This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04/0007/ 2003-05

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 50)

नई दिल्ली, दिसम्बर 6 दिसम्बर 12 , 2009 , शनिवार/अग्रहायण 15 - अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

No. 50 ] NEWDELHI , DECEMBER 6 DECEMBER 12, 2009, SATURDAY/ AGRAHAYANA 15- AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

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

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

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 1 दिसम्बर, 2009

(Department of Personnel and Training) . New Delhi , the 1st December , 2009

का.आ. 3322.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य सरकार , गृह ( एससी.ए ) विभाग कीदिनांक 17 नवंबर , 2009 की अधिसूचना जी.ओ. एमएस. सं. 467 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से सीमा विवादों से संबंधित जांच/अन्वेषण , मैसर्स ओबुलापुरम माइनिंग कंपनी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड और अनंतपुर जिला ( आंध्र प्रदेश ) के बेलारी संरक्षित वनों में मैसर्स बेलारी आयरन और प्राइवेट लिमिटेड के अवैध खदान क्रिया- कलापों और अन्य अपराधों के संबंध में तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए उपर्युक्त गैर- कानूनी गतिविधियों के संबंध में किए गए प्रयासों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों अथवा उन्ही तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराध/अपराधों काअन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण आंध्र प्रदेश राज्य के सम्बन्ध में करती है ।

S.O. 3322.-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 of the State Government of Andhra Pradesh , Home ( SC.A ) , Department vide Notification G.O. Ms. No. 467 dated 17th November , 2009, herby extends the powers and jurisdiction ofthe members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh for enquiry/ investigation regarding boundary disputes , illegal mining activities and other related offences of M/ s . Obulapuram MiningCompany Private Limited and M /s Bellary Iron-Ore Private Limited in the Bellary Reserve Forest of Anantapur District (Andhra Pradesh ) and attempts , abetments , and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the offences relating to above mentioned illegal activities and any other offence( s) , committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[सं. 228/61/2009- ए वी डी-11 ] चंद्र प्रकाश , अवर सचिव

[No. 228 /61 /2009 -AVD - II ] CHANDRA PRAKASIH , Under Secy. 4340G1/2009

(7891) 7892

[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

आयकर महानिदेशालय ( अन्वेषण )

(आयकर विभाग )

चेन्नै, 26 अक्तूबर , 2009

आयकर अधिनियम 1961 की धारा 10( 237 ) ( vi ) के तहत आदेश

का.आ. 3323.-आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 गक के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43 ) की धारा 10. के खंड ( 23 ग ) के उप- खंड ( vi ) में प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए एस आर एम इन्सिट्यूट ऑफ साईन्स एण्ड टेक्नोलोजी, सं. 3 , वीरासामी स्ट्रीट , बेस्ट माम्बलम, चेन्नै 600 033 ( स्थाई लेखा संख्या ए ए डी टी एस 3688 के के ) को वर्ष 2009-10 से उपरोक्त उप- खण्ड के प्रयोजन के लिए अनुमोदित किया जाता है जिनकी निम्नलिखित शर्तें होंगी ।

2 ( i ) दिनांक 8-9-2009 के सुधार विलेख के अनुसार जिन प्रयोजनों के लिए इस न्यास की स्थापना हुई है , सिर्फ उन प्रयोजनों के लिए ही इस न्यास द्वारा अपनी आय का उपयोग किया जा सकता है अथवा संचित कर रखा जा सकता है और अधिनियम की धारा 10 ( 23 ग ) के तीसरे परन्तुक के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसार यदि उसकी आय के 15 प्रतिशत से ज्यादा रकम संचित की गयी तो ऐसे संचय करने की अवधि 5 सालों से ज्यादा नहीं होगी ।

( ii ) अधिनियम की धारा 10( 23 ग ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के तीसरे परन्तुक के अनुसार किसी अवधि के लिए न्यास द्वारा जेवर या फर्नीचर के रूप में प्राप्त और उसी रूप में रखे हुए स्वैच्छिक अभिदाय के अलावा अन्य निधि का निवेश या निक्षेप अधिनियम की धारा ।। की उपधारा ( 5 ) में उल्लिखित किसी एक या अनेक स्वरूप या पद्धति के अलावा और अन्य स्वरूप या पद्धति में नहीं किया जाएगा ।

(iii ) अधिनियम की धारा 10 ( 23 ग ) के दसवें परन्तुक के अनुसार न्यास अपने अभिलेखाओं की संपरीक्षा कराएगा और अधिनियम की धारा 139 (4ग ) के अनुसरण में अपनी आयकर विवरणी लेखा रिपोर्ट के साथ नियमित रूप से दाखिल करेगा । ( iv)न्यास के भंग होने या परिसमापन की स्थिति में उसका अधिशेष और उसकी संपत्ति एक ऐसी संस्था को ही दी जाएगी जो एक मात्र शिक्षा के उद्देश्य के लिए हो और किसी लाभार्जन के लिए न हो । इस रकम का कोई भी हिस्सा प्रत्यक्ष या परोक्ष रूप से न्यास के किसी न्यासी या किसी ऐसे अन्य व्यक्ति को नहीं जाएगा जिसका उल्लेख अधिनियम की धारा 13 ( 3 ) में किया गया है । ( v) यह अनुमोदन किसी व्यापार , वाणिज्य , या कारोबार करने से अर्जित या किसी ऐसे व्यापार , वाणिज्य या कारोबार को सेवा प्रदान करने से हुई आय के संदर्भ में लागू नहीं होगा चाहे ऐसी गतिविधियों स प्राप्त आय का उपयोग , निवेश और संचयन का स्वरूप कुछ भी हो । ( vi ) अधिनियम की धारा 115 खखग के साथ पठित धारा 10 ( 23 ग ) के पन्द्रहवें परन्तुक के प्रावधानों के अनुसार गुमनाम दानं के संदर्भ में यह अनुमोदन लागू नहीं होगा ।

3. यदि बाद में यह पता चलता है कि निर्धारिती न्यास की आय का उपयोग उपर्युक्त अनुच्छेद 2 ( i ) के उल्लंघन में हुआ हो अथवा उसकी निधि का निवेश या निक्षेप उपर्युक्त अनुच्छेद 2 ( ii ) के विरुद्ध हुआ हो अथवा उसका कार्य या तो असली न हो या जिन शर्तों के अधीन न्यास को अनुमोदन प्रदान किया गया हो , उन सभी शर्तों या उनमें से किसी एक शर्त का पालन नहीं हुआ हो तब अधिनियम की धारा 10 (23 ग ) के तेरहवें परन्तुक के अनुसार उपर्युक्त अनुमोदन को वापस लिया जा सकता है ।

[ फा.सं. 2097( 1 )/08-09] के. के. त्रिपाठी , आयकर महानिदेशक ( अन्वेषण ) DIRECTORATE GENERAL OF INCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION)

(IncomeTax Department)

Chennai , the 26th October , 2009

OrderUnder Section 10(23C)(vi) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961

S.O. 3323. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- clause (vi ) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 , the SRM Institute of Science & Technology, No.3 , Veerasamy Street, West Mambalam , Chennai -600033 [ PAN : AADTS 3688KK ] is herby approved for the purpose of the said sub- clause from the assessment year 2009-10 , subject to the following conditions:

2. ( i ) The trust shall apply its income or accumulate the same rapplication wholly and exclusively towards the objects for which it is established asper deed of rectification dated -8-09-2009 and, incase more than fiftteen per cent of its income is accumulated, the period of accumulation of the same shall in no case exeed five year , as required in clause ( a) of the third proviso to Section 10(23C) oftheAct .

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

( iii) The trust shall get its accounts audited in accordance with the tenth proviso to Section 10(23C) of the Act and regularly file its return alongwith the audit report in a accordance with Section 139 (4C) ofthe Act.

(iv) In the event of dissolution or winding up of the trust, its surplus and assets shall be given to an organization which exists solely for educational purposes and not for purposes of profit and no 41 7893 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/ अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 4 दिसंबर , 2009

part of the same shall go directly of indirectlyto any of the beneficiaries of the trust or any body specified in Section 13 (3 ) of the Act .

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

(vi) The approval shall not apply in relation to anonymous donations in terms of the fifteenth provisiotoSection 10(23C) r. w.s. 115BBC of the Act.

का.आ. 3325.-राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक (प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) योजना , 1970/1980 के खंड 8 के उपखंड ( 1 ) और तथा खंड 3 के उपखंड ( 1 ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा 3 के खंड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , इलाहाबाद बैंक के मौजूदा कार्यपालक निदेशक श्री जे.पी. दुआ ( जन्म तिथि 05-08-1952 ) को इलाहाबाद बैंक के अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है । श्री जे. पी. दुआ कीं यह नियुक्ति उनके द्वारा पद का कार्यभार संभालने की तारीख से 31-08-2012 तक अर्थात् महीने के अंतिम दिन तक के लिए है जब वह अधिवर्षिता की आयु कर लेंगे अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक इनमें से जो पहले हो के लिए है ।

[फा. सं. 9/12/2009- बीओ-11 सुमिता डावरा , निदेशक New Delhi , the 4th December, 2009

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

[F. No. 2097 (1)/08-09 ] K. K. TRIPATHY, Director General of Income -tax( lnv.)

वित्त मंत्रालय (वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) (बीमा प्रभाग) नई दिल्ली , 1 दिसंबर , 2009

S.O. 3325. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section (3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies(Acquisition and Trasfer of Undertakings ) Act, 1970/1980 read with sub- clause ( 1 ) of clause 3 and sub- clause ( 1 ) of clause 8 of the Nationalised Banks (Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Schemc, 1970/1980, the Central Government , after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri J.P. Dua (DoB: 05-08-1952 ) presently Executive Director, Allahabad Bank as Chairman and Managing Director , Allahabad Bank from the date of his taking over charge of the post and upto 31-08-2012 i.e. the last day of the month in which he would attain the age of superannuation or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 9/ 12/2009-BO- 1 | SUMITA DAWRA, Director का.आ. 3324, जीवन बीमा निगम अधिनियम , 1956 ( 956 का 31 ) की धारा 4 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्द्वारा , ले. जनरल अरविन्द महाजन ( सेवा निवृत्त ) को अधिसूचना की तिथि से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए. अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो, भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के निदेशक मंडल में गैर- सरकारी सदस्य के रूप में नामित करती है।

विदेश मंत्रालय (सी.पी.वी. प्रभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम्बर, 2009

[फा. सं. ए-15011/ 1/2007- बीमा III ] तरुण बजाज , संयुक्त सचिव

का.आ. 3326.-राजनयिक और कोंसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क) के अनुसरण में , केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री रामा शंकर सहायक को 26-11-2009 से भारत के कौसलावास , सेंट पीटर्सबर्ग में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services ) (InsuranceDivision) New Delhi , the 1st December , 2009

[सं. टी. 4330/1/2006 ] आर. के. पेरिनडिया, अवर सचिव (कोंसुलर ) S.O. 3324.-In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act , 1956 ( 31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints Lt. General . Arvind Mahajan ( Retd . ) as Non -Official Member ontheBoard of the Life Insurance Corporation of India for a period ofthree years from the date of Notification or until further orders , whicheve is earlier .

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS (C. P. V. Division ) New Delhi , the 26th November , 2009 S.O. 3326. In pursuance of the clause (a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers ( Oaths andfees) Act , 1948 ( 4 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorise Shri Rama Shankar , Assistant in the [F.No.A- 15011/ 1/2007- Ins . [ 11 ] TARUN BAJAJ , Jt . Secy.

7894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) | Consulate General of India, Saint Petersburg to perform the duties ofAssistant Consular Officer with effect from 26thNovember , 2009.

[No. Τ.-4330/01 /2006]

( ii ) यह कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कंपनी ऑफ इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, विशाखापत्तनम् इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के अनुपालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) द्वारा समय- समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगी ।

[फाइल सं. 4/7/2009- ईआई एण्ड ईपी । R. K. PERINDIA , Under Secy. (Consular) नई दिल्ली , 1 दिसम्बर , 2009

किरण पुरी , निदेशक

MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi , the 30th November , 2009 का.आ. 3327.-राजनयिक और कॉसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क) के अनुसरण में , केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री कुम्मार हनुमन्तु सहायक और श्री राजेश कुमार द्विवेद्वी वैयक्तिक सहायक को 01-12-2009 से भारत के प्रधान कोंसलावास , शंघाई में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी. -4330/1/2006]

आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव (कोंसुलर ) New Delhi , the Ist December , 2009

S.O. 3327.- In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths andfees) Act , 1948 (41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Kummara Hanumanthu , PA and Shri Rajesh Kumar Dwivedi , Assistant in the Consulate General of India, Shanghai to perform the duties of Assistant ConsularOfficers with effect from Ist December, 2009 .

[No. Τ. -4330/01 /2006]

R. K. PERINDIA, Under Secy. (Consular )

S.O. 3328. In exercise of the powers conferred by the sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963), read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection) Rule, 1964, the Central Government hereby recogniesM / s . Superintendence Company of India Private Limited, D/25-9-17, Rajavari Street, Ist Floor, Sri Siva Jewellers , Main Road, Near Kurupam Market , Visakhapatanam 530001 , as an agency for a period ofthree years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for inspection of Minerals andOres (Group- 1 ) , namely , Iron Ore and ManganeseOre excludingManganese Dioxide as specified in the Schedule annexed to the Notification of the Government of India , in theMinistry ofCommerce notification S.O.3975 dated the 20thDecember , 1965, prior to the export ofthe said Minerals and Ores at Visakhapatanam , subject to the conditions, namely: -

वाणिज्य और उद्योग मंत्रालय (वाणिज्य विभाग)

नई दिल्ली , 30 नवम्बर , 2009

(i) that M/s . Superintendence Company of India Private Limited , Visakhapatanam shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the Export of Minerals and Ores ,Group - I (Inspection) Rules , 1965; and

(ii ) that M/s . Superintendence Company of India Private Limited, Visakhapatanam in the performance of their function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control), Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time .

[ File No. 4/7/2009-EI& EP ]

KIRAN PURI, Director

नई दिल्ली, 30 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3328.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , निर्यात ( क्लालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम, 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित, निर्यात ( क्लालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम , 1963 (1963का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कंपनी ऑफ इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, डी/25-9-17 , राजावरी स्ट्रीट , प्रथम तल , श्री शिवा ज्वैलर्स , मैन रोड , कुरुपम मार्केट के निकट, विशाखापत्तनम् 530 001 को राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 में उपाबद्ध , अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क, ( ग्रुप- 1 ) अर्थात लौह अयस्क और मैगनीज अयस्क, मैगनीज डाइआक्साइड को छोडकर उक्त खनिजों और अयस्कोंके निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन विशाखापत्तनम् में, निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रुप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है , अर्थात:-

का.आ. 3329. केन्द्रीय सरकार, निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम , 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित , निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 (1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कंपनी ऑफ इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, 138 , अनगप्पा नाइकेन स्ट्रीट चेन्नई-600 001. को राजपत्र में इस अधिसूचना के प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीन वर्ष की अवधिके लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर , 1965 में उपाबद्ध , अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क, ( ग्रुप-1 ) अर्थात लौह अयस्क और मैगनीज अयस्क, मैगनीज डाइआक्साइड को छोड़कर उक्त खनिजों और (i ) यह कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कंपनी ऑफ इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड, विशाखापत्तनम् खनिज और अयस्क ग्रुप -1 (निरीक्षण) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण- पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए, इस निमित निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी, 7895

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अयस्कोंके निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन चेन्नई में, निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अधिकरण के रूप में मान्यता प्रदान करती है , अर्थात :-

अवधिके लिए भारत सरकार के वाणिज्य मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 3975 तारीख 20 दिसम्बर, 1965 के साथ उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट खनिज और अयस्क ( ग्रुप -1 ) अर्थात् लौह अस्यक और मैंगनीज अस्यक मैंगनीज डॉयक्साइड को छोड़कर होसपेट में निर्यात से पूर्व निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन उक्त खनिजों और अस्यकों का निरीक्षण करने के लिए एक अभिकरण के रूप में मान्यता देती है , अर्थात्ः-

( i ) यह कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कंपनी ऑफ इंडिया प्राइवेट fy feVM ] plubz [ kút về v ; Id x &l (निरीक्षण) नियम, 1965 के नियम, 4 के अधीन निरीक्षण का प्रमाण पत्र देने के लिए उनके द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए , इस निमित निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी,

( ii ) यह कि मैसर्स सुपरिटेंडेंस कंपनी ऑफ इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , चेन्नई इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के अनुपालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण और क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) द्वारा समय - समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगी ।

[फाइल सं. 4/8/2009- ईआई एण्ड ईपी ]

( i ) मैसर्स चैतन्य जिओ- कैम , होसपेट खनिज और अस्यक , ग्रुप । के निर्यात ( निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1965 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 4 ) के अधीन निरीक्षण के परिणामों की रिपोर्ट देने के लिए अपने द्वारा अपनाई गई पद्धति की जांच करने के लिए इस संबंध में निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा नामनिर्दिष्ट अधिकारियों को पर्याप्त सुविधाएं देगी; और

किरण पुरी , निदेशक

New Delhi, the 30th November, 2009

( ii ) मैसर्स चैतन्य जिओ- कैम , होसपेट इस अधिसूचना के अधीन अपने कृत्यों के अनुपालन में निदेशक ( निरीक्षण एवं क्वालिटी नियंत्रण ) निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद् द्वारा समय - समय पर लिखित में दिए गए निर्देशों से आबद्ध होंगे ।

[फाईल सं. 4/9/2009- ईआई एंड ईपी ]

किरण पुरी, निदेशक

New Delhi , the 30th November, 2009 S.O. 3329.- In exercise of the powers conferredby the sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub-rule (2) of rule 12 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection ) Rules, 1964, the Central Government hereby recognisesM/ s. Superintendence Company of India Private Limited, 138, Angappa Naicken Street, Chennai -600001 , as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the dateofpublication ofthis notification in the Official Gazette , for inspection of Minerals and Ores (Group- 1 ) , namely, Iron OreandManganese Ore excluding Manganese Dioxide as specified in the Schedule annexed to the Notification of the Government of India, in the Ministry of Commerce notification No. S.O. 3975 dated the 20th December , 1965 , priortothe export ofthe said Minerals and Ores at Chennai , subject to the following conditions, namely:-

(i) that M/ s . Superintendence Company of India Private Limited, Chennai shall give adequate facilities to theofficers nominated by the Export Inspection Council in this behalf to examine the method of inspection followed bythem in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4ofthe Export ofMinerals and Ores , Group- I (Inspection) Rules, 1965; and

S.O. 3330.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Export ( Quality Control and Inspection) Act, 1963 (22 of 1963 ) , read with sub - rule (2)ofrule 12 ofthe Export (Quality Control and Inspection) Rules, 1964 , the Central Government hereby recognises M/sChaithanyaGeo Chem , 3-143 , Sampath Nilaya, Shanthi Nagar , HUDA Road, HOSPET- 583201 , Bellary District (Karnataka) as an agency for a period of three years with effect from the date of publication of this notification in the Official Gazette, for inspection of Minerals and Orcs (Group- 1 ), namely, Iron Ore and Manganese Ore excluding Manganese Dioxide as specified in the Schedule annexed to the Notification of the Government of India , in the Ministry ofCommerce, notification S.O. number 3975 ,dated the 20th December , 1965 , prior to the export of the said Minerals and Ores at HOSPET, subject to the following conditions , namely: -

(ii ) that M/s . Superintendence Company of India Private Limited, Chennai in the performance oftheir function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director ( Inspection and Quality Control ) , Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

[FileNo. 4/8/2009- EI&EP ]

KIRAN PURI , Director

नई दिल्ली , 30 नवम्बर , 2009

(i ) that M/s Chaithanya Geo Chem , HOSPET shall give adequate facilities to the officers nominated by theExport Inspection Council in this behalf to examine themethod of inspection followed by them in granting the certificate of inspection under rule 4 of the Export ofMinerals and Ores , Group -1 ( Inspection ) Rules , 1965; and

(ii ) that M/s Chaithanya Geo Chem , HOSPET in the performance oftheir function under this notification shall be bound by such directives as the Director (Inspection and Quality Control ), Export Inspection Council may give in writing from time to time.

[File No. 4/9/2009 - FI & EP | KIRAN PURI , Director का. आ. 3330.-केन्द्रीय सरकार निर्यात ( क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) नियम , 1964 के नियम 12 के उपनियम ( 2 ) के साथ पठित , निर्यात (क्वालिटी नियंत्रण और निरीक्षण ) अधिनियम, 1963 (1963 का 22 ) की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स चैतन्य जिओ- कैम , 3-143 , सम्पथ निलाया, शान्ति नगर , हुडा रोड़, होसपेट-583201 , बेल्लारी जिला (कर्नाटक) को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से तीम वर्ष की 7896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

[PART 11 SEC . 3 (ii)] उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 5 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3331.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है , वह वे स्थापित हो गया है :-

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

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

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

31-3-2009

आई एस 9046: 1978 और

आई एस 12661 ( भाग 1 ):1988

आई एस/आईसी 60898-1 (2002) उच्च वोल्टता की प्रत्यावर्ती धारा के काम्टैक्टर और कान्टैक्ट आधारित मोटर स्टार्टर

इस भारतीय मानक की एक प्रति 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 , नागपुर, कानपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवमन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: ईटी 08/टी -42]

आर. के. श्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक 'एफ ' एवं प्रमुख (विद्युत तकनीकी) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

NewDelhi , the 5th November, 2009

S.O. 3331.-in pursuance of clause (b ) of sub -rule ( 1 ) ofRules ( 1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:-

SCHEDULE

SI.No.

Date of Establishment No.&Year of the indian Standard

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

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1)

31-3-2009

IS9046:1978

IS/IEC60470:2000High voltage

And

switchgear alternating current

IS 13661 ( Part 1 ) : 1988

contactors and contactor -based motor starters

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

Ref: ET08/ F -42 ]

R.K. TREHAN, Scientist-E & Head ( Electrotechnical ) 7897

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भास 11-3 )]

नई दिल्ली , 13 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3332.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया हैं , वह स्थापित हो गया हैं :-

अनुसूधी

क्रम सं.

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

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

(2)

( 1)

(3)

(4)

1 .

आई एस 13947 ( भाग 1 ) : 1993

1-2-2010 आई एस/आईसी60947-1: 2004 निम्नयोल्टता के स्विच गियर और नियंत्रणः मियर भाग । सामान्य नियम

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

[संदर्भ : ईटी 07/टी-52 ]

ओर. के. प्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी )

New Delhi , the 13th November , 2009

S.O. 3332.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

Date of Establishment Sl . No.

No. & Year ofthe Indian Standard

No. & Year ofthe Indian Standards ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standards

(2)

(3)

(4)

( 1)

1 .

1-2-2010

IS13947 (Part 1) : 1993

IS/IEC 60947-1 : 2004 Low voltage switchgear and Controlgear- Part | General rules

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

[Ref: ET07/T-521

R. K. TREHAN, Sc- E & Head ( Electro technical )

नई दिल्ली , 13 नवम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 3333- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है, वह स्थापित हो गया है:-

7898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

[PART 11-SEC . 3( ii ) ]

अनुसूत्री

क्रम सं.

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

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

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

1-2-2010

आई एस 13947 ( भाग 5/खंड 1 ) 1990

आई एस/आईसी 60947-5-1 : ( 2003 ) निम्नवोल्टता के स्विच गियर और नियंत्रण गियर भाग 5 परिपथ नियंत्रण उपकरण और स्विचिंग घटक खंड । विद्युत- यांत्रिक परिपथ नियंत्रण उपकरण

इस भारतीय मानक की एक प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरों, 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 : ईटी 07/टी-54 ]

आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी)

New Delhi , the 13th November, 2009

S.O. 3333.- In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards to the Indian Standards , particulars of which is given inthe Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

Date of Establishment No. & Year ofthe Indian Standard

No. & Year ofthe Indian Standards ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standards

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

1 .

1-2-2010

IS 13947 ( Part 5/ Sec 1 ) : 1990

IS/ IEC 60947-5-1 : 2003 Low voltage switchgear and Controlgear Part 5 Control circuit devices and siwitching elements , Sec 1 Electromechancial control circuitdevices

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

[Ref: ET 07/1-54]

R. K. TREIAN , Sc . -E & llcad (Electro technical )

नई दिल्ली , 19 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3334.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानकों का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया हैं , वे स्थापित हो गये हैं :-

7899

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

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

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

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

1 .

30 जून, 2009 आई एस/आईईसी 60079-5: 2004 विस्फोटी पर्यावरण : भाग 5 पाउडर भरित आवेष्टन " q " द्वारा उपकरण संरक्षण

31 मई , 2009 आई एस/ आईईसी 61241-0 : 2004 दहनशील धूल की उपस्थिति में प्रयोग होने वाले विद्युत के उपस्कर : भाग 0 सामान्य अपेक्षाएं

30अप्रैल , 2009 आई एस/ आईईसी 61241-2-3 : 1994दहनशील धूल की उपस्थिति में प्रयोग होने वाले विद्युत के उपस्कर: भाग 2 परीक्षण पद्धतियाँ , अनुभाग 3 धूल/वायु मिश्रण की न्यूनतम प्रज्वलन ऊर्जा ज्ञात करने की पद्वति

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

[संदर्भ : ईटी 22/टी 60 , टी-71 , व टी -781

आर. के. त्रेहन , वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत तकनीकी)

New Delhi , the 19th November , 2009

S.O. 3334.- In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hercto annexed have been issued:

SCHEDULE

Date ofEstablishme

No. & Year ofthe

Sl.No.

No. & Year ofthe Indian

Standards

Indian Standards ,

ifany, Superseded

by the New Indian

Standards

(4)

(3)

(1)

(2)

30June , 2009 1.

IS/IEC 60079-5: 2007

Explosive Atmospheres: Part 5 Equipment Protection by Powder Filling " q "

31 May2009 2.

IS/IEC 61241-0 : 2004

Electrical Apparatus for Use in the Presence of Combustible Dust : Part 0General Requirements

4340 G1/09-2 7900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 12, 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

[ PART 11--SEC . 3 (ii )| (2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

IS/IEC 61241-2-3 : 1994

30April ,2009 Electrical Apparatus for use in the presence of

Combustible Dust : Part 2:

Test Methods-Section 3 :

Methods for Determining theMinimum Ignition Energy ofDust/Air Mixtures

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

[ Ref : ET 22/T -60 , T -71 & T -781

R.K. TREHAN , Sc . -E & Head ( Electro technical )

नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3335.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप नियम ( 1 ) के खंड (ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:

अनुसूची

क्रम सं.

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

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

आईएस 15447 ( भाग 2 ) : 2008

31 अक्तूबर 2008 व्यापारिक विस्फोट हेतु विस्फोटक

भाग 2 स्लरी/इमल्शन, विस्फोटक- 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 कार्यालयोंः अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर, भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर , गुवाहाटी , हैदराबाद, जयपुर, कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

| संदर्भ : सीएचडी 26/आई एस 15447 ( भाग 2 ) | ई. देवेन्द्र, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

New Delhi , the 26th November , 2009

S.O. 3335.-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 Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

Date of Established No. & Year ofthe Indian Standard Established

No. & Year of Indian Standards if any, Supersededby the New Indian Standard

(1 )

(2)

(3)

(4)

31 October 2008 IS 15447 (Part 2) : 2008 Commercial Blasting Explosives Part 2 Slurry/ EmulsionExplosives- Specification 7901

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

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

[Ref: CHD 26/1S 15447 (Part 2) ]

E. DEVENDAR , Scientist - ' F ' & Head (Chemical )

नईदिल्ली , 26 नवम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 3336.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्थापित हो गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम सं.

स्थापित भारतीय मानक (कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

31 अगस्त 2009 आईएस 7554 : 2009 टो पफ और कांउटर स्टीफनर विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरों , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली , कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयोंः अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं. 1

[ संदर्भ : सीएचडी 19/आई एस 7554] ई. देवेन्द्र , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

New Delhi , the26th November, 2009

S.O. 3336.- 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 Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each : >

SCHEDULE

Date of Established Sl.No.

No. & Year ofthe Indian Standard Established

No.& Year of Indian Standards if any , Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(2)

(1)

(3)

31 August 2008

IS 7554: 2009 Toe Puff and Counter Stiffener- Specification (FirstRevision)

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

[ Ref : CIID 19 / 1S 75541

E. DEVENDAR , Scientist - ' F " & Head (Chemical ) 7902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC.3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 26 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3337.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्थापित हो गए हैं: -

अनुसूची

क्रमसं.

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

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

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

28फरवरी , 2009 आईएस 15864 : 2009 बहुरंगी- प्रक्रिया ऑफसेट मुद्रण के लिए स्याहियां - विशिष्टि

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो, मानक भवन, 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयोंः 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 14/आई एस 15864] ई. देवेन्द्र, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

NewDelhi , the 26th November, 2009

S.O. 3337.-In pursuance of clause ( b) of sub- rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Standards , particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

Date of Established

No. & Year of the Indian Standard Established

No. & Year of Indian Standards if any, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(2)

( 1 )

(3)

(4)

IS 15864 : 2009 Multicolour-

28 February, 2009 processOffset Printing Inks- Specification

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

[Ref: C1ID 14/IS 15864 ]

E. DEVENDAR , Scientist-' " & Head ( Chemical) 7903 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 26 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3338.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/किए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

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

क्रम संख्या

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

30सितंबर, 2009

संशोधन सं. 4,

सितंबर , 2009

आईएस 4658 : 1988 लेपित कागज एवं बोर्ड (आर्टएवं क्रोमो)-विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

30सितंबर , 2009

संशोधन सं. 4,

सितंबर , 2009

आईएस 1774 : 1986 स्थाई एवं अर्ध-स्थायी रिकार्ड के कागजों की विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण)

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

[संर्भ: सीएचडी 15/आईएस 4658,1774 ]

ई. देवेन्द्र, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

New Delhi , the 26th November , 2009

S.O. 3338.- In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and Year of the Indian Standards

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

No. and year of the

amendment

SI . No.

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

30 September, 2009

Amendment No. 4

September, 2009

IS 4658 : 1988 Specification for Coated paper and board ( Art and Chromo ) (FirstRevision)

30 September , 2009

Amendment No. 4

September, 2009

IS 1774 : 1986 Specification for paper for permanent and semi- permanent Records (First Revision )

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

[ Ref: CHD 15 /1S 4658, 1774|

E. DEVENDAR, Scientist F & Head (Chemical )

नई दिल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3339.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किए गए हैं :-

7904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

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

क्रम संख्या

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

30नवम्बर , 2009

संशोधन सं. 1 ,

नवम्बर , 2009

आईएस 11552 : 2009 75 लीटर तक की क्षमता के द्रव नाईट्रोजन के आधान-विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

01 दिसम्बर , 2009

संशोधन सं. 1 ,

नवम्बर , 2009

2. आईएस 13258 : 1991 अल्प दाब द्रवणीय गैसों के लिए 5 लीटर से अधिक जल क्षमता वाले वेल्डितअल्प कार्बन इस्पात के सिलिंडर-उपयोग किए गए एल पी जी सिलिंडरों के पुनर्नवीयन और निरीक्षण की रीति संहिता

01 दिसम्बर , 2009

संशोधन सं. 4,

नवम्बर , 2009

3. आईएस 15100 : 2001 मोटर वाहनों में प्रयुक़्त स्थाई रूप से बने द्रवित पेट्रोलियम गैस आधानों के लिए बहुप्रकायत्मिक वाल्व असेम्बली

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

[ संदर्भ : एम.ई.डी./जी-2 : 11

सी. के. वेदा , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग )

New Delhi , the 2nd December , 2009

S.O. 3339. 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 Indian Standards

SI . No.

No. and year of the

amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)

(3)

(2)

(4)

30November , 2009

Amendment No. 1

November, 2009

IS 11552: 2009 Liquid nitrogen vessels ofcapacity up to 75 Litres-Specification (FirstRevision)

1 December , 2009

Amendment No. 1

November , 2009

IS 13258: 1991 Welded low carbon steel cylinders exceeding 5 litre water capacity for low pressure liquefiable gases-Code ofpractice for inspection and recondi- tioning ofused LPG cylinders

Amendment No. 4 November, 2009 01 December , 2009 IS 15100 : 2001Multifunction valve assembly for permanently fixed Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) containers for automotive use

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

[Ref: MFD/G-2: 11

C. K. VEDA, Scientist F & Head ( Mechanical Engineering )

41 7905

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अंग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3340.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि 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 मानके अथवा मानकों, यदि कोई हो , की संख्या और वर्ष

(3)

(4) (1)

(2)

1 .

31 जुलाई , 2009 आईएस 2265 : 2009 संकेत के उद्देश्य के लिए जस्तीकृत इस्पात की काँटेदार लड़ - विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

आईएस 2265: 1978 संकेत के उद्देश्य केलिए जस्तीकृत इस्पात की काँटेदार लड़-विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण )

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

[ संदर्भ : एम. ई. डी./जी-2: 1 ।

सी. के. वेदा , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग )

NewDelhi , the 2nd December , 2009

S.O. 3340.- 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:-

SCHEDULR

Date of Establishment Sl . No.

No. & Year of the Indian Standards Established

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

31 July, 2009 IS 2265 : 2009 Galvanized steei wire strand for signalling purposes- Specification (Second Revision)

IS2265: 1978 Galvanized steel wire strand for signalling purposes-- Specification ( First Revision )

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

[Ref: MED/G-2: 11

C. K. VEDA, Scientist F & Head ( Mechanical Engineering)

नई दिल्ली , 3 दिसम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 3341.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया/ किए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागूहोने की तिथि संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

क्रम संख्या

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1 .

01-12-2009 आईएस 15801 : 2008

1 जून , 2009 7906

[PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/ AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

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

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र

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

New Delhi , the 3rd December, 2009

S.O. 3341. 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 amendment to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

No. and Year of the Indian Standards

SI . No.

No. and year of

the amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect (1)

(2)

(3)

IS 15801 : 2008

1 June,2009

01December , 2009

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

[ Ref: CED/Gazette]

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

नई दिल्ली , 3 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3342.- केन्दीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय के अधीन भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , नई दिल्ली के निम्नलिखित शाखा कार्यालय , जिनके 80 % से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है: -

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , दक्षिणी क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय , सी आई टी , कैम्पस , IV, क्रास रोड , चैन्नई-600113

[संख्या ई -11012/3/2005-हिन्दी|

इन्दु अनिल , संयुक्त सचिव ( रा.भा. )

New Delhi , the 3rd December, 2009

S.O. 3342. In pursuance of Sub - Rule (4) of the Rule 10 ofthe Official languages (use for Official Purpose ofthe Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following Branch Office of the Bureau of Indian Standards , New Delhi under the Ministry of Consumer Affairs , Food and Public Distribution where more than 80% of the staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi .

Bureau of Indian Standards

South Regional Office CIT Campus , IV , Cross Road , Chennai : 600113

[No. E- 11012/3/2005-1 lindi | INDU ANIL, Jt . Director ( O.IL. )

41 7907 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

नईदिल्ली , 4 दिसम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3343.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप-नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि 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

(3)

(2)

(1)

(4)

01-02-2010 1 .

आईएस 1079: 1994

आईएस 1079 : 2009 तप्त बेल्लित कार्बन इस्पात की चादरें एवं पत्ती-विशिष्टि ( छठा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर 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 तिरूवन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ : एम टीडी4/टी-5]

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

New Delhi , the 4th December , 2009

S.O. 3343. 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

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

Sl . No.

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

(3)

(4) (2)

(1)

01-02-2010

IS 1079 : 1994

1. IS 1079 : 2009 Hot rolled carbon steel sheet and strip-Specification (Sixthrevision)

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

[Ref: MTD 4/T- 5 ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 4 दिसम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 3344.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि 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

(3)

(4) (2)

(1)

31 जुलाई, 2009 1 .

आईएस 3951 ( भाग 2 ) : 1975

आईएस 3951 ( भाग 2 ) 2009 फर्श व छतों के लिये खोखली मिट्टी की टाइलें विशिष्टि भाग 2 संरचना ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण )

4340Gl/09-3 7908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii) ] इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज़फर 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 तिरूवन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र]

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

New Delhi , the 4th December, 2009

S.O. 3344.-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

No. & Year of the Indian Standards

Date of Established Sl. No. Established

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS3951 (Part2) : 1975

31July, 2009 1. IS3951 ( Part 2) : 2009 Hollow Clay Tiles for Floorsand Roofs-Specification : Part 2 Structural Type( Second Revision)

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

[Ref: CED/Gazette]

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

नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3345.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम, 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिये गये हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं ।

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( क़ों ) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) 1.

31 जुलाई , 2009 'आईएस 10262 : 2009 कंक्रीट मिश्र अनुपातन : मार्गदर्शी

सिद्धांत ( पहला पुनरीक्षण) '

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

[ संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ।

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

New Delhi , the 4th December , 2009

S.O. 3345.- 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 :-

7909 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

SCHEDULE

No. and Year of the Indian Standards

Date of stablished Sl. No. Established and Title

No. and Year of the Indian Standards , ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(3)

(2)

(4)

(1)

31 July, 2009 'IS 10262 : 2009 Concrete Mix Proportioning- Guidelines (First Revision) '

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

[Ref: CED/Gazette]

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

नई दिल्ली, 4 दिसम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 3346.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिस भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया है वह स्थापित हो गया है

अनुसूची

क्रम

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

संख्या

नये भारतीय मानक द्वारा अतिक्रमित भारतीय मानक अथवा मानकों , यदि

कोई हो, की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

30-06-2009

आई एस 12063 : 1987

आईएस/आईसी 60529: 2001 आवेष्टकों से मिलने वाली सुरक्षा की कोटी ( आई पी कोड)

इस भारतीय मानक की एक प्रति भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह ज्जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली -110 002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों : नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता , चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नई , मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों : अहमदाबाद , बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर , कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर, नागपुर , पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: ईटी 01 /टी-83 ]

आर. के. त्रेहन, वैज्ञानिक ' ई ' एवं प्रमुख (विद्युत तकनीकी)

NewDelhi , the 4th December , 2009

S.O. 3346. In pursuance of clause (b) ofsub-rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , theBureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies the Indian Standards is particulars ofwhich is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued to the Indian Standards :-

SCHEDULE

Date of Established No. and Year of the Indian Standards

SL No.

No. andYear ofthe Indian Standards, ifany, Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(1)

(4)

(3)

(2)

30-06-2009 1.

IS 12063 : 1987

IS/IEC 60529 : 2001 Degrees ofProtection provided by enclosures (IP CODE)

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

[Ref: ET/01 /T-83 ]

R. K. TREHAN , Scientist ' E ' & Head (Electro technical ) 7910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3(ii) ] पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 3347.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप ( उड़ीसा) से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " पारादीप - न्यू सम्बलपुर रायपुर राँची पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिये ;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूमि , जिसके नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , में 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 उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री सुकान्त कुमार प्रधान , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , पारादीप- न्यू सम्बलपुर रायपुर - राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 1295 , फॉरेस्ट पार्क , भुवनेश्वर - 751009 (उड़ीसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील - भुबनेस्वर

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

716

24 कल्याणपुरसासन

709

710

713

706

712

697

696

690

689

430

431

429

427

426

4-1 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

7911

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - भुबनेस्वर

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

807

423

422

810

809

808

416

421

415

417

418

403

402

252

251

250

249

243

205

204

203

201

200

198

194

195

174

175

172

171

टिकरपडा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 3

87 00

77 00

71 00

70 00

10 00

05 00

54 00

33 00

72 00

14 00

15 00

13 00

10 00

83 00

11 00

65 00

54 00

49 00

44 00

38 00

93 00

50 00

02 00

[ फा. सं. आर. 25011/17/2009 ओ.आर. ।।

बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव 7912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 / AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii )] Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas

New Delhi , the 2nd December , 2009

S. O. 3347.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transporation of petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa ) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh ) & Ranchi ( Jharkhand ) , " Paradip New Sambalpur Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline" should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Paradip -New Sambalpur - Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline Project, 1295 , Forest Park, Bhubaneswar - 751009 , (Orissa) .

SCHEDULE

State: ORISSA

Oistrict: KHURDA

Tehsil : BHUBANESWAR

Area

PlotNO .

Nameof the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

716

KALYANPURSASAN

709

710

713

706

712

697

696

690

689

430

431

429

427

426

807

423

41 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7913

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

Tehsil : BHUBANESWAR

District: KHURDA

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

422

810

809

808

416

421.

415

417

418

403

402

252

251

250

249

243

205

204

203

201

200

198

194

195

174

175

172

171

81 TIKARPADA

16 State: ORISSA

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 3

[F. No. R-25011/17/2009- O.R. - I ] B.K.DATTA, Under Secy.

7914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 / AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [ Part II--Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 2 दिसम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 3348.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप ( उड़ीसा) से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " पारादीप न्यू सम्बलपुर रायपुर राँची पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिये;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री सुकान्त कुमार प्रधान , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , पारादीप न्यू सम्बलपुर रायपुर - राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 1295 , फॉरेस्ट पार्क, भुवनेश्वर 751009 (उड़ीसा) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर

एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

5 काजिंआमाा

404

405

406

407

408

409

424

421

416

417

00-

355

356

506

360

361

41 7915

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

तहसील - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

332

331

330

329

328

325

326

318

324

319

314

315

316

502

312

311

307

304

303

301

302

300

468

284

290

495

287

288

289

277

274

276

462 मुकुन्दप्रसाद

351

1914 कुम्भारवस्त

1915

1913

1911 4340 GI/094

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 3

00 7916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II--Sec . 3 (ii) ] तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उंड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर

एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

1910

1897

2069

1895

1889

1888

1884

1874

1873

1869

1870

1843

1842

1837

1835

1836

1829

1831

1830

1827

1804

1805

1825

1824

1822

1823

1816

1812

1813

1756

1749

1746

1747

1735

1734

1712 7917 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

एयर

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

5 1

1711

1710

1227

1229

1701

1230

1231

1691

1690

1234

1237

1238

1246

1239

1241

1937

2058

1626

1614

1963

1612

1616

1611

1610

1602

1599

1247

गुरुजंग

1202

1246

1245

13 7918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

1244

1242

1203

1204

1205

1207

1208

1211

1194

1762

1195

1197

1196

1192

1139

1190

1145

1189

1146

1149

1148

1103

1152

1102

1101

1098

1099

1097

1096

1053

97 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7919 राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

1800

1081

1080

1079

560 उइलकिनसननगर

558

551

556

552

555

554

545

546

902

539

530

532

533

534

536

508

504

502

500

790 टागिंआपडा

925

725

726

727

729 क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

28 7920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [ Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii ) | तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर

एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

730

731

734

733

717

875

715

713

712

746

747

753

754

763

764

765

766

778

678

686

681

680

675

674

676

937

928

672

890

669

41 7921 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

668

877

617

616

614

615

613

378

610

379

609

380

383

382

381

539

384

587

584

583

582

580

578

577

576

411

413

414

887

422 7922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं..

