the workman .

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Chennai , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of TANMAG and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 23-7-2009 .

[No. L- 27011 /4/2008 - IR (M) ]

KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 14th July, 2009

Present : A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 22/2009 5. Management has presented its written statement in an answer to the terms of the reference . It was claimed onbehalf ofthe management that there was no relationship ofemployer and employee between the workmen and Indian OilCorporation . It was agitated that the workmen may be employees ofM/s . Shubh Laxmi Gas Service , A-38/3 , Vikas Marg, Shakarpur , Delhi , who were given work order for the cylinder transportation at the Madanpur Khadar plant of the Corporation. It was projected that for want of privity of contract between the parties there was no dispute muchless the industrial dispute to be adjudicated by this Tribunal. From facts projected by the management it emerges that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the workmen and Indian Oil Corporation.

(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) ofsub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of TANMAG and their Workmen )

BETWEEN

: 1 Party/Petitioner

The General Secretary Erode Mavatta Pokuvarathu Matrum Podhu Thozhilalar Sangam 21 , Vivekananda Street Salem- 7 Salem , Dharmapuri , Namakkal ,

Vs.

: 11 Party/Respondent

The Managing Director TAN MAG , 5/63 , Omalur Road Jagirammapalayam , Salem-2

6. Since the workman had not opted to put forward his claim and management denies relationship of workman and employer between the parties , under these circumstances it cannot be said that services of the workman were terminated by the Indian Oil Corporation in April , 05. The reference itself proposes that service of the workmen was terminated by M/s . Shubh Laxmi Gas Service , Delhi , who were working as contractor at LPG Bottling Plant, Madanpur Khadar of the Corporation. Under these circumstances it is evident that no industrial dispute existed between the workmen and the management of Indian Oil Corporation. For want of claim statement on behalf of the workman it emerges that the workmen had given up their grievances in the matter . Under these circumstances an award is accordingly passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

APPEARANCE

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 13-7-2009

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s . M. Selvam , T. Pappaiah Dharmarajan

नई दिल्ली , 27 जुलाई , 2009,

:M/s . M.R. Raghavan , Advocate

For the 2nd Party/ Management

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 27011/4/2008 -IR ( M) dated30-1-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

का.आ. 2245.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार टी. ए. एन. एम. ए. जी. 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 22/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 23-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-27011/4/2008- आईआर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the management of TANMAG, Salem in paying a less salary to HMV Drivers when compared to LMV Drivers is justified? What relief the HMV Drivers are entitled to ?"

New Delhi , the 27th July, 2009

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as 22/2009 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their S.O. 2245. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2009 ) 4734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: AUGUST 15, 2009 /SRAVANA 24, 1931

respective counsel . Thereafter the Industrial Dispute stood posted for filing Claim Statement followed by Counter Statement. There has not had been the representation on either side continuously for a good number of postponements of the case for the purpose . Therefore, at the last the petitioner union was called absent and the Respondent was called absent and set - exparte . The records were perused.

3. Points for consideration are:

(i ) Whether the action of the Management of TANMAG , Salem in paying a lesser salary to HMV Drivers compared to LMV Drivers is Justified?

(8) To what relief the HMV Drivers are entitled?

Point Nos . 1 & 2

+ As a matter of convenience these two points are considered together . Both the parties though entered appearance , thereafter continuously remained absent and thereby failed to file any Claim or Counter Statements complete with relevant documents , list of reliance and witnesses as instructed to do so under the very reference or on the direction of this Tribunal . Therefore , there is no material before this Tribunal to find out under what support the reference is to be answered .

