This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 2

नई दिल्ली, जनवरी 3 जनवरी 9 , 2010 , शनिवार/ पौष 13 - पौष 19 , 1931 NEW DELHI , JANUARY 3 - JANUARY 9 , 2010 , SATURDAY/ PAUSA 13- PAUSA 19 , 1931

No. 21

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)

गृह मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 24 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 69. केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप- नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में , गृह मंत्रालय के निम्नलिखित कार्यालय में हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान रखने वाले कर्मचारियों की संख्या 80 % से अधिक हो जाने के फलस्वरूप उसे एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती हैं :-- भारत के महारजिस्ट्रार का कार्यालय

जनगणना कार्य निदेशालय , उत्तराखंड 16 , राजपुर रोड , देहरादून -248001 (उत्तराखंड)

[सं. 12017/ 1/2008 - हिन्दी ] अवधेश कुमार मिश्र , निदेशक ( राजभाषा ) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS New Delhi , the 24th December , 2009 S.O. 69. In pursuance of sub rule ( 4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages ( Use for Official Purposes of the 4729 G1 / 2009

Union ) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following office of the Ministry of Home Affairs where the percentage of Hindi knowing staff has gone above 80%:-

Office of the Registrar General , India

Directorate of Census Operations , Uttrakhand , 16, Rajpur Road, Dehradun - 248001 ( Uttrakhand ) .

[No. 12017/ 1 / 2008 - Hindi ] AVADHESH KUMAR MISHRA, Director ( OL)

वित्त मंत्रालय ( वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 70. राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम, 1970/1980 के खंड के उपखंड ( 1 ) और ( 2 ) के साथ पठित, बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधि- नियम , 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उपधारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( ङ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार , एतद्वारा , श्री एम. जयनाथ , लिपिक, इंडियन बैंक को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तिथि से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा जब तक वे इंडियन बैंक

(153) 154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

के कर्मकार कर्मचारी के रूप में अपना पद नहीं छोड़ देते अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , इंडियन बैंक के निदेशक मंडल में कर्मकार कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/31/2009- बीओ -1 ] सुमिता डावरा , निदेशक MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi , 30th December , 2009

S.O. 70.- In exercise of the powers conferredby clause ( e) of sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies ( Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings) Act, 1970/1980 read with Sub- clauses ( 1 ) & (2 ) of Clause 9 of the Nationalised Banks ( Management and Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri M. Jayanath , Clerk , Indian Bank as Workmen Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Indian Bank for a period of three years from the date of taking over charge or until he ceases to be a workman employee of the Indian Bank or until further orders , whichever is the earliest.

[F. No. 9 /31 / 2009 -BO - 1 ] SUMITA DAWRA , Director नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 71. भारतीय स्टेट बैंक ( अनुषंगी बैंक ) अधिनियम , 1959 ( 1959 का 38 ) की धारा 26 की उपधारा ( 2 क) के साथ पठित धारा 25 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( गख ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, एतद्वारा श्री एस. पी. चिने , मुख्य प्रबंधक , स्टेट बैंक आफ इन्दौर को 31-03-2011 तक की अवधि के लिए अर्थात् उनकी अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करने की तिथि तक अपना जब तक वे स्टेट बैंक आफ इन्दौर के अधिकारी के रूप में अपना पद नहीं छोड़ देते अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, जो भी पहले हो , स्टेट बैंक आफ इन्दौर के निदेशक मंडल में अधिकारी कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 8 /4/2009- बीओ- [ ] सुमिता डावरा , निदेशक New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009 S.O. 71. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( cb ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 25 read with sub- section ( 2A ) of Section 26 of the State Bank of India ( Subsidiary Banks ) Act , 1959 ( 38 of 1959 ) , the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India , hereby nominates Shri S.P. Chiney , Chief Manager , State Bank of Indore , as Officer employee Director on the Board of Directors of State Bank of Indore for a period upto 31-03-2011 i.e. the date of his attaining the age of

[ PART II --SEC . 3 ( ii) ] superannuation or until he ceases to be an office of the State Bank of Indore or until further orders , whichever is the earliest.

[ F. No. 8 /4/ 2009 - BO - 1 ]

SUMITA DAWRA , Director

(राजस्व विभाग )

( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 72. सर्वसाधारण की ज्ञानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-2010 से आगे संगठन द इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ रोड ट्रांसपोर्ट , चेन्नई को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अधिसूचित किया जाता है, नामतः (i) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

( ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपन नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा;

( iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता- बही रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हो, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उपधारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता- बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत् सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ;

(iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत् सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत्त करेगा । 2. केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन :-

(क) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा- बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

(ख ) पैराग्राफ । के उप - पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा ( ग ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्रयुक्त राशि का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

( घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा ( ङ ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 96/2009 /फा. सं. 203/24/2009/आ.क.नि.- II ]

डॉ. संजय कुमार लाल , अवर सचिव (Department of Revenue)

(Central Board of Direct Taxes)

New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009 S.O. 72. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization The Institute of Road Transport , Chennai has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii) of sub - section ( 1) of Section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 ( said Act ) , read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income - tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules ) , from Assessment year 2009-2010 onwards in the category of ' other Institution ' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely :-

( i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research ;

( ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

( iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of account in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income - tax or the Director of Income - tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act;

( iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization :--

155

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 / पौष 19 , 1931

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii) of paragraph 1 ; or (c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub - paragraph ( iv) of paragraph 1 ; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine , or

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and SE of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 96/2009 /F . No. 203 / 24 / 2009 /ITA - 11 ] DR . SANJAY KUMAR LAL , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 73. सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 57 और 5 ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-2010 से आगे संगठन त्यागराजार कालेज आफ इंजीनियरिंग , मदुरै को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' कॉलेज ' की श्रेणी में अधिसूचित किया जाता है . नामत:-

(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

( ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा;

( iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हो , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित क्रिसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता- बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधि नियम की धारा 139 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

( iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए पाप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा । 156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

2. केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन :-

(क) पैराग्राफ । के उप - पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा : अथवा

( ख ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (ग ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्रयुक्त राशि का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा (ङ ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 100/2009/फा. सं. 203/92/ 2009/आ.क.नि. - 11 ] डा. संजय कुमार लाल , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009 S.O. 73.-It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Thiagarajar College of Engineering , Madurai has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1) of Section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (said Act ), read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income - tax Rules , 1962 ( said Rules), from Assessment year 2009-2010 onwards in the category of ' College ' , partly engaged in research act vities subject to the following conditions , namely :-

The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research ;

The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students ;

(ing The approved organization shall maintain separate books of account in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amounts used for carrying our research, get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income- tax or the Director of Income - tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act ;