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

423

362

349

435

350

348

347

346

345

342

343

344

326

440

439

438

441

325

323

पाइकतिगिरिआ

955

964

963

956

957

958

959

960

945

946

944

23 7923 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील -खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

943

939

940

936

925

1498

926

927

889

924

887

888

872

875

874

873

818

820

843

821

822

823

835

824

833

829

830

760

1429

759

4340 G1 /09-5 7924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 / AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec. 3 (ii )]

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

491.

1489

492

493

176

1425

495

175

496

174

173

172

118

119

122

1495

102

103

104

105

141 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

7925 राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

1485

होसेनपुर

महारथापुर

661 11

ठाकुरपडा

655

656

653

654

652

479

482

481

483 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

16 00

05 00

80 00

00 7926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं .

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

5 1

484

485

486

488

489

490

469

424

425

426

464

429

462

430

439

431

438

432

433

434

435

436

414

415

362

416

361

363

364

359 7927 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

365

263

261

260

259

258

257

256

255

243

245

244

234

247

235

233

04.

231

232

225

223

1181

बिँकुडिआ

1102

1103

1177

1178

1179

1180

1190

1191

1193 7928

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( i)] तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

1194

1195

1185

1184

1555

नूआपडा

1554

1552

1539

1538

1541

1542

1545

1544

1243

1244

1242

1241

1236

1240

1239

1238

1175

1174

311

312

313

310

309

317

318

20 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खंण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

7929 राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

319

320

335

297

285

284

286

283

275

276

274

273

272

266

200

203

265

264

207

205

211

56 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

10 00

10 ,

00 7930

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part 11- Sec . 3 (ii) ] तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

दिब्यसिंह प्रसाद

276

मुक्तापुर

275

252

251

274

253

255

254

244

243

242

232

233

234

236

235

211

210

05 बाघेइटागिं

1094

1093

1092

966

1067

1063

1064

1065

11 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

7931 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

1062

1057

1058

1056

1055

1073

1024

1022

1023

1025

1019

1258

1026

1018

1017

38 बालिसाहि

1361

1360

1359

1365

1367

1368

1369

1357

1353

1351

1282

1283

1285

1284

1292

76 4340 G1/096 [ Part 11-- Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12. 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21. 1931

7932

राज्य उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

वर्ग मीटर गांव का नाम

एयर

हेक्टेयर

1293

1278

1279

1280

1294

1277

1263

1276

1271

1270

1265

1269

1266

1267

1268

1229

1225

1230

1224

1219

1231

1210

763

762

761

1216

754

753

750

751 भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

7933 =

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

752

742

743

749

748

747

746

745

744

2055

बसन्त

2052

2049

2046

1846

1850

1901

1900

1887

1888

1889

1890

1885

1883

1338

1339

1340

1355

1464

1356

1357 क्षेत्रफल

एयर

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

20 00

31 00

63 00

73 00

11 00

29 00

39 00

01 00

49 00

10 00

27 00

10 00

16 00

82 00

15 00

20 00

34 00

77 00

02 7934

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part 11-Sec . 3 (ii ) ] तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

1358

1461

1459

1436

1441

1440

1437

1442

1438

1439

1416

1414

1413

1448

1412

1411

1407

1404

1403

89 ब्राह्मणबेरेणी

922

921

920

918

919

889

890

888

891

892

893

11 7935 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/ अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

894

895

896

864

863

932

703

702

704

705

358

357

356

354

355

353

368

373

374

372

377

332

379

378

331

1496

305

हाटसाहि

306

307

304 7936

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

[Part 11-Sec. 3 ( ii ) | तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

309

310

302

313

311

975

974

312

405

406

407

424

408

423

422

421

420

419

418

412

504

503

492

491

490

489

925

480

476

475

66 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7937 राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

478

469

3063

कुआपुट

3064

3073

3072

3044

3039

3037

3040

3041

3035

3034

3000

2997

2998

2996

2995

2990

2988

2989

2987

2986

2985

3148

2984

2983

2980

2978

2977 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

61 00

54 00

02 00

20 00

05 00

20 7938

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21. 1931 [ Part 11 -Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं .

हेक्टेयर

एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

2745

2769

2746

2747

2768

2755

2749

2748

2753

2750

2752

2751

2740

2741

2742

1764

1765

1766

1767

1768

1769

1770

1771

1821

1820

1822

1828

1827

1825

1826

4 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7939 राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - खोद्धा

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

1854

1855

1856

1861

1860

1859

1866

1867

1865

1920

1921

1933

1932

1931

1938

1939

1949

1950

1957

1955

1956

1960

1027

1029

1028

1022

1034

1035

1021

1008 4340GI/09-7

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

हेक्टेयर

85 00

58 00

37 00

47 00

92 00

61 00

10 00

89 00

48 00

28 00

60 00

58 00

10 00

77 00

83 00

06 00

90 00 7940

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21, 1931 [Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii )] तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला- खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा गांव का नाम

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर

एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

1007

1036

1011

1010

1009

510

511

786

512

513

535

534

532

531

533

539

540

544

538

545

782

781

778

777

775

772

768

765

766

767

11 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अंग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

जिला - खोद्धा तहसील - खोद्धा

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

762

761

740

741

742

743

739

737

736

735

738

621

622

688

689

690

687

686

623

685

664

684

683

682

672

673

671

669

674

670

7941 राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर एयर

हेक्टेयर

00 7942

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

[ Part 11-Sec .3 ( ii ) | तहसील - खोद्धा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

667

714

| फा . सं . आर. 25011/16/2009 ओ.आर. ||

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर मचिन

New Delhi , the 2nd December , 2009

S. O. 3348.-Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transporation of petroleum products from Paradip ( Orissa ) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh) & Ranchi ( Jharkhand ) , " Paradip New Sambalpur - Raipur Ranchi Pipeline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas , it appearsto the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan, Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Paradip -New Sambalpur - Raipur- Ranchi Pipeline Project, 1295 , Forest Park , Bhubaneswar - 751009 , ( Orissa) .

11 7943

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21. 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

District: KHURDA Tehsil: KHURDA

PlotNO .

Nameof the Village

404 KANJIAMA

405

406

407

408

409

424

421

416

417

355

356

506

360

361

332

331

330

329

328

325

326

318

324

319

314

315

316

502 State : DRISSA

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

90 7944

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 12: 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

Tehsil: KHURDA

District: KHURDA

PlotNO .

Nameof the Village

312

311

307

304

303

301

302

300

468

284

290

495

287

288

289

277

274

276

462 MUKUNDAPRASAD

351 KUMBHARABASTA

1914

1915

1913

1911

1910

1897

2069

1895

1889

1888

[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) State : ORISSA

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

5 00

73 00

43 00

41 00

44 00

15 00

65 00

78 00

39 00

02 00

24 00

20 00

10 00

30 00

24 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

7945

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

Tehsil : KHURDA

State: ORISSA

District : KHURDA

PlotNO .

Nameof the Village

1884

1874

1873

1869

1870

1843

1842

1837

1835

1836

1829

1831

1830

1827

1804

1805

1825

1824

1822

1823

1816

1812

1813

1756

1749

1746

1747

1735

1734

1712

Area Are

Hectare

Sq.ratr.

33 7946

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]

State : ORISSA

Tehsil : KHURDA

District : KHURDA

Area

Plot NO .

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

1711

1710

1227

1229

1701

1230

1231

1691

1690

1234

1237

1238

1246

1239

1241

1937

2058

1626

1614

1963

1612

1616

1611

1610

1602

1599

1247

91 GURUJANGA

1202

1246

1245

11 7947

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : KHURDA

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

1244

1242

1203

1204

1205

1207

1208

1211

1194

1762

1195

1197

1196

1192

1139

1190

1145

1189

1146

1149

1148

1103

1152

1102

1101

1098

1099

1097

1096

1053 4340G1/09-8

Hectare

Area Are Sq.mtr. 3

00..

97 7918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [ Part II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

State: ORISSA

Tehsil : KHURDA

District: KHURDA

Area

PlotNO .

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

1800

1081

1080

1079

560

WILKINSANNAGAR

558

551

556

552

555

554

545

546

902

539

530

532

533

534

536

58 港

508

504

502

500

790

77 TANGIAPADA

925

725

726

727

729

11 [ भाग ।।- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

Tehsil: KHURDA

District : KHURDA

PlotNO .

Name of the Village

730

731

734

733

717

875

715

713

712

746

747

753

754

763

764

765

766

778

678

686

681

680

675

674

676

937

928

672

890

669

7919 State : ORISSA

Area Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

00 :

03,

56 7950

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

[Part II- Sec . 3 (ii) ]

State: ORISSA

District: 'KHURDA

Tehsil : KHURDA

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

Area Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

668

877

617

616

614

615

613

378

610

379

609

380

383

382

381

539

384

587

584

583

582

580

578

577

576

411

413

414

887

422

08 7951 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

State : ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : KHURDA

PlotNO.

Name of the Village

Area Are

Sq.mtr .

Hectare

423

362

349

435

350

348

347

346

345

342

343

344

326

440

439

438

441

325

323

955

PAIKTIGIRIA

964

963

956

957

958

959

960

945

946

944

23 7952

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II -Sec . 3(ii ) ]

District : KHURDA Tehsil : KHURDA

PlotNO .

Nameof the Village

943

939

940

936

925

1498

926

927

889

924

887

888

872

875

874

873

818

820

843

821

822

823

835

824

833

829

830

760

1429

759 State : ORISSA

Area Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

5 3

74 00

50 00

72 00

35 00

28 00

45 00

26 00

88 00

34 00

52 00

41 00

95 00

25 00

03 00

06 00

20 00

04 00

15 00

34 00

79 00

59 00

82 00

11 00

48 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

Tehsil: KHURDA

District: KHURDA

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

491

1489

492

493

176

1425

495

175

496

174

173

172

118

119

122

1495

102

103

104

105

7953 State: ORISSA

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

09 7954

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 / AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

District: KHURDA

State: ORISSA

Tehsil: KHURDA

PlotNO.

Name of the Village

Hectare

Area Are Sq.mtr .

1485

HOSENPUR

MAHARATHAPUR

661

THAKURPADA

655

656

653

654

652

479

482

481

483

11 7955 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Teheil: KHURDA

Area

PlotNO.

Are

Name ofthe Village

Sq.mtr.

Hectare

484

485

486

488

489

490

124

425

426

464

429

462

430

439

431

432

433

434

435

436

414

415

362

416

361

363

364

359

4340G1/09-9 7956

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12. 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] Tehsil: KHURDA

District: KHURDA

State: ORISSA

Area

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

385

263

261

260

259

258

257

256

255

243

245

244

234

247

235

233

231

232

225

223

BINKUDIA

1181

1102

1103

1177

1178

1179

1180

1190

1191

1193

41 7957 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , '1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

State: ORISSA Tehsil : KHURDA

District : KHURDA

Area

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 1

1194

1195

1185

1184

1555

30 NUAPADA

1554

1552

1539

1538

1541

1542

1545

1544

1243

1244

1242

1241

1236

1240

1239

1238

1175

1174

311

312

313

310

309

317

318

20 7958 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA:

DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

[Part 11-Sec.3(ii) ] Tehell: KHURDA

District: KHURDA

State:ORISSA

Area

PlotNO.

Nameof theVillage

Hectare Are Sq.mir. 1

319

320.

335

297

285

284

286

283

275

276

274

273

272

286

200

203

265

264

207

205

211

10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009 /अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

7959 State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Teheil: KHURDA

Plot NO. Nameof the Village

52 DIBYASINGHAPRASAD

276 MUKTAPUR

275

252

251

274

253

255

254

244

243

242

232

233

234

236

235

211

210

1094 BAGHEITANGI

1093

1092

966

1067

1063

1064

1065 Hectare

Area Are Sq.mtr.

75.

05.

05 7960

[ Part 11 -Sec . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21. 1931

Tehsil: KHURDA

District: KHURDA

Plot NO. Nameof the Village

1062

1057

1058

1056

1055

1073

1024

1022

1023

1025

1019

1258

1026

1018

1017 BALISAHI

1361

1380

1359

1385

1367

1368

1369

1357

1353

1351

1282

1283

1285

1284

1292 State: ORISSA

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

01 [ भाग 1 ]- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

Tehsil : KHURDA

7961 State : ORISSA

District: KHURDA

PlotNO .

Nameof the Village

1293

1278

1279

1280

1294

1277

1263

1276

1271

1270

1265

1269

1266

1267

1268

1229

1225

1230

1224

1219

1231

1210

763

762

761

1216

754

753

750

751 Hectare

Area Are Sq.mtr. 3

85 00

70 7962

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 200009/AGRAHAYANA 21. 1931 [Part 11-Sec . 3 (ii )] Tahsil : KHURDA

District : KHURDA

State: ORISSA

Area

PlotNO.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

752

742

743

749

02-

748

747

746

745

744

29 BASANTA

2055

2052

2049

2046

1848

1850

1901

1900

1887

1888

1889

1890

1885

1883

1338

1339

1340

1355

1464

1356

1357

84 7963

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

District: KHURDA Tehsil: KHURDA

PlotNO.

Name of theVillage

1358

1461

1459

1436

1441

1440

1437

1442

1438

1439

1416

1414

1413

1448

1412

1411

1407

1404

1403

922 BRAHMANABERENI

921

920

918

919

889

890

888

891

892

893 4340 G1/09-10

State: ORISSA

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

87 7964

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : KHURDA

State : ORISSA

PlotNO.

Nameof theVillage

Area Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

894

895

896

17.

864

863

932

703

702

704

705

358

357

356

354

355

353

368

373

374

372

377

332

379

378

331

1496

305

306

307

304

38 7965 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपुत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

State: ORISSA

District : KHURDA

Tehsil: KHURDA

Plot NO.

Nameof the Village

Hectare

Area Are

Sq.mtr .

309

310

302

313

311

975

974

312

405

406

407

424

408

423

422

421

420

419

418

412

504

503

492

491

490

489

925

480

476

475 7966

[Part II-Sec. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

Tehsil: KHURDA

State:ORISSA

District: KHURDA

PlotNO .

Name of theVillage

Area Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 1

478

469

3063

KUAPUT

3064

3073

3072

3044

3039

3037

3040

3041

3035

3034

3000

2997

2998

2996

2995

2990

2988

2989

2987

2986

2985

3148

2984

2983

2980

2978

2977

20 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/ अग्रहायण 21 , 1931.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

District: KHURDA Tehsil: KHURDA

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

2745

2769

2746

2747

2768

2755

2749

2748

2753

2750

2752

2751

2740

2741

2742

1764

1765

1766

1767

1768

1769

1770

1771

1821

1820

1822

1828

1827

1825

1826

7967 State : ORISSA

Area

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

00 .

15 7968

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21. 1931

Tehsil : KHURDA

District : KHURDA

PlotNO.

Name of the Village

1854

1855

1856

1861

1860

1859

1866

1867

1865

1920

1921

1933

1932

1931

1938

1939

1949

1950

1957

1955

1956

1960

1027

1029

1028

1022

1034

1035

1021

1008

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] State: ORISSA

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

90 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

7969 Tehsil : KHURDA

District: KHURDA

State: ORISSA

Area

PlotNO.

Nameof theVillage

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 1

1007

1036

1011

1010

1009

510

511

786

512

513

535

534

532

531

533

539

540

544

538

545

782

781

778

777

775

772

768

765

766

767

20 7970

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

State : ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil: KHURDA

Агва

Plot NO.

Name of theVillage

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

762

761

740

741

742

743

739

737

736

735

738

621

622

688

689

690

687

686

623

685

664

684

683

682

672

673

671

659

674

670

87 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

7971

District: KHURDA

Tehsil: KHURDA

State: ORISSA

PlotNO.

Name of the Village

Hectare

Area Are Sq.mtr .

667

714

[F. No. R -25011/16/2009-O.R. - I ] B.K.DATTA , Under Secy

नई दिल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 3349- केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप ( उड़ीसा ) से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " पारादीप न्यू सम्बलपुर रायपुर राँची पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिये;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री सुकान्त कुमार प्रधान , सक्षम प्राधिकारी, इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , पारादीप न्यू सम्बलपुर - . रायपुर - राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 1295 , फॉरेस्ट पार्क , भुवनेश्वर 751009 ( उड़ीसा) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

4340G1/09-11A 7972

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec .3 ( ii )]

अनुसूची

तहसील बालिअन्ता

जिला - खोद्धा

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

1909 उपरासाहि

2722

1908

1873

1867

1874

1878

1880

1879

1881

1882

1883

1884

1885

1886

1887

1330

1328

1327

1303

1304

1305

1295

1294

1292

1293

1289

1423

1279

2669

1229 राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

00 .

4340 G1 /09-11B 41 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/ अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

तहसील - बालिअन्ता

7973 राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

1227

1226.

1225

1220

2729

1218

1219

1097

1202

1205

2726

1204

1143

1151

1152

1150

1149

5943 प्रतापरुद्रपुर - 1

5578

5598

5597

5599

5596

5595

5600

5592

5594

5593

5590

5591

5623 क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

98 7974

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii ) | तहसील बालिअन्ता

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

5624

5622

5634

5632

5629

5628

5759

5758

5764

5763

5765

5755

5754

5753

5767

5768

5775

5769

6049

5774

5772

5771

4867

00-

4866

4865

4863

4861

4862

4811

4812

4813 7675

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील बालिअन्ता

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

4581

4646

4647

4644

4651

4643

5997

4641

4640

4639

4638

4592

4617

3949

4585

4586

4587

4588

4584

4589

4590

4591

4583

4582

3958

3957

3956

3955

3954

3951

3950 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर एयर

हेक्टेयर

02.

00 7976

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] तहसील बालिअन्ता

जिला- खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

3947

3948

3946

3945

3944

3943

3928

3927

3930

3929

3931

3933

3934

3935

3932

3918

3936

3917

3916

3914

3897

3890

3892

3907

158

सदासिमुल

164

156

160

161

162

163

11 7977

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

राज्य उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - बालिअन्ता

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

120

119

112

111

110

181

390 भइलो

381

394

373

374

370

371

369

364

366

368

367

365

355

356

354

353

347

329

399

334 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

00 [Part 11-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

7978

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - बालिअन्ता

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

333

336

314

312

313

337

311

310

276

272

271

245

246

247

248

258

252

251

253

254

214

213

937

खमन्गासासन

936

938

939

943

941

940

3606

बोधखन्द्रि

3608 7979 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 ,, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील बालिअन्ता

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

3605

3604

3602

3601

3617

3616

3618

3619

3631

3620

3632

3635

3633

3541

3540

3539

1373

1387

1389

00-

1390

1383

1382

1381

1380

1378

1377

1372

1371

1370

1369

1237

4340 G1/09-12A 7980

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 / AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] तहसील बालिअन्ता

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

1224

32 बरिजंगा

424

423

1011

422

421

-53

418

420

417

416

397

398

400

401

402

399

403

391

389

390

387

386

408

113

112

114

115

127

991

992

126

434061/09-12B 7981 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

तहसील - बालिअन्ता

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

124

123

122

145

146

144

147

157

158

282

159

160

161

162

179

163

178

177

176

175

174

173

183

184

185

186

222

192

191

5639

49 झिन्टीसासन

5638

20 7982

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 / AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ] तहसील बालिअन्ता

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

4284

4285

4283

4286

4287

4288

4289

4292

4120

4119

4118

4106

4107

4103

4109

4102

4101

4100

4095

4096

4094

4093

4087

4081

4082

4085

4083

4084

4079

4610

4597

44 7983

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - बालिअन्ता

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

4630

4631

4632

4643

4642

4646

4647

4641

4640

4639

4638

4659

4703

4702

4700

4698

4696

4750

4754

4753

4755

4756

4752

4757

4772

4789

4788

4786

4787

4798

4797 क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर हेक्टेयर एयर

00.

00 7984

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii )] तहसील बालिअन्ता

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

एयर

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर 1

4799

4803

4800

4802

4801

4808

4809

4816

4815

4814

4813

4908

4909

4906

4910

4904

2722

5705

2730

2731

2737

2736

2735

2734

2733

2745

2746

2747

2748

2741

2749

10 7985 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/ अंग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील - बालिअन्ता

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

5 1

2767

2678

2677

2675

2676

2655

2654

2653

2613

2612

2592

2561

2560

2520

2479

2478

2482

2483

2484

2486

2494

2499

2498

2495

2497

2521

2136

2047

2046

2045

2061 7986

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 / AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ] तहसील बालिअन्ता

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

2066

2069

2075

2074

2070

2071

2073

2072

2081

2083

2085

2084

1988

1989

| फा. सं. आर . 25011/18/2009 ओ.नार. ।।

बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 2nd December, 2009

S. O. 3349. Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transporation of petroleum products from Paradip ( Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh) & Ranchi ( Jharkhand) , " Paradip New Sambalpur Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette of India , are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan , Competent Authority , Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Paradip -New Sambalpur - Raipur- Ranchi Pipeline Project, 1295 , Forest Park , Bhubaneswar - 751009 , ( Orissa) .

7987 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

SCHEDULE

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : BALIANTA

Area

PlotNO .

Nameof theVillage

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

5 1

1909

UPARASAHI

2722

1908

1873

1867

1874

1878

1880

1879

1881

1882

1883

1884

1885

1886

1887

1330

1328

1327

1303

1304

1305

1295

1294

1292

1293

1289

1423

1279

2669

1229

09 4340 G1/09-13A 7988

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]

District: KHURDA

State : ORISSA

Tehsil: BALIANTA

Area

PlotNO.

Nameof theVillage

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

1227

1226

1225

1220

2729

1218

1219

1097

1202

1205

2726

1204

1143

1151

1152

1150

1149

5943

PRATAPRUDRAPUR - 1

5578

5598

5597

5599

5596

5595

5600

5592

5594

5593

5590

5591

5623

434061109-138 7989 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/ अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग ।। - खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : BALIANTA

Area

PlotNO .

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

5624

5622

5634

5632

5629

5628

5759

5758

5764

5763

5765

5755

5754

5753

5767

5768

5775

5769

6049

5774

5772

5771

4867

4866

4865

4863

4861

4862

4811

4812

4813

39 7990

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12. 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

[ Part 11 -Sec . 3 ( ii) ] Tehsil : BALIANTA

District: KHURDA

State: ORISSA

Area

PlotNO .

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

4581

4646

4647

4644

4651

4643

5997

4641

4640

4639

4638

4592

4617

3949

4585

4586

4587

4588

4584

4589

4590

4591

4583

4582

3958

3957

3956

3955

3954

3951

3950

00 7991 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : BALIANTA

Plot NO .

Name of the Village

Area Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

5 1

3947

3948

3946

3945

3944

3943

3928

3927

3930

3929

3931

3933

3934

3935

3932

3918

3936

3917

3916

3914

3897

3890

3892

3907

158

SADASIMUL

164

156

160

161

182

163

00 7992

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec.3 (ii)]

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : BALIANTA

Area

PlotNO .

Nameof theVillage

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

120

119

112

111

110

181

390

94 BHAILO

381

394

373

374

370

371

369

364

366

368

367

365

355

356

354

353

347

329

399

334

09 7993 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 ,, 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Tehsil : BALIANTA

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Area

Plot NO.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 1

333

336

314

312

313

337

311

310

276

272

271

245

246

247

248

258

252

251

253

254

214

213

10 KHAMANGASASAN

937

936

938

939

943

941

940

63 BODHAKHANDI

3606

3608

19 7994

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

State: ORISSA

Tehsil : BALIANTA

District : KHURDA

Area

Plot NO.

Nameof theVillage

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

3605

3604

3602

3601

3617

3616

3618

3619

3631

3620

3632

3635

3633

3541

3540

3539

1373

1387

1389

1390

1383

1382

1381

1380

1378

1377

1372

1371

1370

1369

38.

1237

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

7995 Tehsil : BALIANTA

District: KHURDA

State: ORISSA

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

Area Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr. 1

1224

32 BARIJANGA

424

423

1011

422

421

418

420

417

416

397

398

400

401

402

399

403

391

389

390

387

386

408

113

112

114

115

127

991

992

126

16 4340G1/09-14A 7996

[ Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

State : ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : BALIANTA

Area

PlotNO .

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

5 1

124

123

122

145

146

144

147

157

158

282

159

160

161

162

179

163

178

177

176

175

174

173

183

184

185

186

222.

192

191

5639

JHINTISASAN

5638

434061109-14B 7997 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : BALIANTA

Area

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

4284

4285

4283

4286

4287

4288

4289

4292

4120

4119

4118

4106

4107

4103

4109

4102

4101

4100

4095

4096

4094

4093

4087

4081

4082

4085

4083

4084

4079

4610

4597 7998

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3(ii ) ]

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : BALIANTA

Area

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

4630

4631

4632

4643

4642

4646

4647

4641

4640

4639

4638

4659

4703

4702

4700

4698

4696

4750

4754

4753

4755

4756

4752

4757

4772

4789

4788

4786

4787

4798

4797

02 7999 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil: BALIANTA

Area

PlotNO.

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

4799

4803

4800

4802

4801

4808

4809

4816

4815

4814

4813

4908

4909

4906

4910

4904

2722

5705

2730

2731

2737

2736

2735

2734

2733

2745

2746

2747

2748

2741

2749 8000

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] Tehsil: BALIANTA

District: KHURDA

State: ORISSA

Area

PlotNO .

Nameof the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

2767

2678

2677

2675

2676

2655

2654

2653

2613

2612

2592

2561

2560

2520

2479

2478

2482

2483

2484

2486

2494

2499

2498

2495

2497

2521

2136

2047

2046

2045

2061

04 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 ,, 1931

8001 Tehsil : BALIANTA

District: KHURDA

State: ORISSA

Area

Plot NO.

Nameof the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

2066

2069

2075

2074

2070

2071

2073

2072

2081

2083

2085

2084

1988

1989

[F. No. R-25011 /18/2009- O.R. - I ] B.K.DATTA , Under Secy

नईदिल्ली, 2 दिसम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 3350.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप ( उड़ीसा ) से रायपुर (छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं राँची (झारखण्ड) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिये इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " पारादीप न्यू सम्बलपुर रायपुर राँची पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिये;

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के लिए भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री सुकान्त कुमार प्रधान , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप न्यू सम्बलपुर - रायपुर - राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 1295 , फॉरेस्ट पार्क , भुवनेश्वर 751009 (उड़ीसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 8002

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

अनुसूची

राज्य - उड़ीसा

तहसील - बालिपाटणा

जिला - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

367

प्रतापरुद्रपुर - 2

368

369

415

365

366

350

349

348

347

318

316

317

420

4013

478

477

473

472

4116

468

467

466

422

441

459

444

445

449

10 8003 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

तहसील - बालिपाटणा

जिला - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

448

446

447

450

451

452

453

1222

1221

1106

1105

1011

1001

1002

1003

1004

1006

1005

4149

1009

1014

1015

995

985

984

967

952

953

954

956

4340 GI/09-15A 8004

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii )] तहसील - बालिपाटणा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

955

964

959

960

962

961

935

917

916

914

911

915

913

912

926

68 साहेब नगर

285

82 बुधन्गदेउलि

284

283

282

278

245

250

4340G1/09-15B 8005 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

तहसील बालिपाटणा

जिला - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

254

256

257

263

236

235

234

233

225

224

217

221

220

462

122

207

203

186

201

204

202

205

206

200

199

198

137

72.

138

141

142

78 8006

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] तहसील बालिपाटणा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

130

147

148

146

151

152

153

150

154

75 किआजोडि

996

997

992

973

1021

991

990

983

989

988

987

984

985

986

982

971

970

61 गारेडिपन्चना

1735

1734

1736

1737

62 8007 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 ,, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

तहसील बालिपाटणा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

1730

1731

1724

297

298

304

305

303

307

306

308

196

310

195

194

312

192

396

395

394

397

398

399

410

409

400

401

408

403

455 8008

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part 11-Sec . 3 (ii) ] तहसील बालिपाटणा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

456

457

458

466

465

464

460

462

461

477

478

479

551

552

548

549

550

545

559

557

558

560

561

3421

बिस्वनाथपुर

2258

2257

2256

2267

2514

2513

19 8009 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 ,, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

राज्य उड़ीसा

तहसील बालिपाटणा

जिला - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर एयर

2512

2510

2509

2503

2504

2502

2501

2500

2498

2518

2542

2543

2541

2539

2540

2545

2547

2548

2550

2551

2553

2558

2559

2585

2606

2607

2608

2604

2609

2599

00 8010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] तहसील बालिपाटणा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

2603

2610

2619

2620

2623

2625

2628

2629

3432

3147

3146

3145

3144

3138

3137

3437

3131

3425

2998

2999

2996

2985

2984

2983

2982

2981

नुआपडा

8011 [भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

तहसील - बालिपाटणा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

जिला - खोद्धा

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

गांव का नाम

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

102

101

103

104

105

1024

112

114

115

301

02 गन्गेस्वरपुरसासन

302

300

298

297

291

290

289

284

287

208

207

202

47 4340G1/09-16A 8012

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part 11- Sec . 3 ( ii) ] तहसील बालिपाटणा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर 1

206

205

204

173

169

168

161

162

167

135

134

109

110

106

105.

120

122

121

124

123

125

00.

4340G1/09-16 B [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

8013 भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

तहसील बालिपाटणा

जिला - खोद्धा

राज्य - उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

| फा. सं . आर . 25011/19/2009 ओ.आर. ||

बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 2nd December, 2009-

S. O. 3350.- Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transporation of petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa ) to Raipur(Chhattisgarh ) & Ranchi ( Jharkhand ) , " Paradip New Sambalpur Raipur Ranchi Pipeline " should be laidby Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessaryto acquire the right of user in the land described in the schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 19621962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right ofuser therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification , as published in the Gazette ofIndia, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Paradip-New Sambalpur - Raipur- Ranchi Pipeline Project , 1295, Forest Park , Bhubaneswar - 751009, ( Orissa) .

8014

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

State : ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : BALIPATNA

Area

Plot NO.

Name of the Village

Hectare

Are

Sq.mtr .

367

PRATAPRUDRAPUR - 2

368

369

415

365

366

350

349

348

347

318

316

317

420

4013

478

477

473

472

4116

468

467

466

422

441

459

444

445

00-

449

00 8015 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र दिसम्बर 12, 2009/ अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

District : KHURDA

State : ORISSA

Tehsil: BALIPATNA

Area

PlotNO .

Nameof the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

448

446

447

450

451

452

453

1222

1221

1106

1105

1011

1001

1002

1003

1004

1006

1005

4149

1009

1014

1015

995

985

984

967

952

953

954

956

15 8016

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

Tehsil : BALIPATNA

District : KHURDA

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

955

964

959

960

962

961

935

917

916

914

911

915

913

912

926 SAHEB NAGAR

2 BUDHANGADEULI

285

284

283

282

278

245

250

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] State:ORISSA

Area

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

1 8017 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 ,, 1931

State: ORISSA

Tehsil: BALIPATNA

District: KHURDA

Area

PlotNO .

Nameof the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr .

254

256

257

263

236

235

234

14.

233

225

224

217

221

220

462

122

207

203

186

201

204

202

205

206

200

199

198

137

138

141

142

78 8018

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 / AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] Tehsil : BALIPATNA

District : KHURDA

State: ORISSA

Area

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr. 1

130

147

148

146

151

152

153

150

154

75 KIAJODI

996

997

992

973

1021

991

990

983

989

988

987

984

985

986

982

971

970

GAREDIPANCHANA

1735

1734

1736

1737

62 8019 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : BALIPATNA

Area

Plot NO .

Nameof the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

1730

1731

1724

297

298

304

305

303

307

306

308

196

310

195

194

312

192

396

395

394

397

398

399

410

409

400

401

408

403

455

30 4340 G1/09-17 8020

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil BALIPATNA

Area

PlotNO .

Nameof the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

456

457

458

466

465

464

460

462

461

477

478

479

551

552

548

549

550

545

559

557

558

560

561

3421

99 BISWANATHPUR

2258

2257

2256

2267

2514

2513 8021 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 ,, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : BALIPATNA

Area

PlotNO .

Name of the Village

Hectare Are Sq.mtr.

2512

2510

2509

2503

2504

2502

2501

2500

2498

2518

2542

2543

2541

2539

2540

2545

2547

2548

2550

2551

2553

2558

2559

2585

2606

2607

2608

2604

2609

2599 8022

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]

District : KHURDA

State: ORISSA

Tehsil : BALIPATNA

Area

PlotNO.

Nameof the Village

Are

Hectare

.Sq.mtr .

5 1

2603

2610

2619

2620

2623

2625

2628

2629

3432

3147

3146

3145

3144

3138

3137

3437

3131

3425

2998

2999

2996

2985

2984

2983

2982

2981

02 NUAPADA

00 8023 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

State: ORISSA

District: KHURDA

Tehsil : BALIPATNA

Area

Plot NO .

Name of the Village.

Hectare

Sq.mtr.

Are

5 1

102

101

103

104

105

1024

112

114

115

301

GANGESWARPURSASAN

302

300

298

297

291

290

289

284

287

208

207

202

12 8024

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii)]

State: ORISSA

Tehsil : BALIPATNA

District: KHURDA

Area

PlotNO.

Name of the Village

Are

Hectare

Sq.mtr .

5 1

206

205

204

173

169

168

161

162

167

135

134

109

110

106

105

120

122

121

124

123

125

[ F. No. R-25011/19/2009-O.R. - I ]

B.K.DATTA , Under Secy 8025 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 9 नवम्बर , 2009

1. The Chairman & Managing Director , The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. , Zonal Office , Rail Head Complex, Jammu.

2. The ChiefManager (Personnel) , The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. Personnel Department, Zonal Office , Rail Head Complex, Jammu. Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Sh . Ronak Singh , Union Representative का. आ. 3351.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार द जम्मू एण्ड काशमीर बैंक लिमिटिड प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों, और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-1 चन्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1326/2007 to 1332/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Sh . Ashok Jagga , Adv.

For theManagement

[सं. एल-12012/ 106 से 110 /तथा 22 व 122/2007 - आई आर.

AWARD

(बी- I) ]

Passed on 27-10-2009

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 9th November, 2009

These seven references have been referred by Central Government under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as follows:-

1. L- 12012/ 106/2007 /IR(B- 1 ) dated 08-08-2007

2. L- 12012/22/2007/IR(B- 1 ) dated 08-08-2007

3. L- 12012/ 122/2007/IR(B - 1 ) dated 08-08-2007

4. L- 12012/ 110/2007/ IR(B - 1 ) dated 08-08-2007

5. L- 12012/ 109/2007/IR(B - 1) dated 08-08-2007 S. O. 3351.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.1326/ 2007 to 1332/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court - I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 9-11-2009 .

6. L- 12012/ 108/2007 /IRI (B - 1) dated08-08-2007 [No. L- 12012/ 106 to 110 and 22 & 122 /2007 - IR (B- I)]

7. L- 12012/107/2007/IR(B- 1 ) dated 08-08-2007 AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case I. D No. 1326/07 to 1332/07

After receiving the references , parties were informed. Both ofthe parties filed their pleadings . On perusal of the pleadings , it is evidently clear that the main controversy in these references is whether the workmen were appointed by the Management of respondent bank as temporary Security Guards against permanent vacancy ? Further consequential issue to be adjudicated is whether the workmen are entitled for regularization oftheir services as prayed ?

1. Sh. Rajinder Singh S/o Sh . Ram Singh R/ o V & PO Raika Labana, Tehsil , Samba, Distt . Jammu.

2. Sh. Ramesh Kumar Sharma S/o Sh . Bansi Lal C/H . No. 292, Sector B , Sainik Colony, Jammu,

Common questions of law and facts are involved in all these seven references , hence , for ends ofjustice all the references are hereby answered by this award .

3. Sh . Balkar Singh S/ o Sh . Surjit Singh Village & PO Raika Labana Tehsil Samba, District Jammu.

4. Sh . Balwader Singh S/ o Sh . Thoru Ram , VPO Pallanwaļa, Tehsil Akhnoor , District.Jammu.

5. Sh. Parmesh Singh S/o Sh. Rattan Singh R/ o Rajpur Jammu.

6. Sh . Sham Sunder S/o Sh . Nanak Chand , C/o Sh . Thondu Colony, Ban Brahamanae , Jammu .

7. Sh . Tarsem Lal S/ o Sh . Ram Lal R/ o Village Bonota, Tehsil & District R. S.Pura, Jammu .

Applicants

All theworkmen have preferred to raised individual Industrial Dispute on the ground that they were temporarily appointed by the management of respondent bank as Security Guard on consolildated salary against a clear vacancy. Every workman has provided with and filed copy of letter by which they were appointed as Securty Guard- watchman by the respondent bank . It is also the claim of theworkmen that they were appointed against the reserved vacancies . They continually served in the same capacity in violation of the provisions of Bipartite Settlement applicable to the parties . It is further claimed by the workmen that they are working in the same way as the permanent Security Guards and are denied the equal pay for equal Versus 8026

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/ AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] work in violation of article 14 of the Constitution . The management of respondent bank connot continue the workmen in the temporary capacity as per paras 25.7 and 25.8 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 . On the basis of above contention, all the workmen have prayed for an order regularization of their services with retrospective effect .

argued that appointment of every workman was temporary innature, hence , the provisions of Bipartite Settlement are not applicable . The management relied on a judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Uma Devi & . others Versus Secretary State of Karnataka & others , J.T. 2006(4) SC-42 . As per the arguments of the management under the provisions of law laid down by the Apex Court, the services ofthe workmen cannot be regularized.

After hearing the parties and perusing the materials onrecord, the main issues for adjudication of this Tribunal are as follows:-

1.Whether workmen are the employees of Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. , and there exists a relationship of employer-employee between them ?

2. Whether the workmen are working with the management of the bank as per the terms and conditions of appointment order annexed with the statement of claim ?

The management of the respondent bank raised certain preliminary objections . The relationship of employer - employee has been challenged by the management of the respondent bank. It is mentioned in written statement filed by the management that there is no relationship of master and servant between the workman and the respondent bank and accordingly, Section 25 -B of the Act is not applicable . On merits , it is contended by the management of the respondent bank that the workmen were not appointed against any substantial vacancy but they were appointed on contract temporarily and they are not, as per their nature of services rendered to the bank, entitled for anypost.

3. Whether the workmen are entitled for the relief sought by them in the statement of claim?

Parties were afforded the opportunity ofbeingheard..

Everyworkman preferred to file his Affidavit and was cross- examined by learned council for the management . On the other hand, Abdul Rau Bhatt, Senior Executive Manager , HRD Division , filed his affidavit in all the cases and he was cross-examined by the learned counsel by the workmen. The appointment letter has been filed by every workman.

No other document has been filed by any ofthe parties . I have heard parties at length and perused the entire materials on record .

So far as the employer - employee relationship between the management and the workman is concerned , the issue is dealt with by Hon'ble the Apex Court in several judgments . The latest judgment in which this issue is dealt with by the Hon'ble the Apex Court is 2008-11R- 801GM, ONGC, Silchur Vs. ONGC Contractual Union's case . In the above mentioned case law, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held that if the appointment is made by any organization, there is direct master - servant relationship between the management and the workman . Wages are paid by the organization and the workman is directly under the administrative control of the management , it shall be considered that there exist an employer -employee relationship between the employer and employee .

Learned counsel for the workmen has submitted that the act of the management by appointing the workmen on temporary basis and shown them on so called contract , is an unlawful labour practice . There were confirmed vacancies against which the workmen were appointed. The work was of continuous nature and continuation of work on the basis of same fixed wages is against the provisions ofBipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 . Learned counsel for the workmen has also submitted that in similar case Balbir Singh Versus the Chairman and Managing Director , Jammu & Kashmir Bank Ltd. , CGIT - cum- Labour Court - II , has directed the management of the bank to regularize the services of the workmen . Learned Counsel for the workmen onparity of the said Award has prayed for an order of the Tribunal for directing the management for regularizing the services of the workmen .

Learned counsel for the rnanagement has challenged the contention of the workmen on the grounds of maintainability of preferences . It is submitted by learned counsel for the management that every workman was engaged and employed on a contract for a fixed term and fixed wages . There has been no master - servant relationship between the management of respondent bank and the workman . Learned counsel for the management has further

I have gone through the appointment letter issued to every workman. The plain reading ofthe order providing the employment to the workman shows that workman was engaged as Armed Guard - cum- Night Watchman on contract basis for further duties . The fixed wages are not mentioned in the order , but it is admitted to the parties that workmen were paid a fixed wages . On the basis of this letter , the management of the respondent bank has argued that all the workmen are working on contract for fixed term and fixed wages . It is admitted fact that from the day of appointment of the workmen , they are working with the management in terms of the order providing them the employment . This Tribunal has to determine, whether the nature ofemployment of every workman is governed by a single word mentioned in the order providing them the employment. Undoubtedly, in appointment letter word contract is used. But in my view this word ' contract' is to be interpretated differently as per the facts and circumstances ofthe case and as per the language used in the order . This term 'contract' cannot be interpretated in isolation and the 8027 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

Tribunal should not form an opinion that as term " contract " isused in the order, the workman became the employee on contract and have no master - servant relationship.

Theact ofthemanagement of respondent bank to continue the services of every workman till further orders shows that all the workmen were appointed against the existing work. It is not disputed that vacancies are lying vacant . I am unable to understand who prevented the management for appointing the regular Armed Guard -cum - Watchman against the available permanent vacancies and continue to takework from the workman on the basis ofthe appointment order . It shows that workmen were appointed temporarily against a permanent work available with the bank and to prevent the workmen to claim any beneficiary right under the Industrial Disputes Act or under the Bipartite Settlement, their appointment was mentioned as on " contract basis " . It is nothing but an unlawful labour practice.

I am not inclined to accept the contention of the management of the respondent bank that provisions of Bipartite Settlement are not applicable in this case . Respondent bank is a Governmental organization having its rules and regulations in the form of Bipartite Settlement . The respondent bank is one of the contracting parties to the Bipartite Settlement and there cannot be any act ofthe bank beyond its rules and regulations. The bank cannot act arbitrarily and is bound to act under the provisions of rules and regulations . The Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 is one of the settlement governing the acts and activities of the respondent bank. Accordingly, in my view provisions ofBipartite Settlement are applicable between the parties . In terms of paras 20.7 and 20.8 of the Bipartite Settlement (supra) temporary workman could be appointed only for a limited period ofwork;

I. It is essentially a temporary in nature ; or

Thus, the appointment of the workman cannot be considered on contract basis and for this Tribunal all the workmen were appointed temporarily for permanent work available in the bank . All the workman , accordingly, are to the employees of the Respondent Bank .

II. It is the increase of workman of permanent nature; or

III . In a temporary vacancy caused by an absence of apermanent workman .