5. From the couching terminology in the reference , it is legitimate for this Tribunal to presume that under the Management of TANMAG there are two categories of Drivers viz . ( i ) 11MV Drivers and (ii ) LMV Drivers , that I.MV Drivers are paid comparatively more salary than to IIMV Drivers . The question to be considered is whether such payment of lesser salary to HMV Drivers than to 1.MV Drivers is justified . In this ID both the parties are absent to prosecute or defend their respective claims or defence as the case maybe . Since the reference is at the instance of the petitioner , the initial burden is upon him to prove that payment of lesser salary to the HMV Drivers is justified or not . Under the Indian Evidence Act when a party wishes to make believe the Court, the existence of a certain fact it is for that party to adduce evidence to prove that. There is a maxim the meaning of which is to the effect that when both are at equal faults the condition of the defendant (herem the " Respondent " ) is better . There is another principle that when both sides adduce evidence the burden of proof loses its importance . So viewed, it could also mean that when both sides do not adduce evidence . the burden of proof loses of its importance . In this case both sides have not even presented their pleadings or supportingdocuments . There is hardly any material to tilt a decision by way of answer to the reference in favour of either party. However , invoking the concept of burden of proof as being on the First Party Petitioner as mentioned above and since he has not discharged the initial burden

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] of satisfying the Tribunal by adducing any evidence , it is only to be found that payment of less salary to HMV Drivers compared to LMV Drivers cannot be held notjustified and therefore is justified in the absence of material to adopt a contra view.

6. The point is answered accordingly.

(Dictatedto the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 14th July, 2009) A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

For the I Party/Petitioner : None

For the II Party/Management : None

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description Nil

On the Management's side

Ex.No. Date Nil Description नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2246.- जबकि मैसर्स भारत हैवी इलैक्ट्रीकल्स लि. ( उत्तर प्रदेश क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या यूपी/ 7493 के अंतर्गत ) ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

2. और जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान दर के मामले में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि के नियम उसके कर्मचारियों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं है और कर्मचारी भी समान प्रकृति के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 ( एतदुपरान्त योजना के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं ।

3. केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय- समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को ध्यान में रखते हुए , उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 1-5-1983 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस -35015 /14/2009 - एस. एस. II ] ए. के. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव 4735 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 28th July, 2009

S.O. 2246. Whereas M/s. Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. , (under Code UP/7493 in Uttar Pradesh Region ) (hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied for exemption under clause ( a) of sub - section (1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

S.O. 2247. Whereas M/s . Franco Indian Remedies (P) Ltd. , (under Code No. TN/22766 in Chennai Region) (hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied forexemption under clause (a) ofsub- section ( 1 ) ofSection 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 ( 19 of 1952) ( hereinafter referred to as theAct).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme , 1952 ( hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character .

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Government , the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character .

3.Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time, the Central Government , hereby , exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01-05-1983 until further notification .

3.Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard fromtime to time, the Central Government , hereby , exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions ofthe said Scheme with effect from 01-01-1993 until further notification .

[No. S-35015/14/2009 - SS - II ] A. K. GUPTA , Under Secy . नई दिल्ली , 28 जुलाई , 2009

[No. S- 35015 /44/2009 - SS- II ] A. K. GUPTA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 28 जुलाई , 2009

का.आ. 2247. - जबकि मैसर्स फ्रान्को इंडियन रेमेडीज्स ( प्रा. ) लि. ( चैन्नई क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या टीएन/22766 के अंतर्गत ) एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 कीउप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

का.आ. 2248. - जबकि मैसर्स स्टील ऑथोरिटी ऑफ इंडिया , कारपोरेट आफिस [ दिल्ली ( उत्तरी ) क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डीएल/4563 के अंतर्गत एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ] ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

2. और जबकि , केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान दर के मामले में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि के नियम उसके कर्मचारियों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं है और कर्मचारी भी समान प्रकृति के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना, 1952 ( एतदुपरान्त उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं ।

2. और जबकि, केन्द्र सरकार के विचार में अंशदान दर के मामले में उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के भविष्य निधि के नियम उसके कर्मचारियों के लिए उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं है और कर्मचारी भी समान प्रकृति के किसी अन्य प्रतिष्ठान के कर्मचारियों के संबंध में उक्त अधिनियम या कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि योजना , 1952 ( एतदुपरान्त उक्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) के अंतर्गत अन्य भविष्य निधि लाभ भी प्राप्त कर रहे हैं ।

3. केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को ध्यान में रखते हुए , उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 1-1-1993 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस-35015/44/2009- एस. एस. II ] ए. के. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव

3. केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा , अब उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 17 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को ध्यान में रखते हुए, उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के 4736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA 24 , 1931

प्रचालन से 1-1-1981 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस-35015/36/2009- एस. एस. 11 ] ए. के. गुप्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th July , 2009

S.O. 2248.- Whereas M /s Steel Authority of India Ltd. , [under Code DL/4563 in Delhi (North ) Region ] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub - section ( 1) of section 17 ofthe Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act . 1952 ( 19 of 1952) ( hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central Govemment, the rules of the provident fund of the said establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are not less favourable to employees therein than those specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits provided under the said Act or under the Employees ' Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme ) in relation to the employees in any other establishment of similar character.

3.Now, therefore, in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause ( a ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 17 of the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this regard from time to time , the Central Govemment, hereby , exempts the said establishinent from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 01-01-1981 until further notification.

[No. S -35015 /36/2009 -SS - II ] A. K. GUPTA, Under Secy . नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2249.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा । की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा 01 सितम्बर , 2009 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 70 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध तमिलनाडु राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

केन्द्र

तिरूणलवेली जिला में नांगुनंरी तालुक और राधापुरम तालुक में वल्लियूर केन्द्र

1. राधापुरम तालुक ( क ) वल्लियूर (ख ) वल्लियूर साउथ 2. नांगुनेरी तालुक (क) तलपति समुदरम आदि के अंतर्गत आने वाले राजस्वगांव

[ संख्या एस. 38013/29/ 2009 - एस.एस. 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)) New Delhi , the 4th August, 2009

S.O. 2249. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist September , 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI ( except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely:

CENTRE

Areas Comprising the Revenue Villagesof

Valliyoor in Radhapuram I. Radhapuram Taluk

Taluk and Nanguneri Taluk in Tirunelveli District

(a) Valliyoor ( b ) Valliyoor South 2. Nanguneri Taluk (a) Thalapathi Samudaram [No. S -38013 /29 //2009 - S.S.I . ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy . नई दिल्ली , 4 अगस्त, 2009

का.आ. 2250.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 सितम्बर, 2009 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध तमिलनाडु राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

केन्द्र

विरुधनगर जिला में शिवाकाशी के घेरे का क्षेत्र

विरुधनगर जिला में व्याप्त क्षेत्र के राजस्व गांव विरुधनगर जिला में शिवाकाशी तालुक के नेंदुगुलाम के राजस्वगांव

[ संख्या एस. 38013/30/2009 - एस.एस. 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 4th August , 2009

S.O. 2250.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist September , 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter-V and VI ( except sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought 4737 भारत का राजपत्र अगस्त 15, 2009/ श्रावण 24, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 24 जुलाई, 2009

into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu namely:-

Centre

Areascomprising the revenue Villages of Virudhunagar District .

Revenue Village of Nedungulam ofSivakasi Taluk in Virudhunagar District.

Sivakasi peripherals area in Virudhunagar District

का.आ. 2252.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947. का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मै. एस. सी. कम्पनी लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 112/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को23-7-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29025/5/2009- आईआर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी [No. S-38013 /30/2009 - S.S.I . ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy . नई दिल्ली, 4 अगस्त, 2009

New Delhi , the 24th July , 2009 का.आ. 2251 ,- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा । सितम्बर , 2009 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध कर्नाटक राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

S.O. 2252. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 112 / 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . S.C. Co. , Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 23-7-2009.

जिला

होबली तालुक

राजस्व ग्राम का नाम व नगरपालिका सीमाएं

क्रम सं.

[No. L -29025 /5 /2009 - IR (M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

रामनगर

कसबा

1. बसवनपुरा

ANNEXURE

रामनगर

कसबा

मायगानहल्ली

रामनगर

कसबा

3. मादापुरा

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

[संख्या एस. 38013/31/2009 -एस.एस. 1 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer New Delhi , the 4th August, 2009

Dated, the 25th Day of June , 2009 Industrial Dispute No. 112 of 2006 BETWEEN

..Petitioner

Yetakari Malliah

And

( 1 ) The General Manager , M/sS.C. Co. Ltd. , Ballampally, Adilabad Dist .