( iv) The appro al organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and

PART II SEC. 3 ( i) ) amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization :

to (a) fails to maintain separate books of account referred in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referredto in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or (c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub - paragraph ( iv ) of paragraph 1 ; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine: or

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 35 of the said Act read with rules SC and 5E of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 100 /2009 / F . No. 203 / 92 / 2009 / ITA -11 ] DR. SANJAY KUMAR LAL , Under Secy. नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 74. सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2007-08 से आगे संगठन डायबेटिक एसोसिएशन आफ इंडिया , मुम्बई , को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अधिसूचित किया जाता है, नामतः-

(i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा :

(ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करेगा ;

(iii) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हो, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता- बहो की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ;

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा । 2. केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन :-

( क ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा ; अथवा

( ख ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा ; अथवा (ग ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्रयुक्त राशि का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(घ ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा (ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनिम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 95 /2009/फा . सं. 203/17/2009/आ.क.नि. - 11 ] डा. संजय कुमार लाल , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009 S.O. 74. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Diabetic Association of India, Mumbai has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub- section (1) of Section 35 of the Income - tax Act , 1961 ( said Act ) , read with Rules SC and 5E of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules ) , from Assessment year 2007-08 onwards in the category of ' other institution ' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely :--

(i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for scientific research ;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific research through its faculty members or its enrolled students ;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of account in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research, get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- Section (2 ) of section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duły signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income - tax or the Director of Income- tax having jurisdiction over the case ,

157

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

by the due date of furnishing the return of incom e undersub -section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act :

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization :

to (a) fails to maintain separate books of account referred in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1; or

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or (c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub - paragraph ( iv ) of paragraph 1 : or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine ; or

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 35 of the said Act , read with rules 5C and 5E of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 95 /2009 / F. No. 203 / 17 / 2009 / IТА - ІІІ DR . SANJAY KUMAR LAL , Under Secy . नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 75. सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम ऽग और इङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-10 से आगे संगठन गिरी इंस्टिट्यूट ऑफ डेवलपमेंट स्टडीज , लखनऊ को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अधिसूचित किया जाता है , नामतः-

( i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग सामाजिक अनुसंधान में अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा ;

(ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से सामाजिक विज्ञान में अथवा सांख्किीय अनुसंधान में अनुसंधान करेगा :

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा 158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हो, उक्तअधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता- बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ;

(iv) अनुमोदित संगठन सामाजिक विज्ञान में अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

2. केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन :-

(क) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

( ख ) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा ( ग) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित सामाजिक विज्ञान अथवा सांख्किीय अनुसंधान में अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्रयुक्त राशि का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा (ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम ऽग और ऽङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनिम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( iii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 99/2009/फा. सं. 203/81/2009/आ.क.नि.--II ] डा. संजय कुमार लाल , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009 S.O. 75. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Giri Institute of Development Studies , Lucknow has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( iii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 ( said Act ) , read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income- tax Rules . 1962 ( said Rules) , from Assessment year 2009-10 onwards in the category of other Institution' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions . namely :

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

(i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for research in social sciences ;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out research in social science or statistical research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

( iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of account in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research. reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research, get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section (2) of section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income - tax or the Director of Income- tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act ;

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for research in social sciences and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization :

(a) fails to maintain separate books of account referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1; or

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph ( iii) of paragraph 1 ; or (c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for research in social sciences or statistical research referred to in sub - paragraph ( iv ) of paragraph 1 ; or (d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine; or

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( iii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with rules SC and SE of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 99 /2009 /F . No. 203 / 81 / 2009 /TTA - 1} } DR . SANJAY KUMAR LAL . Under Secy. नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 76. सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-2010 से आगे संगठन मद्रास स्कूल आफ इकोनामिक्स , चेन्नई को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' कालेज ' की श्रेणी में अधिसूचित किया जाता है, नामतः- ( i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग सामाजिक विज्ञान में अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा ;

(ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से सामाजिक विज्ञान अथवा सांख्किीय अनुसंधान में अनुसंधान करेगा ;

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि दर्शाई गई हो , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता- बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ;

( iv ) अनुमोदित संगठन सामाजिक विज्ञान में अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लेखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

2. केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन :-

( क) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा

( ख ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप - पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा ( ग ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित सामाजिक विज्ञान अथवा सांख्यिकीय अनुसंधान में अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान एवं प्रयुक्त राशि का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

( घ ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा (ङ ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनिम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड

1:59

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/ पौष 19 , 1931

( iii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 98 / 2009/फा. सं. 203/ 56/2009/आ.क.नि.- II ]

डा. संजय कुमार लाल , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009 S.O. 76. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Madras School of Economics , Chennai has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( iii ) of sub -section (1) of section 35 of the Income-tax Act , 1961 ( said Act) . read with Rules SC and 5E of the Income - tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules) , from Assessment year 2009-10 onwards in the category of ' College ' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely: ----

(4) The sums paid to the approved organization shall be utilized for research in social sciences ;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out research in social science or statistical research through its faculty members or its enrolled students;

(iii ) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research , reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research , get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 288 of the said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income - tax or the Director of Income - tax having jurisdiction over the case , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act;

(iv ) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for research in social sciences and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if the approved organization :

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1; or

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or (c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for research in social sciences or statistical research referred to in sub - paragraph ( iv ) of paragraph 1 ; or 160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 / PAUSA 19 , 1931

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine ; or

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( iii) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the said Act read with Rules 5C and SE of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 98 /2009 / F . No. 203 / 56 / 2009 / ITA- !! ] DR. SANJAY KUMAR LAL , Under Secy .