The next question arises whether this Tribunal can playthe role of an appointing authority? In my view, this isnot within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal to play the role of the appointing authority on behalf of the management of the bank. Thus , the only remedy available inallthese reference from this Tribunal is a proper direction to the management to appoint the persons against permanent vacancy as per the rules of the department and on the basis of experience the workman had and period of length they served with bank , their candidature be considered on priority while making such appointment .

As per the provisions of para 20.8 of the Bipartite Settlement, the temporary appointment should not exceed for a period of three months . No doubt the term used in para 20.8 of Bipartite Settlement gives discretion to the respondent bank to extend the period of three months , but this discretion should be used fairly and bonafide. In the present references all the workmen were appointed against the post, but as per the contention of the workmen their appointment was temporary. The temporary appointment isgovemed by para 20.7 and 20.8 ofthe Bipartite Settlement. The bank is unable to prove that the work for which the workmenwere appointed was temporary in nature . There was increase in the work for such temporary appointment or vacancy was caused for the absence of permanent workman. All the workmen are working as such for a pretty long time . Their serving as such is not only against the provisions ofpara 20.7 and 20.8 of the Bipartite Settlement, butagainst the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. By inserting one word " contract basis " , the management tried to prevent the workman to exercise any right to be accrued under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . On the other hand, the management of respondent bank has itselfclaimed the appointment of workmen as temporary one , which is against the provisions of Para 20.7 and 20.8 of theBipartite Settlement.

The Tribunal has to evaluate the work done and functions discharged by the workmen to create the relationship between them. Such functions of the workmen are reflected by their act and the legislative provisions .

It issettled principal of service jurisprudence that a temporary employee has no right to post . He cannot claim for the regularization of the services just on the basis of the fact that he was working temporarily unless and until the rule of the department does permit the management for such regularization . Para 20.7 and 20.8 of the Bipartite Settlement only classified the nature of temporary service. Itdoes not contain the provisions regarding consequence offailure ofmanagement in disobeying the provisions . In my view, as the workmen have completed a long tenure as temporary employee does not vest any right in them for seeking regularization of their services. The regularization ofthe services is the act of the management . Ifthe principle laid down in Uma Devi's case (supra) is also taken into consideration , none of the workman has completed. 10 years of service , instead of that it will be proper to direct the management to lay down the policy for regularization of the services /permanent appointment of Security Guards as per rules of the management of respondent bank . I am unable to pass any presumptary direction that if management fails to frame any policy or 4340G1/09-18 8028

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009 /AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 10 नवम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 3352. 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 , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 122/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

make recruitment as per the rules of the bank, all the workmen shall be considered to be the permanent employee ofthebankbecause if it is done it will amount to discharge the functioning of the bank by this Tribunal , which the law does not permit . Thus , the award passed by the Tribunal of the concurrent jurisdiction having no legal binding force on this Tribunal cannot be accepted on presumptary direction for considering the workman as permanent employee on regularization oftheir services in caseoffailure ofmanagement to frame any policy or making permanent recruitments .

[ सं. एल -12011/49/98- आई आर ( बी- I) ] अजय कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 10th November , 2009 On the basis of facts and circumstances to these references , it is clear that two possible directions can be given by this Tribunal for redressal of the grievances of theworkmen.

1. Directing the Management to frame a policy for regularization of the services of the workmen, if rules and regulations of the management of respondent bank permit to do so.

S. O. 3352.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 122/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-11-2009.

[No. L- 12011 /49/98- IR (B-I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer 2. Directing the Management to recruit the Security Guard-cum -Watchman on permanent basis as per the rules ofthedepartment giving the preference to all the workmen on the basis of their seniority andwork experience .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, SHARM BHAWAN, ATI CAMPUS, UDYOGNAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial dispute case No. 122 of 99

Industrial Dispute Between :-

Onthe basis of above discussions , I am of the view that all the workmen are working as temporary employee continuously for a long period with the bank. Their existed and still exists a master and servant relationship between them. They are paid the wages by the management of the respondent bank and are under the administrative control of the respondent bank. For the continuous service they rendered to the bank they cannot be considered as on contract. They are working against the permanent Work available with the bank.

Sri B. P. Mishra, President, State Bank of India Karamchari Sangh , C/o Ravi Pratap Narain Singh , 119/525 , Darshan Purwa, Kanpur.

AND

The ChiefGeneral Manager , State Bank of India , Hazaratganj , Lucknow. AWARD

1. Central Government, MOL, New Delhi , vide its notification No. L- 12011 /49/98 - IR(B- 1) dated 5-5-99 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

Instead of it, on issue of regularization of the services of the workman , I am duty bound to restrain myself to assume the power of appointing authority lying with the management of the respondent bank . The only remedy available to the workmen, in my opinion , is an appropriate direction to the management to frame a policy for regularization ofthe services of the workmen , if possible , under the rules of the bank or a direction for permanent appointment against the permanent vacancies with preferential right to the workmen as per the rules of the department . The management is directed to comply with the directions within three months from the date of publication of this Award. All the references are accordingly, answered . Let Central Government be informed for publication of the award, and thereafter, file be consigned to the record room .

2. Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in premature retiring Sri R. B. Pandey from the service ofthe bank on 01-01-96 isjustified? If not what relief, the workman is entitled?

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer 8029 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

Trustee, Central Office , Bombay, and thereby had acknowledged that he would retire on 31-12-95 . This letter was forwarded by the Branch Manager, State Bank of India, which is Annexure D-5 . After retirement Sri Pandey had submitted an application dated 14-11-96 to the Chief General Manager of the bank in respect of payment of his pension. Inthis letter he had specifically admitted that he had retired from the service on 1-1-1996, copy ofthe letter isAnnexure D-6 . Letter dated 8.- 11-96 was received by the bank and replied vide letter No..RDS/ 140 dated 19-12-96 . Therefore , the claim of the claimant is wrong, and false , hence denied and prayed for rejection of the application .

5. The claimant has also filed rejoinder . It is admitted thathejoined the service in the Imperial Bank of India but stated that at that time it was not necessary that a waterman shouldbe 18 years of age when he was employed . He stated that he studied only up to class V and had submitted onlyhis primary school leaving certificate to the bank on appointment. He denied the other contentions made in the written statement of the opposite party bank and reiterated his own facts .

3. The case of the workman in short is that he was an employee ofthe opposite party at the post of Jamadar . It is alleged by the workman that on the basis of school leaving certificate original of which was submitted to the opposite party at the time ofprocuring employment where in the date ofbirth has been recorded as 1-1-1939 and this Gate of birth is also recorded in the service record of the workman. It is also alleged that the date ofbirth is written inHindi (Nagiri Lipik) . It is claimed by the workman that the opposite party misunderstood the word " 9" of ( Nagiri Lipik) as word " 6 " appearing in the date of birth 1-01-1939 , accordingly the opposite party retired the workmanwith effect from 1-1-1996. In this way the opposite party retired the workman three years before prematurely. It is also alleged that the opposite party tried to retire the workman at the age of 58 years but having regard to his goodhealth and on the basis ofBipartite Settlement dated 31-3-67 the service period; the workman was extended for two more years . On the basis of above pleadings it has been prayed that the action of the management in retiring the workman prematurely three years before be held to unjust and illegal and the workman be given the benefit of wages and allowances , house rent allowance, ССА , Medical allowance , vehicle allowance , uniform allowance and LTA etc.

6. The claimant has filed three documents vide list paper no.3 / 1 , which are the photocopies . The documents are copy ofnotice dated 8-11-96, by registered post , copy ofpostal receipts , letter dated 19-12-96 of SB1 addressed to the President , United Trades Union Congress . He has also filed paper No.3 /6 letter issued by State Bank of India dated 13-12-96 . He has also filed photocopy of school leaving certificate paper No.3 /7. Claimant has also filed original documents vide list No. 27/1 . These are the documents of which photocopies have been filed.

7. Opposite party has also , filed documents 6 in numbers which are original service sheet of the claimant, original letterdated 27-6-94, letter dated 30-1-95 , original letter dated 30-6-95 , issued by the opposite party bank to Sri RB Pandey and letter dated 30-11-95 , submitted by Sri RB Pandey to the opposite party bank and letter dated 14-11-96 submitted by the claimant to the opposite Party bank.

8. In oral evidence the claimant has produced himself as WW.I. Opposite party bank has also adduced oral evidence of Sri Ramesh Chandra Verma as M.W.1 who is a desk officer .

9. I have thoroughly considered the documentary as well as oral evidence opposite adduced by the parties and heard the arguments of the opposite parties at length.

10.The bank has provided original service record of the claimant . It is the contention of the opposite party that dispute has been raised by the claimant after a long period of retirement. It is also contended that after 58 years age of the claimant he was given extension in service of six 4. The opposite party has denied the overall assertion ofthe claimant . It is stated by them that the date ofbirth ofthe claimant was mentioned as 01-01-1936 . His date ofbirth was never recorded as 1-1-1939 , în his service record. He has joined the service on 07-05-1954. It is also statedthat the claimant has joined the service in the Imperial Bank of India on 7-5-1954 , if his date of birth would have been 1-1-39 , then he would have been a minor just 15 years 7 months old on the date of joining the service, which was not permissible under law. As per rule and procedure a person , who has attained the age of 18 years used to be employed as an employee in the Imperial Bank of India . The claimant has been superannuated after attaining the age of 60 years on 31-12-95 . It is admitted thatafter attaining the age of 58 years on 31-12-93 , the health condition of the claimant was found fit, so extension of two years in service ending on 31-12-95 was allowed by the bank . A letter dated 27-6-94 was given to the claimant and thereby his services due to good health and satisfactory work were extended up to 30-12-94 . Letter is Annexure D- 2. Another letter dated 30-1-95 was delivered to Sri Pandey on 30-1-95 and thereby his services were extended up to 30-6-95 which was received by him . Vide this letter his services were extended up to 31-12-95 . Не was also informed that the service rendered by him beyond 58 years would not be counted for the purpose of calculating pension etc. These letters are Annexure D- 3 and D-4 respectively. On 30-11-95 Sri Pandey had issued a letter at the address of the State Bank of India, Provident 8030

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/ AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

15. In this case also no objection taken all these years . Objection raised 8 months before the retirement liable to be rejected on the ground of latches .

16. Therefore, considering the facts of the case and the ruling adduced by the opposite party and going through the law, held by the Hon'ble Apex Court , I am of the view that the claimant has not been able to prove his case.

17. Therefore , the claim is decided against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party .

18. Award is given accordingly . RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 11 नवम्बर, 2009

months frequency, considering his health and satisfactory service but he never raised any objection that his date of birth is 1-1-39 and not 1-1-36 . Letter No. D-2 dated 27-6-94 hasbeen addressed to the claimant bythebranchby means of which the service of the claimant is extended up to 30-12-94 . Another letter D-3 is dated 30-1-95 shows extension of service up to 30-6-95 and letter dated 30-6-95 shows extension of service till 31-12-95 . These letters have been received by the claimant. No objection has been raised at that time . Another letter D- 5 indicates that the claimant had given application addressed to the bank where in he has claimed that he is going to retire from the service on 31-12-95 and he has requested for the refund of the P.F. amount . Another letter dated 14-11-96 given by the claimant to the Chief General Manager State Bank of India asking for payment of pension, wherein he has also again stated that he retired on 1-1-96 . All these letter shows that he retired on 1-1-96 after he got superannuated. There is no indication in any of these letters that he has been retired prematurely.

का. आ. 3353. 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-2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कैन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-12012/412/2001- आई आर ( बी-1) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 11th November, 2009

S. O. 3353.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court-2 Mumbai 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 11-11-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/412/2001 - IR(B- I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

11. I have gone through the oral evidence. These letters have been admitted by claimants . It is the contention ofthe claimant that the original of school leaving certificate wasgiven to the employer i.e. Imperial Bank of India but it does not find any solid evidence . The claimant has filed duplicate copy of school leaving certificate, though in this certificate date ofbirth has been shown as 1-1-39 , but this tribunal cannot take the cognizance of this second copy unless proved by evidence . The claimant has not brought the original record of school before the tribunal and the Head Master has not been produced . This copy was also given to the bank official when he got retired . I consider that he himself contends in a number of letters that he got superannuated on 1-1-96. He also contends that after 58 years he was given extension of service till 60 years . I think that at this stage to hold that the date of birth ofthe claimant is 1-1-39 and not 1-1-36 , the claimant shouldhave produced reliable and solid evidence . In such cases evidence should have been such type of evidence which should stood on 4 pillars .Opposite party has totally contradicted the claim of the claimant, the statement of MW.1 Sri Ramesh Chandra Verma cannot be disbelieved on this point and the statement of claimant W.W.I does not inspire confidence .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 2 , MUMBAI

12. Opposite party has also produced ruling 1996 Lab IC 913 ( SC) Union of India and others versus Mrs. Saroj Bala respondent .

PRESENT A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer REFERENCE No. CGIT -2/23 of 2002

13. It is held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that a candidate from an educated family remained in service for 18 years -seeking correction in date of birth-held not permissible.

Employers in Relation to the Management of State Bank ofIndia, Zonal Office

TheAssistant General Manager (Ops . ) , State Bank of India

14. Another ruling 1996 Lab IC 479 Allahabad High Court, M/s . Tenneryfoot Wear Corporation of India versus LabourCourt .

8031

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Madhuli Building, 1st floor ,

Annie Besant Road , Near Poonam Chambers , Mumbai-400018 .

AND

Their Workmen

from him. First party relied on it and treated it as an admission of concerned workman and acted upon it and proceeded to terminate his services without any reason. So it is submitted that, enquiry was not conducted by following due process of law, finding given by the Inquiry Officer is perverse and the punishment awarded is disproportionate.

TheGeneral Secretary

State Bank of India Staff Union ,

68/86,Harkoovarbai Building, Pandit Bakle Path , Thakurdwar Road, Mumbai 400 002 .

APPEARANCES

ForThe Employer

: Mr. M. G. Nadkarni ,

Advocate

For The Workman

: Mr. R. B. Chavan, Advocate

Mumbai , dated 24th august, 2009

AWARD PART - II

TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour by its Order No. L- 12012/412/2001 - IR(B- I) dated 06-03-2002 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

3. This is disputed by the first party by filing written statement at Ex- 10 stating and contending that, the case made out by the second party in the Statement of claim is not admitted to it. It is denied that , enquiry was not conducted by following due process of law. It is denied that, no opportunity was given to the concerned workman . It is denied that documents and witnesses were not made available to the concerned workman to testify them . It is ,denied that , Inquiry Officer did not flow the procedure and conducted inquiry as per his own ideas . It is denied that, Inquiry Officer was not having evidence before him to conclude against the concerned workman . According to firstparty, no case is made out by second party. Nothing is stated by the second party about the charges leveled against the concerned workman. There were serious charges leveled against the concerned workman of not depositing the amount of customers but in reality depositing less amount in the account of the concerned customers than the actual amount given for deposit . Such instances were noted and were admitted by the concerned workman and since it was a serious offence and admitted by the concerned workman , punishment awarded was just and proper and does not require any interference .

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Mumbai dismissing the services of Mr. S. G. Kokate , an ex - Daftary , with effect from 29/3/2000 is justified? If not , what relief the workman concerned is entitled ? "

4. Rejoinder was filed by second party at Ex - 11 stating and contending that whatever he has stated in claim statement is true and correct and whatever stand taken by first party in written statement is not admitted to him. He further contended that , charge of misconduct was not proved against him and no full opportunity was given to him in the inquiry.He denied the so called contention taken by the first party and deny the complaint of Gajmal and deniedthat he admitted the charges leveled by Mrs. Gajmal. He prayed to reinstate with ancillary benefits .

5. In view of above contention; my Learned Predecessor framed issues at Ex- 12. Out of them , issues Nos. 1 & 2 were treated as preliminary issues which were onthe point of fairness of inquiry and perversity of findings . By passing part- I award on 15-11-2007 , this Tribunal observed inquiry not fair and proper and findings perverse. ThisTribunal directed both parties to appear on the point of action taken by the first party against the concerned workman.

6. So now, issue of decision taken by first party against the concerned workman remains which is taken for consideration and framed at Sr. No. 3 of Ex- 12 and answered asfollows:

2.Claim Statement is filed by the General Secretary ofUnion at exhibit - 8 making out case that, the concerned workman Shri S.G. Kokate was working with the first party. Whenhe wasworking as Daftary at Worli Sea face Branch, his services were illegally terminated and the said action was taken without following due process of law. He was illegally terminated . Enquiry conducted was farce. Charges were vague . No opportunity was given to the concerned workman to test the evidence of the firest party. The witnesses were not made available for cross to the concerned workman . No opportunity was given to the concernedworkman to justify the documents and evidence on which the management relied and observed concerned workman guilty of the charges . The report of the investigations made by one M. Prabhu was not made available for cross and as such said report was notjustified . He was not examined by the Inquiry Officer . Even said witness was not made available for cross to justify his report . Bank Manager who submitted report was also not examined and made available for cross . Concerned workman when was on leave was called and some writing was taken 8032

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYAΝΑ 21 , 1931 [PART II SEC. 3 ( ii )] Issues

Findings

Yes.

(iii) Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Mumbai in dismissing the services of Mr. S.G. Kokate anex -Daftaryw.e.f. 29-3-2000 isjustified?

No relief.

(iv) What reliefthe workman concemed is entitled?

Reasons

Issues Nos . 3 & 4

7. By raising dispute of termination , second party claim that he was illegally terminated and prayed to reinstate. It is his case that, he never gave confession on which officer of first party relied and held him guilty of misconduct . It is his case that , by bringing pressure , said confession was obtained from him . His case is that he never admitted guilt of charge of misconduct and responsible for alleged act.

8. At the time of passing Part - I award, the affidavit filed by second party remained unchallenged where in he claimed that no opportunity was given and inquiry was not fair and proper . Even he claims that , findings of Inquiry Officer was perverse .verse . Since said witness was not cross- examined by first party and since no inquiry proceedings wasplaced on record by first party, this Tribunal observed inquiry not fair and proper and findings perverse .

in the inquiry, father of Asha Gajmal was not examined. Evenwitness admits that father of Asha Gajmal did not complain about money not deposited by concerned workman. It is admitted by this witness that , concerned workman was working as Daftary and is not concerned with account opening activity. He admits that, he was present at the relevant time in the bank and he did not note any abnormal things during that period. He admits that, second party was of helping nature . He also admits that, deposit slip isat Ex -27by which Asha Gajmal has opened account and it bears signatures of Ms. Asha Gajmal , complainant and Warang the Cashier of the Bank. Then management examined Smt . Vaijayanti S. Sarafby filing her affidavit at Ex-31 in lieu of examination - in - chief and where she speaks about attendance of second party on 11-12-1997 when alleged confession letter was written by him. In the cross , this witness states that it was morning busy schedule of the bank . She stated that, second party was present and was writing in her presence. She states that, Kokate took 25 to 30 minutes to write that . Then management examined N.M. Warang at Ex - 32 by filing affidavit in lieu of examination- in- chief who speaks about Kokate's visit on 2-5-1996 when account of Asha Gajmal was opened, when he worked as a Cashier and accepted Rs . 500 given by Kokate. In the cross this witness admits that, there was crowd in the Bank as it was beginning of the month. Even he admits that he do not know Asha Gajmal . Headmits that, he learnt from Kokate about her . Even he unable to gather whether Asha Gajmal was present or not on that date in the Bank . He admits that Ex-27 is about Rs . 500/- and not more than that amount .

10. Then management examined Asha Gajmal by filing her affidavit at Ex-33 in lieu of examination- in-chief who narrated all the story of her attending Bank on 2-5-1996 to open savings account . She also states about Rs . 30,000 given by her father to Kokate , second party workman, to keep it in the bank as fixed deposit. In the cross , she states that, her father was working in Police Department who was a Constable . She states that she did notknow kokate but came to know on 2-5-1996 . She states that , though she was married , she opened her account in her old name . She admits that her father did not complain about concerned workman and on that management closed evidence by filing purshis at Ex-34 .

9. Now, this time first party to justify its action of termination , examined four witnesses . Witness Prabhakar T. Prabhu was examined by first party by filing his affidavit at Ex -29 in lieu of examination- in- chief where in he speaks aboutcomplaint given by Asha Gajmal alleging that, she gave Rs.5000 to second party workman Kokate to open new savings account . She alleged that second party Kokate accepted Rs.5000 and gave counterfoil with entry of Rs.5000/- but actually deposited Rs.500 mentioning said in the pay in slip. She alleges that, even Kokate gave pass book by making entry of Rs . 5000 in her savings account though actually he deposited Rs.500 in her account . She further alleges that , her father gave Rs.30,000/- to Kokate to keep it in the Bank as fixed deposit. She alleges that, Kokate accepted said amount and prepared passbook of Rs. 30,000 and gave it to her father but actually Kokate did not deposit said amount in the Bank . Even this witness alleges that , Kokate was called through Bank's watchman and on approaching bank he admitted the complaint of Gajmal and made a confessed in writing to that effect as well as deposited Rs . 12,000 . In the cross , this witness stated that, except these allegations, no other charge was leveled against second party. Even this witness alleges that except that complaint no other grievances about his work are there against second party. Even he admits that ,

11. Where as second party examined himselfby filing hisaffidavitat Ex -35 in lieu of examination- in - chief where he gave all story again regarding fairness of inquiry , as well as finding of Inquiry Officer and claimed that he is not responsible for said misconduct as alleged. In the cross he admits that, he did not complain about alleged confession takenby force from him in writing before Prabhu. He admits that he was working as Daftary in the branch . He admits that , he has not complained about Prabhu alleging that by using force he took that writing . On that he closed evidence by filing purshis Ex-36 .

8033 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

12. Written Arguments are submitted by First party at Ex-37 with citation which is replied by second party by filing written arguments at Ex-39 with some citations .

13. Perused written submission of both and the citations referred by them .

that is the fact, it required to be considered in the light of evidence produced by the Bank and the stand taken by second party. Though enquiry was held not fair and proper and findings on said enquiry was observed perverse , one has to consider what actually happened and what actually transpired ? As stated above charge of misconduct was leveled against second party . First party has succeeded in showing that concerned workman was involved in the misconduct as far as case of Asha Gajmal is concerned . Bank has succeeded in showing that concerned workman is guilty of misconduct by not acting properly with the customers of the bank . Even Bank succeeded in showing that , concerned workman misused power while working as Daftary of the Bank and cheated customers of the bank.

17. One has to note that, Bank is trustee and custodian of the money of the public . If allegations ofthis type are leveled against such employee and are proved , one cannot ignore such incident as it spreads in the staff and gives bad signal . Here according to me , the evidence brought on record and case made out by first party bank is more than sufficient to conclude that , employee of this type does not deserve any leniency as expected by second party. So I conclude that , punishment awarded against concerned workman of dismissal is just and proper and does not require any interference.

14. Here, case of second party revolve around alleged confession made by him on which bank rely. Copy of said confession is produced with Ex -27 page 5 & 6where he has written in his hand writing that Rs . 5000 was given by Ms. Asha Gajmal to open savings account but actually he deposited Rs.500 and gave slip of Rs.5000 by adding one zero on her receipt. Even in another confession , he admits that her father had given him Rs. 30.000 to keep it in bank as fixed deposit for six months . There he admitted that, instead ofkeeping said in the bank , he kept it with him and gave pass book mentioning Rs . 30,000 . Here it is to be noted that, second party is notdisputing the handwriting and contents of writing from copy of documents produced at page 5 , 6 of Ex- 27 . His case is that , said was taken by using force. However as referred above , second party in his cross admits that , he did not complain about said confession allegedly taken by using force . Even he admits that, he has not complained about Prabhu alleging that , he used force to take writing . He admits that, he did not complain anywhere about said act of the bank. That means concerned workman admits that , he gave said writing voluntarilyadmitting that he kept Rs. 4,500 in his custody and Rs . 30,000 of Asha Gajmal and her father respectively . One also cannot ignore that father of Asha Gajmal was in police.

18. First party has referred some citations more precisely citation published in AIR 1996 SC 1249, where it is observed that , punishment of dismissal in case of misappropriation isjust and proper . Even citation published in 2002 II LLJ SC 1599 where Apex Court observed that a bank deals with public moneys and misappropriation of that money must be treated very differently. It also observed that misconduct cannot be taken lightly . Same view is taken by Apex Court while deciding case of Ganesh Santa Ram Sirur V/ s . State Bank of India & anr . published in AIR 2005 SC 314 and citation published in 2003 (3 ) SCC 605. As far as citations referred by the second party's advocate are concerned, it is on the point of confession and on the point of enquiry which is not subject matter at this stage to consider since we are on the point of action taken by the management against concerned workman.

15. Here , charge of misconduct was leveled against concerned workman . Bank has produced copy ofcomplaint ofGajmal and copy of challan given to Gajmal ofRs . 5000 aswell as counter slip ofbank mentioning Rs . 500 regarding. same transaction at page 3 and 4 of Ex-27 . Said supports the story of the bank which reveals that concerned workman gave counter foil of Rs . 5000 to M/s . Asha Gajmal butatually he deposited Rs . 500 by mentioning said onthe copy of challan of the bank which was mentioned in the account of Asha Gajmal as a deposit of Rs . 500. Beside concerned workman deposited Rs . 10,000 as a penalty and he has not complained about said any where nor claim it from Bank nor he filed any complaint against bank to recover said amount .

19. Considering all these and case made out by both , I conclude that action of the management in dismissing the services of concerned workman is just and proper and does not require interference . Hence the order:

ORDER

Reference is rejected . A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

Date: 24-08-2009

16. No doubt, Bank has not produced Inquiry proceeding but has produced copy of finding of Inquiry Officer. When Bank rely on the confession of second party workman and concluded second party guilty of misconduct, as far as this is concerned , it is not challenged by the second party except saying that , said taken by force . However as stated above , second party did not complain about alleged act of bank by alleging that , Bank by using force obtained confession in writing from him . Even he admits that, he has not complained against Prabhu . When 8034

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 11 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3354.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार रिजर्व बैंक आफ इंडिया प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल-12011/2/2000- आई आर ( बी-1) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 1 Ith Novernber , 2009 S. O. 3354. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court-2Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Reserve Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 11-12-2009 .

[No. L- 12011/2/2000-IR (B - I )] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, MUMBAI Present : Shri A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT -2/1 of 2006

Employers in relation to the Managernent of Reserve Bank of India

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

AWARD

I.TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, by its Order No. L- 12011 /2/2000 IR (B - I) dated 28-12-2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

"Whether the demand raised by All India Reserve Bank Canteen Employees Federation against the management of Reserve Bank of India vide their letter dated 23-3-98 addressed to the Governor , RBI ( Copy enclosed) justified? If so , to what relief the concerned workman are entitled?"

2. Claim statement is filed by second party union at Ex. -8 and written statement by first party at Ex- 10 . Matter was fixed for framing issues .

3.However by Purshis Ex- 19 , union prayed to permit them to withdraw the reference . Hence the order :

ORDER

Vide Ex- 19 , reference is disposed of for want of prosecution.

Dated: 16-09-2009.

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, AT MUMBAI REFERENCE NO . CGIT-2/ 1 OF 2006 Employers in relation to the management of Reserve Bank of India

And

Their Workmen

The ChiefGeneral Manager , Reserve Bank of India , MainBuilding, Shahid Bhagat Singh Road, Mumbai -400 001 .

And

Their Workmen

All India Reserve Bank Employees Federation MAY IT PLEASE THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL Inthe above matter , the management has assured us that they will consider on demands favourably . Hence , we are not pressing our demands and such the same may disposed off.

Mumbai

Dated: 3-9-3009

TheGeneral Secretary , All India Reserve Bank Employees Federation , C/o . RBI Staff Canteen , AmarBuilding , 2nd floor , SirP. M. Road , Mumbai -400 001 .

APPEARANCES

For the Employer : Ms. Jonaki Sain , Representative .

For the Workmen : Mr. M. B. Anchan, Advocate . Mumbai , dated 16th September, 2009 .

ForAll India Reserve Bank Canteen Employee's Federation KESHAV K. MOOLYA, General Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 11 नवम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 3355.-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 8035

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

अधिकरण -2 मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एस-12012/6/2000- आई आर. ( बी- I ) ] अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 11th November, 2009 S. O. 3355.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.34/2000) ofCentral Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court-2Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the IndustrialDispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 11-11-2009.

[No. L- 12012/6/2000- IR(B -I) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI Present : Shri A.A.LAD , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT-2/34 of 2000

Employers in relation to the Management of State Bank ofIndia

State Bank of India OfficeoftheDeputy General Manager , Zone - I Old Prabhadevi Road Mumbai-400025.

AND

TheirWorkmen

Smt . Meena Ghosalkar

C/o . The DeputyGeneral Secretary State Bank of India Karmachari Sena StateBank of India, Zonal Office OldPrabhadevi Road Mumbai-400025.

APPEARANCES

Forthe Employer : Mr. M. G. Nadkarni Advocate For the Workmen : Mr. J. H. Sawant Advocate . - Mumbai , dated 4th September , 2009 .

AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , by its Order No. L- 12012/6/2000 IR (B - I) dated 25-5-2000/ 30-5-2000 in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of 4340G1/09-19

theIndustrial Dispute Act, 1947 have referred the following disputeto this Tribunal for adjudication :-

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofIndia, Mumbai by not regularising the services of Smt. Meena Ghosalkar is justified ? Ifnot , then what relief theworkman is entitled to ? "

2.Claim statement is filed by the concerned workman atEx-7 which is denied by the first party by filing written statement at Ex - 10 . Issues were framed at Ex- 11 . Even this reference was disposed of once , by passing award on 5-2-2003. Then it was restored on the strength of order passed in Mics . Appln . CGIT -2/ 1 of 2003 .

3. Now by Ex-21 second party reported that he does not want to proceed with the reference. Hence the order :

ORDER

In view of Ex- 21 , reference is disposed of for want of prosecution.

Date:4-9-2009

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 MUMBAI REFERENCE NO . CGIT-2/34 OF 2002

..First Party V/s. State Bank of India

Their Workmen (Smt . Meena Ghosalkar) ..Second Party Application for disposal ofReference for want of prosecution

MAYIT PLEASE YOUR HONOUR

Your Honour may be pleased to dispose of the Reference for want of prosecution as interested by workman.

Mumbai

Date: 4-9-2009

(JAIPRAKASH SAWANT) Advocate for Second Party Hon'ble Tribunal

May pass appropriate Orders in the matter (M.G. Nadkarni) Adv. For First Party (SBI )

नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3356. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नार्थदन रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 चन्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8036

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 25/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-41012/70/2001-आई आर. (बी-1) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 12th November , 2009

Onperusal of the pleadings of the parties , themain grievances of the workman is that he was not considered bythe management of respondent Railway Department for providing the work instead ofthe fact that he had worked with the management for 249 days from 7-11-1974 to 21-4-1976.As per the policy ofthe management , at the time ofnew recruitments , opportunity was to be afforded to the labour, who had ever worked with the department . He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal, Delhi Branch, but in compliance ofthe order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, opportunity to work was not afforded by the management .

S. O. 3356.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.25/2002) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court- 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Northern Railway and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 12-11-2009.

[No. L-41012/70/2001 -IR (B- 1)j

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CaseNo. I.D. No. 25/2002

Sh.Mauji Ram S/ o Sh . Meda Ram, R/ o Village Gousi Kheda, PO Sainlik Kalian, District Jind . (Haryana)

Applicant

Versus

TheDivisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, NewDelhi- 110001 .

Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe Workman : Sh . A. K. Batra, Advocate .

For the Management : Sh . N. K. Zakhmi , Advocate.

Themanagement ofrespondent Railway Department contested the claim of the workman by filing written statement. It is contended by the management that workman has not worked for 240 days in the preceding year from the date of termination , hence ; he is not entitled for the protection ofthe provisions of the Act. It is also contended by the management of the respondent department that reference is stale being referred after 25 years of accruing the cause of action . It is further contended by the management that rules in terms of PS No. 9191 and 9195, the casual labours , who had discharged for want of further work due to completion of work had to submit the written representation with documentary proofin this regard before 31-3-1987 . After getting such representation with proof, the name ofworkman was to be get of Live Casual Register , butthe applicant had failed to made a representation on or before 31-3-1987 . After 25 years without any cause , the workman raised the issue , which is not maintainable . It is furthermore contended by the management of respondent RailwayDepartment that workman has concealed the facts regarding the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal , Delhi Branch. The petition filed by the petitioner was disposed of in limne with the direction to the management to dispose of his representation by speaking order within one month from the notice of the order . The management of respondent department disposed of representation of the workman by speaking order . On the basis of above facts , the management of respondent RailwayDepartment has prayed for dismissal of the claim petition.

AWARD

Passed on 3-11-2009

Government of India vide Notification No. L- 41012/ 70 / 2001 /IR (B - 1) Dated 17-1-2002 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1.947 (hereinafter referred as the Act) , referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal :-

Bothofthe parties were afforded the opporutnity for adducing/ filing evidence , oral and documentary. The workman was examined as WW - 1 , whereas Shri Basant Lal , DPO, Northern Railway, New Delhi , was examined as MW- 1 . Workmanpreferred to file certain documents. Exhibit W-2isthe original certificate issuedby Railway Department regarding working days of the workman with Railway Department . Exhibit W - 3 is copy of the order passed on 8-12-1997 in O.A. No. 2234/97 by Central Adminisrative Tribunal , Principal Branch , New Delhi .

On the other hand the management of Railway Department preferred to file Exhibit M- 2, which is so called order passed by the prescribed authority on representation ofthe workman in compliance ofthe order dated 8-12-1997 "Whether the action of management of DRM, Northern Railway, New Delhi in not keeping the name of Shri Mauji Ram S/ o Sh . Meda Ram , Ex- Casual Labour in the Live Casual Labour Register under PWI, Jind is justified? If not what reliefthe workman isentitled?" 8037 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

passedbyCentral Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi . Exhibit-M-3 is the Circular Letter ofNorthwern Railway PS No. 9191. Exhibit M-4 is the Circular Letter of NorthwerntheRailway PS No. 9195. Exhibit-M-5 is the copy ofPSNo. 1666-Circular No. 381E/218 - I( iv), dated 16-7-1962 .

16-7-1962 inwhich the time for preserving the record relating to muster roll, salary Bills, labour page Sheets has been shown as five years .After five years from 1976 all the Pay Sheet, SalaryBills and Muster Rolls were destroyed by the management of the Railway and no document in support of the claim of the workman was available . Now the question ariseswhether the claim of the workman should beconsidered after such abnormal delay without showing the proper explanation of the delay? The workman worked up to 1976. These beneficial Circular Orders were passed by the management of the Railway in the years 1987 and workmanmade a representation in, 1997. He also preferred to file an Original Application before the Central Administrative Tribunal , New Delhi in 1997. No cause for delayhas been explained by the workman to approach the department with such an abnormal delay .As stated earlier , it is not disputed that the contents of Circular letter No. 9195 and 9191 were not in the notice of the workman . There should be balanced approach between the principle of natural justice and finality adjudication of the grievances ofthe workman. It cannot be said that principle of natural justice is anunlimited and unrestricted remedy available to the workman . The negligence of the workman should be considered very seriously by the Tribunal or any other adjudicatorybody while addressing the grievances of the workman. Hon'ble the Apex Court in several pronouncements has held that abnormal delay in raising the industrial dispute without showing any reasons for delay should be condoned . In Rattan Chand Samanta & Others Versus Union of India JT- 1993 (B)-SC -418 , Hon'ble theApex Court has taken the same view.

I have heard the parties at length and perused entire materials on record . Undisputedly, the workman had worked with the department of Railway from 7-11-1974 to 21-4-1976 . There was a Circular letter ofNorthern Railway PS No. 9191 regarding the consideration of those casual labours, who had worked as project casual labour and who were discharged for want of further work or due to completion of work and have submitted written representation with adequate documentary proof in this regard, so as to reach the concern Railway Divisional Officer on or before 31-3-1987 , will also be considered for the purpose of implementation of the scheme for the benefit of the labour . This scheme was further reiterated in Circular Letter No. PS No. 9195 dated 4-3-1987 to consider such Project casual labour , if they had applied with full particulars on or before 31-3-1987. In both of the Circulars, it is specifically mentioned that Railway Department may take immediate action to give publicity to these instructions through Circulars to be displaced in all Divisional Offices, important Railway Stations , and in such other manner as may be considered necessary . It is not disputed that these Circulars Letters were not properly circulated and the workman was not having any notice ofthe contents of the circular letters . It is nowhere mentioned that Railway Department through circulation of these circular letters failed to inform the workman to apply for the benefit mentioned in these circular letters . There is no iota of evidence adduced/filed by the workman to prove that he was not informed properly to exercise his right for the benefit mentioned in the circular letters .

Asstated earlier , the workman worked up to 1976 . Beneficiary Circular letters No. 9191 and 9195 were passed in 1987 and the workman resorted to the remedy after 10 years in 1997, without explaining the reasons . At the cost of repetition, the proper circulation and the notice of contents of these two Circular letters to the workman, is not disputed . Hence , I am of the view that the workman is guilty in raising the industrial dispute , abnormal delay without explaining the reasons and the industrial dispute is not maintainable being stale . On the other hand, the workman failed to prove that he was denied the right under the Circulars No. 9195 and 9191 deliberately by the respondent management . The workman failed to apply for the benefit in trems of the Circular letter No. 9191 and 9195 bythe date fixed, meaning thereby on or before 31-3-1987 . The reference is answered accordingly. Let Central Government be approached for publication of Award, and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

G.K.SHARMA, Presiding Officer He worked with the Railway Department in the year 1974-76 and first objection he raised in the year 1997. Meaning thereby for 21 years he kept mum and on one fine morning , he moved a represntation to the Railway Department , and thereafter , filed an Original appeal No. 2234 of 1997 before the Central administrative Tribunal , Principal Bench , New Delhi . the petition filed by the petitionerworkman , Mauji Ram along with two others was disposed of with the dierctions to the respondent management of Railway Department to consider the representation and disposed of the same with a speaking order within one month from the date of the receipt of the order. It was , however , made clear by the Administrative Tribunal that decision of the respondent management on representation of the workman will not give a fresh cause ofaction to the applicants .

नई दिल्ली , 12 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3357.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 चन्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 430/2005 ) The management within one month disposed of the petition of the workman by speaking order rejecting the claim ofthe workman on the grounds that after 11 years of time it is not possible to get the record relating to the workman . The management has also filed a Circular Letter Sl. No. 1666 and Circular No. 831E/218-1( E)( iv) , dated 8038

[PART II-Sec. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-41012/ 134/95- आई आर ( बी-1) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 12th November, 2009

-hadbeen provided to the management .He was not afforded proper and adequate opportunity of being heard and an enquiry,was conducted against the principle of natural justice. Thedisciplinary authority without apply his mind nas awardedthe punishment arbitrarily without considering the fact ofadequacy of punishment. Just for unauthorized absence of few days , his services were terminated by the disciplinary authority. His appeal was also dismissed without applying the mind by the Appellate authority.

S. O. 3357.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.430/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court- 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Nothern Railway and their workmen , received by the. Central Government on 12-11-2009 .

[No. L-41012/ 134/95 -IR (B-I)]

AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM -LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I.D. No. 430/2005.

Sh . Rajinder Singh S/o Sh . Ujagar Singh, Village Buta Singh Wale , P. Banur, Tehsil Rajpura, District Patiala (Pb .)

.Applicant

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager, Nothern Railway, Ambala Cantt (Haryana).

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman : Sh . O.P. Batra, Advocate .

For theManagement : Sh . N. K. Zakhmi , Advocate.

AWARD

Passed on 3-11-2009

The management of respondent Northern Railway contested, the claim of the workman by filing thewritten statement. Itwas contended by the department ofRailways, in its written statement that workman was sanctioned sick leave from 19-5-1993 to 31-5-1993 . The DivisionalMedical Officer , Ambala, discharged him from siek leave on 31-5-1993 but the workman, Shri Rajinder Singh , did not report for the duties and absented himself unauthorizedly .Bynumber of letters he was informed tojoin for the duties , but invain. One ofthe letter returned to the office ofRailway Department withthe endorsement of refusal by the workman to receive , whereas , another letter was received by the father of the workman , Shri Ujagar Singh .On account of failure of the workman to join duties , even on repeated calls, the management decided to issue a charge-sheet . Accordingly, a charge -sheet was issued and the same was served upon the workman. Appropriate time for reply of the charge-sheet was given , but no relpy was filed..The management, accordingly, decided to conduct an enquiry andEnquiry Officer was appointed. The Enquiry Officer informed the workman twice to turn up and participate in the enquiry proceedings . It was on 21-05-1994 only that workman turned up to the office and requested for the duties .He was permitted by the management of Railway Department tojoin duties . The workman also participated in the enquiry proceedings. He was examined and from 21-05-1994 onwards , all possible opportunity ofbeing heard was given by the Enquiry Officer . On the basis of enquiry report, the disciplinary authority , after affording the opportunity of hearing awarded, the punishment of termination of services for long unauthorized absent. While awarding the punishment, the disciplinary authority also considered the fact that in the last three years , the workman absented for 601 days unauthorizedly.

Government of India vide Notification No. L -41012/ 134/95/IR(B- 1) Dated 1-10-96, by exercising its powers under Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred as theAct), referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal:-

Most of the facts are admitted to the workman. From 01-06-1993 to 28-04-1994, he was absent is admitted. The only explanation given by the workman is that he was seriously ill and was treated by the private doctors at his village. It is also contended by the workman that he had providedwith the certificate to the management.

"Whether the action of the management of DRM, Northern Railway, Ambala , in terminating the services ofSh.Rajinder Singh : S/o Shri-Ujagan Singh is illegal and justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled?"

Theworkman has requested for an ordersetting aside the order of termination dated 29-6-19944and for his reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service . As per the contention of the workman: he was seriouslywill and could not attend the office from 1-6-1993 to 28-4-1994 . He was under the treatment of private-doctors at his village and the certificate issued by private Doctors

Inthe cross-examination , recorded by this Tribunal , receiving of letters is admitted .It is also admitted that Enquiry Officer communicated letters at the address of workman.Only receiving of two letters is disputedby the workman . A particular sentence of the cross- examination is not to be considered in isolation, but entire evidence has to be considered and evaluated for the purpose of arriving at any conclusion . If the entire evidence is taken 8039 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21, 1931-

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

as awhole, the accumulative effect is that every information givenbythe Railway Departmant to the workmen reaches him. He was well informed about all the proceedings conducted by the Railway Department.

itwas only on 21-05-1994 that the workman turned up and requested for participation in enquiry proceedings . He was permitted to join the duties on the very day and he was also provided with the opportunity to participate in the enquiry proceedings . The enquiry proceedings dated 21-05-1994 reveals that Shri Rajinder Singh was afforded the opportunity to represent himself through the defence representative, but he refused to appoint any defence representative and requested for permission to defend himself. Accordingly, he was accorded the permission. His statement was recorded. He also apologize for his remaining absent for a long time.