S.O. 2251. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (3 ) of Section I of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st September , 2009 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter-V and VI (except sub - section ( 1 ) ofSection 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely:-

District

(2) The Superintendent of Mines ,

Taluk

Hobli

Sl. Name ofthe

No. Revenue Village orMunicipal Limits

...Respondents

M/sS.C. Co. Ltd. , Goleti No. 1 Incline . Rebban Mandal , Adilabad District .

Ramanagar

APPEARANCES

Kasaba

1. Basavanapura

Ramanagar

Kasaba

2. Mayaganahalli

For the Petitioner : Shri A. K. Tayaprakash Rao, Advocate

Kasaba Ramanagar Ramanagar

3. Madapura

[No. S- 38013 /31 /2009- S.S.I . ]

For the Respondent : Shri P. A. V. V. Sharma Advocate

S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

4738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : AUGUST 15 , 2009/ SRAVANA 24, 1931

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

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

2. This petition under section 2( A ) 2 of ID Act has beenfiled by Yetakari Mallaiah for declaring his retirement as null and void and reinstate him in the services on the ground that his date of birth has been wrongly entered and he was forced to retire two years earlier than his actual date of superannuation.

3. Counter statement has been filed by the respondent management denying allegations in the claim statement and has further been alleged that the petition under Section 2(A)2 of the ID Act is not maintainable before this Tribunal as Section 2 (A) 2 of the ID Act is not applicable in the present case . The present case is of the retirement of the petitioner which is neither retrenchment nor dismissal nor disengagement . As such , the maintainability ofthe petition has been challenged .

4. The respondent has raised preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the petition and the case was posted for arguments on the preliminary issue on the maintainability of the petition . But the petitioner did not appear on the date ofthe argument on the preliminary issue.

of such other disputes procedure has been prescribed under the Act for reference of dispute by Government. He has argued that in the present case the workman has neither been discharged nor dismissed nor retrenched nor terminated from the service , but of own contention of the petitioner, he was retired from the service . As such , his case is not covered under any of the heads of discharge. dismissal , retrenchment or termination . Thus , the case of retirement stands excluded from the purview of Section 2(A) 2 . The procedure prescribed under the Act is that reference of the dispute by the Government has to be inade to this Tribunal for Award . The learned counsel for the respondent has cited a case law of Hon'ble A.P. High Court printed and published in 2008 ( 1 ) ACD 53 wherein Division Bench of Hon'ble A.P.High Court in the matter of Superintending Engineer , Irrigation Circle Department, Hyderabad Vs. B.Sathaiah and others . I have gone through the case law cited by the learned counsel for respondent and have also read over the averments made in the claim statement filed by the workman petitioner . In the present case, the petitioner has challenged the action of retirement bythe management . The case of petitioner is not covered under the head of discharge, dismissal , retrenchment or termination . As such , this case is not covered under Section 2(A)2of the ID Act Thus , in the light of the case law cited above, the petition is not maintainable under Section 2 (A)2 and deserves to be dismissed on the preliminary ground itself. The petition is dismissed .

Dictated to Sri P. Kanaka Raju , LDC transcribed by him and corrected by me on this 25th day of June, 2009 .

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer Appendix of Evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner : NIL

5. Hence , this Tribunal heard counsel for the respondent . The learned counsel for the respondent has argued that though Section 2(A) 2 is applicable in the State ofAndhra Pradesh , but the provisions of Section 2 (A) 2 of the ID Act is applicable only where that dispute relates to discharge , dismissal , retrenchment or termination of the services of a workman . Other disputes are excluded from the provisions of Section 2 (A)2 ofthe Act, for adjudication

Witnesses examined forthe Respondent : NIL Printed by the Manager, Govt . of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapurı , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi- 110054 .