सूचना एवं प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 77. मंत्रालय के दिनांक 10-11-2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के अनुक्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( एमाणन ) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम , 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) के खंड 5 उप खंड ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से 2 वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले घटित हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के चेन्नई सलाहकार पैनल के सदस्यों के रूप में नियुक्त करती है : क्र. सं. नाम

1 श्री राजम एम. पी . नाथन

2 श्री ई . वी . राजन

3 श्री कु. का. सेलवम

t श्री एम.पी. बालासुब्रमणियन

5 श्री ईरोड तमियनबन

( श्री के. स्वर्णम

7 श्री आर. श्रीनिवासन

8 श्री नल्ली कुप्पुस्वामी चेट्टियार

() श्री वेंकटाचलम थियानबन

10 श्री आर. एल. कण्णन

11 श्री एच.एम. मुस्तफा

12 श्री ए.एस.टी. जयरामन

1.3 श्री सी. बालासुन्दरम

14 श्री एस.वी.के. अरिवयगन

15 श्री के. स्वामीनाथन

16 श्री ए.जे. जॉय

17 डॉ. रवि भारती

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

18 श्री ए. बालाकृष्णन

19 श्री जी.आर. वेंकटेश

20 डॉ. वी . नागराजन

21 श्री के. बालासुब्रमणियन

22 श्री ए. वी. श्रीनिवासन

23 श्री एम. कुमरेसन

24 श्री विष्णु वर्धन रेड्डी

25 श्री वी.एस. नायडू

26 श्री आर. मोहन

27 डॉ. एस. अमुदा कुमार

28 डॉ. एम . कार्तिकेयन

29 श्री श्रीनिवास राव

30 डॉ. विजय शंकर

31 श्री वेय्यर रवि

32 श्री एम.वी. सुरेश

33 श्री आर.एम. अब्दुलकलाम

34 श्री एस. अरूणामोयी

35 श्री रजत

36 श्री वी. बालू

37 श्री आर.एस. प्रकाश

38 श्री पी.एन. राजेंद्रन

39 श्री रंगनाथन रत्नम

40 श्री कायल दिनकरन

41 श्री सा. गणेशन

42 प्रो . एम.पी. बालासुब्रमणियन

43 कविंगर मु मेहता

44 पी. वी. कल्याणसुंदरम

45 श्री ' पूची ' मुरुगन

46 श्री शणमुगसुंदरम

47 श्री चन्द्रशेखर

48 श्री थियागू

49 श्री डी. कुमार

50 श्री नक्कीरन

51 श्री एस. शंकरवेल [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1 2

52 श्री सूर्यराजकुमार

53 श्रीमती एस. कथीजा शिरीन

54 सुश्री ए, गिरिजा

55 श्रीमती एम. सरोजा

56 श्रीमती गीतालक्ष्मी

57 श्रीमती लक्ष्मी राजाराम

58 श्रीमती द्विज कुमारी

59 श्रीमती सुशीला पद्मनाभन

60 श्रीमती प्रेमा श्रीनिवासन

61 श्रीमती बानूलॉरेंस

62 श्रीमती मीना सेल्वराज

63 डॉ. ललिता सुब्रमणियन

64 श्रीमती श्रीलेखा माधव

65 श्रीमती सुधा श्रीनिवासन

66 श्रीमती सुगंधा श्रीनिवासन

57 श्रीमती कौशल्या पद्मनाभन

68 श्रीमती एस. प्रेमा

69 श्रीमती एस. सरस्वती

70 श्रीमती निर्मला सुरेश

71 डॉ. जया श्रीधर

72 श्रीमती ललिता श्रीराम

73 डॉ. के. मालती

74 श्रीमती निकिला

75 श्रीमती स्वर्ण राजा

76 श्रीमती गोकिला स्वामीनाथन

77 श्रीमती मीरा बालाजी

78 सुश्री तिरुप्पुर सरोजा

79 श्रीमती स्वर्णलता

80 सुश्री एम.पी. बाला मीरा

81 डॉ. सुजाता मनोहरन

[फा. सं. 809/1/2009-एफ ( सी) ]

अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING New Delhi , the 10th December , 2009 S.O. 77.- In continuation of Ministry's Notification of even number , dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read 4729 G1 /09--2

161

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Chennai Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier :

Name

S. No.

1 Shri Rajam M.P. Nathan

2 Shri E.V. Rajan

3 Shri Ku . Ka. Selvam

4 Sh . M.P. Balasubramanian

5 Dr. Erode Thamizhanban

6 Shri K. Swarnam

7 Shri R. Srinivasan

8 Shri Nalli Kuppuswamy Chettiar

9 Shri Venkatachalam Thayanban

10 Shri R.L. Kannan

11 Shri H. M. Mustafa

12 Shri A.S.T. Jayaraman

13 Shri C. Balasundaram

14 Shri S.V.K. Arivazhagan

15 Shri K. Swaminathan

16 Shri A. J. Joy

17 Dr. Ravi Bharathi

18 Shri A. Balakrishnan

19 Shri G.R. Venkatesh

20 Dr. V. Nagarajan

21 Shri K. Balasubramanian

22 Shri A.V. Srinivasan

23 Shri M. Kumaresan

24 Shri Vishnu Vardhan Reddy

25 Shri V.S. Naidu

26 Shri R. Mohan

27 Dr. S. Amutha Kumar

28 Dr. M. Kaarthikeyan

29 Shri Srinivasa Rao

30 Dr. Vijaya Shankar

31 Shri Vheyyar Ravi

32 Shri M. V. Suresh

33 Shri R. M. Abdulkalam 162

}

34. Shri S. Arunmozhi

35. Shri Rajath

36. Shri V. Balu

37. Shri P.S. Prakash

38. Shri P.N. Rajendran

39. Shri Renganathan Rathinam 40. Shri Kayal Dinakaran

41. Shri Sa. Ganesan

42. Prof. M.P. Balasubramanian 43. Shri Kavingar Mu Mehta 44. Shri P.V. Kalyanasundaram 45. Shri Poochi Murugan 46. Shri Shanmugasundaram 47. Shri Chandrasekar

48. Shri Thyagu

49. Shri D. Kumar

50. Shri Nakkeeran

51. Shri S. Sankervael

52. Shri Suryarajkumar

53. Smt . S. Katheeja Shireen 54. Ms. A. Girija

55. Smt . M. Soroja

56. Smt . Geethalakshmi

57. Smt . Lakshimi Rajaram 58. Smt . Divijakumari

59. Smt . Susheela Padmanabhan 60. Smt . Prema Srinivasan 61. Smt . Banu Lawrence

62. Smt. Meena Selvaraj

63. Dr. Lalitha Subramanian 64. Smt . Srilekha Madhav 65. Smt . Sudha Srinivasan 66. Smt . Sugandha Srinivasan 67. Smt . Kausalya Padmanabhan 68. Smt . S. Prema

69. Smt. S. Saraswathy

70. Smt . Nirmala Suresh

71. Dr. Jaya Sridhar

72. Smt . Lalitha Sriram

PART II SEC. 3 ( ii) |

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

73. Dr. K. Malathi

74. Smt . Nikila

75. Smt . Swarna Raja

76. Smt . Gokila Swaminatan

77. Smt . Meera Balaji

78. Ms. Thiruppur Saroja

79. Smt . Swarnalatha

80. Ms. M. P. Bala Meera

81. Dr. Sujatha Manoharan

[ F. No. 809 / 1 / 2009-1 (C AMITABH KUMAR , Director ( Films )