The proceedings before the Tribunal and departinental proceedings are of a different nature . Any evidence, though not qualified in the term of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act, if has credibility, can be considered, accepted and relied upon in the dpartmental proceedings and proceedings before the Tribunal . The evidence before this Tribunal is reliable and having the credibility. Thus, for the reasons shown in the body of the award, I am ofthe view that a proper opportunity of being heard was given to the workman . He has deliberately absented himself from the duties without showing any causeofunauthorized absence . There has been no violation ofany rule ofprinciple of natural justice by the Enquiry Officerwhile conducting the enquiry.

The next issue. before this Tribunal is adequacy of the punishment. The disciplinary authority while awarding the punishment for unauthorized absence of the workman w.e.f. 01-06-1993 to 28-04-1994, has also considered the previous misconduct ofsimilar nature ofthe workman. The workmanhas absented himselfunauthorizedly for 601 days in preceeding three years . The dates of unauthorized absent are mentioned in a letter dated09-07-1994, which is atpageno . 62 ofthe file . I have gone though the documents of the Railway Department as provided with entire information of unauthorized absence of this workman regarding the previous punishment as well.

Regarding his absence from duty, he has given the contrary statement before the Enquiry Officer. His statement was recorded twice . On the previous occasion on 21-05-1994 hejust filed his written answer showing cause ofhis absence. He was again summoned by the Enquiry Officer and his statement was recorded on 30-05-1995 in detail. Inhis statement he has given two explanations . The firstexplanation given by him was that he was treatedby the private doctor at his village and could not turn up to office, whereas, the another ground for absent shown by the workman was that operation of his left hand was conductedby the PGI at Chandigarh. The workman filed fewMedical Certificates provided by Garg Eye and General . Hospital,Mohinderganj , Rajpura, but no certificate of his. treatment at PGI, Chandigarh , was filed and porvided with bythe workman , Four Medical Certificates ofGargEye and General Hospital, Rajpura were filed, whereas, the fifth one MedicalCertificate filed was from Aman Clinic and Lab. All theseMedical Certificates were not relied uponby the management . The workman was coming to Rajpura, but never visited the office and informed the management that he was seriously ill. In the ordinary course of nature it cannot be relied upon and believed that the workman was discharged by a well qualified doctor from sick leave on 31-05-1993 and from the very next day he required the medical assistance of a private Medical Practitioner. On 31-05-1993 , he was discharged by the Railway Doctor on his recovery and once he was discharged, it shall be considered that he required no medical treatment. Even after discharge by a Government Medical Practioner, if medical facility and treatment was required to the workman, this fact has tobe proved by the workman. The workman failedto prove the circumstances that his absence was due to his illness, his sickness and he was treated by a private Medical Practitioner. Only Medical Cetificates have been provided and filed. No Medical prescription and prescription for the clinical examination have been provided with by the workman. Before issuing the Medical Certificate, as per the Medical Certificate , the workman wastreated for a particular disease . The findings of clinical examination and the Medical Prescription ( medicines prescribed) is the condition precedent . The same had not beenprovidedwith.

Discipline is the backbone of any institution. From the letter dated 09-07-1994, it is well clear that workman was inthe habit of making unauthorized absent. It not only affects the work of an individual workman but the work culture of the institution as well. In my view, the inaction resulting in indiscipline of a workman should not be tolerated and the disciplinary authority has rightly shown him thewayout from the Railway Department. The workman, who was in the habit of making unauthorized absent and guilty of inaction due to indiscipline , does not deserve any sympathy. Thus , the punishment awarded to the workman by the disciplinary authority does not require any interference, and in the view of this Tribunal, it was appropriate punishment . Accordingly, the reference is answered. Let Central Government be approched. for publication of Award, and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer Principle of natural justice is not unlimited and unrestricted right of the workman . The workman had challenged the termination order under the content of principle of natural justice by stating that enquiry was conducted against the rules and proper opportunity for hearing was not given to him . On perusing the entire evidence, oral and documentary , I am of the view that enquiry was conducted as per the rules of Railway Department and proper opportunity of being heard was given to the workman. He was repeatedly askedby the RailwayDepartment and by Enquiry Officer to turn up, but 8040

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/ AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3358, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4 ऑफ 2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-12012/48/2007- आई आर ( बी- II) ]

यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th November, 2009 S.O. 3358.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 4 of 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetweenthe employees in ralation to the management ofPunjab National Bank and their workman, which was receivedbythe Central Government on 12-11-2009.

[No. L- 12012/48/2007-IR(B- II) ] U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- L, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I. D. 4 of2008

Sh.Lakhwinder Singh Bhatti S/o . Shri Amar Nath, Subhash Nagar , Opp . Shiv Bhumi , Abohar

V/s.

The Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, TheMall, FerozpurCity, Ferozpur

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman

:None

For the management :Shri S. B. Gupta

AWARD

Passed on 28-10-2009

1. Government of India, Ministry of Labour , videNotification No. L- 12012 /48 /2007 IR (B - II ) , dated 26thOctober , 2007 by exercising its powers under Section 10ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), referred the following industrial dispute for adjudicationto this Tribunal:

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] "Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of Sh. Lakhwinder Singh w.e.f. 24-9-1995 without followingthe provisions ofSection 25 -F, 25 -G of the ID Act, 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to and to what extent ?

2.Case repeatedly called . None appeared on behalf ofthe workman. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his case. In view of the avobe as the workman.is not appearing to pursue his case, the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution. Central Govt.be informed. File be consigned.

Chandigarh Dated:28-10-2009 CampatAmritsar

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

का.आ. 3359. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एवं सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण -1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 53 ऑफ 1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-12012/ 139/97- आई आर ( बी- II) ]

यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th November, 2009

S.O. 3359.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 53 of 1998) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -I, Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the empployees in ralation to the management ofPunjab and Sind Bank and their workman, which was received bythe CentralGovernment on 30-10-2009.

[No. L- 12012/139/97-IR (B-II)] U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH

Case No. I. D. 53 of 1998

Sh.Tarlochan Singh S/o. Shri Ram Singh, Karawala Chowk, House No. 415, EA/3, Dai Wali Gali , Patiala- 147001 8041 [भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

Vs.

TheAssistant General Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank,

PassyRoad,

Patiala-147001

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetween the management of Central Public Works Department and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16-11-2009.

[No. L-42012/ 141 /2003- IR (CM- II)] APPEARANCES

:None

For the workman

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

:Shri J. S. Sathi

For the management

AWARD

BEFORE SHIRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, OGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Passed on22-10-2009

Case No. CGIT/NGP/82/2004

Date 30-10-2009

TheGovernment of India, Ministry ofLabour, vide Notification No. L- 12012/ 139/97- I.R. (B- II ) dated 27th February, 1998 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) , referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

Petitioner/PartyNo. 1 : Shri J. S. Sudame, General Secretary, All IndiaCPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan , Takli seem Hingna Road, Post-Jaitala, Nagpur

Vs.

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab and Sind Bank in terminating the services of Sh . Tarlochan Singh w.e.f. 1-1-1997 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the said workman is entitled and from what date ?"

Respondent/Party No.2 : The Executive Engineer, Central PublicWorksDeptt., (Electrical), Bungalow No. 17/B , Civil Lines ,Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated:30thOctober , 2009) 2.Case repeatedly called. None appeared on behalf ofthe workman . Management witness Sh . Surinder Mohan Singh Sethi is present for his cross- examination. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue his case . In view ofthe above as the workman is not appearing to pursue his case,the present reference is returned to the Central Govt . forwant ofprosecution . Central Govt . be informed. Filebe consigned.

Chandigarh

Dated: 22-10-2009

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 16 नवम्बर , 2009

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri J. S. Sudame , General Secretary,All IndiaCPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan, Nagpur (Party No. 1) and the executive Engineer, Central PublicWorks Deptt. , (Electrical ), Bungalow No. 17/B , Civil Lines,Nagpur(PartyNo. 2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-42012/ 141 /2003- IR (CM- II) dated16-08-2004under clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial DisputeAct, 1947 (14 of 1947) with the following schedule.

का.आ. 3360, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. 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 82/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआं था।

[ सं. एल -42012/ 141/2003- आई. आर. ( सीएम- II) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th November , 2009

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/NGP/80/2004

Date 30-10-2009

Petitioner/Party No. 1 : Shri J. S. Sudame,

General Secretary, All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan, Takli seemHingnaRoad, Post-Jaitala, Nagpur Versus.

27-3-2000 and his services were illegally terminated with themalafide intension on 1-1-2003 .He had worked for more than 240 days in every year and thus he is in continuous service since 2000. Notice pay was not given to the werkman at the time of termination of his service. No seniority list was maintained . It has violated the provision of Section 25(g) and (h) of ID Act . Currently he is out ofemployment and he has prayed as indicated above . Undisputedly, the Petitioners were engaged through contractor. They were the employees ofthe contractor. In view ofthe principles reported in Umadevi's case , it is clear that the management oremployer can employ any workman on the contract basis , directedly or indirectly. Admittedly they were engaged through contractor this itself indicate that they were the employees ofthecontractor . Therefore, there is no question ofregularization when they were not at all the employees ofthe management.CPWD .

Respondent/Party No. 2 : The Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Deptt. , (Electrical),BungalowNo. 17/B, Civil Lines , Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 30thOctober, 2009)

3. Moreover, the contractor is not a party to the proceedings . Unless he is impeded as party, there is no question ofpaying any compensation as per the provision of Section 25F andG. Similarly, when they are not the employees of the CPWD, they cannot be either reinstated or their service cannot be also regularized . Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed. The referencewillhave to be answered in negative .Accordingly, I pass the negative award that the Petitioner is not entitled forany relief. Hence , the claim stands as rejected.

Date:30-10-2009.

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri J. S. Sudame , General Secretary,All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan, Nagpur (Party No. 1) and the Executive Engineer , Central PublicWorks Deptt. , (Electrical ), Bungalow No. 17/B, Civil Lines,Nagpur(Party No. 2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-42012/ 140/2003 - IR (CM-II) dated 16-08-2004 under clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) ofSection 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule.

A.N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 16 नवम्बर , 2009

"Whether the contract between the management ofCPWD and Contractor is sham and whether the demandoftheAll India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan for regularization/absorption of Sh . Gulabrao Hingway , Wireman in the establishment ofCPWD is legal andjustified? Ifso, towhat reliefthe concern workman is entitled ?" का.आ. 3361. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सी. पी डब्ल्यू. डी. 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 80/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-42012/140/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 16th November , 2009

S.O. 3361. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 80/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetweenthe management of Central Public Works Department and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16-11-2009 .

[No. L-42012/140/2003- IR(CM - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

2. Heard the counsel for the Petitioner . Nobody appeared for the respondent . The Petitioner has prayed to reinstate and regularize his services from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential relief with the fullbackwages. It is the case of Petitioner Shri Gulabrao Hingway that he was employed as a Wireman w.e.f. 1-9-2001 and his services were illegally terminated with the malafide intension on 1-1-2003 . He had worked for more than 240 days in every year and us he is in continuous service since 2001. Notice pay was not given to the workman at the time of termination of his service. No seniority list wasmaintained. It has violated the provision of Section 25 (g) and (h) of ID Act . Currently he is out of employment and he has prayed as indicated above . Undisputedly, the Petitioners were engaged through contractor . They were the employees of the contractor . In view of the principles.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

reported in Umadevi's case , it is clear that the management oremployer can employ any workman on the contract basis, directly or indirectly. Admittedly they were engaged through contractor this itself indicate that they were the employees ofthe contractor. Therefore , there is no question ofregularization when they were not at all the employees ofthe management CPWD.

3. Moreover, the contractor is not a party to the proceedings. Unless he is impeded as party, there is no question ofpaying any compensation as per the provision of Section 25F and G. Similarly, when they are not the employees ofthe CPWD , they cannot be either reinstated or their service cannot be also regularized . Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed. The reference will have to be answered in negative. Accordingly, I pass the negative award that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Hence , the claim stands as rejected.

Date:30-10-2009.

A. N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 16 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3362, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 74/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [ सं. एल-42012/134/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th November, 2009 S.O. 3362. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 74/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Public Works Department and their workman, received by the Central Government on 16-11-2009.

[No. L-42012/ 134/2003 - IR ( CM - II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRIA.N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/NGP / 74/2004

Date 30-10-2009

Petitioner/Party No. 1 Shri J.S. Sudame ,

General Secretary,

4340G1/09-20

8043

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

All India CPWD(MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan, Takli seemHingna Road , Post-Jaitala, Nagpur

Versus

Respondent/Party No. 2 : The Executive Engineer,

Central Public Works Deptt . , (Electrical ), Bungalow No. 17/B, Civil Lines , Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 30th October , 2009 )

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri J. S. Sudame, General Secretary,All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan , Nagpur (Party No. 1 ) and the executive Engineer , Central Public Works Deptt. , (Electrical), Bungalow No. 17/B , Civil Lines , Nagpur (Party No. 2 ) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-4212/134/ 2003 - IR( CM - II) dated 28-07-2004 under clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial DisputeAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule.

2." Whether the contract between the principal employer i.e. CPWD and the contractor is sham ? If so , the demand of the All India CPWD ( MRM ) Karamchari Sangathan for regularization/absorption ofSh. Shriram Waghmare, Khallasi is justified and to whatrelief he is entitled ?"

3. Heard the counsel for the Petitioner . Nobody appeared for the respondent . The Petitioner has prayed to reinstate and regularize his services from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential relief with the full back wages . It is the case of Petitioner Shri Shriram Waghmare that he was employed as a Khalasi w.e.f. 27-3-2000 and his services were illegally terminated with the malafide intension on 1-1-2003 . He had worked for more than 240 days in every year and thus he is in continuous service since 2000. Notice pay was not given to the workman at the time of termination of his service . No seniority list was maintained . It has violated the provision on Section 25(g) and (h) of ID Act . Currently he is out of employment and he has prayed as indicated above . Undisputedly, the Petitioners were engaged through contractor . They were the employees of the contractor. In view of the principles reported in Umadevi's case , it is clear that the management or employer can employ any workman on the contract basis , directly or indirectly . Admittedly they were engaged through contractor this itself indicate that they were the employees of the contractor. Therefore , there is no question ofregularization when they were not at all the employees ofthe management CPWD.

4. Moreover, the contractor is not a party to the proceedings. Unless he is impeded as a party, there is no 8044

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD (Dated: 30th October, 2009)

question ofpaying any compensation as per the provision of Section 25F andG. Similarly, when they are not the employees ofthe CPWD , they cannot be either reinstated or their service cannot be also regularized. Hence , the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed. The referencewill have to be answered in negative.Accordingly, I pass the negative award that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Hence , the claim stands as rejected.

Date:30-10-2009.

A. N. YADAV, PresidingOfficer

नई दिल्ली, 16 नवम्बर, 2009

1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdispute between Shri J. S. Sudame , General Secretary,All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan, Nagpur(PartyNo. 1) and the Executive Engineer , Central PublicWorks Deptt. , (Electrical ), Bungalow No. 17/B , Civil Lines , Nagpur (Party No. 2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-42012/ 139/2003 - IR ( CM - 11 ) dated 29-07-2004 under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

का.आ. 3363. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सी. पी डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बी-त्र , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 73/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल -42012/139/2003 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

"Whether the contract between the management of CPWD and the Contractor M/ s Agrawal Electrical Services is sham ? If so , the demand of All India CPWD ( MRM ) Karamchari Sangathan for reinstatement/regularization of Shri Neelkanth Wankhede , Khalasi in the establishment of CPWD is justified and to what relief he is entitled ?"

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th November, 2009

S.O. 3363. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 73/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Public Works department and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 16-11-2009 .

[No. L-42012/139 /2003 - IR (CM -II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT /NGP/ 73/2004

Date 30-10-2009

Petitioner/Party No. 1 Shri J. S. Sudame ,

All IndiaCPWD ( MARM)

3. Heard the counsel for the Petitioner . Nobody appeared for the respondent . The Petitioner has prayed to reinstate and regularize his services from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential relief with the full back wages . It is the case of Petitioner Shri Neelkanth Wankhede that he was employed as a Khalasi w.e.f. 1-9-1997 and his services were illegally terminated with the malafide intension on 1-1-2003 . He had worked for more than 240 days in every year and thus he is in continuous service since 1997. Notice pay was not given to the workman at the time of termination of his service . No seniority list wasmaintained . It has violated the provision on Section 25 (j),(g) and (h) of ID Act . Currently he is out of employment and he has prayed as indicated above . Undisputedly, the Petitioners were engaged through contractor. They were the employees of the contractor . In view of the principles reported in Umadevi's case , it is clear that the management or employer can employ any workman on the contract basis , directely or indirectly. Admittedly they were engaged through contractor this itself indicate that they were the employees ofthe contractor . Therefore , there is no question of regularization when they were not at all the employees ofthe management CPWD.

Karamchari Sanghathan, Takli

Seem Hingna Road,

General Secretary, Post- Jaitala, Nagpur

Versus.

Respondent/Party No. 2 : The Executive Engineer , Central Public Works Deptt . , (Electrical), Bungalow No. 17/B, CivilLines , Nagpur .

4.Moreover, the contractor is not a party to the proceedings . Unless he is impeded as party , there is no question of paying any compensation as per the provision of Section 25F andG. Similarly, when they are not the employees of the CPWD , they cannot be either reinstated or their service cannot be also regularized . Hence , the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed . The [भांग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

8045

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

reference will have to be answered in negative . Accordingly, I pass the negative award that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Hence , the claim stands as rejected .

Date: 30-10-2009.

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर , 2009

Secretary, All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan, Nagpur (Party No. 1 ) and the executive Engineer , Central Public Works Deptt. , (Electrical) , Bungalow No. 17/B , Civil Lines , Nagpur ( Party No. 2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-4212/129/ 2003 - IR ( CM - II ) , dated 16-08-2004 under clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) ofSection 10 of Industrial DisputeAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following Schedule :

का.आ. 3364. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी डब्ल्यू, डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

2."Whether the contract between the management ofCPWD and Contractor is sham and whether the demandoftheAll India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan for resinstatement/ absorption of Sh . Mayaram More as Wireman in the establishment ofCPWD is legal andjustified ? If so , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?" .

[ सं. एल-42012/ 129/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th November, 2009

S.O. 3364. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 83/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Public Works Department and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 16-11-2009 .

[No. L-42012/ 129/2003 - IR ( CM - II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP/83/2004

Dated 26-10-2009

Petitioner/Party No. 1 : Shri J. S. Sudame,

3. Heard the counsel for the Petitioner . Nobody appeared for the respondent . The Petitioner has prayed to reinstate and regularize his services from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential relief with the full back wages . It is the case of Petitioner Shri Mayaram More that he was employed as a Wireman w.e.f. 12-08-1997 and his services were illegally terminated with themalafide intension on 1-1-2003 . He had worked for more than 240 days in every year and thus he is in continuous service since 1997. Notice pay was not given to the workman at the time of termination of his service . No seniority list was maintained . It has violated the provision on Section 25 (j ),(g) and (h) of ID Act . Currently he is out ofemployment and he has prayed as indicated above . Undisputedly, the Petitioners were engaged through contractor. They were the employees of the contractor . In view of the principles reported in Umadevi's case , it is clear that the management oremployer can employ any workman on the contract basis , directedly or indirectly. Admittedly they were engaged through contractor this itself indicate that they were the employees ofthe contractor. Therefore, there is no question ofregularization when they were not at all the employees ofthemanagement CPWD.

General Secretary, All India CPWD ( MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan , Takli seemHingna Road,

Post- Jaitala, Nagpur

Versus

Respondent/Party No. 2 : The Executive Engineer,

Central Public Works Deptt. , (Electrical), Bungalow No. 17/B , CivilLines,Nagpur

AWARD

4. Moreover , the contractor is not a party to the proceedings . Unless he is impeded as a party, there is no question ofpaying any compensation as per the provision of Section 25F and G. Similarly, when they are not the employees of the CPWD , they cannot be either reinstated or their service cannot be also regularized . Hence , the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed . The referencewill have to be answered in negative . Accordingly, I pass the negative award that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Hence , the claira stands as rejected.

(Dated: 26th October , 2009)

Date: 26-10-2009

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer 1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri J. S. Sudame , General 8046

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर, 2009

No.2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-42012/ 143/2003 -IR (CM - II) , dated 16-08-2004 under Clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of1947) . The Ministry initially send the reference by its letter dated 16-8-2004. However , later on it has issued a corrigendum vide letter dt. 18-11-2005 correcting it earlier scheduled. The corrected Scheduled is as follows:

का.आ. 3365.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सी. पी डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्यां 81/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-12012/ 143/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 16th November, 2009

2. " Whether the contract between the management of CPWD and the Contractor is sham andwhether the demand of All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan for reinstatement/ regularization and absorption of Shri Mohanlal Hingway as Khalasi/Wireman in the establishment of CPWD is legal and justified ? If so, to what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled ?" S.O. 3365.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industria! Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 81/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum -Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Public Works Department and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 16-11-2009 .

[No. L-42012/ 143/2003 - IR (CM- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP / 81 /2004

Dated26-10-2009

Fetitioner/Party No. 1 : Shri J. S. Sudame ,

General Secretary, All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan , Takli seem Hingna Road, Post- Jaitala, Nagpur (onbehalf ofShri Mohanlal Hingway)

3. Heard the counsel for the Petitioner . Nobody appeared for the respondent. The Petitioner has prayed to reinstate and regularize his services from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential relief with the full back wages. It is the case of Petitioner Shri Mohanlal Hingway that he was employed as a Wireman w.e.f. 1-9-2001 andhis services were illegally terminated with the malafide intension on 1-1-2003 . He had worked for more than 240 days in every year and thus he is in continuous service since 2001. Notice pay was not given to the workman at the time of termination of his service . No seniority list was maintained. It has violated the provision on Section 25 (f), (g) and (h) of I.D. Act. Currently he is out of employment and he has prayed as indicated above. Undisputedly, the Petitioners were engaged through contractor. They were the employees of the contractor . In view of the principles reported inUmadevi's case , it is clear that the management oremployer can employ any workman on the contract basis, directely or indirectly. Admittedly they were engaged. through contractor this itself indicate that they were the employees ofthe contractor . Therefore, there is no question ofregularization when they were not at all the employees ofthe management CPWD.

Versus

RespondentParty No.2 : The Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Deptt . , (Electrical), Bungalow No. 17B , CivilLines , Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 26th October, 2009)

4. Moreover , the contractor is not a party to the proceedings . Unless he is impeded as a party, there is no question ofpaying any compensation as per the provision of Section 25F and G. Similarly, when they are not the employees of the CPWD, they cannot be either reinstated or their service cannot be also regularized . Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed. The reference will have to be answered in negative . Accordingly, 1 pass the negative award that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Hence , the claim stands as rejected.

Date: 26-10-2009

A. N. YADAV , Presiding Officer 1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri J. S. Sudame, General Secretary, All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan, Nagpur (on behalf of Shri Mohanlal Hingway) (Party No. 1) and the Executive Engineer , Central Public Works Deptt . , (Electrical ), Bungalow No. 17/B , Civil Lines, Nagpur (Party 8047 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 16 नवम्बर , 2009

adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L-42012/ 142/2003-IR (CM- II) dated 9-8-2004 under clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial DisputeAct, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) . The Ministry initially send the referenceby its letter dated 9-8-2004. However , later on it has issued a corrigendum vide letter dated 9-8-2005 correcting its earlier scheduled. The corrected scheduled isasfollows:

का.आ. 3366, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सी. पी डब्ल्यू. डी. 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 75/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-42012/ 142/2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th November , 2009

2. "Whether the contract between CPWD and the Contractor M/ s . is Sham ? If so, the demand of the All India CPWD Karamchari Sangathan Nagpur for reinstatement absorption and regularization of Shri Udelal Banothre , Wireman, contract Workman inthe establishment ofCPWD is legal and justified and to what relief he is entitled to ?"

S.O. 3366. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 75/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Public Works department and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16-11-2009 .

[No. L-42012/142/2003- IR (CM- II )]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/NGP /75 /2004

Dated: 26-10-2009

Petitioner/Party No. 1 Shri J. S. Sudame ,

General Secretary, All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan , Takli seem Hingna Road , Post-Jaitala, Nagpur

Versus

3. Heard the counsel for the Petitioner . Nobody appeared for the respondent. The Petitioner has prayed to reinstate and regularize his services from the date of his initial appointment with all consequential relief with the full back wages . It is the case of Petitioner Shri Udelal Banothre that he was employed as a Wireman w.e.f. 17-3-2000 and his services were illegally terininated with the mala fide intension on 1-1-2003 . He had worked for more than 240 days in every year and thus he is in continuous service since 2000. Notice pay was not given to the workman at the time of termination ofhis service . No seniority list was maintained. It has violated the provision on Section 25 (j ) , (g) and (h) of I.D. Act . Currently he is out of employment and he has prayed as indicated above. Undisputedly, the Petitioners were engaged through contractor. They were the employees of the contractor. In view of the principles reported in Umadevi's case, it is clear that the management or employer can employ any workman on the contract basis , directly or indirectly. Admittedlytheywere engaged through contractor this itself indicate that they were the employees of the contractor. Therefore, there is no question of regularization when they were not at all the employees of the management CPWD .

Respondent/Party No. 2 : The Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Deptt . , (Electrical),Bungalow No. 17 B, Civil Lines , Nagpur

AWARD

(Dated: 26th October , 2009)

4. Moreover, the contractor is not a party to the proceedings . Unless he is impeded as party, there is no question of paying any compensation as per the provision of Section 25F and G. Similarly, when they are not the employees of the CPWD, they cannot be either reinstated or their service cannot be also regularized. Hence, the Petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed. The reference will have to be answered in negative . Accordingly, 1pass the negative award that the Petitioner is not entitled for any relief. Hence, the claim stands as rejected.

Date: 26-10-2009

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer 1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri J. S. Sudame, General Secretary, All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sanghathan, Nagpur (Party No. 1) and the Executive Engineer, Central Public Works Deptt . , (Electrical ), Bungalow No. 17/B , Civil Lines , Nagpur (Party No. 2 ) referred the same for 8048

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 17 नवम्बर, 2009

Dwara Sri Jal Singh atmaj Sri Jawali Ram ko dinank 1-1-1999 se sewase prathak karna nyayochit hai ? Yadi Nahi to sambandhit karmkar kis anutosh ka haqdar hai?

का.आ. 3367.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ए.एस. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण/ श्रम न्यायालय कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 44/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल -42012/207/ 2003- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 17th November , 2009

3.Brieffacts of the case are that the applicant claimant Jal Singh has alleged that he was working under the Archaeological Survey of India, Agra Mandal Taj Mahal Museum (hereinafter referred to ASI for the sake of brevity) with effect from 1-6-94 to 31-12-98 as regular employee and therefore he had also worked for 240 days in a year and he has acquired the status of a permanent employee . He has been removed from the service with effect from 1-1-99 without showing any reason and while removing him from the service the employers had also not followed the provisions ofSection 25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 . It is also alleged that the employer has also violated Section 25H and 25G of the Act. It is also alleged that junior employees to him are still working in the different museums and monument . Therefore , he has prayed that may be regularized in service and he be directed to be entitled for consequential benefits .

S.O. 3367. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 44/2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Disputebetweenthe management of Archaeological Survey of India, and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 17-11-2009.

[No.L-42012/207/2003 - IR(CM- II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PRAKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, SHRAM BHAWAN , ATI CAMPUS, UDYOG NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 44 of 2004

In the matter ofdispute between-

4.Theopposite party has contradicted the allegations of the claimant. It is alleged that ASI is a sovereign department ofGovernment of India and is not an Industry asper Section 2(j ) of Industrial Disputes Act . To maintain and preserve the ancient monuments the department engages numerous casual labourers on the basis of as and whenrequired for specificjob and for specified duration to work so that the work of conservation are completed within the stipulated period of time . Appointments in the department are made as per rules , guidelines and instructions issued by Government of India from time to time. It is stated that the applicant was never engaged with effect from 1-6-94. It is stated that they have not violated any provisions of the Act and onus lies on the claimant to prove the facts , therefore , prayed that the claim petition be rejected.

5. The applicant has filed an affidavit in support of hisclaim petition .

Sri . Jal Singh, Son of Jawali Ram, Resident of Sikari Do Hisa , Fatehpur Sikri , District-Agra .

AND

6. The opposite party has filed attested copies of the muster rolls for the period January 98 to December 98 , in complianceoforder dated 26-4-95.

TheSuperintending Archaeologist, Archaeology Survey of India , Northern Division , 22 Mall Road , Agra.

7. The claimant has adduced oral evidence as W.W. 1 of Sri . Jal Singh , despite affidavits the opposite party has also adduced oral evidence of M.W. 1 Sri . C. D. Mishra, Security Officer ASI Agra.

AWARD

8. I have gone through the whole evidence , perused the records thoroughly and heard the arguments of both parties at length . My findings are given below- 1. Central Government vide its notification No. L-42012/207/2003 /IR( CM- II), dated 29-2004, has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

9. I have examined the evidence of both the parties . M.W. 1 has stated that the claimant has worked in the 4 2. Kya Adhikshak Pratatvavid , Bhartiya Puratatva Sarvekshan Vibhag Uttari Mandal 22 , Mall Road, Agra 8049

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

he had no right to the post-as its disengagement held not arbitrary as case cannot be treated under the I.D. Act .

16. 2006 ( 108) FLR 213 SC RM Yellatti versus Assistant Executive Engineer-ID Act Section 25F- burden ofproofofthe completion of 240 days of continuous work in an year is on the claimant to show that he had worked for 240 days -burden is discharges as a witness - however mere affidavits or self serving statements by the claimant will not suffice any discharge of burden.- Since initial burden was not discharged by the workman- held industrial Court/ HighCourt had erred in ordering reinstatement .

17. 2006 ( 110) FLR 552 between ChiefEngineer Ranjit Sagar Dam and another and Shyam Lal. In I.D. Act 1947- Section 25F-continues for 240 days-onus to prove to be discharged by the workman.

18. It is also contended that for termination amounting to retrenchment, there should exist a master and servant relationship between the employer and the workman and where there is no appointment as per rule, therefore,there cannot be any termination or retrenchment.

19. It is also contended by the claimant thatjunior to him had been still working and continuing in service , though he has not named any person in his claim petition. In the statement he has stated that one Brahm Singh was also employed at the same time and still he is working but he stated in the corss examination that no appointment letter has been issued to Brahm Singh. Opposite party has stated that it is wrong to say that after his disengagement any other person has been engaged. It is stated that Bramh Singh is also a daily wager and was engaged before Jal Singh and he (Brahm Singh ) was engaged according to the need of the work. He is not working regularly. Therefore, this contention of the claimant is also not tenable that junior to him have been engaged or employed.

20. Therefore, in my view the claimant has not been ableto prove his case as a regular employee or a permanent employee of as worker and has worked for 240 days and had acquired status under the I.D. Act.

21. Therefore , there does not appear to be any violation of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. 22. Therefore, in my view the claimant has not been able to prove his case as initial onus lies on the claimant to provehiscase.Therefore , the reference is decided against the worker and in favour of the opposite party.

Dated: 9-11-2009

RAMPARKASH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3368.- 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 श्रम न्यायालय लेबर कोर्ट, कोल्हापुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40011 /22/2001- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ]

अजय कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th November, 2009 S.O. 3368.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Labour Court, Kolhapur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Disputebetweenthe employers in relation to the management ofDepartment of Telecom and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Government on 17-11-2009.

[No. L-40011 /22/2001 -IR (DU) ] AJAY KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE SECOND LABOUR COURT AT KOLHAPUR

CORAM: SHRIG B. PATIL, PRESIDING OFFICER SECOND LABOUR COURT KOLHAPUR Reference (IDA) No. 1/2002

BETWEEN

TheDivisional Engineer, Deptt. ofTelecom, OldLICBldg. Satara -415402

....Fisrt Party

AND

Shri P.K. Shingate ,

At. Salvan, Fost Mardhe, Tal. & Dist . Satara-415415.

....SecondParty APPEARANCE : Shri A. M. Peerzade, Advocate for First Pary, Shri D.N. Patil , Advocate for Second Party.

AWARD

(Date: 2-11-2009)

1. The Ministry of Labour , Government of India , New Delhi has referred this reference for adjudication of the Industrial Disputes between the first party employer and second party workman in terms whether action of The Divisional Engineer , Deptt. of Telecom , Satara i.e. first. party in terminating the service of second party workman w.e.f. 21-7-2000 is legal andjustified.

8050

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

2. The facts in brief in statement of claim are as under .

The second party educated up to S.Y.B. Com . He joinedthe first party as a Waterman - cum - sweeper at MDF &Power Plant Office with effect from 1-6-1992 . He was getting consolidated salary of Rs . 1000 per month . He was working sincerely and honestly. His back service record is clean and unblemished. His salary was paid on voucher continuously till June , 1997. The expenditure was shown on A.C.G. 20 account . The department was not giving other facilities like leave , overtime , bonus etc. So many workers are employed in the department like second party . The question ofpermanency was under consideration. The Central Government of India issued the circular in 1997 and directedthe Telecom Department including first party to make permanent the workers like the second party who were working since long and who have completed 5 years continuous service. After receiving of said circular, the first party did not bother to consider the direction . Moreover with a view to deprive the second party from benefits ofpermanency with effect from 1-8-1997 started to pay the salary on account of miscellaneous expenses without taking signature on receipt .

3. Since the joining, he was working with X bar telephone exchange at Satara . He was working from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. daily. No weekly holidays were given to him . No extrawages, overtime wages or alternate holiday was given to him . As a Waterman cum Sweeper he was to start water pump,hewas to clean ground floor and telephone exchange building, he was to watering the garden, he was to clean the power plant and battery rams and he was to watch the material and machinery etc. He was performing the duties under control of Assistant Engineer . The first party maintained the muster roll till June, 1997 , thereafter, no changewasmade regarding the nature of work, however, only change was made in respect of style of payment only.

4. He was in employment till 21-7-2000 . After 21-7-2000, after office hours, the Assistant Engineer Shri M.P. Deshmukh told that it is not necessary for the second partyto come for duty on 21-7-2000 as he was terminated from service. The second party requested him to give the written order and reasons of termination but same was not given. While terminating the service , the concerned authority did not give one month's notice or notice pay. Noseniority list was published nor compensation was paid. Hence, the termination is illegal .

5.Being aggrieved by the said order, the second party approached the first party and demanded reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages . But his demand was not considered , hence , he approached the conciliation machinery. During the conciliation, first party not given co-operation, hence, ConciliationOfficer recorded failure report and reference ismade to this Court . The second party has not committed any misconduct. No charge sheet was issued and no

[PART H-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] enquiry was conducted . While terminating the service, the principle of last come first go was not observed. Hence, termination for any reason whatsoever amounts to retrenchment without following the mandatory conditions under Section 25 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

6.The second party since the joining , worked for 240 days continuously . After June , 1997 , no muster was maintained, however, first party has record regarding the workdone bythe second party. He was working on holidays but no signatures were obtained . The documents are in custodyof first party. On these documents, it is clear that the first party has continued the second party in the employment till 21-7-2000. The first party is the department of CentralGovernment. The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 isapplicable to it . The work is still available . The work of the second party is being done by workers appointed through the Contractor, therefore , he prayed for relief of declarationthat termination effected by first party is illegal,. direction to the first party to reinstate him with continuity of service and back wages . Also prayed for wages of holidays since 1-6-1992 to 21-7-2000 .

7. The first party filed the written statement vide Exh . C- 11 and denied the averments in the statement of claim . The reference is false . It is not tenable . This Court has no jurisdiction to try and decide the reference . It is submitted that as per letter dated 29-5-1992 of Telecom District Engineer , Satara and with reference to his even number letter dated 17-12-1991 , contractor Shri P.K. Shingate i.e. second party was awarded the work of sweeping and waterman of Cross Bar Exchange Building, Satara. The record of S.D.E. Cross bar from 1-6-1992 to 30-5-1994 was not available in the office . Sub Divisional Engineer MDF and power plant Satara post was created in July, 1994 and record of the above case is available from 1-6-1994 to 30-6-1997 in this office.

8. Every month , the number of days on which the contractor hasdone the work were intimated to A.O. (Cash) Telecom District Engineer, Telecom District Manager , Satara and the charges were paid by the Accounts Officer (Cash) TDE/TDM, Satara every month with effect from 1-6-1994 to 30-6-1997 on monthly contract basis ofRs . 1000 and not on any acquittance roll . On several attempts the second party was warned for act of commission and omission. The facilities like leave , overtime , bonus are applicable to the regular employee ofBSNL, hence , rightfully the same was denied to Shri P.K. Shingate as he was contractor . There is no circular as nated by him . The charges are paid to Contractor for total days of financial year 1997-1998 .

9. He abandone the contract voluntarily with effect from 1-1-1998 to 31-3-1998 . Again he requested to have contract . So, contract was allotted the work with effect from 1-4-1998 to 31-7-1998 . Total 122 days for financial year 1998-1999 . The above Contractor was not allotted any 8051 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/ अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

termination ofhis service is illegal and it requires tobe set aside.

sweeping work and waterman work with effect from 1-8-1998. The duration of work was of 2-3 hours perday and work of Sweeping and Waterman was given on contract basis . No extra work was awarded by the first party. The payment was made to the contractor for total 234 days for the year 1997-1998 and for 122 days for year 1998-1999. He left the work from 1-8-1998 , hence , question oftermination with effect from 22-7-2000 does not arises . The second party has mentioned the wrong dates . The second party abandoned the contract from 1-8-1998 . He was not the employee of Department ofTelecom, therefore, question of notice or retrenchment compensation etc. does not arise.

14. The defence of the first party is that second party was inservicewith first party as a Waterman -cum-S oncontract basis . All the wages were paid to him when he actuallyworkedwith the first party. He is not the employee ofthe first party. He voluntarily left the contract from 1-8-1998, therefore , there is no any question oftermination of his service or payment of compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no relationship of employer and employee and therefore, the reference is bad inlawand not maintainable. The second party is not entitled for any relief, hence , reference is liable to be rejected .

10. The question of following of disciplinary procedure does not arise . The second party was not a workman , hence, question of principle of ' last come first go' and seniority list does not arise . It is totally wrong that since thejoining he has worked for 240 days continuously till 21-7-2000. There is no relationship of employer and employee between the parties . He cannot be treated as a workman under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is no relationship of employer and employee . The reference is bad in law. The second party is not entitled for any relief, therefore , the reference be dismissed.

11. My learned predecessor framed the issues vide Exh. O- 12. I answer the same for the reasons recorded below.

Issues

Findings

15. From the evidence of second party vide Exh . U- 14 and more particularly from the statement ofhim in his cross examination, it appears that the second party is not able to prove his claim . The second party is not able to prove that he was the employee of first party and there is termination of his service with effect from 22-8-1998 . On the contrary, from the statement of him in cross examination, it appears that the work of Waterman- cum- Sweeper was givento the second party on contract basis and when his contract came to an end, he did not apply to the first party for renewal of contract . In that regard, he stated that the firstparty paid wages to him of the months for which he worked with it. The contract was given to another. He never went to first party demanding the contract . The contract was for sweeping and for as waterman .

No (1) Whether reference is maintainable ?

(2) Whether termination of service of second party is legal ?

(3) Whether second party is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages as prayed for ?

(4) What award ?

Asper final order.

12. EVIDENCE : The Second party filed his

16. Along with him there were other contractors . Those contractors are in need of work. Their contract was renewed by first party. There is difference between his work and work of the permanent employee . This statement leads to the conclusion that second party was not the employee of first party but he worked with the first party for some period on contract basis . So, he is not entitled for benefits of permanent employee . He is not able to prove that he worked for 240 days continuously in a year as an employee with the first party. In that regard, there is no evidence by the second party.

evidence affidavit vide Exh . U- 14 . The first party did not

adduce any evidence .

REASONS

13. ISSUE NO . 1 & 2 : I have gone through the aforesaid evidence . Both the parties remained absent for arguments. The claim and evidence of second party in short , is that he was under employment of first party as a Sweeper- cum-Waterman since 1-6-1992 on the salary of Rs . 1000 per month . His service was terminated from 22-7-2000. The frist party has not followed the procedure while terminating his service . The benefits of permanent employee are not given to him as per the circular issued by the Central Government in the year 1997. The first party not published the seniority list nor given notice or notice pay and compensation when his service was terminated . Therefore,

17. The second party averred that all the documents in respect of his work are in custody of the first party but he was not taken any steps to call for the said documents in order to prove his claim . In other words , he is not able to establish the relationship of employer and employee in between first party and him . The second party also not taken any efforts to produce the circular issued by the CentralGovernment in the year 1997, so it is not possible to held that there is termination of service of second party bythe first party and that too by discharging the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . The evidence led by second party falls short . As there is no relationship of employer and employee , the reference is not maintainable . The second party is failed to prove the issue No. 2, therefore , I answer the issue Nos . 1 and 2 in negative .

4340 G1/09-21 8052 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii )]

BarodaCorporate Centre,

C-26,G-Block,

Bandra(E),

Mumbai-400051 .

And Their Workmen

Shri. Suresh K. Valmiki

18. ISSUE NO. 3:-The second partyprayed forthe reliefofdeclaration that termination ofhis service is illegal, hisreinstatement in service with its continuity and full backwages. In view of the finding given to the issue nos. 1&2, it is clear that the second party is not entitled for any relief. Hence, 1 answer this issue in negative and pass the following order :

FarberlineNearBarrack No.30 ,

ORDER

ValmikiNagar,

Ulhasnagar- 1,

1. The reference is dismissed with cost.

Distt. Thane.

2.The award be drawn accordingly.

APPEARANCES

3. Inform to the Central Government,

Forthe employer : Mr. L.L.D' Souza Representative .

Forthe workmen: No appearance.

Place :Kolhapur Dated 2-11-2009

Mumbai ,dated the 29th September, 2009 AWARD

G. B. PATIL, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम्बर , 2009

1. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour , by its Order no. L- 12012/50 /2005 - IR(B - II) dated 13-7-2005 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication-

का.आ. 3369.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 )- की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण 2 , मुंबई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/89 दिनांक 29-9-09 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 30-10-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda,BarodaCorporate Centre, Mumbai by illegally terminating the services of Shri Suresh Valmiki is justified ? Ifnot , what relief, Shri Suresh Valmiki is entitled to?"

[ सं. एल-12012/50/2005- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th November , 2009

2. Claim Statement is filed by second party at Ex-5 andwritten statement by first party at Ex- 9 . Issues were framed at Ex- 12 and matter was fixed for evidence of workman. However second party workman is absent since long. Considering said absence of second party, it is concluded that, the second party workman is not interested in the reference . Hence the order:

ORDER

Reference is disposed of for want ofprosecution. Dated29-09-2009.

S.O. 3369.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/89 dated. 29-9-09) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunai 2,Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 30-10-2009.

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer [No. L- 12012/ 50/2005 - IR (B- II) ]

नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम्बर , 2009

U.S. PANDEY, Section Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

Present: A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT -2/89 of 2005

का.आ. 3370.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , 1 चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 81/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Employers in Relation to the Management of Bank of Baroda

[ सं. एल -12011/155/2006- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी The General Manager HRM & GA Bank ofBaroda 8053

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/ अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 17th November, 2009

ofthe parties, the main issues for determination before this Tribunal are:-

(1) Whether the management of respondent bank has conclusive decision in interview for promotion of class III employees to the Special Assistant?

(i) Whether the seniority of Smt . Asha Miglani was violated by the management , ignoring her for promotion to the post of Special Assistant ?

S.O. 3370. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 81/2007) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -I Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was receivedbythe Central Government on 11-11-2009 .

[No.L- 12011/155/2006- IR (B- II) ]

(iii) Whether Smt . Asha Miglani was entitled for promotion to the cadre of Special Assistant w. e. f. 27-07-2004?

U.S. PANDEY, Section Officer

(iv) Relief, ifany?

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. No. 81/2007

General Secretary, Punjab National Bank Worker's Union, 388, Sector 12 Urban Estate , Panipat, Haryana.

...Applicant

Versus

The Senior Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank,

Karnal

.Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

: Sh . S. K. Rana, General Secretary

For the Management :

Sh . Ashok Goyal, Rep . of

Bank

AWARD

Passed on 30-10-2009

The main controversy between the parties is that Smt. Asha Miglani with others was interviewed by the Interview Board for the posting of Special Assistant. Smt. Asha Miglani was not approved for the promotion, whereas , his junio: Shri Rakesh Gera was approved for the promotion against the post of Special Assistant at Branch Office, Chora. The post of Special Assistant was also vacant atPanipat, but it was not declared vacant at the time of interview by management of the respondent bank. Junior to Smt . Asha Miglani , Shri Rakesh Gera was selected on 27-07-2004 and on the very day he was given the letter to joinBranchOffice, Chora as a Special Assistant. Thereafter , Shri RakeshGera without joining at Branch Office , Chora was attachedat Subji Mandi Branch, Panipat and thereafter , after some time was again transferred to some other Office. The appointment of Shri Gera and his subsequent repeated transfers has been challenged by the workman on the ground that the transfers were made against the policy of management of respondent bank. The workman has also challenged the right of Interview Board to reject any person, just on the basis of interview without considering other criteria. It is the contention of the workman that Interview Board has nothing to do substantially in the matter of approval for promotion of a clerk to Special Assistant. They have to protect the seniority and other criteria mentioned inthe rules ofmanagement of respondent bank. It is further contended by the workman that with an ulterior motive to give the illegal benefit to Shri Gera, who has been closed to the new appointed Director of the bank, Shri M.L. Bagga , the then Special Assistant posted at Karnal , the management has designed the manipulation.

Government of India vide Notification No. L- 12011/ 155/2006/IR(B - II) Dated 2-7-2007, by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act), referred the following Industril dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal . Thereafter, corrigendum was also issued by the Ministry ofLabour, Government of India, vide No. L- 12011 /155/2006/ IR(B - II) Dated 2-7-2007 , which reads as under :-

After the rejection, Smt . Miglani raised industrial dispute and on the basis of settlement , she was again interviewed for the post of Special Assistant and was again rejected with the remarks " She lacks banking knowledge (routine)."

Thereafter appeal preferred by Smt . Asha Miglani wasalso dismissed . She again raised the industrial dispute and on account of failure of conciliation report , this reference.

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in change of orders of posting of Shri Rakesh Gera, Special Assistant form branch office Chora Panipat to branch office Subji Mandi , Panipat isjust and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman Smt . Asha Miglani is entitled ?"

The Management of respondent bank opposed the contention ofthe workınan by filing written statement . It is contended by the respondent bank that if the Interview Board, constituted for the purpose of selection of Special After receiving the reference and the corrigendum, parties were afforded the opportunity of being heard. They filedtheir respective pleadings . On perusal of the pleadings 8054 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC . 3(ii )]

(c) Cashiers, Godown -keepers , Typists and Stenos who have worked for 7 years in the clerical cadre shall be eligible for posting as Spl . Asstt. , ifthey have worked on clerical duties for at least two years , even though on part- time basis.

(d) He is not otherwise considered unfit for posting as Spl . Asstt . for exceptional reasons to be specified inwriting.

Assistant has no say, there was no reason for such a provision tobe incorporated in the rules for conducting interview . The intention of legislature (Rules and Regulations) is very clear that Interview Board for the post ofSpecial Assistant is to be constituted for the purpose of ascertaining suitability for the post of Special Assistant . Apart from other criteria the Interview Board has powers/ discretion to reject any candidate . It is further contended bythe management of the respondent bank that there was no ulterior motive to give any illegal benefit and to accommodate Shri Gera for his selection as Special Assistant and for his posting at a particular place.

(e) A comparativelyjunior person in priority list may beposted for ajob , which is regarded as technical orof specialized nature .

On the basis of the respective contentions of the parties and other materials on record, I am answering the issues one by one .

(f) An employee who has received punishment for any misconduct except the punishment of warning or censure shall not be eligible for consideration for posting as Spl . Asstt. for a period of two years from the date of punishment . Punishment of warning

First of all I have to consider the powers of the Interview Board given in the rules . The policy regarding the posting of clerks as Special Assistants and related matters , Circular No. 124 dated 03-01-2003 is on record . Schedule to this policy is relating to eligible criteria, length of service, procedure for selection and assessinent of suitability. Rule 2 of this Schedule, which is relating to eligible criteria reads as under :-

2. Eligibility Criteria :

Anemployee in clerical cadre coming highest in the priority list and not otherwise ineligible shall be eligible for posting as Special Assistant.

Provided that :

(g) An employee under suspension or against whom departmental enquiry is pending or who has been charge sheeted may be called for interview but shall not be eligible for posting as Special Assistant till he is exonerated of the charge. If ultimately he is not to be guilty and he has been approved by the interview Committee , the Bank shall post such an employee as Special Assistant from the date such decision exonerating him I taken. In that case he will be entitled to notional seniority w. e. f. the date he would have been posted, but for the disciplinary action. In case of punishment being awarded for misconduct, he shall not be posted as Special Assistant and will not be eligible for posting as Spl . Asstt. for I or 2 years , as the case may be, in terms of above Clause(f) .

(a) He has continuously served in clerical cadre for a minimum period of seven years and on clerical duties for a period of at least two years . The 7years period may, however, be reduced suitably in areas where persons of minimum service of 7years are not available.

Explanation:

Rule 3 is relatingto priority list . Rule 3 -A is relating to length of service , whereas , Rule 3 -B is relating to Educational and other qualifications . Rule 4 is relating to the assessment of the suitability. Rule 4 reads as under:---

4. ASSESSMENT OF SUITABILITY :

(1) Eligible employees in clerical cadre maybe called for interview to determine their eligibility for posting as Spl . Asstt. as per the priority list prepared in accordance with the provisions referred to above .

In a situation where an employee with 7 years or more of service has less priority marks than an employee with less than 7 years of service, employees who has served in the clerical cadre for a minimum period of 7 years shall rank higher in the priority list than the employee who has not served in the clerical cadre for 7 years although havingmorepriority marks . Similarly in situation where 7 years period has been reduced interms ofClause 2(a) above, an employee with 6 years of service will rank higher in priority list than an employee with 5 years of service in clerical cadre withmore priority marks and so on.

(ii) The number ofcandidates to be called for interview shall in the ratio of 1 : 1.5 i . e . number of candidates shall be 50 per cent more than the total vacancies ofSpl . Asstts to be filled up in the area, to account for the shortfall due to candidates being assessed unsuitable , rejection/refusal to accept posting on approval and to avoid repetition ofthe selection procedure.

(b) The condition oftwo years' clerical experience shall notapply in the cases ofemployees having worked for 7 years in the clerical cadre and carrying composite designation of Clerk-eun-- However, pending posting ofSpl .Asstt. They shall perform composite duties as and when required.

(iii) The interview Committee consisting of Bank Executives shall be constituted by the Bank. The candidates approved after the interview, shall be [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ranked in the order oftheir position in the priority list. The Interview Committee shall record the reasons for assessing a candidate as not suitable forthe post ofSpl. Asstt. The reasons as recorded by the Interview Committee shall be communicated to the employee concerned , simultaneously with the release ofposting orders to the approved employees.

(iv) All the candidates approved for posting as Spl. Assttt. Shall be kept in a panel prepared in the order of their position in the priority list and postings shall be made accordingly. As far as possible, postings shall be made in the same Region, inwhich the candidate is posted, subject tothe availability ofthe vacancies, in the order of position in the panel . If all the candidates approved for posting as Spl. Asstt. , cannot be posted in the same Region , for want ofvacancies, the remaining candidates in approved panel shall beposted in the Regions within the group as per Annexure-I .

(v) If the vacancies remain unfilled after offering posting to all the candidates einpanelled for posting as Spl . Asstt . the candidates down in the priority list andwho were not called for interview earlier may be considered . The number of candidates to be called for interview shall again be inthe ratio of 1 : 1.5 i e. the number of candidates tobe called for interview shall be 50% more than the unfilled residual vacancies of Spl . Asstt. to be filled up in the area . Those who had failed to attend the interview on earlier occasion for valid reasons may also be called for interview.

(vi) Ifinthe meanwhile appeals as per Clause B herein below are received and the number of such appeals is more than the number of unfilled residual vacancies , then the interview referred to inClause (V).

(v) Above may not be held and vacancies may be adjusted as explained in para B herein below.

Theplane reading of the entire legislative provision i.e. the Policy and Procedure concerning posting of clerk asSpecial Assistant and related matters , it is evident that before that after assessment of vacancies for Special Assistant as per rule 1 of the Schedule, a priority list has to be prepared by the management of the respondent bank. The eligibility criteria for the priority list have been mentioned in the rules in detail . Length of service , Educational Qualifications and some specific skill in technical or specialized nature is to be considered for preparing the priority list . The procedure for assessment of suitability is given in Rule 4 to the Schedule . Rule 4 (i ) specifically directs that eligible employees in clerical cadre maybe called for interview to determine their suitability for posting as Special Assistant as per the priority list prepared in accordance with the provisions referred to above . The

8055

भारत का राजपत्र: दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

succeeding Sub Rules are relating to the number of candidates called for interview and regarding honour to be given to the priority list as per the position of any person. The selection has to be made as per the principle of seniority-cum -merit. 1 : 1.5 time candidates may be called for interview for the purpose to be filled up in the area to account for shortfall due to candidates being assessed unsuitable, rejection , refusal to accept posting on approval andto avoidthe repetition ofthe selection procedure . These two Sub Rules namely; Sub Rule 1 and 2 ofRule 4 , makes it clearthat themanagement ofrespondent bank may call for thecandidates for interview, but the Interview Board cannot violate the priority list prepared as per Rule 3. I am not inclined to accept the contention of the management ofthe respondent bank that calling of 1 : 1.5 times candidates for the interview gives unrestricted powers to the Interview Board for selection or rejection of any candidate just on the basis of interview. The purpose of calling 1 : 1.5 times candidates for interview is very well mentioned in Sub Rule 2and that is to avoid repetition of the selection procedure. It is true that it cannot be said that Interview Board has no say in the matter of interview for the post of Special Assistant, but the Interview Board has no authority to violate the priority list maintained under Rule 2 and 3 .

On the nature of appointment based on seniority- cum-merit, Hon'ble the Apex Court in a case reported in V.B. Shivaiah and others Vs. K. Adanki Bala & others AIR 1998- Sc- 2565 held as under :-

"There arrive at the conclusion that the criteria for seniority-cum - merit in the matter of promotion postulates that given the minimum necessary merit requisite for efficiency of administration. The senior, eventhough as meritorious, shall have priority and a comparative assessment of merit is not required to bemade. For assessing the minimum necessarymerit, the competent authority can lay down the minimum standard i.e. required and also prescribed the mode of assessment of merit of the employee , who is eligible for consideration for promotion . Such assessment can be made by assigning the marks on thebasis ofappraisal ofperformance on the basis of service record and interview and prescribing them minimum marks , which would entitle a person to be promoted on the basis of seniority- cum -merit ." The policy and procedure concerning posting of clerks as Special Assistants and related matters contains thecriteria for promotion of the candidate and the criteria asmentioned in Rule 2 and 3 ofthe Schedule to the policy. Taking interview is also part ofthat criteria but no marks hasbeen allotted by this policy, to be given by the Interview Board to the candidate. Meaning thereby, if any candidate is qualified as per the policy he cannot be disqualified by the InterviewBoard as per the law laid down by the Hon'ble theApex Court in the above mentioned judgment just on the basis of the interview, without explaining the reasons bythe InterviewBoard. Meaning thereby, if any candidate is in the priority list, he cannot be rejected just on the basis 8056

PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/ AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931. [

of interview without showing any cause for his rejection. Sub Rule III ofRule 4 makes it clear that Interview Committee shall record the reasons for assessing a candidate not suitable for the post of Special Assistant . Without explaining reasons, the Interview Board has no power to reject a person who is otherwise eligible for the post .

Smt.AshaMiglani was given 21 marks, whereas she was give 5 marks for Educational Qualifications , whereas Shri Rakesh Gera was given 19 marks and he was given 7 marks for Educational Qualifications . Smt. Asha Miglani was having 26 priority marks whereas Shri Rakesh Gera has also 26 marks . As per the policy, in case equation of priority marks, the seniority of the , candidate has to be honored . That was not honored .

3. The reasons for rejection of the candidature of Smt . Asha Miglani were not mentioned by the Interview Board . It is violative of Sub Rule 3 of Rule 4 relating to assessment of suitability. Without assigning any reasons, in violation of Rule 3 of Sub Rule 4, the candidature of Smt. Asha Miglani was rejected . It was nothing but an arbitrary act ofthe Interview Board.

Forthe interview dated 27-07-2004, no reasons for rejection of Smt . Asha Miglani is given by the Interview Board. Thus on issue no . 1 , I am of the view that it is not only the interview of the candidate which is material for selection or rejection, but it is one of the criteria for selection of the candidate for the post of Special Assistant. The other criteria, the priority list on the basis of seniority and Educational Qualifications etc. cannot be ignored by the Interview Board while interviewing a candidate for selection ofSpecial Assistant. If the Interview Board finds that a particular candidate , who comes amongst the priority criteria , because of some special reasons , is not the deserving candidate for the post, the Interview Board can reject the candidate by explaining the reasons for rejection. In absentia of explaining the reasons in writing, the Interview Board has no power/discretion to reject any person for the selection of Special Assistant.

4. Thefavoritism ofthe management, which constitute themalafide intention ofthe management, is also clear from the fact that Shri Rakesh Gera was not only selected for the postofSpecial Assistant for the declared vacancy at Branch Office, Chora, but without joining at Branch Office, Chora, hewas transferred to Branch Office, Subji Mandi, Panipat, just near to the place ofhis posting against the post, which was not even advertised for selection .

5. There is force in the contention of the workman that it was malafide done by the management, because if the management had advertised both of the posts, at a time, meaning thereby Branch Office Chora and Branch Office, SubjiMandi , Panipat, Smt . Asha Miglani being the lady candidate has priority over Shri Rakesh Gera for the posting at Branch Office, Subji Mandi Panipat. It is true that 4candidates were approved, but other three candidates , whichwere approved are below Shri Rakesh Gera in priority criteria. This is also one ofthe circumstances , which shows thefavoritism ofthe management towards Shri Rakesh Gera.

Issue number 2 and 3 are taken together . Smt . Asha Miglani has challenged the authority of Interview Board onthegrounds of malafide . It is true that virus of selection procedure cannot be challenged before this Tribunal , but ifthe selection procedure has been challenged on illegality, malafide and without jurisdiction and violations of authority , this Tribunal has got the powers to discuss the issues . The procedures before this Tribunal are of different nature . The proceedings are absolutely governed by the principles ofjustice, equality and good conscious . Under such circumstances , where malafide and illegality of any action ofthe management is before the Tribunal , it should be answered to prevent the miscarriage of justice . Ultimately, it is justice which has to be prevailed in the Tribunal and not mere adjudication . The justice should be ensured within the canons of law and rules of the department. After going through the evidence of parties , I am of the view that the result of interview held on 27-07-2004 was not fair , legal and justified. I am mentioning the reasons for my decision as follows :-

1. The management of respondent bank, while assessing the vacancies of Special Assistants as per the policy dated 03-01-2003 , only declared the post of Special Assistant vacant at Branch Office , Chora. The Branch Office, Subji Mandi , Panipat was not declared vacant, whereas, the vacancy lie in Branch Office, Subji Mandi , Panipat . The interview was held for the post of Special Assistant at Chora .

2. As per the seniority list given by the management ofrespondent bank as Annexure 1 to reply, makes it clear that name of Smt . Asha Miglani was at serial no.2, whereas, the person selected was at serial no . 5. Meaning thereby Shri Rakesh Gera as admitted by the management was junior to Smt . AshaMiglani . In priority marks as per Annexure 2,

6. Shri Rakesh Gera from Subji Mandi Branch Office was againtransferred to the Branch Office in which he was originallyworking. The management has provided with a letter for the purpose of accommodating Shri Rakesh Gera at Subji Mandi , Panipat, where he was working as CTO as Special Assistant. Surprisingly, the Deputy Manager has requested the Regional Manager vide letter dated 02-08-2004 for providing the services of Shri Rakesh Gera as Special Assistant to that branch . The management has contended that these transfers were in exigencies of administrative functioning . It is true that there may be exigency of work in any particular department or in any particular Branch Office , but in the ordinary course of nature, it cannot be accepted that for the exigency of every branch, the services of a particular official is required until and unless the particular official is not having the special skill for the particular exigency. It is no case of the management that Shri Rakesh Gera was having any special skill towork in case of administrative exigency in a particular branch . Firstly, he was listed as number 1 in the list of selected candidates by the Interview Board, thereafter, he wasgiven the posting at Chora Branch, which was declared vacant at the time of interview, thereafter transferred to the

11 8057 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Subji Mandi Branch, Panipat, where no vacancy was declared and ultimately he was again transferred to his original place of posting at CTO , Panipat by the management, which shows the malafide of the management of the respondent bank and such malafide indicates that the interview was not held fairly .

selection to the post of Special Assistant without assigning anyreason. The selection was not bonafide and fair as it is clear from the reasons mentioned in the body ofthis award. Government of India and every Judicial Forum discharging thejudicial andquasi -judicial functions is sensitized in the cause ofthe women. I am not saying that it was a case of deliberate gender biasness by the management, but the waymanagement has acted in this case ; it was the violation ofthe right of a woman who has knocked the door of this Tribunal through Central Government. Both ofthe issues are accordingly answered.

7. The management of bank has also enclosed the Policy oftransfer of staff. Rule 2 of this transfer policy is relating to the transfer on promotion . This policy barred the management to post a Special Assistant after his promotion on the same station. Exceptions have been given that a lady candidate can be accommodated on the same station, ifthe vacancy exists. Likewise, in case of President, Secretaryor office bearers, ifvacancy exists they can also be accommodated on the same place . Shri Rakesh Gera wasneither a lady nor any office bearer ofany employees ' Union; hence, his accommodation by the management of thebankwas violative of the transfer policy . This all shows thatright from the interview to his transfer from different branches, itwas done to the benefit of his candidature.

8. On the transfer ofShri Rakesh Gera from one place to another, no reasons have been mentioned. As stated earlier, it only contended by the management of the respondent bank that it was done on administrative exigencies . When the action of the management is challenged on the grounds of its malafide , the management shouldtell the administrative exigency. The management failed to prove the administrative exigency. Moreover, the administrative exigency is the exigency of work not of a particular man unless and until it is not proved that a particular man is only a fit person for the administrative exigency.

I am coming to the relief part. The workman has requested for her appointment as Special Assistant from 27-07-2004 . It is beyond the jurisdiction of this Tribunal . TheTribunal should not act as the appointing authority of the bank. While adjudicating issue no. 1 , in which the powers of the Interview Board have been discussed in detail, itwillbeproper for this Tribunal to have restraint in exceeding its powers . Accordingly, it will be proper to direct themanagement ofrespondent bank to consider Smt. Asha Miglani, as Special Assistant w. e. f. 27-07-2004. The bank is at liberty to adopt any procedure accordingly to law. ThisTribunal is hopeful that while adopting the procedure according to law, if any, the management of respondent bank will act in the way as mentioned in the answer to issue number I. Thus , I am directing the management of respondent bank to consider the candidature of Smt . Asha Miglani , once again to promote her to the post of Special Assistant w. e . f. 27-07-2004 and to give her all the consequential benefits of Special Assistant from 27-07-2004 as such . I am hopeful that the management, this time will honestly implement the scheme of legislature regarding the promotion and transfer. While directing the bank for considering the candidature of Smt . Asha Miglani w. e . f. 27-07-2004, it is made clear that ifpossible no adverse effect be given to the other candidates and it should be in the case of the protection of the right of the senior candidate to go for any adverse order regardingjuniors : If scheme of the bank permits to protect the rights of Smt .. AshaMiglani without affecting the rights of any junior candidate , it should be preferred by the management .

Smt. AshaMiglani has also prayed for some strictures like orders against the management of the bank. It is not within the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. This Tribunal has to confine itself for the adjudication of the rights of the parties and nothing else .

It is true that with the intervention of the Regional Labour Commissioner ( the Conciliation Officer) , the bank realized his fault and promised through a settlement to interview Smt. Asha Miglani again . Smt . Asha Miglani was again deprived on the grounds that she lacks banking knowledge (routine) . This Tribunal recorded the statement ofparties by open eyes. It is stated by Smt . Asha Miglani in her cross -examination on 04-05-2009 that she was discharging , functions of Special Assistant much before the interview . It shows that nature of work even after selection as Special Assistant remains as such . The change was in designation and remuneration and not in the nature of work. In the ordinary course of nature , it cannot be expected that a person is working with the bank on a particular job efficiently for a long time and when she is interviewed, she lacks the primary knowledge ofthat work.

Theworkman being a female candidate is entitled for Rs . 10,000 ( Rupees ten thousands only ) as costs of litigation. The cost is imposed with a view that she was compelled to go for the litigation by management on account of its failure to implement the scheme ofpromotion and transfer, fairly , properly and as per rules . Accordingly, the reference is answered. Central Government be approached for publication of Award, and thereafter, file be consigned to record .

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer It is true that transfer of Shri Rakesh Gera from one Branch to another should not have been discussed by the Tribunal in ordinary course of nature , but it was a consequential to the reference referred by the Central Government. No option was left to the Tribunal , but to discuss the same in detail . The right of a woman was violatedby the respondent bank . Though senior in priority criteria, she was not considered by the Interview Board for 8058

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 17 नवम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 3371. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 46/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-12012/378/94- आई आर ( बी- II) ]

यू. एस. पाण्डेय, अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 17th November, 2009

S. O. 3371. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.46/95) of the CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal- 1 Chandigarh , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 11-11-2009.

After receiving the reference , parties were informed.They filed their respective pleadings .On perusal ofthe pleadings of the parties, the main grievances of the workman seems to be that he had worked with different officers of the management of respondent bank from 26-10-86 at different salaries in different time. Previously the salary was Rs . 850 per month which was further increased from time to time to Rs . 950 , Rs . 1200 , Rs.1350 and Rs . 1550 per month respectively. The services of the workmanwere terminated by the management of the bank on 15-7-93 without any notice , one month wages in lieu of the notice or retranchment compensation .As per the policy ofthemanagement of respondent bank the services of the drivers working with the officers of the bank were regularized , but services of the workman were not regularized. Juniors to workman were considered for regularization, whereas , the name of the workman was not consideredagainst the policy. The termination being against the provisions of the Act, is illegal and void . On the basis ofthe above facts, the workman has prayed for an order for setting aside the termination order and for reinstatement of hisservices with consequential benefits . \ [No. L- 12012/378/94- IR(B-II) ]

U. S. PANDEY , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No.-L.D. No. 46/95

Shri Harmeet Singh , H.No. 3446, Sector-27-D, Chandigarh .

...Applicant

Versus

TheDivisional Manager , Punjab National Bank, ZonalOffice , Sector- 17, Chandigarh. ...Respondent

The management of the respondent bank filed written statement denying all the allegations of the workman. Preliminary objections were raised by the management of respondent bank that there is no employer- employee relationship between the management ofthe bank and the workman , and accordingly, no question for termination ofhis servvices by the bank arise. It was the contention of the bank that as per the provisions of the bipartite settlement, governing the service conditions of the employees, certain officers are empowered to engage personal drivers and the wages they incurred on such engagement can be reimbursed from the bank. Under the said provisions , the workman was engaged by different officers during different period and the wages were paid directly by the officers and not by the bank . The wages paidby the officer concern to the workman were thereafter , reimbursed by the officer from the bank.

APPEARANCES

For theWorkman : Sri D. R. Sharma . For the Management : Sri S. C. Negi .

AWARD

Passed on : 29-10-2009

Government of India vide notification no . L- 12012/ 378/94-1R( B - 11 ) dated 30-5-95 , referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

Regarding regularization of the services of drivers engageby the officers of the bank, it was the contention of the respondent bank that as per the policy of the bank all the persons who had worked as personal driver of the officers were given the opportunity for interview and after interview 11 persons were given the regular appointment as per the seniority. The name of the workman found place at serial no. 16 in the merit list , whereas only 11 persons were absorbed in the services as class IV employees as per the policy of the bank.

"Whether Shri Harmeet Singh , Car Driver was an employee ofthe Punjab National Bank, Chandigarh ? If so, whether the action of the Bank Management in terminating his services w.e.f. 15-7-93 is legal and justified? If not , what relief is Shri Singh entitled to ? "

Both ofthe parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence , oral as well as documentary. I have gone through the evidence of the parties and heard them at length . The main issues for adjudication before this Tribunal in this reference are as follows: -- 8059 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

(1)Whether there existed any employer-employee relationship between the workman and the management of the respondent bank ?

(2) Whether the workman was illegally ignored for absorption in the services as Class IV employee.

(3) To what relief the workman is entitled ?

I am answering all these issues one by one.

scheme of the bank the benefit is given to the personal drivers appointed by the competent officers for their absorption against Class IV employees ofthe bank. 25% of the vacancies of Class IV employees are reserved for such absorption . It is the contention of the workman that he was not considered illegal for absorption against Class IV vacancy, whereas, the management of respondent bank hascontended that 11 vacancies were available and all the 21 personal drivers , engaged by the competant officers in their personal capacity , were interviewed by the management of the bank as per their seniority . Only 11 persons were given the appointment in subordinate cadre ofthe bank. The name of the Harmeet Singh , the workman was at Serial No. 16, hence , he was not considered for absorption . The workman has challenged the seniority list provided and filed by the management . A list of persons whowere interviewed as per their seniority is filed by the management . I have gone through the evidence of the parties . I am unable to find out any substance in the evidencewhich can support and corroborate the contention ofthe workman that he was senior to the persons absorbed in the services as Class IV employees . The management of the respondent bank, called for all the personal drivers for interview and absorbed the services of 11 persons . As per seniority in Class IV vacancy the name of the workman findplace at serial No. 16. Accordingly, as per the policy , only 11 persons were appointed and there was no substantial and legal claim of the workman to be absorbed in the services as Class IV employee .

Thus , for both of the accounts namely workman was not the employee of the management of the respondent bank and the management of the bank has not violated the policy regarding absorption of personal drivers as Class IV employees, and any provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, the workman is not entitled for any relief . The reference is accordingly answered. Central Government be informed for publication of award, and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G.K.SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 17 नवम्बर, 2009

का. आ. 3372, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-1 चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 102/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था। Itisadmitted fact that the service conditions of the employees and the business of the bank is regulated bybipartitwe Settlement , Desai Award, and Shastri Award . As per the provisions of bipartite settlement, all the AGM's, Regional Managers Chairman of RRB's and RM's are empowered to engage personal drivers on the vehicle (Jeep/Car) provided by the bank. As per policy , vehicle is to be provided by the bank and it is left on the officers provided with the vehicle to engage their personal driver and whatever they incurred on engaging the personal driver can be reimbursed from the bank as salary . From the pleadings ofthe workman , it is clear that he was engage as the personal driver by certain officers and the wages were paidby such officers in personal capacity . The wages paid to the drivers were reimbursed by the officers from the bank . No doubt, in pleadings this scheme has been challenged by the workman that actually the payment was made good by the bank to the officer concern . In this regard, itwill be proper to state that virus of this policy has not been challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal is bound to adjudicate and answer the issue of employer and employee relationship between the workman and the management ofrespondent bank in terms of the scheme. It is specifically mentioned in the bipartite settlement that officers ofthe bank are eligible for the vehicle to be provided with by the bank but no official driver shall be provided . They are at liberty to engage their personal driver as per the rates fixed by the bank with liberty to reimbursed the amout paid to the drivers from the bank. The workman was engaged as a personal driver by a number of officers during different periods. The workman was not engaged/ appointed by the bank but he was appointed by the officers of the bank competent to appoint him as personal driver in personal capacity the wages were paid by the officer concern in personal capacity and not by the management of respondent bank . The workman was not under the administrative control ofthe bank and he cannot claim that hewas an employee of the bank. Thus , for the purpose of thisengagement, the workman shall be considered to be a personal driver ofthe officer concern which does not create any relationship of employer and employee between him and the management of respondent bank . The issue No. 1 isaccordingly answered .

[ सं. एल -12012/115/93 - आई आर. ( बी-- 11) ]

यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी The issue No. 2 is regarding the absorption of the workman as Class IV employee of the bank. As per the

4340G1/09-22 8060

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/ AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] New Delhi , the 17th November, 2009

S. O. 3372.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.102/93) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -1 Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetweenthe employees in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was receivedbythe Central Government on 11-11-2009.

[No. L- 12012/ 115/93- IR(B - II) ]

U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. No. 102/93

Shri Raj Kumar , C/ o Shri Tek Chand Sharma, 25, Sant Nagar, Civil Lines, Ludhiana- 141001 .

...Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Firoz Gandhi Market, Ludhiana . .....Respondent

workmanwas working as the teller in the respondent bank during the period in question . It was alleged by the management that a sum of Rs . 2,000 and further a sum of Rs. 1,000 were respectively withdrew by the workman on 23-10-84 and 26-10-84 from the saving bank A/ c No. 67383 of Smt. Kuldip Kaur W/ o Kewal Singh under her forged signature . Smt. Kuldip Kaur filed a complaint and a chargesheet was given to the workman . The workman replied the charge sheet . Thereafter , enquiry officer was appointed and the workman admitted the charge before the enquiry officer . The enquiry officer on the basis ofthe admission submitted the enquiry report . The disciplinary authority after issueing show cause notice along with proposed punishment and after affording the opportunity ofpersonal hearing awarded the punishment of dismissal oftheworkman from the services . In the proceedings before thisTribunal , the workman has challeged the nature , validity and legality of his admission . On perusal of the pleadings , itis clear that the workman admitted the admission but has challenged its nature . In para no . 14 & 16, the workman has specifically admitted the admission . Para 16 of the statement of claim begins with the fact that the alleged confession cannot be considered as legal unless it was supported by circumstantial evidence and facts on record . It shows that nature, legality and validity of admission (confession) has been challenged by the workman , whereas , it is admitted that he made the admission. The workman has also challenged the authority of enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority.

APPEARANCES

For the workman : SriTek Chand Sharma Forthe Management : Sri N.K.Zakhmi .

AWARD

Passed on: 29-10-2009

Both ofthe parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence , oral and documentary . They availed the opportunity. Parties were heard at length . On perusal of the materials on record , I am unable to accept the contention ofthe workman that charge sheet was given by the unauthorised person and enquiry officer was not competentto conduct the enquiry. Likewise , t' e contention of the workman that disciplinary authority was not competent to award the punishment does not find any favour.

The Government of India vide notification No. L- 12012/ 115/93 - IR-(B- II) dated 1-9-93 , referred the following industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (the act in short) for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank, Ludhiana in dismissing the services ofShri Raj Kumar w.e.f. 4-5-85 is legal andjustified? Ifnot, what relief, the concerned workman is entitled and from what date? "

I have gone through the charge sheet , reply to the charge sheet and the enquiry proceedings . Enquiry proceedings dated 18-3-85 , make it clear that workman was given and afforded proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard . He has admitted the charge in his full consciousness . The enquiry officer again and again asked the workman whether he has admitted the charge voluntarily. The workman replied positively. Apart from it, there are certain letters written by the workman to the Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank , Civil Lines , Jallandhar admitting the withdrawal of amount illegally for which he wascharge sheeted . In one ofthe letter dated 5-11- . (Year is not clear), the workman has specifically admitted that he After receiving the reference , parties were informed.They filed their respective pleadings . On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, it is evidently clear that dispute between the parties is regarding the nature of the enquiryproceedings conducted by the enquiry officer . As per the statement of claim and written statement the 8061 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

accordingly. Let Central Government be approached for publication ofthis award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room .

G.K.SHARMA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 17 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3373. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ओवरसीज बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय । चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 131/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-12012 / 276/ 98 - आई आर. ( बी- II ) ] यू.एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 17th November, 2009

S. O. 3373. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.131 /99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court -1, Chandigarh, as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-11-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/276/98- IR (B- II)] U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I.D. No. 131/99

Shri Parminder Singh , C/ o General Secretary, Al IndiaTrade Union Congress , Chowk Dholewal , Ludhiana .

...Applicant

Versus

TheManager , Indian Overseas Bank, Jagraon , Lajpat Road, Ludhiana. ...Respondent withdrew the amount in question from a/ c no . 67383 of Kuldip Kaur. In letter dated 5-11-84 written to the Manager , Punjab National Bank , Civil Lines , Jalandhar , he has specifically admitted the charges with a contention that he has not committed any act of similar nature , apart from the act for which he was charge sheeted . He has requested for lenient attitude of the bank on quantum of punishment . In letter dated 8-11-84 he has again admitted entire charges in clear and specific term and requested for leniency in awarding the punishment . Thus , at every stage proper opportunity was given to the workman and the workman has admitted the charges levelled against him at every stage . In spite of it, the enquiry was ordered to be conducted and the workman again admitted the charges before enquiry officer . Once the workman has voluntarily admitted all the charges , he cannot challenge his admission on the ground ofviolation of principles of natural justice. He is at liberty to challenge the admission but he has to prove that the admission he has made was not voluntary. This fact has to be proved by cogent evidence . There is no iota of evidence to prove any duress , threat or any other such circumstances to prove that the admission he made was not voluntary. The workman has used garlanding words in his pleadings that confession cannot be relied upon unless supported with circumstantial evidence . Voluntary admission is the good price of evidence which prove the charge and no corroboration is required . The proceedings before this Tribunal are of different nature . These proceedings cannot be equated with the proceedings of Civil Courts . Provisions of Evidence Act are not applicable in the departmental proceedings and proceedings before this Tribunal . The cases are to be disposed off on the principles of natural justice , equity and good conscious. Hon'ble Justice Krishan Ayar, the eminent profounder of social justice , at one occasion has viewed that in the departmental proceedings and proceedings before this Tribunal, there should be no allergy even with the hear say evidence, if it has weight and credibility . No dout , in this reference there is no question of hear say evidence as the workman has admitted the charges voluntarily. He is unable to prove that his admission is not voluntary and any prejudice was caused to him by submitting the enquiry report by the enquiry officer merely on his admission. Thus , onthe basis ofthe above observation, I am of the view that admission by the workman was voluntarily and submitting the report by the enquiry officer on the basis of voluntary admission suffers with no illegality.

APPEARANCES

Forthe the workman ; Sri O.P.Mehta . For theManagement : Sri R.K.Chopra

AWARD

Passed on : 30-10-2009 The workman was working in the financial institution like bank . The only business is the financial transactions in which the integrity of highest standard is required . Thus , the disciplinary authority after affording the opportunity of being heard has rightly awarded the punishment to the workman and there is no occasion for this Tribunal to interfere in the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority . The reference is answered

Government of India , vide notification no . L- 12012/276/98 /IR (B- II) dated 13-5-99 , by exercising its [PART II-SEC . 3( ii)] 8062

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

contentionofthe management of the bank cannot be relied upon.

powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (the Act in short) , referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in termination of services of workman Sh . Parminder Singh S/o Sh. Nahar Singh without paying him retrenchment compensation is just and legal? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date ? "

Onperusal of the stratement of claim of the workman , it is evident that workman has approached this Tribunal for the relief of his reinstatement into the services withconsequential benefits on the ground that his services wereterninated illegally without notice or terminal dues . It is the contention of the workman that he was engaged as Class IV employee and had worked for one and half years from 17-10-86 to 1-4-98 . He worked for more than 240 days inthe preceding year from the date ofhis termination . From the date of his termination, he has been an employee and still has no work for his survival .

Itisalso the contention ofthe bank that the workman was dailywaged worker, the bank was not obliged to serve upon any notice or to pay the terminal dues before the termination ofhis services . I am not inclined to accept this contentionbecause the provisions of the Act also protected thetermination of a daily waged worker, if it is against its provisions . It is contended by the bank that a daily waged worker has no right to post. It is an admitted fact that a daily waged worker has no right to post. The question before this Tribunal is regarding the illegality of the termination order and not the regularization ofhis services . Accordingly, the issue that the workman was a daily waged worker and had no right to post is not in question . The provisions ofthe Act governs and regulate the termination of the daily waged worker . There is no bar for the termination of the services of a daily waged worker but the Act regulates it. It is regulated in the way that if the management desire to terminate the service of any daily wagedworker , a month notice or a month salary in lieu of notice along with the terminal dues are required to be given/ paid. If the management fails to comply with these provisions , the termination order is void and illegal being against the provisions of the Act.

From the above discussion, it is clear that the services rendered by a daily waged worker to an organization are also regulated by the provisions of the Act and it cannot be terminated against the provisions ofthe Act .

The next question before this Tribunal is whether the workman had completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination ? It is also the condition precedent to seek protection under the provisions of the Act .

The management ofthe bank appeared and contested the claim of the workman by filing written statement . It is the contention of the management that workman was engage on daily wages for the petty work of the bank. He was not appointed against any substantial vacancy, hence , no notice or terminal dues were required to be given/paid before the termination of his services . The workman had not completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination and, accordingly , he is not entitled for any relief. It is also contended by the management of the respondent bank that the workman being a rickshaw puller was entrusted some work to deliver sorne letters to local parties for which he was paid Rs . 30 per trip as conveyance charges . Whenever his services were taken by the bank for some other work, he was paid Rs . 50 per day.

In garlanding words , the workman has stated, narrated and stressed again and again that he had completed 240 days of work in the preceeding year from the date of his termination . No documentary evidence has been filed by the workman . On the other hand , with the intervention of the Tribunal the management of the respondent bank has filed all the vouchers by which the workmanwas paid wages along with the attendance register for the period in question. As per the statement of the workman, he was not interviewed nor given any appointment letter . His name did not figure in any of the attendance register provided with by the bank. On the basis ofthe vouchers filed by the management, I am of the view thatworkman had not completed 240 days of work in the preceding year before the date of his termination. There are120 plus vouchers on record . It is not challenged by the workman that all the vouchers have not been filed. Thus, on the basis of the evidence on record oral and Both ofthe parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing oral evidence . Documentary evidence , with the intervention of this Tribunal , was also filed by the management . I have gone through the entire evidence available on record oral and documentary . I have heard the parties and their respective learned counsel at length . During cross-examination of MW( 1 ) , the witness of management, this fact came to the notice of this Tribunal that the work discharged by the workman has no nexus with the act of rickshaw pulling as alleged by the management. This Tribunal has no concern about the work done by the workman prior to his engagement with the bank. After his engagement by the bank he had not work asthe rickshaw puller and the work he discharged with the bank has no nexus with a rickshaw puller . Thus , the 8063 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Zonal Office, Maker Tower ' E'

2nd Floor, Plot No. 85, Cuffe Parade,

Colaba, MUMBAI-400005

FirstParty

V/s.

Their Workmen

ThePresident,

Syndicate Bank Employees Union,

through Workman Mr. Vinod Kumar Amin, 1-A, Palm View, Plot No. 8, Amritvan- 1 ,

NearCiba, Goregaon (East),

MUMBAI-400063 .

Second Party

APPEARANCES

Mr. R. N. Shah, Advocate

Forthe Employer :

documentary, I am ofthe view that workman had not worked for 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination. On the basis of above discussion , I am of the viewthat there was no illegality in terminating the services of the workman without notice or terminal dues . There is no other claim of the workman like junior was retained in the services, whereas, his services were terminated . Thus , in absentia of other claims and for his failure to prove that he has completed 240 days of work with the management in the preceding year from the date of his termination, there is no occasion before this Tribunal to accept the claim ofthe workman. He is not entitled for any relief. The reference is answered accordingly. Let Central Government be approached for publication of award, and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

For theworkman :

Mr. R. D. Bhat, Advocate GK. SHARMA, PresidingOfficer

Date ofreserving the Award : 07-09-2009.

नई दिल्ली, 18 नवम्बर , 2009

Date ofpassing the Award : 30-09-2009. AWARD-PART- II

.The Government of India, Ministry of Labourby its Order No. L- 12011 /245/2000- IR-(B- II) dated 12-2-2000, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub -section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

का. आ. 3374.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/31 आफ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल -12011/ 245/2000- आई आर( बी- II ) ]

"Whether the action of Syndicate Bank by dismissing Shri Vinod Kumar from the services of the Bank is justified and proper ? If not, then what relief the workman is entitled to? "

यू.एस.पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th November, 2009

2.Workman Vinod Kumar Amin was engaged as Clerk S. O. 3374.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.2/31 of 2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal 2 Mumbai , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-11-2009 .

[No. L- 12011/245 /2000- IR (B- 11) ] U.S.PANDEY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

A.A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Reference No. C.G.I.T. 2/31 of 2001

Employers in relation to the management of Syndicte Bank

The Deputy General Manager , SyndicateBank,

inthe management Syndicate Bank in the year 1977. Vide Claim Statement (Exhibit -6) workman pleaded that he was an active union member and that due to unio 1 activities , bank had grudge against him . It is averred that workman while working as Clerk-cum - Typist in Khar Franch though he had put 22 years unblemished service , 'he was issued charge sheet dated 23-7-1998 alleging that he had floated the firm M/s.Amigo Industries with one of his brothers as partners only to circumvent the provision that he cannot be partner andwas financially involved in the affairs of the firm while in service of the bank thereby committed grave misconduct attracting clause 19.5 of the Bi - partite Settlement. It is averred that because of differences in partners the manufacturing process ofthe firm was stopped and that though he had not taken any interest in the business ofthe firm , he was alleged to have involved in the business, which he had replied on 8-9-1998 . However not satisfied with the reply the bank initiated domestic inquiry against him through the Inquiry Officer Mr. Acharya. It is contended that the domestic inquiry conducted against himwas in violation ofPrinciples of Natural Justice and fair play and that findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer are 8064

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

the books , purchase etc , which circumstances indicate that the workman floated the said firm with his brother which was against the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. It is pleaded Mr. Acharya conducted fair inquiry with the assistance of thePresenting Officer Mr. Prasad and Defence Representative Mr. Kini . It is contended Inquiry Officer with detailed reasons appreciating the evidence recorded the findings , and therefore, the inquiry does not vitiate consequently cannot be interfered by this Tribunal , Bank, therefore prayed to dismiss the claim of the workman.