रेल मंत्रालय

रेलवे बोर्ड

नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 78. रेल मंत्रालय ( रेलवे बोर्ड ) , राजभाषा नियम, 1976 ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 2 ) और ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में पूर्वोत्तर रेलवे के इज्जतनगर मंडल के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों का जहां 80 % से अधिक अधिकारियों/कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है : -

क्र. सं. कार्यालय का नाम

1 2

1. मुख्य चिकित्सा अधीक्षक , इज्जतनगर

2. वरिष्ठ मंडल यांत्रिक इंजीनियर डीजल , इज्जतनगर 3. उप मुख्य सामग्री प्रबंधक , इज्जतनगर

4. उप मुख्य इंजीनियर/निर्माण , इज्जतनगर

5. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी , बरेली सिटी 6. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी , मथुरा छावनी 7. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी , पीलीभीत 8. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी , लालकुआं 9. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी , काठगोदाम 10. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी , काशीपुर 11 . सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर , काशीपुर

12. मंडल रेल प्रबंधक कार्यालय , इज्जतनगर

13. वरिष्ठ सहायक नगर इंजीनियर , इज्जतनगर

14. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर लाइन , इज्जतनगर 15. वरिष्ठ मंडल चिकित्सा अधिकारी , कासगंज 16. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर , पीलीभीत [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

17. सहा. मं. सिग. एवं दूरसंचार इंजीनियर , फतेहगढ़ 18. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर , मथुरा छावनी

19. सहायक मंडल इंजीनियर , फतेहगढ़

[सं. हिंदी -2009 /रा.भा. - 1 / 12 /2 ]

संसार चंद , निदेशक , राजभाषा , रेलवे बोर्ड MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS (Railway Board ) .

New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009 S.O. 78. Ministry of Railways ( Railway Board ) , in pursuance of Sub Rule ( 2) and ( 4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language Rules , 1976 ( use for the official purposes of the Union) hereby, notify the following Offices of Izatnagar Division of N.E. Rly , where 80% or more Officers/ Employees have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi:-

Sl . No. Name of the Office

1. Chief Medical Superintendent , Izatnagar .

2. Senior Divisional Mech . Engineer , IZN .

3. Dy . Chief Material Manager , IZN

4. Dy . Chief Engineer/ Construction , IZN

5. Sr. Div. Medical Officer , Bareilly City

6. Sr. Div . Medical Officer , Mathura Cantt 7. Sr. Div . Medical Officer , Pilibhit

8. Sr. Div . Medical Officer , Lalkua

9. Sr. Div . Medical Officer , Kathgodam

10. Sr. Div . Medical Officer , Kashipur

11. Assistant Divisional Engineer , Kashipur 12. Div. Railway Manager , Izatnagar

13. Sr. Asstt . Town Engineer , Izatnagar

14. Asstt . Div . Engineer/ Line , Izatnagar

15. Sr. Div . Medical Officer , Kashganj

16. Asstt . Divisional Engineer , Pilibhit

17. Asstt . Div . Signal & Tele . Engr . , Fatehgarh 18. Asstt . Div . Engineer , Mathura Cantt

19. Asstt . Div . Engineer , Fatehgarh

[No. Hindi - 2009/ O.L . 1/12/2 ] SANSAR CHAND , Director ( O. L. ) , Railway Board

163

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी विभाग नई दिल्ली , 29 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 79.-श्री चित्रा तिरूनल आयुर्विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी संस्थान, त्रिवेन्द्रम अधिनियम , 1980 ( 1980 की संख्या 52 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और ( 2 ) के साथ पठित धारा 5 के खण्ड जे के प्रावधानों के तहत प्रो. पी.जे. कुरियन , सदस्य , राज्य सभा को दिनांक 16 दिसम्बर , 2009 से उक्त संस्थान के सदस्य के रूप में विधिवत् निर्वाचित किया गया है ।

स्थायी पता

दिल्ली का पता

302 , ब्रह्मपुत्र कॉम्पलैक्स,

डा. बी.डी. मार्ग ,

पल्लाथ , पो. आफिस- पोडूथोडी वेनीकुलम , केरल ।

नई दिल्ली ।

2. निर्वाचित सदस्य के रूप में प्रो. पी.जे. कुरियन के कार्यालय की अवधि 01 जुलाई , 2012 तक अथवा सदन की उनकी सदस्यता समाप्त होने तक, जो भी पहले हो , होगी ।

3. प्रो. पी.जे. कुरियन की सदस्यता श्री चित्रा तिरूनल आयुर्विज्ञान और प्रौद्योगिकी संस्थान , त्रिवेन्द्रम , अधिनियम , 1980 के अन्य प्रावधानों के अधीन होगी ।

[सं. ए.आई/एस. सी. टी.आई.एम.एस.टी /09 / 04 ]

सुमन के. अग्रवाल , उपसचिव DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY New Delhi , the 29th December , 2009 S.O. 79.- In terms of the provisions of Clause - J of Section - 5 read with Sub - section ( 1 ) and ( 2 ) of Section 6 of the Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology , Trivandrum Act , 1980 ( No. 52 of 1980 ) , Prof. P.J. Kurien , Member , Rajya Sabha has been duly elected to be a member of the said Institute w.e.f. 16th December , 2009.

Permanent Address

Delhi Address

Pallath , P.O.- Poduthode, 302. Brahmaputra Vennikullam , Kerala

Complex, Dr. B.D. Marg, New Delhi .

2. The term of Office of Prof. P. J. Kurien as the elected member shall be upto Ist July , 2012 and the same shall come to an end as soon as he ceases to be Member ofthe House , whichever is earlier .

3. The Membership of Prof. P. J. Kurien shall be subject to other provisions of Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute of Medical Sciences and Technology , Trivandrum Act , 1980.

[No. AI/ SCTIMST/009 /04 ] SUMAN K. AGRAWAL , Dy . Secy:

164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

खान मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 80. केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम, 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में, भारतीय भूवैज्ञानिक सर्वेक्षण जो खान मंत्रालय का अधीनस्थ कार्यालय है , के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारी वृंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है, अर्थात्:-

( 1 ) परिचालन अरूणाचल प्रदेश , पूर्वोत्तर क्षेत्र , ईटानगर (2 ) त्रिपुरा मिजोरम मण्डल, अगरतला

(3 ) हवाई खनिज सर्वेक्षण एवं गवेषण स्कंध, नागपुर 14) हवाई खनिज सर्वेक्षण एवं गवेषण स्कंध, जयपुर होगी! 2. यह अधिसूचना राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से प्रवृत्त

[सं. ई-17011/ 1/2006-हिंदी ] अजिता बाजपेयी पाण्डे, संयुक्त सचिव MINISTRY OF MINES New Delhi , the 18th December , 2009 S.O. 80.-In pursuance of sub- rule (4) of rule 10 of dhe Official Language (use for official purpose of the Union) Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices , under the Geological Survey of India , a subordinate office of the Ministry of Mines , whereof more than 80 % staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi , namely:--

(1) Operation Arunachal Pradesh, North East Region, Itanagar.