4.By rejoinder (Exhibit 12) workman reiterated the recitals in the Claim Statement denying the averments in the Written Statement .

5. On the basis of the pleadings preliminary issues were framed at Exhibit 15 and in that context workman Amin filed affidavit ( Exhibit 16) in lieu of Examination- in -chief and closed oral evidence vide purshis (Exhibit 20 ) . In rebuttal , Mr. Acharya Chief Manager filed affidavit (Exhibit 21 ) and the Management Bank closed evidence videpurshis (Exhibit 22) .

perverse. It is contended, Mr. Acharya who was Manager (IR-Cell) was active office-bearer of Syndicate Bank Officers Association holding the position as Zonal Council Member and atworkman being an active union member ofthe Award Staff, was biased against him , therefore , he had requested the Disciplinary Authority to change the Inquiry Officer Mr. Acharya, however , management turned down his request and thereby prejudice had caused to him. It is further contended that the bank though did not examine the witnesses the Inquiry Officer relied on the documents in connection with those witnesses as if, contents therein weregospel truth . It is pleaded that with undue haste inquiry was completed and that the findings of the Inquiry Officer holding him guilty are not based on the evidence and the documents led before him , consequently, findings are perverse . It is averred that inquiry as a whole vitiates, however, despite that the Disciplinary Authority based on the report dated 8-7-1999 dismissed the workman by the order dated 25-9-1999. It is contended workman had assailed the saiddismissal before the Appellate Authority, however , hisappeal was turned down on 6-12-1999 . It is contended since the inquiry vitiates the management's action of dismissing the workman is unjustified , and therefore , workmanbe reinstated in service with full back wages .

6. Inviewofthe above pleadings my Ld . Predecessor framed issues at Exhibit 15. Out of them Issue Nos . I and 2 were treated as preliminary issues which are regarding fairness of enquiry and provisions of the findings . By passing Part I Award on 28th May, 2003 my Predecessor observed enquiry was not fair and proper and finding perverse . Even my predecessor directed Management to lead evidence to justify its action.

7. Now issue of action taken by Management whether isjustified or not is taken for consideration which I answer as follows:

FINDINGS

ISSUE

3. Whether the action of the Syndicate Bank by dismissing Shri Vinod Kumar from the services ofthe Bank is justified and proper? No

4.What reliefMr. Vinod Kumar is entitled to?

2nd Party is require to reinstate with full back wages and continuity of service.

REASONS:

Issues Nos . 3 & 4

8. To justify action of termination Management has examined Satish Kamath at Exhibit 33 in lieu of his examination - in-chief whostates that, he himself worked as aManager at Khaire Patalganga Branch since 22-9-1988 till 9-1-2001 . He states that , earlier he was also working as 3.Management Bank resisted the claim of workman by filing Written Statement ( Exhibit- 11 ) contending that workman while working at Nana Chowk Branch carried out business in the name of M/ s . Amigo Industries , and therefore , he was charged vide charge - sheet dated 23-7-1998 for engaging in trade or business outside the scope of his duties under clause 19.5 ( a ) of the Bipartite Settlement and that inquiry was conducted on the charges . It is averred that Inquiry Officer giving sufficient opportu- nity, by the report dated 8-7-1999 held the workman guilty and that considering the proved grave charges he was dismissed by the order dated 25-9-1999 which was endorsed by the Appellate Authority. It is averred in detail that workman carried on the business in the name of Amigo Industries who were the constituent of Jogeshwari Branch Mumbai and that on 3-5-1993 the said partnership firm openedaCurrent Account No.948 with Jogeshwari Branch and availed certain credit facilities with the said branch since 1994 and that liabilities aggregating to Rs.58 lacs had caused to thebooks of the bank without adequate securities to fall back upon . It is averred one of the partners Mr. Kalmadi who is the brother of the workman, had furnished address ofGoregaon (East) which is the address of the firm and also residence of the workman and that when the firm approached the bank for sanction of credit facilities workman approached the bank for getting the credit facilities sanctioned and invested in the business of the said firm and also involved himself in the maintenance of 8065 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

Officer, Vigilance Unit, Mumbai and at present he is working as Senior Manager at Syndicate Bank, GM's office , Udapi . He states that, as per instructions given by Head office , Vigilance Cell , he conducted investigation in respect of involvement of Shri Vinod Kumar, the concerned workman inthe credit facility extended to M/ s . Amigo Industries at Bank's Jogeshwari Branch . He states that, during his investigation he seized certain documents from Jogeshwari Branch where he found, Account No.5009 was opened in the name ofGanesh Gupta which was introduced by 2nd Party, concerned workman . He also states that, Savings Bank Account No. 5010 was opened in the name of Mr. Premnath Kalmadi which was also introduced by the 2nd Party Vinod Kumar and the address given therein is the sameas ofthe residence of the 2nd Party Workman . He further states that, he learnt that, MEX 3 reveals that, the transactions in S.B. Account No. 5009 of Mr. Ganesh Gupta from which it is observed that, on number of occasions amount has been transfered to Current Account of M/s. Amigo Industries . He also states that , in the investigations he noted from the transactions in S. B Account No. 5010 of Mr. Premnath Kalmadi that amount has been transferred to Current Account of M/s . Amigo Industries on various occasions . He states , that he learnt that, Current Account No. 948 of M/s . Amigo Industries at Jogeshwari , was opened. He noted that, a partnership firm , wherein Premnath Kalmadi and Rajendra Singh are the partners of the firm . He further states that, he noted various transaction in Account No. 5/96 of M/s. Amigo Industries atBank's Jogeshwari Branch . He further states that, he noted that , Mr. R. B. Singh one of the Partner of M/s. Amigo Industries has written a letter to the Manager of Bank's Jogeshwari Branch alleging that, the records pertaining to the records of the firm are in the custody of the 2nd Party Workman viz . Vinod Kumar which speaks number of things about his involvement in the activities of the 2nd Party workman with Amigo Industries and helping it to enter into transaction with 1st Party's Jogeshwari Branch and Ganesh Gupta other partner. In the cross he states that, about 70 kms is the distance from Bombay Central to Tarapur where the 2nd Party workman was working. He states that, Western Railway is the only facility to reach that destination. He states that, he has no idea whether local trains are available to go to Tarapur. He states that, Parag Industry is situated at Badlapur which is on Central Railway. He states that, 2nd Party Vinod Kumar wasworking at Nanachowk Branch and during that period he was residing at Goregaon. He states that , the said distance can be traveled by Western Railway. He states that, he received instructions from Vigilance Branch to enquire about involvement of2nd Party concerned workman and his relations with Amigo Industries . Then he states that, he was instructed to find out whether any role is played by

2nd partyworkman Vinod Kumar . Then he states that, he visited Nanachowk Branch and recorded statement ofthe staff. He states that, from the statements of various staff members recorded by him he learnt that, the 2nd party workman Vinod Kumar has taken frequent leaves . He admits that, if one has to attend Tarapur or Badlapur it will takewhole day and for that leave is must . He admits that , he has no evidence to show that, he has taken frequent leaveand attended Amigo Industries . He admits that , there is nothing wrong in introducing Ganesh Gupta and Premnath Kalmadi to open their Savings account . He admits that, there was no evidence to show that, 2nd party workman Vinod Kumar was operating these two S.B.accounts of Amigo Industries . He admits that, M/s . Amigo Industries is a partnership firm. He also admits that , Premnath Kalmadi and Mr. R. S. Singh are the partners ofthe firm. He admits that, Ganesh Gupta and Premnath Kalmadi are brothers of 2nd party workman Vinod Kumar . He admits that, he is aware that, they are staying in the residence of Vinod Kumar and in Ex-M - 10 page 117. 2nd party workman has said that, he cannot explain the accounts . He states that , said was available with its Jogheshwari Branch . He admits that , he has not made any observation regarding signatures on Ex-M- 11 and Ex-M - 18 . He states that , he is unable to state whether signature on Exhibit M - 11 and M- 18 are ofdifferent person. He admits that , on the basis of Exhibit M - 18 he reported involvement of2nd Party Workman Vinod Kumar in the affairs of Amigo Industries He states that, he had discussions with signatories on Exhibit M - 18 . He admits that, he has not recorded his statement of that discussion . He admits that , during that period other employees of Parag Textiles were present . He admits that , Parag Textile is involved in manufacturing colour used for yarn . He admits that, he did not know the name of the person who sanctioned loan to Amigo Industries . He states that , he did not try to trace out the name of sanctioning authority . He states that, there is no bar or limitation or restrictions to the employees to invest money with relatives or friends . He states that , his report was not taken in the enquiry proceedings . Then Management examined Rajendra S. Singh by filing his affidavit at Exhibit 36 in lieu of his examination - in -chief who states that, he knows Vinod Kumar Amin i.e. 2nd Party Workman ,He states that , he was working as Production Manager in Pigments & Allied . He states that, 2nd Party concerned workman gave offer to start business with him of chemical i.e. pigment violet 23. He states that, he also told him that, his brother Premnath Kalmadi will be for name sake and he will arrange loan from Syndicate bank and will also look after the business . He states that , accordingly they i.e. he himself , 2nd Party concerned workman Vinod Kumar Amin and his brother Premnath Kalmadi stated business in the name of Amigo Industries . He states that, he is brother of Premnath Kalmadi one of the partner of 8066

THE GAZETTE OF INDÍA: DECEMBER 12, 2009 /AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

Amigo Industries and was dismissed on that count which is illegal . In the cross he admits that, he was a Committee Member of Bank Employees Union . He admits that, he knows Amigo Industries which is a partnership firm. He states that, initially there were 2 partners and subsequently one more partner was inducted viz. R.S.Singh . He admits that, there were 3 partners i.e. Premnath Kalmadi , R.S. Singh and Divakar Karkeria . He admits that , Premnath Kalmadi is his brother who is having business at Udapi . He denies that , when Amigo Industries was running he was having his establishment at Udapi . He states that , Premnath Kalmadi was staying at Mumbai at the beginning . He admits that, Premnath was not attending day to day affairs ofAmigo Industries . He admits that, Amigo Industries has account with Syndicate Bank. He admits that, Ganesh Kalmadi was also having his account with Syndicate Bank. He admits signatures on page 71 to 74 of Exhibts 10. He admits that , Amigo Industries was having S.B. account withSyndicate Bank at Jogeshwari Branch . He admits that, registered address of Amigo Industries is of his residence. He states that, Amigo Industries was engaged in the business of Chemicals . He admits that , partners of Amigo Industries purchased boilers from IMA boilers. He denies that , he was looking after the business of the Amigo Industries . He states that , Amigo Industries is at Tarapur . He admits that, in 1996 Amigo Industries might have closed. He states that, he never visited Amigo Industries at Tarapur other than inaugural function . He states that, he did not apply for employment after his termination. He states that , he has no evidence to show about the loan taken by him from in laws - or relatives . He states that , he has no account in any Bank.He states that , number of allegations were leveled against him . On that , 2nd Party closed his evidence and filed closing purshis at Exhibit 52.

10. Written arguments are filed by 2nd Party at Exhibit 53 with citations which are replied by 1st Party by submitting written arguments at Exhibit 54 with citations at Exhibit55.

11. Here charge leveled against ' he concerned workman is that, he along with his brother and with one Rajendra Singh are concerned with the activities ofAmigo Industries. Address of the said Amigo Industries was 1 -A, Palm View, Plot No. 8, Amritwan , Near CIBA Research , Goregaon (East) , Mumbai 400 063 which is the residential address of the 2nd Party Workman . It was alleged that, whileavailing credit facility for the firm at Jogeshwari Branch he used his official position to help the firm in getting the advance sanctioned for Amigo Industries . Besides it was alleged that, the 2nd Party indulged in business activites which is the outside the scope of his employment when he wasworking with 1st Party Bank.

Amigo Industries . He states that, 2nd Party workman was also looking after the business of Amigo Industries at the relevant time . He identified the documents MEX 5B . He also identified documents from MEX 6 to MES- 10/ 10-A , MEX- 15 , MEX - 14 , MEX- 17 , MEXEX- 22 . He states that, MEX- 5 is a document regarding opening of Savings Bank Account of Amigo Industries . He states that , he used to visit the Branch and give information regarding fmancial position of Amigo Industries . In the cross he states that , there is written Partnership Deed. He states that , he might have contributed 6-7 lakhs in the Amigo Industries . He states that, 2nd Party was maintaining account of Amigo Industries , he admits that, he has no evidence on that point . He admits that, he knows Ganesh Kalmadi who is the brother of2nd Party workman . He admits that , Ganesh Kalmadi was engaged by Vinod Kalmadi as his nominee in his absence . He states that, he has informed that fact to the Bank. He admits that, Ganesh Kalmadi was looking after the business of Amigo Industries in the absence of Vinod Kalmadi . He admits that, he has industry at Tarapur . Не admits that , from Dadar, one has to take 1½ hour to reach the place . He admits that, he was going there on every Sunday and stay there till Thursday evening . He states that , factory is closed on Friday . He states that , Vinod Kumar was attending factory on number of occasions . He was attending Factory in the morning and leaving in the evening very same day. He states that, after reporting factory he was supervising the work of the factory. He states that , he was looking after the technical aspect of the Company .He states that , there is no writing about visit given by Vinod Kumar to the factory . When question was put to him whether Viond Kumar was attending the factory by taking leave to which he says that "God knows" . He states that, he is aware of the Power of Attomeygivento Ganesh Kumar by these people . He admits that , his signature from Exhibit - 37 . He states that , entire amount was not paid. He states that , he has not paid his liability . Then Management examined Divakar B. Karkeria byfiling his affidavit at Exhibit 43 who states that , at present he is working as a Commercial Officer with M/ s . Mechanalysis ( India) Ltd. He says that , he is acquainted with the 2nd Party workman . He states that as per the offer ofVinod Kumar , he invested an amount of Rs . 19.29 lacs in Amigo Industries . In the cross he states that , he was 20% partner of Amigo Industries . He states that, he has taken loanfrom the Bank and invested it in Amigo Industries . He states that factory was not started immediately after the amount was invested by him . He admits MoU dated 30-5-1998 and copy of it is filed at page 168 of Exhibit 10. He states that , he used to visit Amigo Industries . On that , Ist Party closed evidence and filed closing purshis at Exhibit45.

12. To prove the charge leveled against the 2nd Party and ofhis involvement in the activities of Amigo Industries Management 1st Party- examined number of witnesses 9. Against that, 2nd Party filed affidavit at Exhibit 48 inlieu ofhis examination - in - chief making out the case that, he was wrongly held responsible for the transactions of

11 8067

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

loan to it. In my opinion Bank cannot question 2nd Party for the same . Besides I am of the view that, how Bank can corner the 2nd Party when it sanctioned the loan to the Amigo Industries ? When loan was sanctioned to Amigo Industries by following due process of law ? Even it is not shown by the Bank that, by illegal method loan was got sanctioned to Amigo Industries . In this premises one has to accept that , the Bank sanctioned the loan to Amigo Industires and for that, 2nd Party workman cannot be held responsible . Besides as stated above , no specific case is made out by the Bank regarding role played by the 2nd Party in that transaction . Even it is not shown in what manner services rendered by the 2nd Party workman to Amigo Industries affected on the activities of the Bank? Besides it is not shown by the Bank how participation of the 2nd Party with the activities of the Amigo Industries causes inconvenience or affected on the activities of the Bank? When on all these counts the Bank is silent in my considered view, 2nd Party cannot be held responsible, atleast for sanctioning loan to Amigo Industries and running the business in the name of Amigo Industries with the help of his brother and partner Rajender Singh ? For repayment ofthe loan amount or for recovering Bank has a separate remedy of recovering the loan amount sanctioned to Amigo Industries . There is the separate procedure and separate proceedings which Bank can adopt for recovering the loan amount from the Amigo Industries . Only because the amount sanctioned by the Bank is not paid by Amigo Industries in my considered view, for that 2nd Party cannot be held responsible and cannot be prosecuted as happened in his case for amount not paid by Amigo Industries . Besides citations referred by 2nd Party's Advocate published in 2002 (3 ) L.L.N. page 206 of our Hon'ble High Court in the case ofGope Laxmichand Badlar , vs Oriental Bank ofCommerce , New Delhi , and ors . wher our Hon'ble High Court observed that , burden is on the employer to prove the charges levelled against the emp oyee. Besides it citation referred pulublished in 1999 ( SC ) Vol.94 page 83 in the case ofNeeta Kaplish vs Presiding Officer , Labour Court and anr. where Apex Court observed opportunity givento Management to establish charges levelled against the workman when domestic enquiry is held not fair and proper and finding perverse require to consider. Against that, 1st Party's Advocate referred to citation published in 1998 I CLR page 1093 in the case of Union Bank of India vs Vishwamohan where Apex Court observed that , Bank business is of absolute devotion which require to done with diligence, integrity and honesty. In my considered viewthere cannot be quarrel on that point but in the instant casewhich is before us , it is not shown how 2nd Party was not honest with the Bank business and how he did not attend the work of the Bank with devotion and diligence and integrity as expected ? Even it referred to citation referred above more precisely Satish Kalmadi at Exhibit 33 , R.S. Singh at Exhibit 36 and Mr. D.B. Karkeria at Exhibit 43 . However, none of the witnesses able to establish that, 2nd Party Workman was taking regular visit or taking part in the activities ofAmigo Industries . It is not proved that, he was visiting Amigo Industries and having entire control over its activities. even it is not proved by the Bank that , during office hours of the Bank, when he was working with the Bank, he visited Amigo Industries and said visit causes inconvenience of affected on the business of the 1st Party Bank . Even it is not shown by Bank that , because of the unpleasant role played by 2nd Party Workman in running the Amigo Industries , the business ofthe Bank was affected and his absenteeism created problems for providing services to the customers because of absence of the concerned workman . Even it is not shown that, without intimation 2nd Party visited Amigo Industries and kept himself away during the working hours of the Bank . Not a . single incident is brought on record by the Bank to show that, on particular working day concerned workman left bank unofficially or unauthorisedly or even authorisedly causing inconvenience in the business of the Bank which resulted in loss in the business of the Bank . Even it is not the case ofthe Bank that, 2nd Party was frequently visiting Tarapur and it was causing inconvenience to the activities ofthe Bank. Even question was put to the witness whether it is not legal to introduce any customer to by the Bank employee to which witness of the bank says that, there is no bar to introduce the customer to avail facility of the Bank . Even it is not shown by the Bank, in what manner 2nd Party workman influenced on the 1st Party Bank to carried it to accept the proposal of the Amigo Industries for giving loan . Even it is not shown by the Bank , in what manner, role was played by the 2nd Party to help Amigo Industries in getting loan or which was against the interest of the Bank . Even it is story of the Bank that, 2nd Party workman with the help of his brother and one R.S. Singh run the activities of the Amigo Industries and 2nd Party didnot pressed the Amigo Industries in repaying the loan amount of the Bank. That means , the grievances of the Bank is that the loan which was given to Amigo Industries was not repaid by the Amigo Industries . At the same time one cannot ignore that, Bank unable to point out in what manner 2nd Party Workman played role and carried the 1st Party Bank to sanction loan to the Amigo Industries and how it was illegal ? When introducing customer by the Bank employee is not illegal and when Bank has sanctioned loan to Amigo Industries which is not shown by the Bank that, it was sanctioned only because of the role played by the 2nd Party I am of the view that, for sanctioning loan by the Bank to the Amigo Industries 2nd Party workman cannot be held solely responsible . In fact it is the Bank who was to take care of efficiency of the borrower while sanctioning

4340G1/09-23 8068

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

my considered view for that, 2nd Party cannot be held responsible only because Amigo Industries has not paid its dues towards Bank. So according to me decision taken by the Bank in dismissing the concerned workman in holdinghim guilty or responsible for playing role against the interest ofthe Bank , is not sustainable and requires to setaside.

14. When order under challenge is not tenable and when no fault is shown by the 1st Party Bank regarding the role played by the 2nd Party as well as nothing is shown in what way his role was against the interest of the Bank and how it was going against the business of the Bank, in my considered view, action taken by Bank require to quash and set aside. When action is require to quash and set aside , and when nothing is shown how 2nd Party is responsible for all that I am of the view that, 2nd Party require to reinstate with benefit of back wages and continuity of service.

15. It is not the case of the Bank that , the 2nd Party is in gainful employment . On the contrary 2nd Party states that, he has no business and he is depending on his brother . He states that , he has no source of income . When that is the position and when action taken by 1st Party was illegal and was taken without any reason in my considered view, 2nd Party is entitled for back wages .

16. 2nd Party pray for interest on back wages . However, in my considered view interest on hypothetical presumption cannot be considered . Besides 2nd Party did not render any work to the Bank . He did not work in the Bank for that period . However, at the mistake of the Bank hewas removed which can be considered by passing order of reinstatement by directing Bank to reinstate him and give him benefit of back wages from the date of his termination till he is taken in the employment .

17. In view of the discussions made hereinabove , 1 hold that, the 2nd Party is entitled for reinstatement with benefit ofback wages and continuation of service from the dateoftermination till he taken in the employment . Hence , theorder :-

published in 2005 I CLR page 959 in the case of Bharat HeavyElectricals Limited vs M. Chandraseekhar Reddy& ors . where Apex Court observed that, when enquiry is fair and proper and finding not perverse in that case Court cannot interfere in the punishment which is contrary to the case is at hand as the facts of that case are contrary to the facts which is at hand. The citation referred published in 2005 I CLR page 1074 in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board V/ s. Jagdish Chandra Sharma where Apex Court observed that , when an employee breaches the discipline and on that employer terminates his services in that case Tribunal cannot interfere . It is not the case here- in our case which is at hand . Here Management unable to show in what way concerned workman breached the discipline and invited Management to take action of termination .Another citation referred published in 2005 II CLR page 1055 in the case ofGeneral Manager , Haryana Roadways V/s . Rudhan Singh where Apex Court observed that where a host of factors like the manner and method of selection and appointment i.e. whether after proper advertisement ofthe vacancy or inviting applications from the employment exchange , nature of appointment , namely, whether ad hoc, short term , daily wages , temporary or permanent in character , any special qualification required for thejob and the like should be weighed and balanced in taking a decision regarding award of back wages , which in my considered view , is not applicable to the case at hand as facts of the case are different. Besides citation referred published in 2006 1 CLR page 39 in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. and anr . V/s . Udai Narain Pandey where Apex Court observed that, a person is not entitled to get something only because it would be lawful to do so . It is further observed that, if that principle is applied, the functions of an Industrial Court shall lose much of its significance while granting back wages . Whereas case referred by the 2nd party on the back wages published in 2008 (4) Bom . C.R. page 330 , of our Hon'ble High Court. inthe case Taranjitsingh V/ s. Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation through Divisional Commissioner where Aurangabad Bench of our Hon'ble High Court observed that :

ORDER

"When Court below observed dismissal untenable in that case question ofback wages is required to consider . "

(a) Reference is allowed;

(b) Termination under challege dated 25-9-1999 is quashed and set aside;

(c) 1st Party is directed to reinstate 2nd Party workman Vinod Kumar forthwith and give him benefits of back wages and continuity of service with effect from 25-9-1999;

13. In the instant case burden was on the 1st Party Bank to show that, how 2nd Party was responsible for the alleged charges . Since said burden is not properly discharged by the 1st Party and now showing that , role of the 2nd Party in the activities of Amigo Industries affected on the business of the bank and it was against the interest ofthe Bank . On the contrary no specific case is made out by the 1st Party Bank regarding role played by 2nd Party which affected on the activities of the Bank . When that is the position and only because loan amount is not repaid byAmigo Industries where Bank has alternative remedy to file recovery proceedings against Amigo Industries in

(d) No order as to its costs . Bombay, 30thSeptember, 2009 . A.A.LAD , Presiding Officer 8069 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3375.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय II दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6 ऑफ 1997 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/297/95- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

यू. एस. पाण्डेय, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th November, 2009

S. O. 3375. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 5/1997) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. - II , Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-11-2009.

[No. L- 12012/297/95 - IR (B - II) ] U.S. PANDEY , Section Officer

ANNEXURE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NO . II, ROOM NO.33 , KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, BLOCK - 1 , DELHI -110032

ID No. 5/1997

3. The workman in his statement of claim has claimed thathe was appointed to work as Peon initially at Rajanpur Branch of the Bank, Shahjahanpur Region , w.e.f. 10-06-1991 . He worked there till 24-08-1991 . His services were abruptlyterminated by way oforal orders of the Branch Manager . According to the workman , he was a full time Peon at the said Branch , and was paid only Rs . 20 ( Rupees twenty only) per day by way of wages and wages were not paid for intervening holidays and Sundays . It is further the case of the workman that he was thereafter appointed at Tilhar Branch in the same Region of the Bank as Peon , w.e.f. 14-10-91 and he had been working there till 14-11-94 when his services were again terminated abruptly by the oral orders of the Branch Manager , and without any prior notice. That he was paid wages at the rate of Rs . 25 ( Rupees twenty- five only) which was raised to 30 ( Rupees thirty only) per day from October , 1992 and to Rs . 35 (Rupees thirty five only) per day from November , 1993 and to Rs .40 (Rupees forty only) per day to March , 1994. The workman has prepared his own chart showing the number of days for which wages were paid to him during the period 14-10-91 to 30-04-94 , and the said chart has been annexed by him as Annex. W- 1 . According to the workman, he was employed on daily wages basis and he had worked for 240 days and more in each of three calendar years from 14-10-91 to 30-04-94. Thatby the nature of the duties of the workman he could not be treated as a casual daily wage worker . Since he had worked for more than 240 days , he should have been given notice . That his termination without complying with the requirements of: 524( 1 ) and 524 (2 ) of the Sastry Award was illegal. That Sastry and Desai awards have a statutory force .

In the matter of industrial dispute between:

Shri Chhote Lal

Workman

Versus

Bank ofBaroda

.Management

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 12012/297/95 - IR (B - I) dated 03-01-1997 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

"Whether" the action of the management of Bank of Baroda, Regional Office , Shahjahanpur, in terminating the services of Shri Chhote Lal , Peon , w.e.f. 14-11-94 isjust and legal ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to ? "

4. The management Bank contested the claim of the workman and has filed a written statement . According to them order of reference is bad in law and the Government hasmadethe present reference without application ofmind. That the workman was not in the Bank's employment and no employer - employee relationship existed between the management and the workman on any day preceding 14-11-94 . That the Awards and the Settlements are not applicable to those engaged in the Bank from time to time purely as casual temporary daily rated workers like the workman in this case . That recruitment of clerical and supervisory staff in the Bank is made by the Banking Services Selection Board . However , recruitment and appointment of sub - staff is made by the bank's respective Regional Offices at the instance and with the concurrence/ approval of the Zonal Head office. Casual temporary daily rated workers may however be engaged by a Branch Manager with the approval of the concemed Regional Manager . That back door employment in public sector undertakings is not permissible . That the Bank is sometimes constrained to engage casual/ temporary daily wagers against substantive posts/vacancies pending recruitment process on account of some contingencies .

2. My Ld. Predecessor passed an Award in this case on 23-02-2004 and had held that the action of the management of the Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of Shri Chhote Lal , Peon , was neither unjust nor illegal and the workman was not held entitled for any relief. Against the said Award the petitioner filed a writ petition in the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the writ petition was allowed and the matter was remitted to this Tribunal with a direction to re - decide the matter .

8070

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

5. It is further the case of the management bank that the workman was engaged at Rajanpur Branch on 10-6-91 and heworked there between 10-6-91 and 24-8-91 as a daily wager and he was paid for all the days he worked except Sundays and holidays when he was neither required to work nor did he work . That in the instant case the Branch Manager had engaged the workman as a daily wager on ad hoc casual basis purely on account of seasonal necessity for serving water to customers visiting the Branch during summer season and for other sundry jobs . The period of workman's employment as a daily rated temporary employee in Tilhar Branch in the above circumstances is shown as under :-----

Period

Branch

Tilhar

14-10-91 to 30-12-91

08-01-92 to 26-12-92

02-04-93 to 28-12-93

05-01-94 to 21-10-94

6. That the services of the workman were dispensed with on 21-10-94 . That during the period 05-01-94 to 21-10-94 the workman had worked only for 99 days . That he had not worked for a period of 240 days in 12 calendar months computed backwards from 21-10-94 to 20-10-93 . That casual temporary employees are paid in cash through vouchers . The management bank has prayed for the dismissal of the case of the workman .

7. The workman has filed a rejoinder and has disputed the assertions of the management bank . He has putforth another table and has claimed that from 08-12-93 to 14-11-94 he has worked for 295 days .

8. In support of his case , the workman has filed his affidavit . He has been cross examined by the AR of the management . In rebuttal to that the management has filed an affidavit of Mr. Vijay Sulekh , Manager - Personnel and he has also been cross - examined from the side of the workman .

9. I have heard the Ld . ARs for the parties and have perused the record including the evidence led by the parties in this ease .

10. The most important point for consideration in this case is if the workman has actually worked for 240 days within a period of 12 months commencing and counting backwards from the relevant date, i.e. 14-11-1994, when his services were discontinued by the management bank. There is thus a need for factual adjudication on the basis of the material on record brought by the parties.

11. It is nowwell -established by a catena ofjudicial authorities that the burden of proof lies on the workman to show that he has worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding one year from the date of his alleged disengagement . Accordingto the workman he was disengaged on 14-11-94 while the management has taken the stand that the workman was disengaged on 21-10-94 .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii )] Admittedly, there is no appointment letter with the workman by virtue ofwhich he was engaged by the Branch Manager ondaily wage basis at the Tilhar Branch. He is also not in possession of any document to show that he was disengaged from service in this case on 14-11-94 .

When the workman filed his statement of claim he had prepared the chart annex. W- 1 only till 30-04-94 . No date thereafter showing his engagement in the Bank as a daily rated employee even was mentioned by him in his chart W- 1 which was prepared by none other than himself. The management took the stand that the services of the workman were dispensed with on 21-10-94 and he did not work for 240 days computed backwards from 21-10-94 to 20-10-93. The workman gave another chart in the rejoinder claiming that he had worked for 295 days between 08-12-93 and 14-11-94. In his affidavit filed as evidence in his case he also placed on record a photocopy W -3 showing his engagement in the Bank from 01-5-94 to 21-10-94 . He was given the suggestion that worked in the Bank only for about 200 days to which he had denied . He even denied that he used to be appointed as a daily wager from time to time.

12. Though a photo-copy W -3 has been placed on recordbut no attempt was made by the workman to call for the record from the Bank for proving document W/3 . A mere photo - copy placed on record with the affidavit by the workman will not be enough to prove the document or his claim that he had worked for the number of days mentioned in the photo- copy of the document W/3 . No cogent and trustworthy evidence has been brought on record from the side of the workman to prove that he in fact had worked for 295 days between 08-12-93 and 14-11-94 as has been mentioned by him in Para 13 ofhis rejoinder. Merely making achart in the statement of claim or in the rejoit der which is disputed by the management is not sufficient to prove the claim of the workman that he has in fact worked for the number of days mentioned in the said charts . He ought to have called for the record from the Bank order to prove his case which has not been done in this case .

13. Against the above , Mr. Vijay Suiekh , Manager- Personnel of the management in his affidavit has asserted that he has inspected the records of Tilhar Branch where the workman has claimed to have worked between November , 1993 and October , 1994, and he had brought all the payment vouchers , in original , through which the workman was paid for the days he had worked in the concerned branch during the relevant period from time to time and not up to 14-11-94, as has been alleged by the workman . Mr. Vijay Sulekh , Manager - Personnel , has asserted from the records that the workman had worked for atotal of 202 days between November , 1993 and October , 1994. He has also given the details of the months during which the workman had worked with the management Bank. He has asserted that the workman has not earned the eligibility for protection and benefits under Section 25 ( F) 8071 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

New Delhi , the 19th November, 2009 of the Industrial Disputes Act, even if it is assumed that hisdisengagement amounted to retrenchment .

14. In his cross -examination , Mr. Vijay Sulekh has denied the suggestion that he did not properly verify the records or the number of days mentioned by him in his affidavit are wrong.

S. O. 3376. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 100/02) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workmen , which wasreceived by the Central Government on 19-11-2009.

[No. L- 12012/30/2002- IR (B- II)]

U. S. PANDEY , Section Officer 15. In the given facts and circumstances , the evidence brought on record by the management is far more convincing than the evidence led by the workman . Factually speaking, the workman has failed to prove that he had worked for 240 days even ifhis claim that he was disengaged on 14-11-94 is accepted.

ANNEXURE

16. Reference with advantage can be made to the following authorities in this case :-

(i) Ranip Nagar Palika vs Babuji Gabhaji Thakore & Ors. , SC 2007 (13) SCALE

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

(ii) Range Forest Officer vs S.T. Hadimani , (2002) 3 Supreme Court Cases 25;

NO . CGIT/LC/R/100/02

SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer (iii) Himanshu Kumar Vidyarthi & Ors . vs State of Bihar & Ors . , SC Special Leave Petition(Civil) No. 7957 of 1996. FJR (SC) 465

AND

Workman/Union

Shri Eshwar Keshav Bholankar , Khooni Bhandara Road, Chinchala, Lalbagh , Burhanpur, Khandwa(MP)

Versus

(iv) The Management of M/s . The Hindu, INS . Building vs. The Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal No. II , Delhi & Anr . , Delhi High Court, 2002LLR 151 .

TheZonal Manager , Bank of India, Zonal Office , M.P. Zone , Jail Road, Arera Hills , Bhopal(MP)

Management

AWARD

In the Delhi High Court judgment where Supreme Court authorities have also been quoted , it has been held that the concept af retrenchment " cannot be stretched to cover those employees who are engaged on daily wages basis" . That being the situation the workman who was merely a dailywager has hardly any good case against the management .

Passed on this 3rd day ofNovember , 2009

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No.L- 12012/30/2002- IR( 3-11 ) dated 18-6-02 has referred the following dispute for ac judication by this Tribunal :-

In view of the above , the action of the management ofthe Bank ofBaroda, Regional Office , Shahjahanpur , in terminating the services of the workman , Shri Chhote Lal , Peon , w.e.f. 14-11-94 cannot be held as unjust or illegal . The workman, thus , is held not entitled to any relief in this case . The reference is answered and Award passed accordingly.

"Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager, Bank of India , Bhopal in terminating the services of Shri Eshwar Keshav Bholankar w.e.f 1996 is justified? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman is entitled for?" Dated: 12-11-2009 SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3376.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सी.जी.आई.टी./ एलसी/आर/ 100/02 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. The case of the workman in short is that he was appointed as a peon in the Bank of India at Burhanpur Branch in the year 1991 and worked in regular service till 1996. It is alleged that the Officer of the Bank wrote as " I " in the Muster roll with ill motive and vouchers were also passed in the said name " I" . It is alleged that he worked continuously for five years and is a member of schedule caste . He had also received bonus and the amount of gratuity was also deducted . He was illegally terminated from the service after five years . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated on the post .

[सं. एल -12012/30/2002- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी 8072

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

3. The management Bank also appeared and filed WrittenStatement . The case of the management, inter -alia, isthat there is no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the workman . The alleged workman is not a workman in terms of Sub Section ( c) of Section -2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short I.D. Act , 1947) . It is stated that he had not disclosed anything with regard to his employment in the non- applicant Bank. The reference is said to have been made mechanically without the application of mind. It is stated that the appointment in the Bank is governed by the statutory rules and regulations and also after going through the prescribed procedure .

4. The further case is that the alleged workman was engaged on daily basis for doing casual nature ofjob when required and had been paid accordingly by the Manager in cashfrom his own pocket and the same was reimbursed to the Manager as per Bank's rule. It is denied that he was appointed as a peon in Bank of India, Burhanpur Branch in 1991 and worked regularly till 1996. It is submitted that the payment of bonus did not create a right to become a workman. The photocopies of the papers filed by the alleged workman might have been the personal records of the Branch Manager but these papers are not Bank's Muster Roll . On these grounds , it is submitted that the reference be held that the action of the management is justified.

5. The alleged workman appeared in the case and filed his statement of claim. Thereafter he became absent . Lastly the predecessor's Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the workman on 9-3-06 .

6. The only point for determination is as to whether the action of the Management Bank in terminating the service of Shri Eshwar Keshav Bholankar w.e.f. 1996 is justified?

7. To prove the case , the management has examined onewitness . Management witness Shri I.D.Suriyamoorthy wasSenior Manager ( Human Resources) in Bank of India and was posted at Khandwa Zonal Office , Khandwa. He has stated that the workman was engaged on daily basis for doing casual nature of job as and when required. He waspaid directly by the Manager whenever he was engaged byhim.He has stated that the workman was never appointed by the Bank and he was never on the Muster Rolls of the Bank. He has stated that the workman was never appointed by the Bank and therefore, the question to terminate him from services does not arise . His evidence is not rebutted by other evidence . There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence. It is clear that the workman is not entitled to any relief. This reference is answered in favour ofthe Bank.

8. In the result , the award is passed ex parte against Shri Eshwar Keshav Bholankar without any order ofcosts .

9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment asper rules .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, PresidingOfficer नईदिल्ली , 19 नवम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 3377. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ओवरसिज बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/1989 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/526/88 -डी . II ( ए) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi, the 19th November, 2009 S. O. 3377. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 28 of 1989) of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-11-2009.

[Nó. L- 12012/526/ 88 - D . Il ( A) ] U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, TAMILNADU, CHENNAI -600104

Wedneday, the 30th day of September , 2009 PRESENT

T.M.T. S. Vimala, B. Sc . , M.L.

PresidingOfficer, Industrial Tribunal Industrial Dispute No. 28 of 1989

(Inthe matter of dispute for adjudication Under Sec . 10(1 )(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947-between the workman and the management of Indian Overseas Bank, Madras -600002) .

BETWEEN

...Petitioner Shri I. Sivakumar , Church Street, Mappilaikuppam Post, Nannilam Taluk, Thanjavur District

And

TheGeneral Manager, Indian Overseas Bank , 762, Anna Salai , Madras600002 .

...Respondent Reference : OrderNo. L- 12012/526/88 - D. II (A), dated 10-3-89, Ministry of Labour, Government of India, New Delhi .

8073 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

Thisdispute coming on for final hearing on Monday, the 14th day of September , 2009. Upon perusing the Reference, Claim statement, Counter statement and other connected papers on record and upon hearing the arguments of Sri K.M. Ramesh . Advocate , appearing for Petitioner/workman and of M/ s . N.G.R. Prasad & S. Sathish, Advocates appearing for the Respondent/ management and this dispute having stood over till this day for consideration, this Tribunal made the following.

AWARD

by gross and serious irregularities apparent on the face of the records. The enquiry authority, instead of acting as an impartial arbiter, combined in himself the dual roles ofboth the judge and the prosecutor . There was no separate presenting officer or Management representative apart from the Enquiry Authority, who put leading questions and exhibited his prior personal knowledge of the entire transaction . In fact some of the questions put by the Enquiry Authority are not only leading , but actual suggestions which reveal the biased nature and conduct of the enquiry . The Petitioner was not given reasonable opportunity to cross -examine the witnesses and prove his innocence.

TheGovernment of India have referred the following issue for adjudication by this Tribunal:

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian OverseasBank in dismissing Shri 1. Sivakumar, Clerk- cum-Shroff, Manavalanallur Branch is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to ?"

2. The briefaverments in the Claim statement ofthe Petitioner:

ThePetitionerwas appointed on 22-9-1982 as Clerk- cum- Shroff ( Roll No. 31790) by the Respondent' Management. Originally he was posted at Chakkarapalli and thereafter during 1983 he was transferred to Manavalanallur Branch . The petitioner had served the Bank honestly and sincerely and his record of service has been unblemished and spotless.

After the commencement of the enquiry , the management gave the Petitioner a list of documents and lists of witnesses . Even though it was stated that three witnesses were intended to be examined , only two witnesses were examained , leaving out the propesed third witness Sri N. V.Gopalakrishnan , for reasons best known only to the management . The Enquiry Authority also did not elicit from the management as to why it gave up the third witness . It is obivious that MW 1 being the Manager wanted to cover up the dispensed witness from self- incrimation and wanted to settle scores only with the petitioner, out of personnal ill- will and vengeance . The Enquiry Authority failed to pull up the witness and direct him togive relevant answers to questions put in the course ofcross-examination .

The Respondent/ Management is the Indian Overseas bank, which is a Nationalized bank , wholly owned by the Government of India, having its Central office at 762 , Anna Salai , Madras , and is represented by the Managing Director .

While the petitioner was working in Manavalanallur branch , he was served with a charge sheet dated 25-10-1985 alleging that he had fraudulently withdrawn certain amounts from S.B. Account No. 3623 and that he had prepared excess interest accrued vouchers to cover- up the said withdrawals . By the same communication he was also suspended from service . He denied the charges alleged against him in the enquiry.

Inthe summing up statement of 21-1-1987, Petitioner pointed out that the witness MW2 turned hostile and his evidence was incoherent . The admissions of IWI go to show that there was no specific , allotment of work and allocation of seats , as it is a rural bank, with only three clerical staff. Further as all staff have handled the transations in question there is no justificat on to pick and choose the petitioner alone . The witness MW1 changed the format and draft of the Police complaint and private complaint . He had done it on his own without any Authority, and when he was questioned about this change ofdraft , he become defiant and challenging . It may be seen that the crux of the allegations are ' fraudulent withdrawals' and ' preparation of excess interest accrued vouchers' . The direct evidence in proof ofsuch an allegation would have been the production of the relevant withdrawal slips , and interest accrude vouchers . But the management , more particularly both MW1 and MW2 miserably failed to produce such clinching material evidence , and no valid or acceptable explanation has been given for the omission and non-production of such documents, Nor any explanation has been made for this blatant failure of prosecution.

Adomestic enquiry was held against the petitioner to prove the aforesaid charges . Petitioner submit at the outset, that he was not given ( 1 ) the list of witnesses proposed to be examined in the enquiry (2) copies of documents or reports relied upon by the management . Thus he was led into the enquiry blind- folded. In fact in the charge sheet only bare allegations were set out, without disclosing on what materials such charges were made up . Thus the petitioner had been denied a fair and reasonable opportunity to disprove the charges and to vindicate his innocence , and he was also not given a fair and reasonable opportunity to submit his explanation .