(2) Tripura - Mizoram Division , Agartala

13 ) Airborne Mineral Survey and Exploration Wing, Nagpur.

(4) Airborne Mineral Survey and Exploration Wing , Jaipur.

2. The , notification shall come into force from the date ofpublication in the official Gazette .

[No. E- 17011 / 1 /2006-Hindi ]

AJITA BAJPAI PANDE ,Jt . Secy.

भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय ( भारी उद्योग विभाग ) आदेश

नई दिल्ली, 31 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 81.-विकास परिषद् ( क्रियाविधि ) नियम, 1952 के नियम, 2.3, 4 और 5 क माथ पठित उद्योग ( विकास और विनियम)

[PART 11 -SEC. 3 ( ii)) अधिनियम, 1951 ( 1951 का 65 ) के खण्ड 6 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्र सरकार भारी उद्योग और लोक उद्यम मंत्रालय , भारी उद्योग विभाग में भारत सरकार के आदेश संख्या एस. ओ. 1733 दि. 12 जुलाई , 2008 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है:-- उक्त अधिसूचना में :-

(i ) पैरा सं.1 में क्र. सं. 24 और 25 तथा उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टियों के स्थान पर निम्नलिखित क्रम संख्याएं और प्रविष्टियां होंगी . अर्थात्: -

" 24. श्री आर. वासुदेवन 25. औद्योगिक सलाहकार , भारी उद्योग विभाग, नई दिल्ली में हेवी इलेक्ट्रिकल उद्योग के प्रभारी , -सदस्य सदस्य सचिव पदन" ( ii ) पैरा 3 हटा दिया जाएगा ।

[फा. सं. 6 ( 2) (07 - पोई X1 ] वी. सी. अग्रवाल , औद्योगिक सलाहकार MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

(Department of Heavy Industry) ORDER

NewDelhi , the 31st December . 2009 S.O. 81. In exercise of the powers conferred by section 6 of the Industries ( Development and Regulation ) Act, 1951 (65 of 1951 ) , read with rules 2 , 3 , 4 and 5 of the Development Council Procedural Ruels . 1952 , the Central Government hereby amends the Order of the Govt. of India in the Ministry of Heavy Industry and Public Enterprises , Department of Heavy Industry number S.O. 1733 , dated the 12th July, 2008 , namely: -- In the said notification , --

in paragraph , 1 , for serial numbers , 24 & 25 and the entries relating thereto , the following serial numbers . and entries shall be substituted, namely :

"24. Shri R. Vasudevan Member

ment ofHeavy Industry, New Delhi 25. Industrial Adviser , In charge of Heavy Electrical Industry in the Depart- ----Member Secretary, Ex-Officio" (ii) Paragraph 3 shall be omitted.

( F. No. 6( 2 )/07 - PE , XII V. C. AGARWAI .. Industrial Adviser 165

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 16 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 82. केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स फिस्टर इंडिया , 4 , जय मल्हार शेड , ई ई हाइवे , कुर्ला सिंगाल , चेम्बूर , मुबंई-71 द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग , रेफ X( 1 ) वाले " डब्ल्यू एफ बी" श्रृंखला के स्वचालित ग्रेत्रिमेट्रिक फिलिंग उपकरण ( बेंच तोलन भरने के लिए ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " फिस्टर इंडिया " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /09 / 43 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित ग्रेविमेट्रिक फिलिंग इंस्ट्रूमेंट है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 3 कि. ग्रा. है । मापमान अंतराल " डी " का मान । ग्रा. है । इसकी अधिकतम भरण दर 15 फिल/ मिनट है । मशीन को सीमेंट , चाय , मसाले, चीनी , चावल , नमक , सूजी, डिटरजेंट , बीज , औषधियां पाउडर और कृषीय उत्पाद आदि फ्री फ्लोइंग को भरने के लिए डिजाइन किया गया है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-2 इंडिकेटर के माडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

कपटपूर्ण उपयोग को रोकने के लिए स्टेम्पिंग प्लेट पर सीलिंग प्वाइंट फिक्स किया जाता है । ट्रिम पॉट, इंडीकेटर की बॉडी के भीतर होता है और पोस्ट का समायोजित करने के लिए बॉडी पर कोई छेद उपलब्ध नहीं कराया जाता है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 06 ) /2009]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19, 1931

{ PARI & SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi , the 16th December, 2009

S.O. 82. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Automatic Gravimetric Filling instrument ( filling and batch weighing) belonging to Accuracy Class X( 1 ) of ' WFB ' series with brand " FEASTER INDIA " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M / s Feaster India , 4. Jai Malhar Shed. E.E. Highway. Kurla Singal , Chembur , Mumbai - 71 and which is assigned the aproval mark IND / 09/09 /43 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Electronic Automatic Gravimetric Filling & Batch Weighing machine . It has maximum Capacity 10kg. and minimum capacity 3kg . The value of scale interval ' d ' is Ig . Its maximum fills rate 15 fij / minutes . The machine is designed for filling free flowing products like cement tea , spices , sugar, rice , salt , suji. detergents , seeds , pharmaceuticals powder and agricultural products etc. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 V , 50 Hz . alternataive current power supply .

Figure- 1 Model

Sealing point is affixed on the stamping plate to avoid fraudulent use . The trim pot is inside the body of the indicator and no hole is provided on the body for adjusting the post. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 06 )/2009 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 167 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 16 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 83.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप धारा ( ४ ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स बेंसर वेइंग स्केल्स लिमिटिड , मारुथी कम्पलैक्स , ग्राउंड फ्लोर , नं. 1 , नरिसम्हां देसारी लेन ( इंसाइड 60 ए, एन एस सी बोस रोड) , सोवकार्पेट , चेन्नई -600079 , तमिलनाडु द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग 1 ) वाले " एम ए बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वेंसर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 08 / 557 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है । उक्त मॉडल एक इलेक्ट्रा मेगनेटिक फोर्स कम्प्रेशन सिद्धांत पर आधारित वालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 220 ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 मि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापभान अंतराल ( ई ) । मि.ग्रा. है और भापमान अंतराल ( डी ) (0.। मि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है । जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है। वैक्यूम फ्लोरेसेंट डिम्पलं । नी एफ डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । उपकरण में आंतरिक तोलन अंशांकन सुविधा है ।

भार तोलन स्केल के बाईं ओर एक छेद बाहरी कवर और तल प्लेट को काटकर बनाया जाता है जिसे स्टाम्प और सील के सत्यापन के लिए लीड वायर से बाँधा जाता है । सील को तोड़े बिना तुला को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 50,000 या ऊपर की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के, 2 × 10 के , 5 × 10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 208 ) /2008 )

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 /PAUSA 19 , 1931

[PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 16th December , 2009

S.O. 83 .-- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions:

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with digital indication of special accuracy ( Accuracy class - 1 ) of series MAB " and with brand name " WENSAR " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Wensar Weighing Scales Limited, Maruthi Complex , Ground Floor , No. 1 , Narasimha Desari Lane ( Inside 60 A. N.S.C. Bose Road ) . Sowcarpet , Chennai - 600079, Tamil Nadu and which is assigned the approval mark IND /09 / 08 / 557;

The said model is an Electro Magnetic Force Compensation Principle based non - automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 220g . and minimum capacity of 100mg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is Img . and scale interval ( d) is 0. i mg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Vacuum Fluorescent Diode ( VFD) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230V , 50Hz . alternative current power supply . The instrument has internal weight calibration facility .

Figure- 2---Sealing diagram of sealing provision of the model .

On the left side of the weighing scale , a hole is made by cutting the outer cover and bottom plate which are fastened by a leaded wire for receiving the verification stamp and seal . The balance can not be opened without tampering the seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further , in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing inst ....ents of similar make . accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg . with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 50,000 or above for ' e ' value of Img . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 , 2x10 or 5x10 " , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 208 ) 20081

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 169 [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 16 दिसम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 84. केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स वेंसर वेइंग स्केल्स लिमिटिड मारुथी कम्पलैक्स , ग्राउंड फ्लोर, नं. 1 , नरिसम्हां देसारी लेन ( इंसाइड 60 ए, एन एस सी बोस रोड) , सोवकार्पेट , चेन्नई -600079 , तमिल नाडु द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग 1) वाले " डी ए बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वेंसर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/08/558 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है । उक्त मॉडल एक इलेक्ट्रो मेगनेटिक फोर्स कम्प्रेशन सिद्धांत पर आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 220 ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 मि. ग्रा. है सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) । मि.ग्रा. है और मायमान अंतराल ( डी ) 0.1 मि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है। वैक्यूम फ्लोरेसेंट डिस्पले ( वी एफ डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । उपकरण में आंतरिक तोलन अंशांकन सुविधा है ।

भार तोलन स्केल के बाई ओर एक छेद बाहरी कवर और तल प्लेट को काटकर बनाया जाता है जिसे स्टाम्प और सील के सत्यापन के लिए लीड वायर से बॉध जाता है । सील को तोड़े बिना तुला को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 50,000 या ऊपर की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के , 2× 10 के , 5× 10 के , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 208 )/2008 ] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4729 G1 /09-3 170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19, 1931

(PART II - SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 16th December, 2009

S.O. 84. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of special accuracy (Accuracy class - 1 ) of series " DAB " and with brand name " WENSAR " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Wensar Weighing Scales Limited, Maruthi Complex , Ground Floor , No. 1 , Narasimha Desari Lane ( Inside 60 A, N.S.C. Bose Road ) . Sowcarpet, Chennai- 600079 , Tamil Nadu and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/08/558 ;

The said model is an Electro Magnetic Force Compensation Principle based non- automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 220 g and minimum capacity of 100mg . The verification scale interval (e ) is Img and scale interval (d) is0.1 mg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Vacuum Fluorescent Diode ( VFD ) display indicate the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply. The instrument has external weight calibration facility.

Figure-2- Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model .

Further , in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 50,000 or above for ' e ' value of Img or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 %, 2 × 10 or 5 × 10 % , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which . the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM - 21 (208 )/20081

R. MATHURBOOTHAM ,Director of Legal Metrology 171 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 16 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 85. केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अंतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स वेंसर वेइंग स्केल्स लिमिटिड मारुथी कम्पलैक्स, ग्राउंड फलोर, नं. 1 , नरिसम्हां देसारी लेन ( इंसाइड 60 ए. एन एस सी बोस रोड ) , सोवकार्पेट , चेन्नई -600079 , तमिलनाडु द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1) वाले " एच पी बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसको ब्रांड का नाम " वेंसर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/08/550 मुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है । उक्त मॉडल एक इलेक्ट्रो मेगनेटिक फोर्स कम्प्रेशन सिद्धांत पर आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 220 ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 मि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन सत्यमान अंतराल ( ई ) । मि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है । जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है। वैक्यूम कतारसेंट डिस्पले ( बी एफ डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । उपकरण में आंतरिक तोलन अंशांकन सुविधा है । आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

भार तोलन स्केल के बाई ओर एक छेद बाहरी कवर और तल प्लेट को काटकर बनाया जाता है जिसे स्टाम्प और सील के सत्यापन के लिए लीड वायर से बाँधां जाता है । सील को तोड़े बिना तुला को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 * , 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 167 ) / 2008 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 172

[PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

New Delhi , the 16th December , 2009

S.O. 85. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of special accuracy (Accuracy class - I ) of series " HPB " and with brand name " WENSAR " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Wensar Weighing Scales Limited , Maruthi Complex , Ground Floor , No. 1 , Narasimha Desari Lane ( Inside 60 A , N.S.C. ( Bose Road ) . Sowcarpet . Chennai- 600079 , Tamil Nadu and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 08 / 559 ;

The said model is an Electro Magnetic Force Compensation Principle based non - automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 220 g . and minimum capacity of 100mg . The verification scale interval ( c ) is 1 mg . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Vacuum Fluorescent Diode ( VFD ) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 V, 50Hz alternative current power supply . The instrument has external weight calibration facility .

Figure- 2- Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model .

Further , in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg . with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 50,000 or above for ' e ' value of Img . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2x10 or 5x10" , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 208 )/20081

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 173 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

नई दिल्ली, 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 86. केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स स्लिन्टेक , 11/567 , कुन्दलयूर , तिरुचर -680 616 ( केरल ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " डी 410 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज मल्टी लोड सैल टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्लिन्टेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 09 / 28 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज मल्टी लोड सैल टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 80,000 कि.ग्रा . है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 400 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 20 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है । जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

स्टाम्प और सीलिंग के सत्यापन के लिए इंडीकेटर के पिछली तरफ अपर कवर और बाटम प्लेट काट कर छेद किए गए हैं और इन छेदों कोलीड वायर से कसा गया है । उपकरण को सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना नहीं खोला जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है । उपकरण में केलिब्रेशन के लिए बाहरी पहुंच नहीं है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से 150 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 और 5 × 10 % , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 16 ) /2009 ] आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

PARI II SEC. 3( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009

S.O. 86. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority . is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Weighbridge - Multi Load Cell Type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series "D410" and with brand name " SLINTEC " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Slintec , 11/567, Kundalyoor. Trichur - 680 616 ( Kerala) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /09/28 :

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Weighbaridge-Multi Load Cell Type ) with a maximum capacity of 80,000kg and minimum capacity of 400kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 20kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid Crystal Diode ( LCD ) Display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230V , 50Hz alternataive current power supply.