It is on reconrd that MW1 had written to the party holding A/c No. 3623 about the overdraft and to his knowledge the customer admitted and acknowledged the overdraft and made good the payment due . But the same withess wrote to the Regional Office leaving others and The so-called enquiry, said to have been held by the enquiry authority (Mr. K.B. Santhanam) is equally vitiated 8074

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 /AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

Hisrole consisted of

(a) Guiding and promoting the witnesses having had a prior and prejudiced version of the incidents from the Manager;

(b) Tutoring the witnesses by way of putting leading questions and suggestions in the enquiry proper and tutoring behind the enquiry;

(c) Interference in the course of the enquiry in favour ofthe Management . Petitioner once again reiterates that the enquiry was neither honest nor fair, and the findings are perverse and bad in law.

only implicating petitioner. This really shows that MWI has beenactuated by personal ill-will and evil motives . It is onrecord that the report ofMW2 Shri S. Ganesan, Inspector of 2-9-85 was already with the management even before issuance of charge sheet to petitioner. No reason has been shown as to why it was not disclosed or referred to in the charge sheet. Further both on the basis of the said report of the Inspector and his own evidence in the enquiry as MW2, his version made other staff equally responsible , for the various entries . There is a definite implication of Shri N. V. Gopalakrishana. who has also been cited as witness by the management, but later given up . Similarly, Shri T. Shanmugasundaram, cashier had also made an entry in the progressive ledger which is known to the management and to witnesses MW1 and MW2, but neither Shri T. Shanmugasundaram, nor Shri N.V. Gopalakrishnan was charge-sheeted nor any explanation was called for from any of them . The most relevent step by the management should be to summon and to enquire the customer of A/c No. 3623, as to why she withdraw the amounts in excess of deposit, why she admitted the overdraft and paid the amounts at least the petitioner should have been called upon or directed or at least given the opportunity to bring the witness to depose as to the facts and circumstances of this particular account.

The Management had deliberately omitted to examine the third witness Mr. N.V. Gopalakrishnan even though his name was cited by the management . His evidence would not be helpful to the management because admittedly he was responsible for not entering the three entries (Two debits and one credit ) . So the management hastily withdrew his name it is strange logic for the management to demand that Petitioner should have examined him in his defence . He was certainly considered as a material withness for the management and when he wasgiven up for no valid reason . or explanation is certainly entitled to ask any independent forum to note the material. omission and to draw an adverse inference . Also Mr. T. Shanmugasundaram made a wrong credit of Rs .3000 in the S.B. progressive .

ThePetitioner reiterates that the charges are false; and that he had been falsely implicated. The Management had not produced any withdrawal silp to show who had drawn the amount . Neither did it produce the interest accrued voucher and register and transfer jounrnal ; nor evenS.B. supplementary entries. Thus without producing the relevant documents , to bring whom the charges ,the Management proceeded on the assumption that the charges ofmisconduct would lie .

The management did not produce the following documents despite request

1.Transferjournal

The manner in which MWI answered questions in cross - examination can be seen from the record . It is so apparent that the answers were evasive , flippant and totally impertinent . It is a pity that the so-called Enquiry Officer did not bring MW 1 to order , and yet claimed to be impartial judge; which is an irony of fate . The bank is not entitled to presume that the withdrawals were fictitious or that petitioner had caused the same There is absolutely no evidence to support this presumption . The management thus omitted to produce material evidence. because of its pre-conceived notions and pre -determined views and has beenguided by bias and prejudice .

2.Withdrawal slips

3. Interest accrued Vouchers

4.CopyofPolice complaint

5.Original draft ofPolice complaint as instructed byregional office.

The non- production of these documents are deliblerate, and intended to prejudice the defense of the petitioner.

Ignoring the statement of the petitioner dated 21.1 . 87 the Enquiry Authority gave his pre-determined conclusion holding petitioner guilty of the charges . Petitioner submitted his reply dated 3-3-87 in reply to show cause notice of 14-2-87 . Petitioner pointed out that the findings are perverse and not supported by evidence . It is evident that the Enquiry Authority did not go in to the relevant questions in depth and seriousness but made superficial and pre-determined findings . Most of the evidence is either hear- say or opinionated. Petitioner has beenunfairly discriminated against and made a scapegoat and victimized for no fault of his .

(1) The findings of the Enquiry Authority is one sided, as he failed to consider the following circumstances 1

1. The management failing to produce relevant direct documents

The Enquiry Authority was biased and was not an independent person capable of performing the role of a Judge. Merely because there is no separate Presenting officer itdoes not mean that Enquiry Officer can step into the shoes of the management and combine the roles of the judge and the prosecutor. The Enquiry officer in this case didnotconfine himself to putting formal questions by way of introduction, as is expected of a enquiry officer .

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

(2) MW1 turning hostile and refusing to answer properly in the course of cross -examination (3) For not considering the admissions , and contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence of MW1 and MW2

(4) The contradiction between the original draft of police complaint and the unauthorized alteration made by MW1

(5) For not considering the written acknowledgment of the overdraft and payment made by account holder under her ( Shrimathi Vimala) letter of 29-11-85 .

More than everything else , it is a matter of record that the police complaint was not pursued and the matter was closed. Similarly the private criminal complaint had also not been pursued. Thus it is evident that the management had intended to close the matter to avoid truth being known in a public enquiry. This is nothing but victimization and Unfair Labour Practice .

The Management passed original order of dismissal dated 7-3-87 . Petitioner preferred an appeal against the dismissal on 15-4-87, which was dismissed . The further entreaties and representations of the petitioner have been ofno avail . Petitioner was therefore left with no alternative but to approach the kind intervention of the Conciliation Authority for institution of conciliation proceedings under Sec . 2A of the I.D. Act . The action of the Resnondent/ management in dismissing him from service is illegal and unjustified and that he is entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages , and other attendant benefits for the foregoing as well as the under noted reasons , among others :

(a) The dismissal is illegal as there was no fair or proper enquiry . The so-called enquiry said to have been held is vitiated by grave and serious irregularities that would render it null and void.

(b) The Enquiry Officer was biased and partisan, The findings are perverse and one- sided. There is no legal evidence in support of the charges.

(c) The action of the management in proceeding against the petitioner leaving others is wholly arbitrary did discriminatory.

(d) The entire procedure evolved and adoptedby theManagement is contrary to the Bi-partite Settlements , which clearly makes a distinction between ' Offence ' and ' Misconduct' (e) The punishment imposed upon the petitioner is not only excessive but also shockingly disproportionate to the charges . Both the findings of the enquiry and the punishment imposed upon the petitioner call for 4340G1/09-24

8075

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

interference of his tribunal under Sec . 11A of the I.D. Act .

(f) Such consideration is also warranted by the fact that the petitioner had put in a clean and unblemished record of service . The failure on the part of the management to consider the same renders dismissal illegal and void.

The actions of the management in dismissing the petitioner from service is illegal and unjustified and pass anaward directing the Respondent/management to reinstate the petitioner in service with full back wages and other attendant and consequential benefits and reliefs .

3. The briefaverments in the Counter Statement of theRespondent Bank

The Petitioner Joined the Bank on 22-9-1982 as Clerk/ Shroff. He was originally postedat Chakarapalli and thereafter transferred to Manavalanallur branch during July 1983. While the petitioner was functioning as Cashier at Manavalanallur branch, he committed certain acts of commission and omission which amount to gross misconduct. He was charge-sheeted and suspended on 25-10-85 in accordance with the provisions ofthe Bipartite Settlement between the Bank and its workmen which is binding between the parties . The charges leveled against the petitioner are as follows :

1. fraudulently withdrew of a tota sum of Rs . 3550 in S.B. A/ c No. 3623 which stood in the name of Mr. V. Sundaresan and Mrs. Vimala.

2. In order to cover up these fraudulent withdrawals he had falsified the accounts of the branch.

(a) He prepared excess interest accrued voucher during June 1985 in 4 ledgers containing SB accounts .

(b) Showed the extracted balances of ledger No. 16 in April 1985 and May 1985 as tallied.

(c) He took possession of ledger No. 16 and passed thewithdrawal slip on 14-8-85 for Rs . 250 in respect of S.B. A/c No. 3623 mentioned above .

(d) He omitted to record the fictitious entry of Rs . 1000 dated 30-4-85 appeared in the ledger in the pass book issued to the customer.

As the charges levelled against the petitioner are serious in nature he was placed under suspension as per para. 17.12(b) of the Bipartite Settlement . The petitioner did not submit his reply to the charge sheet even though sufficient time was given to him for this purpose . Shri K.B Santhanam was aopointed as Enquiry Officer .

Avalid and pro proper domestic enquiry was held into the charge by the Enquiry Officer . The enqui y 8076

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

the Manager wanted to cover up the third witness . The M.W1 being the Manager of the branch is the proper witness to depose about the happenings at the branch. TheMWI not only deposed about what had happenedbut also identified the handwriting of the petitioner in the relevant documents . Even in the cross -examination he confirmedthatthe handwriting of I. Sivakumar, is found in the account opening from relating to S.B. A/c No. 3623 . Thishas not been controverted by the defance . There is no need to pull up any witness in the enquiry as the answers given by them were direct and to the point both in the Chief-examination as well as the Cross examination .The delinquent is apparently desperate, because the charges were duly established in the enquiry. There is no question ofMWI turning hostile during the enquiry . Perhaps the defence was aggrieved by the deposition given against them by M W1 in Chief examination as well as in Cross- examination . MWI had never stated that there is no specific allotment of work. He had clearly and unmistakably stated thatthe office order book was introduced only from Jan '86 andbefore that date , oral instructions were given allotting work among clerks . This does not mean that there was no allocation of work at all . The evidence on record clearly proves that it is the petitioner who had committed fraud on the bank by making withdrawals as stated in the charge sheet.Further it is the petitioner who had manipulated the accounts of the branch with a view to cover up the fraud. Therefore the involvement of the petitioner was duly identified by the witnesses during the enquiry . Thus there is no question of singling out the petitioner against the other clerks who were available at the branch at the relevant time.With regard to the police complaint it has been made clearby MW I during the cross -exammation that the draft ofthe Police complaint was suitably drawn up under the guidance of the police authorities , to whom the case was narrated by MWI , but the substance of the allegations remain the same . As per the Bi -partite Settlement, it is open to the Bank to proceed against the petitioner for having committed gross misconduct and hence there was no need for proceeding with the private complaint. Only on that basis, the previous complaint was withdrawn and action was taken against the petitioner, as per the provisions set out in the Bi- partite Settlement . It is a decision of the managenent and the petitioner cannot question the same . The petitioner istrying to take advantage ofhis own action. The petitioner is well aware of the fact that withdrawal slips and vouchers were destroyed.

commenced on 28-10-86 when the petitioner denied the charges . The petitioner stated that he will be defendedby Shri G. Raghunathan . Vice- President of the Union . The enauiry was next held on 27-11-86 when the petitioner had certified that he had scrutinized all the documents relied upon by the management for the purpose of proving the charges . On the same day, two witnesses were examined on behalf of the management and they were duly cross- examined by his defence representative , Shri G. Raghunathan, Vice President of the All India Overseas Bank Employees ' union . The defence did not produce any witness ordocuments in support of their case. The enquiry was therefore treated as concluded and the defence was given 15 days time to submit their argument. The petitioner was given every opportunity to defend himself. The charge wasspecific and distinct chargres were framed against the petitioner and the details of the imputations were furnished. These charges related to gross misconduct enumerated in para. 17.5(d) and 17.5(j ) of the Bipartite Settlement. The charge sheet was in conformity with law and the practice followed in the Bank, It is submitted that the enquiry was validly conducted in accordance with the procedure laid downunder the Bi -partite Settlement . Both the parties are bound by the settlement which is based on the Sastry Award as modified by the Desai Award. There is no specific provision for appointment of a separate Presenting Officer . The Enquiry Officer himself putting questions is the practice followed in the Banking industry for well over 30 years and hence he cannot complain against the procedure followed in the instant case . In fact there was no objection from the petitioner or his defence representative for the conduct of the enquiry without a Presenting Officer . No bias was ever attributed against the Enquiry Officer during the enquiry and hence the plea raised by the petitioner now that the Enquiry Officer acted both as the judge and prosecutor should be rejected. In fact there can be no legal obiection to the Enquiry officer putting questions in the enauiry. This procedure has been approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Workmen Vs. Management ofB & C Mills ( 1970 1 LLJ p . 26) . There was no question of any leading questions being asked in the enquiry . The Enquiry Officer considered the evidence dispassionately. The petitioner was given every opportunity to cross examine the witnesses . The petitioner was given sufficient time to inspect the documents available at the branch . The petitioner not only acknowledged receipt of the list of documents and witnesses but also perused the documents and certified to the effect that he had inspected the documents before the commencement of the enquiry proceedings on 27-11-1986. It was open to the Enquiry Officer to examine all or any of the witnesses listed. The Enquiry Officer felt that the evidence of MW3 ( listed) is not required and hence he had concluded the enquiry by the evidence of two witnesses . There is no need for the Inquiring Authority to elicit as to why he gave up the third witness . There is no truth in the statement that MW1 being

Management have got every reason to suspect the involvement of the petitioner for the destruction of these records . The charges as established against the petitioner was based on other documentary evidences available and the evidence of witnesses . The evidence produced in the domestic enquiry clearly establishes the guilt of the petitioner beyond reasonable doubt. There is no need to explain the non -production of the destroyed withdrawal 8077 भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

slips and vouchers . The petitioner was well aware of the same and he is trying to take advantage of the same . It is incorrect to state that the bank has acknowledge the overdraft as that of the customer . On the contrary, the five withdrawal slips from the SB A/ c No. 3623 were all forged by the petitioner for his own pecuniary advantage and only in order to escape the action by the police, the petitioner had persuaded the account holder to pay back the amount. In fact the bank is looking forward to recover the amount from the terminal benefit of the petitioner .

tallied with the fraudulent withdrawal and this clearly proved that the petitioner was guilt of manipulating the accounts with a view to conceal the fraud committed by him. Most ofthe records referred therein were destroyed bythe petitioner with a view to conceal the fraud perpetrated by him on the bank. With regard to the copy of police complaint and a copy of the draft given by the Regional Office for making the police complaint, these were not repords relied upon by the management for proving the changes against the petitioner . There was no specific request during the enquiry for production of any of these documents. The petitioner is only making a self- serving statement now as if he had dentanded documents during the enquiry.

The allegations against the Enquiry Officer that he was guiding and tutaring the witnesses are totally unfounded. This will be evident from the record ofevidence at the domestic enquiry. Enquiry was fair and legal . The charges for which the petitioner was proceeded were different from the lapses attributed to Shri T. Shamugasundaram. In fact an explanation was called for the alleged mistake committed by him and no further action was thought necessary against him . If the petitioner had anything against Sri T. Shanmuasundaram , he could have very well asked the Enquiry Officer to examine him as a Court witness or a defence witness . The allegation that MWI's answer in the cross examination was evasive , flippant, and impertinent is rejected. The witness answered to the point and to the questions he was asked. Merely because the witness was not giving answers suited to the interest ofthe petitioner , it does not mean that the answers were impertinent . The account holder was duly enquired and the pass book issued to the account holder showed that the fradulent withdrawals made by the petitioner and which were refected in the ledger were not found in the pass book issued to them . Thus it is a case of fraud perpetrated on the bank through the medium of the customers account and that too without the knowledge of the customer. Therefore , there was absolute y no need to examine the account holders . The fact of the fraud perpetrated on the bank by the petitioner vas apparent in the evidence produced during the eqauiry. The Inquiring authority had come to the conclusion that the guilt of the petitioner was proved beyond all reasonable doubt and gave a finding accordingly to the Disciplinary Authority. Thereupon the Disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 14-2-87 enclosing a copy of the findings to the petitioner asking him to show cause notice as to why he should not be dismissed from the bank's service as per para 17.6( a ) of the Bipartite scttlement entered into between the bank and its workmen . He was given sufficient time to reply to the show cause notice as well as to make his submission in person along with his defence representative . The petitioner sent his reply by his letter dated 3-3-87 .

After considering the evidence on record and after taking into account the gravity of the misconduct and the There is no need to refer the report given by Sri S. Ganesan in the charge sheet issued to the petitioner . In fact, the report given by S. Ganesan is only a document relied on by the management to prove the charges aginst the petitioner in the dortestic enquiry. It is a case of fraud perpetrated on the bank solely by the petitioner herein and there is no question of holding the other staff responsible . There is no need to examine all the witnesses cited by the management as the evidences of MWI and MW2 were enough and sufficient . If the petitioner had anything/ incriminating documents against Sri N. V.Gopalakrishnan and Sri T. Shanmugasundaram , staff members , the petitioner could have requested the Enquiry officer to produce them. This has not been done by the petitioner . The petitioner could have at least summoned them as defence witness and confronted with the evidence . If any against them. The petitioners having failed to adopt any of the above two courses of action is estopped from contending that the non - examination of these two witnesses by the management is not correct . The petitioner's hand in the withdrawals and the falsitication of accounts were found out in the investigation and also subsequently established in the domestic enquiry . There was no need to summon account holder . The petitioner's involvement was established through other evidences and therefore there was no need to examine the account holders who were after all outsiders and not employees of the bank. The entries found in the ledger were not reflected in the pass books and the account holders were therefore innocent of the transaction put through clandestinely in their account bythepetitioner herein . There is no question of relying on mere circumstantial evidence . The evidence produced during the enquiry was direct and to the point and against the petitioner herein . The charges were found duly proved in the enquiry with materials which clinched the charges beyond all reasonable doubts . The petitioner was rightly charge sheeted for his acts of commission and omission and for putting the bank to wrongful loss and making wrongful gain for himself. The petitioner was involved at every stage of the transaction and was caught red handed . The Manager is well acquainted with the handwriting of the petitioner and others and from his evidence it is clear that the handwriting of the petitioner is seen at every stage in the fraudulent withdrawal of amount from the customer's account and the manipulation of the books of the branch with a view to conceal the fraudulent acts . The amount by which the interest accrued account was boosted clearly 8078

[PART II SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/ AGRAHAYAΝΑ21 , 1931

Ithasbeenheld by various decision of the court that abank employee is required to exhibit utmost honestyand integrity in the discharge of his duties and that he renders himselfunfit to be continued in Bank's employment if he commits misappropriation . The amount is not relevant because the position in a Bank involves one of utmost trust and confidence . The petitioner had joined the bank only in 1982 and the record ofservice in the bank was short andtherefore ,there is no question ofthe petitioner claiming that he was having a clean and unblemished record of service. The acts committed by the petitioner are so gross that the mere record of service put in for about 6 years does not in any way mitigate the fraud committed by the petitioner on the bank. There was no question of considering the case of the petitioner sympathetically for the reasonhehad rendered himselfunfit for being continued in the bank's service due to commission of gross misconduct involving moral turpitude . As the services of the petitioner was short, there was no question of claiming that the services was unblemished and exemplary. The punishment ofdismissal is well merited on dthe facts and circumstances of the case. All the relevant facters were takeninto consideration while awarding the punishment of dismissal by the disciplinary Authority which was confirmed by the Appellate authority. The past record of the employee was also considered and in the face of the fraud committed on the bank the past record of service pales into significance . It is submitted that there is absolutely no material to invoke Sec. 11A of the 1.D. Act . There is absolutely no merit on the request of the petitioner for showing any compassionate consideration to the petitioner . There is no merit in the contentions of the petitioner and the petitioner has been rightly dismissed from the bank's service for proved acts of 'gross misconduct ' involving moral turpitude. The dismissal of the petitioner from the Bank's service is to be upheld. The respondent have also lost confidence in the petitioner as he was holding a post of confidence in the Bank and that too as a cashier . He Cannot therefore be reinstated in the bank's service under any circumstances . The dismissal of the petitioner is justified and he is not entitled to any relief.

4. Point for consideration

extenuating circumstances and past record ofthe petitioner, the Discinlinary Authority confirmed the punishmnent of dismissal proposed by him . The allegation that the Inquiring authoritywas one sided and pation is refuted. The Enauiry officerhad gone into the evidence in depth and arrived at the conclusion of guilt against the petitioner. This has been accepted by the Disciplinary Authority after due consideration and issuance of show cause notice to the petitioner. The petitioner was dismissed from bank's service because of acts of fraud perpetrated against the bank. The findings of the Inquiring authority are legal valid and proper. There was no question of adverse inference being drawal against the management. Alldocuments reauired for the purpose of proving the charges were produced in the enquiry. The petitioner had not demanded any specific document at any stage of the enquiry which was not produced. There was no question of MWI turning hostile at the enquiry . The witnesses have clearly explained the position in the cross examination itself There was no question of overdraft in the account as the hand of the account holders were not seen in the withdrawals . On the contrary, the withdrawrals were made in the hand of the petitioner which was proved in the enquiry. There is no question of further pursuing the police complaint after its closure by the police . It is open to the bank to proceed against the petitioner for having committed gross misconduct as per the provisions contained in the Bipartite settlement after the closure of the case by the Police . In that view, the bank had withdrawn the private complaint with a view to initiate the action against the petitioner as botb the actions cannot be taken simultaneously as per the provisions contained in the Bipartite Settlement . The Petitioner was not at all a scapegoat as he was rightly charged for his acts of commission and omission . The oetitioner was rightly dismissed from the bank's service bv order ofDisciplinary authority dated 7-3-87 after fully and properly following the procedures laid down in the Bi- partite settlement . The petitioner's appeal was duly heard and disposed off by the Appellate authority after giving a personal hearing to the petitioner as well as his defence representative on 15-4-87 . After considering the material and the grounds of appeal , the Appellate authority arrived atthe conclusion that the guilt ofthe petitioner was proved beyond doubtand confirmed the punishment of dismissal by his order dated 26-8-87 .

The case of the management is that the dismissal of Thiru I. Sivakumar is legal , valid andjustified. But the case ofthe Workman is that the dismissal is illegal, invalid and unjustified. The further case is that the domestic enquiry leading to his dismissal was not conducted in a fair and proper manner following the principles of natural justice .

5. In view of the rival contentions , the following issue arises for consideration :

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian Oversea Bank in dismissing Shri I. Sivakumar , Clerk- cum-Shroff, Manavalanallur Branch is justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled to ?

With regard to the dispute raised by the petitioner before the Conciliation authorities , the same was resisted by the respondent as it is devoid of any merit . The entire proceedings ofthe enquiry will be taken as part and parcel ofthis counter. As there was no merit in the claim filedby the petitioner before the Conciliation Officer the dispute raised by the petitioner had ended in a failure . Now the question before this triburial is as to whether the dismissal ofthe petitioner is justified and to what relief if any , the workman is entitled . The dismissal of the petitioner from the bank's service is legal , valid and fully justified.

8079 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

6.The route map of this case:

(h) The findings of enquiry officer are not biased orarbitrary.

(i) The domestic enquiry has been conducted in accordance with the Standing Orders , provisions of law and principles of natural justice.

There are two prior orders passed by this tribunal . The first order was regarding the fairness of the enquiry andthe second order was about the merits of the charges . It is necessary to look into the findings given by the Tribunal and the Hon'ble High Court before discussing the merits of the charges.

(j) The withdrawal of private complaint is not fatal.

A. Finding arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal on 12-8-1993 .

(k) Punishment imposed is not excessive and disproportionate

(a) On the preliminary issue as to whether the domestic enquiry was conducted in a fair and proper, manner, it was held that the enquiry held was fair and proper.

(1) The enquiry officer/disciplinary authority/ and the appellate authority who are competent person are well versed in banking transaction and they have applied their mind and therefore the order cannot be interfered with .

(b) The non- appointment of separate Presenting Officer and the action of the Enquiry Officer himself doing the role of Prosecutor as well as Judge is not prohibited by law.

(m) The petitioner is guilty ofmisconduct involving moralturpitude . Therefore the dismissal is fair andproper.

(c) Just because the Enquiry Officer himself was the person , who decided to examine MWI and MW2 and not to examine the third witness , does not amount to bias .

Asagainst the First order dated 12-8-93 holding that the domestic enquiry has been conducted fairly and properly and as against the Second order dated 30-11-94 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service appeal has been preferred by the workman in W.P.No. 17184/95 .

(d) The contention of the workmen that he was not provided with the list of witnesses and list ofdocuments were not correct .

C. The contentions raised before the Hon'ble High Court (SingleJudge)

(e) The non -production of withdrawal slip and interest accrued voucher is not fatal as it is explained that it had been destroyed. With these findings the enquiry has been held tobe fair andproper and the case was adjourned for further enquiry on merits .

After further enquiry the tribunal passed the award dated 30-11-94 on merits ofthe charges.

The grievance raised was that the enquiry officer wasfunctioning as a Judge and Prosecutor and the manner in which questions were put by him made it appear that he putquestions to the extent of cross examining the witnesses and not for eliciting ; the evidence . The procedure followed was alleged to be , not in accordance with/ consistent with by Bipartite Settlement and basic principles of natural justice.

B. Important facts noted, observations made and findings given are as follows (in the said order dated 30-11-94 of thetribunal.)

The Hon'ble High Court held that the regulations , by themselvesdo not prevent the enquiring authority himselfbeing the Presenting Officer as long as he was not the complainant.

(a) V. Sundaresan and his wife Vimala opened Savings Bank A/ c No. 3623 is proved by Ex . M30 and M38 .

The further observations are as follows :

(b) The workmen herein was the person who Introduced the Account holders to the management .

(d) non -examination of third witness is not fatal .

Appointment of PresentingOfficer is not mandatory. The questions put by the enquiry officer were not leading questions. It is not possible to characterize those questions as leading questions . The pattern of questions by the enquiry officer cannot be said to be prejudicial to the petitioner. Irregularity should have been avoided.

(e) full fair and reasonable opportunity has been givento the workman.

(f) The non - prosecution of other two co- employees is not fatal because it is a minor misconduct and hence there is no discrimination and victimization.

The Hon'ble High Court pointed out that that petitioner did not choose to examine himself as a witness to challenge the evidence of the management . There is no independent discussion and application of mind by the tribunal . It is reproduction of the submission of the management and the findings of the enquiry officer. There is no proper discussion and its conclusions. There are (g) There is no enmity or ill feeling between the management and the petitioner .

8080.

[PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931

Charge No.3 : The petitioner showed the extracted balance of Ledger No. 16 in April , 1985 and May, 1985 as tallied when in fact they were not .

only general observations . Those observations are mere reproduction ofthe earlier order dated 12-8-93 . However the Enquiry was held to be fair and proper and also in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

Charge No. 4 : On 14-8-85 though the petitioner was not the ledger Keeper he took possession of S.B. Ledger No. 16 from Sri N.V. Gopalakrishnan and passed the withdrawal slip in S.B. A/c . No. 3623 by striking out the earlier entry for Rs . 250 dated 31-7-85.

Order of the Tribunal dated 30-11-94 was set aside and remanded with a direction to consider the issue in detail and to pass a reasoned order as to whether there is sufficient material to sustain the charge .

Asagainst those findings writ appeal was preferred by the management.

Charge No 5 : The petitioner omitted to record the fictitious entry of Rs . 1000 dated 30-4-85 appearing in tjhe ledgerwhile making upto date the relative pass book.

The finding by the Single Bench that the enquiry is held in a fair and proper manner is not under challenge by the employee .

D. Inthe Order dated 23-3-2009 the Hon'ble Division Bench (passed in W.A. No. 1409/2005 .) indicated as follows:-

The Ho'ble High Court upheld the order of remand of the Hon'ble High Court . At the same time the following observation was made regarding the order ofthe Tribunal .

8. The learned counsel for management contended thatthe entries in the document Ex . M29 and M33 would prove that there had been fradulent withdrawl and creation offabricated/ inflated vouchers , relating to , accrued interest. The management relies upon the oral evidence of MW1 also and it is contended that those documents have been proved to be in the hand -writing of Sivakumar and the evidence substantiate the charge against the petitioner . Perusal of these documents reveal that there is no reason to reject this contention .

There are 47 documents on the side of management and 7 documents on the side of petitioner . There is no discussion about these documents . There is no discussion aboutthe oral evidence . No reason has been given . There is no application ofmind . The remand is right . Parties were permitted to raise all the issues before the Tribunal.

7. The following are the charges against the Petitioner Shiva Kumar .

(a) In Ex. M29, Ledger relating to A/c No. 3623, the followingdetails are shown as highlighted portion-a sum of Rs.1000 each is shown in withdrawal column on 6-4-85 and 15-4-85 . On the next line credit for Rs . 2000 is shown which appears to have been corrected as Rs . 3000 in the next page on 30-4-85 a sum of Rs . 1000 is shown as withdrawn . All the three withdrawals are contended to be fraudulent withdrawal .

Withdrawal to 23-4-85 is contended to be a genuine withdrawal . It is contended that in order to cover up the three fraudulent withdrawal false credit has been given and shown as Rs . 3000 .

Charge No 1 : Fraudulent withdrawal ofmoney from the Account No. 3623 (which stood in the name of D. Sundaresan and Mrs. Vimala, as per the details furnished below:

Amount withdrawn

Date

6-4-1985

Rs. 1000

15-4-1985

Rs. 1000

30-4-1985

Rs . 1000

Rs .300

9-5-1985

Rs. 250

31-7-1985

Total

Rs. 3550

The case of the bank is that on 31-7-85 a sum of Rs. 250 was fraudulently withdrawn from out of the balance of Rs . 299.10 but the real balance available was only Rs . 49.10 . The real account holder wanted to withdraw a sum ofRs . 250 on 14-8-85 . Finding that the balance available is only Rs . 49.10. , there was manipulation in the account , by striking out the withdrawal of Rs . 250 on 31-7-85 thereby making the balance appear as Rs . 299.10 , thereby facilitating the actual withdrawal of Rs . 250 on 14-8-85 . These entries in Ex.M29 , proved that there had been withdrawals and credit from 6-4-85 to 31-7-85 . As per the contention ofthe bank these fraudulent transactions and fabrication of document were done by the petitioner.

Charge No.2 : In order to cover up the above fraudulent withdrawal the petitioner prepared inflated (excess ). Interest, accrued vouchers in the following manner as described in the table :

Ledger No. Actual Interest

Amount for Difference in which voucher the amount passed

The next document relied upon is Ex . M33 . This document called Paying counter Cash book. In respect of Account No. 3623 the following withdrawals finds place in the Paying Counter Cash book :

4632.70

5632.70

Rs. 1000.00

Amount

A/ c No.

Sl . No.

Date

7335.44

6701.37

Rs. 1000

3623

64-85

1000 365.93

1000

3623

15-4-85

4298.54

Rs.1000

3298.54

3623

1000

30-4-85

1363.86

Rs .300.00

1063.86

3623

300

9-5-85

3623

250

31-7-85

Rs.3300.00

Total 8081 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

To conceal the effect of other withdrawal slip posted in the account before 30-6-85 that is the one for Rs .300 on 9-5-85 the petitioner altered the debit by scoring it off and restoring the original balance in the balance column. It is further pointed out that these corrections in the ledger were not likely to increased the balance in the general ledger and therefore the workman indulged in inflating the consolidated vouchers passed for half yearly interest payable on S.B. Accounts during June 1985 in respect of 4 ledgers that is Ledger Nos . 2, 5, 6 & 16 (discussed in Ex- M -21 -the enquiry findings) . The vouchers had been passed for 18630.54p whereas the total in the four ledgers came to 15696.47p . The difference in inflation came only to the extent of Rs . 2934.07. But the inflation needed was to the extent of 3300 therefore the petitioner prepared another voucher on 29-6-85 for Rs . 365.93 thereby enabling the total increase of Rs . 3300 in the balance in the general ledger under the head savings bank as on 30-7-85.

Under Ex . M31 ( Withdrawal slip) ( the genuine withdrawal dated 14-8-85 ) the withdrawal slip contains the signature of account holder Vimala and the petitioner herein. When the tribunal raised a question as to what happened to the withdrawal slip in which the signature is said to be a forged one , the learned counsel for respondent informed the tribunal that the withdrawal slips are missing. The management was also not able to answer what happened to every day voucher. It is contended that the petitioner might have destroyed it . Who was in charge of preparing the voucher and who was in charge of counter checking it andwho was in charge of custody of it are the relevant questions . During final arguments , the workmen personally argued and contended that each day's voucher from relevant table would go to the Manager with ledger are manager will check the ledger entry with reference to the voucher and after counter checking it the manager used to bundle each day voucher and would place it in the safe room and that the Cashier and the manager are the only two persons who can have access to the safe room . According to the workmen it is not at all possible for anybody to gain entry into the safe room and therefore it is not at all possible for a poor clerk to remove the withdrawal slip . Unfortunately this defence is not taken at the earliest point oftime . The workman has not given any explanation for the mamo . He has not adduced any defence witness.

It is the contention of the management that the petitioner herein took the ledger from one Krishnamoorthy andmade fictitions entries . It is the case ofthe management that the work had been entrusted to only Krishnamoorthy. The examination of Krishnamoorthy would have been better but on that ground alone it cannot be concluded that the charges are not proved , as there are other evidence available. This contention has been answered by the tribunal also earlier.

The further contention is that the petitioner had provided the account holder with a pass book which did not tally with the entries posted in the ledger that is M29 . it is pointed out that though the amount was misappropriated through S. B. A/ c of Vimala the funds did not belong to that account holder and it was the fund of the bank . As there was no over draft the misappropriation was not reflected in the pass book also and therefore the account holderwas not liable for any amount to the bank. The act ofthe customer in remitting the amount in her S. B. A/c and parallelywriting a letter to the bank should be rejected as the misappropriation related to the funds of the bank and not to the funds of the account holder . This contention is quite correct as the circumstances indicate that the account holderhas been won over. Admittedly she has no overdraft facilities . She did not suffer any financial loss . As per passbook entry was incomplete she would even knowwhen overdraft facility was utilized .

It is the contention of the management that the petitioner made fictitious credit entry, while committing forgery.

Coming to the remaining documentary evidence, it is necessary to peruse Ex.M28 series Ex.M28 is the report filed by Ganesan the Inspector of Indian Overseas Bank (deputed from Thanjavur to investigate into the alleged fraudulent transactions) . His report is dated 2-9-85 . The observation in Ex. M28 are relevant.

(i) ( Internal page no . 5) Two withdrawals were made on 6-4-85 each for Rs . 1000 (Scroll No. 6+39). The second withdrawal on that date/ scroll No. 39 is a forged one and the paid instrument is missing . The cashier on the duty on 6-4-85 was Mr. Sivakumar.

(a) To compensate for the two debits dated 6-4-85 and 15-4-85 for Rs . 1000 each, he posted a fictitious credit entry for Rs . 2000 in the ledger (Ex.M29) in the line just below the debit entry ofRs . 1000 on 15-4-85 and altered the balance in the account from Rs . 3.10 to Rs . 2003.10 p . As itwas on the last line ofthe folio in Ex.M29 the altered balance of Rs.2003.10 was carried over to the next folio that is No. 47 by the Ledger keeper who posted the genuine withdrawal for Rs . 1000 in the account on 23-4-85 . Again to compensate for the fraudulent withdrawal slip passed through the account for Rs . 1000 on 30-4-85 the fictitious creditentryposted on folio No. 46 was altered to 3000 and balance was altered to appear as Rs . 3003.10 . However it is alleged that the workman failed to extend these alterations to carry over balance on folio No.47. Ex. M29 .

(ii) ( Internal page . 9) : Credit entry of Rs . 3000 (page145 on progressive pass book) was made and the same was struck out . But again the credit entry was restored by writing the amoount of Rs . 3000 Branch Manager identified that the correction namely credit of Rs. 2000 , 3000 , both struck out and Rs . 3000 (appearing after Rs . 150) struck out were made by I Sivakumar.

8082

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] (iii) (Internal page. 11) : Mr. Sivakumar continued tobalance the ledger No. 16 for the month of May and June 85 and posted the progressive for the above two months. Mr. Sivakumar was not able to express coherently for entering Rs. 2000 and Rs. 3000 in progressive balance page. 144 adding the same to the total..........

So far as the fairness of the enquiry is concerned, it is the concurrent finding of the tribunal as well as the Hon'ble High Court that the enquiry has been conducted ina fair and proper manner. This finding is final, because the workman did not file any writ appeal challenging the finding ofthe Hon'ble High Court holding that the enquiry is fair and proper and that principles of natural justice has been followed in conducting the enquiry .

(iv) (Internal page. 17) The date of entry namely 31-7-85 has been changed to 14 and the value was restored to 299.10 hy making a entry correctbalance. The marking ofCBwas made under the handwriting of Sivakumar.

So far as the contention regarding dual role of the enquiry officer as Prosecutor as well as Judge is concerned, the Hon'ble Single Judge of the High Court has given a finding that the Standing orders do not prohibit the same. ThisTribunal is of the same view.

(v) The final finding is that there has been nexus between fraud committed in respect ofA/c No. 3623 and the excess in the S.B. Interest payment and the act is attributed to Sivakumar.

The contention is that the co-employees were also involved in the daily transactions and they were willfully left out, cannot be a ground to leave the petitioner also . The reply by the management is that the irregularity committed by the co -employee was not serious . It would have been better if the co- employee has been examined as a witness but he has not been examined . Because of the availability of documentary evidence , the non-availability of oral evidence cannot be given much importance.

The next important document to be considered Ex . M21 the findings of the Enquiry authority. The perusal of the report reveals that the enquiry authority has considered 18 documents . The important portion of evidence of MWI runs as follows :

C. Subramanian , Manager of Manavalanallur branch has been examined as MW1 . During cross examination , the question and answer runs as follows:

It is contended that the proof available is not sufficient to hold the petitioner guilty of the charges . This contention cannot be accepted because it is settled law that the decree of proof required is not that of proof beyond reasonable doubt .

10. The legal contention raised are also answered by the following decisions relied on by the learned counsel formanagement .

(a) The first contention is that it is not necessary for the bank to prove the loss .

The question was when Sivakumar was not ledger keeper how can it be said that he posted it in the ledger. The answer was that , the letter dated 14-8-85 to the regional office would answer that question . It has been indicated that on the date of passing of Rs . 250 by Sivakumar the manager has informed the higher officer without any delay. The evidence is that the balance for April and May 1985 was extracted and tallied by Sivakumar . The witness was asked to show the relative folio. The MW1 has shown the folio and it was found tobe in the handwriting of Sivakumar only. The enquiry authority has considered all the relevant evidence and has giventhe proper finding that the charge have been proved.

9. It is contended by the workman that-

1996 (9 ) SCC 69 ( Disciplinary Authority- cum- Regional Manager and Others Vs. Nikunja Bihari Patnaik)-It was a case of the bank officer who was dismissed for acting beyond his authority in allowing advances and over -drawals , several of which becoming sticky and irrecoverable. It was held that such acts could not be treated merely as errors of judgment and proof of any loss not necessary.

(i) The enquiry was not conducted in a fair and propermanner .

(b) The second contention is that the misconduct should not viewed lightly.

( ii) The principles of natural justice was not followed while conducting the enquiry.

(iii) The enquiry officer played dual role (Prosecutor aswell asjudge) .

(iv) The co -employees were left out and he has been singled out .

(v) The non -examination of account holder is fatal to the case of the management .

(vi) The evidence available is not enough to sustain the charge ..

1997 ( 1 ) LLN p . 391-( Dharmapuri District Cooperative Sugar Mills , palacode And ( 1 ) Labour Court, Vellore, (2) K. Thiruvengadam) . It was held theCourt should not enterte a misplaced sympathy towards a workman and should not prejudice the issue from the angle of rehabilitation . The question ofrehabilitation and reformation could arise in a case ofminor delinquency or misconduct. It was further held that where the transaction involve the interest and reputation of the institution it should not be takenlikely.

8083 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

(c) The version of the account holder is not the deçiding factor and in support of that contention the following decision is relied upon.

2000 (2) LLJ 1395-( Janata Bazaar South Kanara Central Cooperative Wholesale Stores Ltd. & Others And Secretary, Sahakari Noukarara Sangha & Others) (b) 2005 (4) LLN p . 1 (State Bank of India and another And Bela Bagchi and Others)

Section 11A of I.D. Act 1947-- Labour Court finding -Charges of misappropriation and breach of trust against workman proved . In exercise of powers U/s . 11A Labour Court directing reinstatement of workman with 25% of back wages and imposing penalty of stoppage of 5 increments with comulative effect was held to be sympathy which was uncalled for .

The charge in that case was that the bank employee did not deposit the money given by the account holder to deposit it in the account. The bank employee made false entry in the pass book. It was held that the charge is of serious nature . Contention was raised that there was no loss of money to the bank and also that the A/ c holder had withdrawn allegations . It was held that such contentions cannot be entertained and the dismissal is not improper .

(h) Contending that non -examination of customer of bank or non production of alleged confessional statement on which the Tribunal placed the reliance , were held irrelevant, the management relies upon the following decision.

(d) It is contended that strict rules of evidence is not applicable.

2000 ( 2) LLJ 1373 ( State Bank of India and Tarun Kumar Banerjee and Others)

2008 (4) SCC 517 ( Workmen ofBamadies Estates Vs. Management Balmadies Estates and Others ) ,

The circumstances like non - examination of customer of bank or non production of alleged confessional statement on which the tribunal placed the reliance were held irrelevant .

Itwas pointed out that when the domestic enquiry was held to be fair and valid the scope of interference was very limited . (Case of Firestone relied upon) Evidence Act , 1872 is not applicable to the proceedings in a domestic enquiry though principles of fairness are to apply . Again guilt may not be established beyond reasonble doubt and the proof of misconduct would be sufficient . Moreover , all materials which are logically probative including hearsay evidence can be acted uponprovided it has a reasortable nexus and credibility .

(i) The next decision is about the degree of proof required.

2007 ( 10) SCC 385 ( Between Noida Enterpreneurs Association Vs. Noida and Others)

(e) It is contended that so long as there is some evidence before the enquiry officer it is for the enquiry officer to decide as to whether the deposition of the witness is to be believed or not and Tribunal should not interfere unnecessarily.

Standard ofproof required in departmental enquiry is not the same as required to prove a criminal charge- even an acquittal in a criminal case does not bar departmental enquiry.

(f) 2002 I LLJ 941 (Union of India and Others And Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai and Another)

There cannot be any dispute over the legal proposition with regard to degree and extent of proof required in a departmental enquiry , as it is a settled law that degree ofproof required in a departmental enquiry is not proof beyond reasonable doubt .

The oral and documentary evidence adduced by the management has proved the charges against the petitioner/ workman.

The enquiry officer was entitled to form his opinion as to the credibility or otherwise of the witnesses , and also decide as to whether the charge was or was not proved. So longas there is some evidence before the enquiry officer it is for the enquiry officer to decide as to whether the deposition of the witness is to be believed or is not to be believed.

In the result the award is passed holding that the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in dismissing Sri . 1. Sivakumar , Clerk - cum- shroff, Manavalanallur , Branch is justified . No costs .

Dated at Chennai , this 30th day of September , 2009

T. M.T.S. VIMALA, Presiding Officer

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITS Theenquiry officer of course does not have the right to act perversely. But the fact that his report is brought before the Court or Tribunal subsequently does not enable the Court or Tribunal to function as a Court of appeal . The discretion as long as it is properly exercised. Is that of the enquiry officer and that discretion cannot be taken away by merely characterizing the evidence considered and accepted by him as " no evidence" .

Witnesses Examined on the Side of Petitioner /Workmen: W. W. 1 : Thiru . I. Sivakumar

(g) Next contention is that there should not be misplaced sympathy.