Figure- 3 Scaling provision of the indicator of the model .

From the rear side of the indicator a holes are made by cutting the upper cover and bottem plate and fastened by a leaded wire for receiving the verification stamp and seal . The indicator can not be opened without tampering the seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above . There is no external colibration facility .

Further , in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make. accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 150 tonne with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 500g or more and with ' e ' value of 1. 10. 210 or 510 , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 16) 2009]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 175

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/ पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

---

नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 87.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स श्रीनाथ एंटरप्राइज , शाप नं. 1 , चित्रकुट सोसायटी, नजदीक पुनीत नगर सोसायटी, कडीला रेलवे क्रासिंग के पास , घुड़सार , अहमदाबाद -380 050 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग 11 ) वाले " एसईटी -30 के ए " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " नेनोटैक डीजी स्केल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /08/516 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है । जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है। प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

NENDTECH @xigi scale

TheAdvance Technology

मशीन के शीर्ष और तल प्लेट में छेदों के जरिए सील तार डालकर मशीन पर चान्नग प्लट लगा कर लीड सील लगाई है । सील तोड़े बिना उपकरण को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि. ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंनराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा . तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 *, 2 × 10 , 5 × 10 के, के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

( फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 194 ) /2008 ]

आर. माथुरवूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 / PAUSA 19 , 1931

PARI 11 SEC. 3 ( if) )

New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009

S.O. 87.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and 10 render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with digital indication of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - II ) of series " SET - 30 KA " and with brand name " NENOTECH DIGI SCALE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufacturedby M's . Shrinath Enterprise , Shop No. 1 , Chitrakut Society , Nr . Punit Nagar Society , Nr . Cadila Railway Crossing , Ghodasar . Ahmedabad -380 050 . Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 /08 / 516 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of 30kg and minimum capacity 100g . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 2g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing resuh . The instrument operates on 230 V, 50Hz alternataive current power supply.

TheAdvanceTechnology

Diginal

NENDTECH Ingewate

Figure - 2--Schematic diagram ofthe model .

Seal wire passes through the holes in the top and bottom plate and stamping plate is affixed on the machine then a lead seal is applied . The instrument can not be opened without tampering the seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg to 50mg and with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 % , 2 × 10 or 5 × 10 % , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 194 )/ 2008 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 177 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19, 1931

नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 88.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स श्रीनाथ एंटरप्राइज , शाप नं. 1 , चित्रकुट सोसायटी , नजदीक पुनीत नगर सोसायटी, कडीला रेलवे क्रासिंग के पास , घुड़सार , अहमदाबाद -380050 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसईटी-30 के " शृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " नेनोटैक डीजी स्केल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/08/517 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है । जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

NENDTECH Digiscak

SHEMATHENTERPRISE

Digiscale

NENDTECH

TheAduanesTechnology

मशीन के शीर्ष और तल प्लेट में छेदों के जरिए सील तार डालकर मशीन पर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट लगा कर लीड सील लगाई । सील तोड़े बिना उपकरण को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है किउक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 *, 2× 10 * , 5 × 10 * , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

(फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 194)/2008 |

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 4729 G1/09-4 178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

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

New Delhi, the 17th December , 2009

S.O. 88. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with digital indication of " SET- 30 K " series of medium accuracy ( accuracy class - III) and with brand name "NENOTECH DIGI SCALE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Shrinath Enterprise, Shop No. 1 , Chitrakut Society , Nr . Punit Nagar Society, Nr . Cadila Railway Crossing, Ghodasar . Ahmedabad - 380050, Gujarat and whiclı is assigned the approval mark IND/09/08/ 517;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop type) with a maximum capacity of 30kg. and minimum capacity 100g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 5g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50Hz alternataive current power supply.

SHRIMATEENTERP

NEN ENTECH Digiscole

TECHDig Digiscale

TheRevenezTacho:Lagy

Figure-2- Sealing diagram of the model .

Further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg . with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2 g . and with verification scale interval ( n ) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x 10% , 2 × 10k or 5 × 10¹ , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 194 ) 2008 /

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of legal Metrology 179 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 89.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स श्रीनाथ एंटरप्राइज , शाप नं. 1 , चित्रकुट सोसायटी , नजदीक पुनीत नगर सोसायटी, कडीला रेलवे क्रासिंग के पास , घुड़सार , अहमदाबाद-380050 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसईपी -300 के " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण (प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " नेनोटैक डीजी स्केल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 08 / 518 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता । कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

मॉडल को सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

मशीन के शीर्ष और तल प्लेट में छेदों के जरिए सील तार डालकर मशीन पर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट लगा कर लीड सील लगाई । सील तोड़े बिना उपकरण को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के , 2 × 10 के, 5 × 10 कं , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. पं. डब्ल्ल्य एमः 21 ( 194 ) /2008 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2010/PAUSA 19, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 17th December, 2009

S.O. 89.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use andto render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the CentralGovernment hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of self indicating , non- automatic weighing instrument (Plateform type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) of series " SEP- 300K" and with brand name " NENOTECH DIGI SCALE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s. Shrinath Enterprise , shop No. 1 , Chitrakut Society, Nr . Punit Nagar Society, Nr . Cadila Railway Crossing, Ghodasar, Ahmedabad- 380050 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09 /08/518 .