43409709-25 8084

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009/ AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

Witnesses Examined on the Side of Respondent/ Management :

[PART 11-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 2

6 02-01-86

M.W. 1 : Thiru . K.B. Santhanam

M. W. 2: Thiru. V. J. Kothari

Exhibits Marked on the Side of Petitioner/Workmen:

EX. M06 Letter from management Bank , Manavallanallur Branch to the Management Bank

7 13-01-86

S. Date

Description of Document No.

1 18-07-84 EX. W01 Savings Bank Accounts of Mrs. S. Vimala

2 22-11-85 EX. W 02 Police report in which the police complaint file was closed

3 29-11-85 EX. W03 Counterfoil in the name of Mrs. S. Vimala for Rs . 3550/- 4 02-11-86 EX. W 04 Letter from the Petitioner

workman to the management Bank requesting defence exhibits

5 03-11-86 EX . W 05 -do-

6 19-11-86 EX. W 06 Copy of Private Complaint

lodged by the Branch Manager in the names of Petitoner workman , T. Shanmugasundaram and N.V. Gopalkrishnan 7 06-04-87 EX. W 07 Letter from Petitioner workman to the Appellate Authorities requesting defence exhibits Exhibits Marked on the Side of Respondent/Management :

1 25-10-85 EX. M01

EX. M07 Letter from Disciplinary Authority to Petitioner/ Workman granting of time to reply to the charge sheet 8 24-01-86 EX. M08 Letter from management

Bank , Manavallanallur Branch to the Vigilance Department of Management Bank

9 10-10-86 EX. M09 Letter from Disciplinary Authority to Thiru . K.B. Santhanam, Appointing him asEnquiry Officer

10 27-10-86 EX. M 10 Letter from Enquiry Officer

to the branch manager Indian Overseas Bank , Manavalanallur Branch enclosing list ofdocuments 11

EX.M11 Letter from Smt . S. Vimalato

the management- Bank , Manavalanallur Branchdt : 29-11-85 and Letter from Respondent to Vimala dt : 14-08-85

12 28-10-86 EX. M 12 Proceedings of the Enquiry Officer with enclosures

13 05-11-86 EX. M 13 Letter from Inquiring Authority to the Petitioner/ Workman fixing the enquiry on27-11-86

14 05-11-86

Charge sheet issued to the Petitioner/workman 2 29-10-85 EX. M02 Letter from management Bank , Manavalanallur Branch to the Vigilance Department ofManagement Bank

-do-

3 04-11-85 EX . M03

4 02-01-86 EX. M04

EX. M 14 Letter from Petitioner/ Workman to the Enquiry Officer

15 08-11-86 EX. M 15 Replyby the Enquiry Officer toEx. M. 14

16 17-11-86 EX. M16 Letter from Management Bank , Manavalanallur Branch to the Petitioner/ Workman for verification of the documents received by him

17 27-11-86 EX. M 17 Proceedings of the Enquiry Officer

18 29-11-86

Letter from the Petitioner/ workman to the management bank , Manavalanallur Branch requesting to give 15 days time for his replyto charge sheet

5 26-12-85 EX . M05 Letter from Disciplinary Authority to Petitioner/ Workman

EX. M18 Letter from Inquiring Authority to Disciplinary Authority regarding the conclusion of enquiry

11 8085 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

1 2

19 21-01-87

34 14-08-85

EX. M34

EX: M19 Letter from Defence representative to the Inquiring Authority summing up enquiry proceedings

20 12-02-87

Letter from the Management Bank , Manvalanallur Branch to the Regional Manager, Indian Overseas Bank, Tanjavur regarding fradulent withdrawal in S.B. A/c . No. 3623

EX. M20 Letter from Enquiry Officer

EX. M21 Findings of the Inquiring Authority

EX. M35 Xerox copy of balance books folio relating to S.B. ledger 16

22 14-02-87

EX. M22 Show cause notice issued to the Petitioner/Workman

23 03-03-87

EX. M36 Xerox copy of Balance Book folio pertaining to ledger Nos . 2, 5 & 6

EX. M23 Show cause hearing

24 03-03-87 EX. M24 Reply by defence representative to Ex. M. 22

25 07-03-87 EX. M25 Dismissal Order

EX. M37 Xerox copy of Interest Accrued Register folio showing the posting of the interest accrued

38 18-07-84

26 15-04-87 EX. M26

EX. M38 Xerox copy of S.B. A/ c . opening from relating to S.B. A/ c . No. 3623 of Mrs. S. Vimala

Appeal by defence representative toAppellate Authority requesting to reinstate the Petitioner- workman

EX.M39 Xerox copy of Officer's 27 14-08-85

payment scroll dt : 06-04-85, 15-04-85,30-04-85 , 09-05-85 , 31-07-85 and 14-08-85

40 27-03-87

EX. M40 Letter from Pe'itioner/ EX. M27 Letter from Management- Bank , Manavalanallur Branch , to the Regional Office of the Management Bank reporting about the Petitioner/Workman

28 02-09-85 EX. M28 Investigation Report with enclosure

Workman to the Appellate authority requesting to give him an opportunity to appeal against the dismissal order

41 31-03-87

EX. M41 Reply by Appellate Authority to Ex. Μ. 40

4226-08-87

EX. M42 Orders of Appellate Authorities

EX. M 29 Savings Bank Ledger folio showing the S. B. A/ c . No. 3623 in the name of Mr. Sundaresan andMrs. S. Vimala

43 10-04-88

EX. M43 Dispute raised by the Petititoner/workman before the conciliation authorities (central), Madras

EX. M 44 Comments

EX. M 30 Pass book relating to S. B. A./C . No. 3623 of Mr. Sundaresan and Mrs. S.Vimala

management filed before the Regionai Labour Commissioner, Madras of the

45 21-07-88

EX. M 31 Withdrawl stopdt .: 14-08- 85 for Rs . 250 with signature in the reverse of withdrawal slip

EX. M45 Reply statement fifed by the Petitioner/workman before the Regional . Labour Commissioner, Madras

Conciliation failure report

46 30-09-88

EX. M46

EX. M 32 Xerox copy of Attendance Register from the month of August, 1985

47 05-10-85

EX. M47

Complaint from Manage- ment Bank to the Sub- Inspector ofPolice, Palaiyur Police Station , Palaiyur , TanjavurDistrict.

EX. M33 Xerox copy of Cashier's Payment Scrolldt: 06-04-85, 15-04-85,30-04-85,09-05-85, 31-07-85 and 14-08-85

4340 G1/09-26 8086

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर, 2009

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of Sh . Satish Kumar Tiwary whose services were utilized as a driver by an Executive of the erstwhile NewBank of India is Justified and legal ? Ifnotwhat relief is the disputant entitled to ?"

का.आ. 3378. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण नं. - 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 161/2000 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-11-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

and

[सं. एल-12012/256/96- आईआर ( बी-11) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय, अनुभाग अधिकारी

NewDelhi , the 19th November , 2009

"Whether the disputant is entitled to regularisation of this services in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 2-01-1990 entered between the management oferstwhile New Bank of India andAll India New Bank of India Employees ' Federation in this regard ?"

S.O. 3378.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central (Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.161/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal N'o . 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Ir dustrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-11-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/256/96- IR(B- II)] U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO. 1 AT DHANBAD

2. The case of the workman as disclosed in his Written Statement submitted before the Tribunal is that he has read upto 8th class and is having a valid Driving Licence. He also got himself registered with the employment exchange in Dhanbad . After facing a preliminary interview the workman was appointed on the Post of Driver in the erstwhile New Bank of India and was attached with the Regional Manager of the said Bank. The workman joined the Bank in the month of December , 1988 and initially he wasposted at Calcutta. However, in the month of May, 1990, the workman was transferred in the same capacity of Driver and posted at Patna. On his transfer to Patna , the workman was attached with the then Regional Manager , New Bank of India having its office at Bank Road, Patna .

PRESENT

Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

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

Reference No. 161 of2000

Parties: Employers in relation to the management ofPunjab National Bank and their workman.

Appearances

Mr. D. K. Verma &

Onbehalf ofthe workman :

Mr. R. Ranjan ,

Advocates .

Onbehalf of the employers :

Mr. O.P. Verma, Advocate .

State : Jharkhand

Industry: Banking.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 29th October, 2009

AWARD

The workman continued to serve tl e Regional Manager, New Bank of India as Driver until the New Bank ofIndia merged and amalgamated in the Punjab National Bank through the New Bank of India (Amalgamation & transfer ofUndertaking ) Scheme which cante into force in September, 1993. The Management of New Bank of India under the said scheme vested in Punjab National Bank with effect from 4-09-1993 . It has further been stated bythe workman that under section 18 ( 1 ) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , a settlement was arrived at between the management ofNew Bank of India and the All India New Bank of India Employees Federation on 2-01-1990 . According to the terms and conditions of the settlement, the Bank was duty bound to absorb all those Drivers engaged and attached with the New Bank of India fulfilling the conditions mentioned in the settlement as regular employee in the subordinate cadre . The workmen who had beenworking in the erstwhile New Bank of India since December , 1988 possessed all eligibility conditions and qualifications for his absorption/regularisation in the Bank service as Driver in the subordinate cadre . It has been further stated by the workman that the workman having completed the required three years of service as on 9-4-1992 and during which period he was provided with all facilities , viz .with regular salary, periodical uniforms etc. TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour, in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 (1) (d) of the I. D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. L- 12012/256/96- IR ( B - II ), dated, the 28th April , 2000.

8087 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12 , 2009/अग्ग्रहायण 21 , 1931

assuch fulfilled all the criteria for absorption . Accordingly the workman in terms of the memorandum of settlement made an application before the management ofthe erstwhile New Bank of India on 10-04-1992 for his regularisation/ absorption in the Bank's service through proper channel . Thereafter in this regard a letter was written by the then Regional Manager, New Bank of India , Shri B. K. Sachdeva totheDeputyGeneral Manager of the said Bank having its head office at Marina Hotel Building,G- 59, Cannaught Circus,NewDelhi - 110001 for absorption of this workman as a regular employee in the subordinate service in lieu of the fact that the appellant fulfilled all the eligibility criteria as prescribed in the circular . In this regard several reminders were sent to the Deputy General Manager ( Personnel ) of the New Bank of India in relation to the absorption of the appellant . While this matter of absorption was pending consideration before the management of the erstwhile New Bank of India , the said Bank got amalgamated with Punjab National Bankby virtue of the Amalgamation Scheme, 1993 . The New Bank of India under whose service the appellant wasworking in the capacity of Driver , amalgamated under the said scheme with Punjab National Bank with all its assets and liabilities by virtue of the notification issued by the CentalGovernment bearing Notification No.1/2/93 -BO (1) dated4-9-1993 after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India. When the transfer or Bank was amalgamated with the transferee Bank , not only the assets were taken over but also the entire liability of the transferror Bank was also taken over. In view of this amalgamation the services of the Workman concerned was also transferred and put at the disposal of the Punjab Nationai Bank in the same capacity of Driver attached to the Bank executive . In fact the same savings bank account of this workman in the New Bank of India on amalgamation also stood transferred to the Punjab National Bank bearing the same account No. S/114 and the workman on his transfer of service to the Punjab National Bank continued to deposit his salary in the transferred account of the Punjab National Bank . The salary for the month ofSeptember, 1993 i.e. after the process of amalgamation was complete was paid to the appellant bythe respondent Punjab National Bank and which in itself shows that the services of the appellant also stood transferred to the Punjab National Bank under the said scheme.All the executives and remaining staffof New Bank ofIndia stood executive and staff ofPunjab National Bank.

settlement since the said Bank had taken over the transferror Bank along with all its assets and liabilities . It has been further stated by the workman that the same system of absorption in regular service in the subordinate cadre also existed in the transferee Punjab National Bank and in which view of the matter the workman was also eligible for consideration for absorption in terms of the said scheme . Thereafter the services of this workman were suddenly terminated by the management of Punjab National Bank without assigning any reason in arbitrary manner by an oral order of termination. It has been stated that upon transfer of the services of the workman to the Punjab National Bank, the workman was attached to one Mr. S. K. Sachdeva, Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, Patna and barely afterthe workman had worked for one month the said Sri B. K. Sachdeva was transferred and upon the transfer of the said Regional Manager , A.G. M. Punjab National Bank orally terminated the services of this workman and the workman was not allowed to attend the office w.e.f. October, 1993. It has been alleged that the said action of the said Assistant General Manager in orally terminating the services ofthe workman is without any rhyme or reason and specially under the circumstances that the services of the workman had been transferred to the Punjab National Bank in pursuance to te scheme in which view of the matter the management of Punjab National Bank was duty and legally bound to absorb the services of the workman. Therefore the action of the management thus was wholly illegal , arbitrary malafide and in contravention of Section 25F ofthe I. D. Act. , 1947. Being aggrieved by the action of the management the concerned workman moved the Hon'ble High Court of Patna by filling a Wat Petition bearing No. C. W.J.C. No 2375 of 1994. Hon'bl Court after hearing both sides permitted the concerned workman to withdraw the Writ petition enabling him to raise his grievance by raising an Industrial Disputender the I.D. Act, 1947. Thereafter the concerned work nan raised an Industrial Dispute before the ALC (C) which was ended in failure and the ALC (C) in his turn sent a failure report to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi . The concerned workman also wrote letter to the Ministry for making reference for adjudication by Industrial Tribunal . But after a lapse of almost 15 months the concerned workman was informed that the Ministry has not considered the dispute fit for reference relying upon a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Thereafter being aggrieved bythe orderdated 10/11-11-1997 the concerned workman again moved the Hon'ble High Court through C.W.J.C. No. 182 of 1998 in which Hon'ble Court after hearing the matter was pleased to dismiss the Writ application vide order dated 18-8-1999 . Then again against the order dated 18-8-1999 filed a L.P.A. bearing No. 1070 of 1999. The Hon'bie Court after hearing the matter quashed the order ofUnion of India and directed to reconsider the matter and to pass fresh order in the light of the observation made in the order. Thereafter the present reference was made.

In the said scheme it has been clearly stated at clause 4 (a) (i) that the provisions of the settlement undertakings andclarification agreed to by the transferee Bank with the workmen Union or Association from time to time shall automatically become applicable to the workmen employees ofthetransferror Bank in the same manner as applicable to workmen employees of the transferee bank, subject to the other provisions of the Scheme . Under these circumstances , the respondent- Punjab National Bankwas dutybound to honour the agreement and to give effect the 8088

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12 , 2009 / AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931

The concerned workman submitted that he was in employment of the erstwhile Bank and had served the Bank continuously for more than 4 years (March, 1988 to Sept. , 93) .The concerned workman was neither issued any notice nor he was given the wages in lieu of notice for the period ofthe notice. It has been further stated by the workman that his absorption/ regularisation in services in terms of the memorandum of the settlement dated 2-1-90 remained pending till the erstwhile Bank, merged into Punjab National Bank in Sept. , 1993. As the settlement dated 2-1-90 was a settlement U/s . 18 ofthe I.D. Act it was binding on the parties to the agreement. In view of the facts and circumstances disclosed above, the concerned workman has prayed before this Tribunal to pass an Award directing the management to reinstate him in service and thereafter to regularise his services in terms of settlement dated 2-1-90 .

3. In the Written Statement filed by the management ithas been stated that the concerned workman Shri Satish Kumar Tiwari was never appointed by erstwhile NewBank of India and was engaged as driver in personal capacity by the executive of the erstwhile New Bank of India . It has been stated that there was no relationship of employer and employee between the concerned workman with the erstwhile New Bank of India or Punjab National Bank and therefore the present dispute is not an industrial Dispute.

It has further been stated on behalf of the management that the personal drivers engaged by the Executives ofthe Bank are not ' workman ' has been heldby theApex Court in the case ofGulab Dastgir Vs. PNB ( 1978 ofLLJ 313 ) and also by Hon'ble Kolkata High Court in the case of Standard Chartered Bank Vs. ALC (C) and others (1992FLR(65) 769) . It has been stated by the management that since Shri Tiwari was never an employee of erstwhile New Bank of India , consequent upon amalgamation ofNew Bank of India with Punjab National Bank vide Notification date4-9-93 issued by the Govt . of India, there could not have been any occasion for him to become an employee of Punjab National Bank. The reliance placed upon the Settlement dated 2-1-1990 entered into between the Management of erstwhile New Bank of India and All India New Bank of India Employees ' Federation is wholly misplaced. It has been submitted that the said Settlement was arrived at under the provisions of Section 18 ( i) of the 1.D. Act . , 1947 i.e. otherwise during the course ofconciliation proceedings and in terms of the said Section, the said Settlement was binding only between the parties to the said Settlement . Therefor this statement has got no applicability whatsoever tothe Punjab National Bank. It has furtherbeen submitted that as per the submission of Shri Tiwari , his alleged serviceswere allegedly terminated in October, 1993. It is submitted on behalf of the management that the so- called reference made by the Appropriate Government to this Hon'ble Tribunal does not merit any consideration in view ofthe law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case ofNedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K. P. Madhavkutty (JT 2000( 1) SC 388).

[PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Management have submitted parawise reply in part Boftheirwritten Statement in reply to the Written Statement ofthe workman which is as follows: -

(i) In reply to para 1 , it has been submitted on behalf of the management that reference made by the Appropriate Government vide order dated 28-4-2000 stands corrected vide subsequently order dated 29-3-2001. It has however, been submitted that for the submissions made in the Preliminary objections here- in-before , what has been referred to by the appropriate Government to this Hon'ble Tribunal is not an industrial dispute and does notmerit any consideration.

(ii) Management has denied the contents of para 2, 3 and4 ofthe W. S. ofthe workman . The content ofpara 5 of the W. S. of the workman has been admitted to the extent that the erstwhile New Bank of India was amalgamated with Punjab National Bank by the Government of India vide Notification dated 4-9-93 and rest of the submissions have been denied.

(iii) With regard to para 6 of the W. S. of the workmanmanagement have submitted that the Settlement dated 2-1-90 arrived at under the provisions of Section 18 (i)ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was binding between the parties to the Settlement only and the same has got no application to Punjab National Bank. The reliance placed upon the Settlement dated 2-1-90 by Shri Tiwari is wholly misplaced.

(iv) Management have denied the content of para 7ofthe W. S. of the workman and with regard to para-8 they have stated that Shri Tiwari was engaged as a driver bytheExecutive of the erstwhile New Bank of India purely inhis personal capacity who used to pay him the salary. Management have also denied the contents of para -9 to 12 of the W. S. ofthe workman .

(v) Management have admitted the contents of para 13 , 14, 15 and 16 of the Written Statement of the workman, and denied the contents of para 17, 18, 19 and 20 ofthe W. S. ofthe workman .

(vi) As regards contents of Para -21 , 22, 23 , 24, 25 , 26 and 27 they have admitted the same. But so far the reply of paras 28-32 of the W. S. is concerned the management have submitted that the order of the AppropriateGovernment declining to make reference of the so-callleddispute for adjudication was perfectly legal and proper having regard to the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court and Hon'ble Kolk^ ugh Court referred bythem, and rest of the submissions they have submitted arewrong and denied.

(vii ) As regards the contents of para 33 and 34 of theW. S. ofthe workman the management have admitted the same and denied the contents of para 35 and in respect ofthe content of para 36 of the W.S. of the workman the management have stated that since there was no employer- [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

employee relationship between the bank and Sri Tiwari the provisions ofSection 25 ( F) ofthe I. D. Act . , 1947 have no applicability. In reply to para 37 ofthe W. S. ofthe workman management have submitted that Shri Tiwari was never an employee oferstwhile New Bank of India.

(viii) In reply to para 37 of the W. S. of the workman management have stated that Shri Tiwari was never an employee of erstwhile New Bank of India. However, in reply to paras 38. to 41 of the W. S. of the workmanmanagement have submitted that since there was no employer- employee relationship between the bank and Shri Tiwari , there was no question of his services having beenterminated by the Bank or his re - instatement as alleged or otherwise . Management have denied rest of the contentions as wrong and denied the same . In reply to para 42 management have submitted that the Settlement dated 2-1-90 was binding to the parties to the said Settlement only.Management have denied the contents of para43 ofthe W. S ofthe workman as wrong and accordingly denied the same . In reply to para 44 of the W. S. of the workman management have submitted that having regard to the preliminary objection No. 4 stated herein - in -before, the reference of the so - called dispute to this Hon'ble Tribunal is bad in the eyes of law and denied the contents ofparas 45-46 as wrong making no comments of para47 of the Written Statement of the workman .

Accordingly it has been prayed on behalf of the management to pass an Award holding that Shri Tiwari was not an employee oferstwhile New Bank of India, there wasno question ofhis services being terminated by Punjab National Bank as alleged and that he is not entitled to any reliefas prayed for or otherwise .

4. In the rejoinder filed by the concerned workman tothe Written Statement of the management the workman has stated that the para 1 of the W.S. of the management is misconceived contrary to records and the facts stated are not at all correct . It has been stated further that the car for which this workman was engaged for driving bearing registration No. BR- IC -2438 the maintenance ofwhich was borneby the Bank. After merger with Punjab National Bank the said car was being driven by this workman whose salary was also borne by Bank after obtaining his signature on a Bank'sVoucher. Moreover, the concerned workman was also provided Summer and Winter Uniform the cost ofwhich was borne by Bank. Moreover the wages of this workman was also fixed by Bank. The facts stated in paragraph 3, 4, (1 to 31 ) have already been dealt in the W. S. of the workman. It has also been stated that any other statement offacts as contained in Management's Written Statement are denied by the workman .

Ithas beenprayed on behalf of the workman to pass an Award in favour of the workman directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman in the services of the Bank with all benefits .

4340 G1/09-27

8089

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

5. From the side of the workman the concerned workman has been examined as WW- 1 on his behalf documents have been marked as Ext . W- 1 , W-2 , W- 3 , W-4, W- 5 , W- 5 (A ) , W- 6 , W- 6 ( A ) , W - 7 and W- 7(A) . Management, however, has not adduced any oral evidence.

6. The concerned workman in course of his evidence has stated the following on oath :-

" I Satish Kumar Tiwari son of Late Bishwanath Tiwari aged about 35 years , by faith Hindu , by occupation-Unemployed residing at Village Samahuti P. O. & P. S. Bijaipur, District Gopal -Ganj , Bihardo hereby solemnly affirm on oath and declare as under:-

1. I am the workman concerned in the present reference. Initially I was selected and appointed as a Driver by the New Bank of India in the year 1988 at Calcutta . I used to drive an Ambassador Car No. WNF 8683. The car belongs to Bank . The petrol was supplied by Bank. The Bank also maintain log book.Atthat time Shri O. P. Kapoor who was D. R.M. of Regional Office , Calcutta of the Bank . He was Executive ofthe Bank. He used to ride on the car for execution ofthe job of Bank. Thereafter Shri O. Ν . Tulijoined as D. R: M. of Regional Office , Calcutta. Then I was transferred to Regional Office , Patna and I worked under the then Regional Manager Sri S. K. Soni and B. K. Sachdeva as a driver at Patna, I used to drive Car No. BR - 1 C - 2483 , the Car No. 1 C-2483 belongs to Bank. Accordingly I worked continuously more than three years from 1988 to 1993 under the direct supervision and control of executives the New Bank of India.

2. New Bank of India amalgamated with Punjab National Bank by the Notification ofthe Government ofIndiawith effect from 4-9-1993 . After amalgamation I continued to work under Regional Manager , Mr. B. K. Sachdeva of Punjab National Bank .

3. There was a settlement arrived between the Manager of New Bank of India and All India New Bank ofIndia Employees Federation . As per the said settlement I become eligible for regularisation in the services of the Bank. I submitted application for my regularisation which was duly forwarded by the then Regional Manager . The Regional Manager sent several reminders to the Bank Manager . I am entitled for regularisation. Instead of regularising me the Bank Management terminated my service with effect from 30-9-1993 in utter violation of Section 25F of the I. D. Act, 1947. No notice of termination was issuedto me.No notice was paid to me before termination of my service . No compensation was paid to me . My termination was illegal. I am entitled for re - instate- ment with full back wages .

8090

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)] Thisis a copy ofthe settlenient dated 8-1-1990 marked asExt . W- 1 . Bank has written letter for regularisation by this letter dated 20-10-92 marked as Ext . W- 2. These are the three reminders issued by the Bank to theHead Office marked as Ext. W- 3 , W-4 and W-5. This is the Gazette Notification marked as Ext .W-6 . Mytermination is illegal . My demand isjustified. "

In course of his cross - examination he has stated the following: -

" The post of Driver was not advertised and name from Employment Exchange has been called by the Bank. I havenot filed anypaper to show that Employment Exchange has sent my name directly to the Bank. I have not filed any appointment letter issued by the Bank . Vehicles about which I have mentioned in the affidavit were registered in the name of the Bank . I have not filed the owner Book . I have not filed any attendance register of the Bank . I have not filed any pay slip issued by the Bank. I have got no transfer letter but I have been transferred from Kolkata to Patna . The transfer letter is with the Bank , I have not filed anytermination letter issued by the Bank. I have filed two cases before the Hon'ble High Court Patna which have beendisposed of with the observation to go to the Labour Court. My case was not referred by the Central Government to the CGIT . I have not mentioned in my W.S the number of driving lience. I have not filed any paper regarding membership of the union . It is not a fact that I used to work as personal driver of the Bank . It is not a fact that my demand is not justified. It is not a fact that I have neither worked in New Bank of India and Punjab National Bank. "

8. In this respect letter of the management dated 7-9-92 is very much important. By this letter Regional Manager, Patna has written letter for regularisation ofthe concerned workman on the ground that he has completed more than three years service as driver on 9-4-92 and is therefore entitled to be absorbed as Peon as perBank's circular . This letter is marked as Ext . W- 3 . Through this letter dated 20-10-92 marked as Ext . W-4 it has been written by the Regional Manager , Regional office Patna toAGM (Personnel ) for regularisation and absorption ofthe concerned workman as Peon on the basis ofpersonal Driver to Sii V. K. Sachdeva , Regional Manager , Regional Office Patna . In this letter it has been mentioned there has been settlement between the management and All India New Bank of India Employees ' Federation signed on 2-1-90. On this basis Regional Manager has written letter for regularisation of the concerned workman on the ground that he has completed three years of service as Driver on 9-4-92 and he should be absorbed as Peon as per Bank's circular under Reference . Again as per Ext. W- 5 which is a letter dated 10-4-93 Regional Manager , Patna has written letter to the Dy . Gen. Manager. (Personnel ) New Bank of India, Head Office , New Delhi for regularisation and absorption of the concerned workman because he has completed three years of service on 9-4-92 and he should be absorbed as Peon as per Bank's circular . As per Ext. W-7 which is a circular letter dated 13-2-93 Bank has revised the ceiling ofreimbursement of salary ofPersonnel Driver ofthe Executive from 1-1-1993 wherein it has been clearly mentioned that the drivers who are in the personal employment of executives their salary has been revised. It shows that the concerned workman's salary was revised asperBank's Circular and it shows that revised pay as per Bank's Circular has been credited in the concerned workman's Account No. S/ 114 marked as Ext. W -5 (A). Again as per Ext . W- 6( A) which is a letter dated 29-3-1993 by Dy. G. M. (Personnel) it shows that personal drivers employed by Executives has been allowed reimbursement ofthree sets of uniform once in two years upto maximum Rs. 900 inclusive of stitching and tailoring charges . This shows that the concerned workman being personal driver ofexecutive was also allowed reimbursement ofthree sets ofuniform once in two years upto maximum of Rs . 900 inclusive of stitching and tailoring charges as per above Bank'sCircular .

9. It has been argued on behalf of the concerned workman that Bank has violated its own circular . Argument advanced on behalf of the management is not tenable on the ground that such circulars cannot be enforced in favour ofthe concerned workman . The settlement dated 2-1-90 which has been entered into between the management of New Bank of India and All India New Bank of India Employees ' Federation regarding absorption of the personnel drivers attached to the executive on the regular service of the Bank is very important. It is marked as Ext . W-6. It clearly mentions as follows :-

7. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that he used to work with the management as Driver in 1988 at Calcutta and he used to driveAmbassador Car No. WNF 8683. The car belongs to the Bank. The Petrol in the vehicle used to be suppliedby Bank. The Bank also used to maintain Log Book. At that time Shri O. P. Kapoor who was D. R. M. of Regional Office, Calcutta of the Bank . He was Executive ofthe Bank . He used to ride on the car for execution ofthe job of Bank. Thereafter Shri O. N. Tuli joined as D. R.M. of Regional Office, Calcutta . Then the concerned workman was transferred at Regional Office , Patna and he worked under the then Regional Manager Sri S. K. Soni and B. K. Sachdeva asdriver at Patna. He used to drive Car No. BR - 1 -C-2438 . Car No. BR - 1 -C-2438 belongs to Bank. Accordingly the concerned workman has worked continuously more than three years from 1988 to 1993 under the direct supervision and control of Executives of the New Bank of India , and thus the concerned workman has completed more than 240 days in a year . In this respect Ld. Advocate for the management has argued that the concerned workman was driver of the Executive of the Bank in personal capacity. So he cannot be regularised by the Bank.

" ABSORPTION OF DRIVERS ATTACHED WITH THE EXECUTIVE OF THE BANK IN REGULAR SERVICE OF THE BANK 8091 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

Chronological list ofcases cited:

1. (2004) 8 SCC246: 2004 SCC (L & S) 1092, M. P. ElectricityBoard v. Hariram 965C, 966.

Inpartialmodification ofClause 10 of the Settlement dated 6-6-1987 the Bank shall absorb , as regular employees in the subordinate cadre whose drivers engaged by the executives of the Bank, who fulfil the following conditions :

2. (2002) 3 SCC 25: 2002 SCC (L & S) 367, Range Forest Oficer v . S. T. Hadimani .

3. ( 1978 ) 2 SCC 358 : 1978 SCC (L & S) 353, Punjab National Bank v . Ghulam Dastagir .

The concerned personal driver must have been working in the personal employment of an executive oftheBank and he should have worked for a minimum aggregate period of three years with one or more executives ."

12. In view of the facts, evidence and ruling discussed above I find merit in the claim of the concerned workman and , accordingly, I hold the following:

1. The action of the management ofPunjab National Bank interminating the services ofSh. Satish Kumar Tiwarywhose services were utilized as a driver by an Executive of the erstwhile New Bank of India is not justified and is not legal . Consequently , the concernedworkman is entitled for reinstatement with all benefits from the date ofhis termination .

The concerned workman has given application for hisabsorption as Peon which is marked as Ext . W-7(A) . As per evidence and document it shows that there is relationship of workman and management with the concernedworkman because salary is paid by the Bank . Bank has supplied uniform to the concerned workman as per the Bank's own circular . So there is clear relationship ofemployer and employee betweenthe concerned workman and management.

And

10. Management has referred to a decision reported in 2009 ( 1 ) JLJR page-30 wherein their Lordship of the Hon'ble High Court has held the following:-

The disputant i.e. the concerned workman , Satish Kumar Tewary is entitled to regularization of his services in terms of the memorandum of settlement dated 2-1-1990 entered between the management of erstwhile New Bank of India and All India New Bank of India Employees ' Federation in this regard.

"Labour and Industrial Laws - Regularization Relationship of employer and employee not proved- workmen engaged by intermediary- contractor cannot be allowed to claim regularisation with the company - award directing for regularisation set aside by Single Judge -Appeal cannot be entertained . "

Management is directed to implement the Award within three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette of India in the light of the observation made above.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 नवम्बर , 2009

The facts of the above case is quite different that the facts of the present case . So it is not of any help to the management .

11. In rebuttal the workman side has also referred toadecision reported in 2005 Supreme Court Cases (L& S) page 963 wherein their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held the following:-

का.आ. 3379. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण इरनाकुलम ( कोचिन ) के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2007 ) कोप्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-11-2009 कोप्राप्त . हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/102/2006- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th November, 2009

S.O. 3379.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam (Cochin) now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, whichwas received by the Central Covernment on 19-11-2009.

[No. 112012 / 102/2006/ IR (B- II) ] U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer "Employer-employee relationship -onus anddegree ofproof of employment- Held , onus of proof that a claimant was in employment of a management primarily lies on person who claims to be a workman- Degree of proof so required would however vary from case to case In the instant case , respondent workman having established prima facie case that he was a workman and appellant management not having taken care even to rebut the same with any evidence, held, question of workman further proving his case did not arise Hence even though respondent had no letter of appointment , appellant employer having failed to rebut the case that respondent established as to his having worked more than 240 days in a year , workman entitled to reinstatement with back wages- Appeal desmissed with conts- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 -Ss-25-F and 11- Burden of proof - Onus and degree of proof- Evidence Act, 1872-Ss . 101 to 103 .

8092

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri P. L. Norbert, B. A. , LLB. , PresidingOfficer

(Monday the 9th day of November , 2009/ 18th Kartika, 1931)

I. D. No. 18/2007

Workman:

4. Accordingto the management the workman was givensufficient opportunity to defend and adduce defence evidence. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry fully in compliance with the principles of natural justice . The defence witnesses were summoned to appear and give evidence. But none of them turned up . The documents called forwere produced by the management . The workman hadcommmitted serious misconduct of misappropriation ofmoney of customers . Hence he was dismissed from service. The punishment is in no way disproportionate. The punishment was imposed after hearing the workman . There is no illegality in imposing the punishment . There is no reason to set aside either the findings or the punishment.

Shri K. V. Gokuldas , Kizhakkuveettil House, Thoduvatti , Puthenkunnu P. Ο . , Sulthanbatherry-673 592 . (inperson)

Management : The Regional Manager ,

5. In the light of the above contentions the following points arise for consideration :-

1. Is the enquiry valid ?

Punjab National Bank, Regional Office, Govindapuram, Calicut. (inperson)

2. Are the finding sustainable ?

AWARD

3. Is the punishment proper ?

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

6. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of theEnquiryOfficer, MW1 and the enquiry file Ext. Ml .

7. Point No.1 : The validity of enquiry was considered as a prelminary issue and an order was passed on27-7-2009 holding that the enquiry is vitiated for violation ofthe principles of natural Justice .

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s . Punjab National Bank in dismissing Shri K. V. Gokuldas on the alleged charge of misappropriation of its depositors money is fair andjustifiable ? Ifnot, whatreliefhe is entitled to ? "

8. Point Nos . 2 & 3: Since the enquiry is found tobe invalid there is no evidence on record in support of the charges . Though the management was given sufficient opportunity to adduce evidence and substantiate the charges afresh before this court , no steps were taken in that regard by the management . Besides they submitted that they have no further evidence . The resultant position is that there is absolutely no evidence at all in support of the charges against the workman . The findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer are no more valid in view of the preliminary order . This court is also unable to record a finding one way or other for want ofany evidence . It follows, therefore, that the workman is to be exonerated from all the charges . It is needless to say the punishment also cannot stand as there is no finding against the workman.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :- The workman Sri . K. V. Gokuldas entered service of Nedungadi Bank as Peon in the year 1982. He was promoted as Clerk in 1997. The Nedungadi Bank was amalgamated with Punjab National Bank in the year 2003. Thus the workman was absorbed in Punjab National Bank and was posted as Head Cashier in Sulthan Bathery Branch. While so, he was placed under suspension on 24-4-2004 on the allegation that he had misappropriated money of various customers by not entering the deposits in the books of account in some cases and by crediting certain amounts at later dates in some other cases . Thereafter , he was served with a charge sheet and an enquiry was conducted. He was found gui'ty and was dismissed from service . Though he filed an appeal he did not succeed. Hence the dispute was raised by the workman.

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in dismissing the workman Sri K. V. Gokuldas from service is illegal and unjust and he is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits .

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

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 9thday ofNovember, 2009 .

3. According to the workmantthere is no positive evidence in proof ofthe charges . The findings are entered on the basis of surmises and conjectures . The workman was denied opportunity to adduce defence evidence . No defence witnesses were allowed to thecesamined . All the documents summoned from the coustotly of the managementwere not protlused. The punishment is illegal, unjust and harsh . The Enquiry Officerwas biased against the workman. The workman is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits .

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

Appendix

Nil

Witness for the workman :

Witness for the management :

MW1-

29-06-2009- R.Rajaram.

Nil

Exhibit for the workman:

Exhibit for the management :

M1-

EnquiryFile.

नई दिल्ली , 19 नवम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 3380.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार न्यूबैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 103/99 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-11-2009 कोप्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/51/98- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th November, 2009 S.O. 3380. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 103/99) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of New Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 19-11- 2009.

[No. L- 12011 /51 /98- IR(B- II)] U. S. PANDAY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. I. D. 103 of 99

The President, New Bank of India Employees Union (NZ) , EG-810-A, Mohalla Gobindgarh , Jalandhar City.

8093

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

AWARD

Passed on9-11-2009

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour , vide Notification No. L- 12011 /51 /98 -IR (B- II), dated 19thApril, 1999 , referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab NationalBank, Regional Office, Region-B, Chandigarh indiscontinuing w.e.f. Sep. 1993, the payment of dearness allowance increase in the special pay allowance ofRs . 13 and Rs. 7 payabletothe employees of the erstwhile New Bank of India , who became employees of the Punjab National Bank after its amalgamation with the Punjab National Bank without anynotice ofchange is just and legal ? If not, towhat relief such affected workmen are entitled to ?" 2. Learned legal representative of workman appeared and made the statement that he withdraw the present reference reserving his right to raise fresh industrial dispute if required in future to which the learned counsel for the management have no objection.

3. In view of the above statement of the representative of the workman, the present reference is returned to the Central Governmet as withdrawn with a rightto raise the fresh industrial dispute ifrequired in future. Central Government be informed . File be consigned .

Chandigarh 9-11-09

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3381. जबकि मैसर्स करम चन्द थापर एण्ड ब्रादर्स (कोल सेल्स) लि. [ कोलकाता क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डब्ल्यूबी/5492 के अंतर्गत ] (एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित ) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधिऔर 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 हैं 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 ।

....Applicant

Versus

The Regional Manager , PNB Region -B , SCO 119-120, Sector- 17-B , Chandigarh .

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe workman :

Sh. D. P. Tonk

Sh . N. K. Zakhmi

For the management:

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 घ्यान में रखते हुए, उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से30-4-1962 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस -35015/27/2009-एस. एस.- 11 ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव 8094

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA 21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 26th November , 2009

New Delhi , the 26th November, 2009

S.O .. 3382.- Whereas M/s . Spintex Private Ltd. [under Code No. DL/ 6549 in Delhi (North Region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment ) has applied forexemption under clause ( a) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 17ofthe Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct).

S.O. 3381. Whereas M/s . Karam Chand Thapar &Bros. (Coal Sales) Ltd. [ under Code No. WB/5492 in Kolkata Region ] ( hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct) .

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 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 Government, hereby exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-11-1984 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 from time to time, the Central Government, hereby exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions ofthe said Scheme with effect from 30-4-1962 until further notification.

[No. S- 35015 /27/2009- S. S. II] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

[No.o. S- 35015/ 75/2009- S . S.- II ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3382.- जबकि मैसर्स स्पिनटेक्स प्राईवेट प्रा. लि. [दिल्ली ( उत्तर ) क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डीएल/6549 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 ।

का.आ. 3383.-जबकि मैसर्स पीईसी लि. [ दिल्ली ( उत्तर ) क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डीएल/4248 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 अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं हैं 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

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 1-8-1978 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा इस संबंध में समय - समय पर विनिर्दिष्ट शर्तों को घ्यान में रखते हुए , उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 1-11-1984 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस-35015/75/2009- एस. एस.- II ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

[सं. एस-35015 /85/2009- एस. एस.- II ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव 8095 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : दिसम्बर 12, 2009/अग्रहायण 21 , 1931

New Delhi , the 26th November, 2009

New Delhi , the26th November , 2009 S.O. 3383.-Whereas M/s . PEC Ltd. [ under Code No. DL/4248 in Delhi (North) Region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a) ofsub -section ( 1) of Section 17 of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct).

S.O. 3384. Whereas M/ s . Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan [under Code No. MH/27670 in Mumbai Region ] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied forexemption under clause ( a) of sub- section ( 1) of Section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1952 (19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as theAct).

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 speciñed 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 referredto 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 1-8-1978 until further notification.

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 timeto time, the Central Government, hereby exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-8-1982 until further notification .

[No. S- 35015/85/2009-S . S. -II ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

[No. S- 35015/ 18/2000-S . S. II ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 नवम्बर, 2009

नई दिल्ली , 26 नवम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 3385.-जबकि मैसर्स सेन्टर फॉर वूमेन्स डेव्ल्पमेंट स्टडीज [ दिल्ली ( उत्तर) क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या डीएल/9914 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 । का.आ. 3384.-जबकि मैसर्स भारतीय विद्या भवन [ मुंबई क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या एमएच/27670 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 हैं 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 अधिनियम की धारा 6 में विनिर्दिष्ट की तुलना में कम हितकर नहीं हैं 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 घ्यान में रखते हुए, उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 1-2-1994 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

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 से1-8-1982 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस-35015/82/2009- एस. एस.- II ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव [सं. एस-35015/ 18 /2000- एस. एस.- II ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव 8096

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : DECEMBER 12, 2009/AGRAHAYANA21 , 1931 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] New Delhi , the 26th November, 2009

हितकर नहीं हैं 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 । S.O. 3385.-Whereas M/s . Centre for Women's Development Studies [under Code No. DL/9914 in Delhi (North) Region ] ( hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause ( a) ofsub-section ( 1) of Section 17 ofthe Employees ' Provident Funds andMiscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) .

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 घ्यान में रखते हुए , उक्त प्रतिष्ठान को उक्त योजना के समस्त उपबंधों के प्रचालन से 1-8-1982 से अगली अधिसूचना तक के लिए छूट प्रदान करती है ।

[सं. एस-35015/6/2001 - एस. एस.- II ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 27th November , 2009

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.

S.O. 3386.-Whereas M/s . Central Institute of Plastics Engineering & Technology, [under Code No. TN/ 14694 in Tamil Nadu Region ] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause ( a ) ofsub-section ( 1) of Section 17 of the Employees ' Provident Funds andMiscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act) .

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 fromtime totime, the Central Government, hereby exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-2-1994 until further notification .

[No. S- 35015/82/2009-S. S. II] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 27 नवम्बर , 2009

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 .

का.आ. 3386,- जबकि मैसर्स सेन्ट्रल इंस्टीट्यूट ऑफ प्लास्टिक इंजीनियरिंग एण्ड टेक्नालॉजी [ तमिलनाडु क्षेत्र में कोड संख्या टीएन/ 14694 के अंतर्गत ] ( एतदुपरान्त प्रतिष्ठान के रूप में संदर्भित) ने कर्मचारी भविष्य निधि और प्रकीर्ण उपबंध अधिनियम , 1952 (1952का 19 ) ( एतदुपरान्त अधिनियम के रूप में संदर्भित ) कौ धारा 17 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( क ) के अंतर्गत छूट के लिए आवेदन दिया है ।

3.Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (a) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 17 of the said Act and subjectto the conditions specified in this regard from timeto time, the Central Government , hereby exempts the said establishment from the operation of all the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from 1-8-1982 until further notification .

[No. S- 35015/6/2001 -S . S. II] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

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

Printed by the Manager , Govt. of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi - 110054.