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Plateform type ) with a maximum capacity of300kg . and minimum capacity of Ikg. The verification scale interval (e) is 50g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1 Model

NENDECH

Then They NENECH Digitale

Figure-2 Sealing provision of the indicator of Model

Sea! wire passed through the holes in the top and botton plate and stamping plate is affixed on the indicator of the machine then a lead seal is applied . The indicator can not be opened without tampering the seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make . accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg . and upto 5000kg. with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10 , 2x10 or 5x10 % , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM - 21 (194 )/ 20081

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 181

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 90.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स सूमो जय इलेक्ट्रोनिक्स प्रा. लि. , शाप नं. 5 , श्रुस्थी अपार्टमेंट, नियर वैभव हाल , श्याद्री बंगलों के पीछे , एन..एच नं. 8 पर , घोड़सार , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एसयूजे -12 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सूमो जय " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 08 / 108 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 2.30 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

A1349

मॉडल को सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

इंडिकेटर की तल प्लेट और उसके सामने छेद करके , इन छेदों में से तार निकाल कर तार पर लीड सील से सिलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 मि.ग्रा . से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 किलोग्राम तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10<10 , 2 × 10 *, 5 × 10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं । के

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 18 )/2008 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 / PAUSA 19 , 1931

[ PART II- SPC. 3 ( ii ) ] =

New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009

S.O. 90. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non- automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with digital indication of high accuracy ( Accuracy class - II ) of series " SUJ - 12 " and with brand name " SUMO - JAY " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Sumo Jay Electronics Pvt . Ltd .. Shop No. 5 , Shrushti Apartment, Nr . Vaibhav Hall , B /h Sahyadri Bunglow , On N.H. No. 8 , Ghodasar , Ahmedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 08/ 108 .

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - authomatic weighing instrument with a maximum capacity of30kg . and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 2g . It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1 Model

A1349 Figure- 2 Schematic diagram of the Model

Sealing is done through the holes made in the bottom plate and front of the scale , then a wire is passed through these holes and the lead seal is fixed on the wire . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg . to 50mg . and with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of100 mg . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2x10 or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM -21 ( 18 ) /2008 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 183 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 91.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( ४ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स सूमो जय इलेक्ट्रोनिक्स प्रा. लि. , शाप नं. 5 , श्रुस्थी अपार्टमेंट , नियर वैभव हाल , श्याद्री बंगलों के पीछे , एन.एच नं. ४ पर, घोड़सार , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " एसयूटी -11 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सूमो जय " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/08 / 109 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबल टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा . है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधंयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

मॉडल को सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

इंडिकेटर का तल प्लेट और उसके सामने छेद करके , इन छेदों में से तार निकाल कर तार पर लीड सील से सिलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा . से 2 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्राम या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) संहित 50 कि.ग्रा . की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 210 , 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 18 ) / 2008 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञांन 184

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2010/PAUSA 19, 1931

New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009

S.O. 91. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions ofthe Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of self indicating , non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of series " SUT- 11 " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III) and with brand name " SUMO - JAY " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Suino Jay Electronics Pvt . Ltd. , Shop No. 5 , Shrushti Apartment , Nr . Vaibhav Hall , B /h Sahyadri Bunglow , on N.H. No. 8 , Ghodasar . Ahmedabad, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09/08 / 109.

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non -automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with a maximum capacity of 30kg and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 5g . It has a tare device with 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing result The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1Model

A1348

Figure- 2Sealing diagram of the Model

Sealing is done through the holes made in the botton plate and front of the scale , then a wire is passed through these holes and the lead seal is fixed on the wire . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further. in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act . the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrum of similar make . accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. with verification scale interval (n ) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for e value of 100mg to 2g and with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 10 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with e ' value of 1x 10k , 2x10 or 5 × 10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 18 ) 20081

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of legal Metrologs 185

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/ पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का. आ . 92. केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स सूमो जय इलेक्ट्रोनिक्स प्रा. लि. , शोप नं. 5 , श्रुस्थी अपार्टमेंट, नियर वैभव हाल , श्याद्री बंगलों के पीछे, एन.एच. नं. पर, घोड़सार , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसयूपी -7 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तालन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइय ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सूमो जय " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 08 / 110 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा . है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आभेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती विद्युत धारा प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

मॉडल को सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

इंडीकेटर की तल प्लेट और उसके सामने छेद करके , इन छेदों में से तार निकाल कर तार पर लीड सील से सिलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिमांता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया हैं, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन भापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से और 5000 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 के और 510 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-2) ( 18 ) /2008 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 4729 G1/09-5 186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 9 , 2010 / PAUSA 19 , 1931

PART 11 Su

New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009

S.O. 92. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report subinitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models) Raics , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 30 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class illi series of "SUP 7" and with brand name " SUMO - JAY" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by Ms. Suntio kay Electronics Pvt . Ltd. , Shop No. 5 , Shrushti Apartment , Nr. Vaibhav Hall. B /h Sahyadri Bunglow, On N.11 No. 8. Ghodasar. Ahmedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /08/110 .

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - authomatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with a maximum capacity of 1000kg . and minimum capacity of 2kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 100g , It has a tare device wi .. 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing results. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

Figure- 1Modei

A1350 Figure- 2 Sealing provision of the indicator of Model

Sealing is done through the hole made in the botton plate and front of the indicator , then a wire is passed through these holes and the lead seal is fixed on the wire . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similarmake , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg . and up to 5000kg . with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value of 1 × 100 , 2、10 ° or 5 × 10 " , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured .

F. No. WM - 21 ( 18 ) 2008

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 187

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 93.-कंन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स सूमो जय इलेक्ट्रोनिक्स प्रा. लि. , शाप नं. 5 , श्रुस्थी अपार्टमेंट , नियर वैभव हाल , श्याद्री बंगलों के पीछे , एन.एच. नं. ४ पर , घोड़सार , अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " एसयूडब्ल्यू-4 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सुमो जय " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 08 / 111 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 टन है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

000000

मॉडल को सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

इंडिकेटर की तल प्लेट और उसके सामने छेद करके, इन छेदों में से तार निकाल कर तार पर लीड सील से सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 टन से ऊपर और 100 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2 × 10 , 5 × 10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 18 ) / 2008 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञन 188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 9, 2010 /PAUSA 19 , 1931

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009

S.O. 93.--Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Mortels ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and tu render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument Weighbridge type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) series of "SUW-4" and with brand name " SUMO - JAY " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M /s . Sumo Jay Electromes Pvt . Ltd. , Shop No. 5. Shrushti Apartment , Nr . Vaibhav Hall , B /h Sahyadri Bunglow , on N.H. No. 8 , Ghodasar, Ahmedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/08 /111 .

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Weighbridge type) with a maximum capacity of 30 tonne and minimum capacity of 100 kg. The verification scale interval ( c ) is 5 kg . It has a tare devicewith a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

Figure- 1Model

Figure-2 Sealing arrangement

Sraing is done through the holes made in the botton plate and front of the indicator, then a wire is passed through these holes and the lead seal is fixed on the wire . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the Model is given above .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and upto 100 tonne with veritication scale interval (n ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of ix 10 %, 2 × 10 or 5xlu , where k is apositive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principie, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 18 )/ 2008 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM , Director of Legal Metrology 189 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 30 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 94.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए . मैसर्स सूमो जय इलेक्ट्रोनिक्स प्रा. लि. , शाप नं. 5 , श्रुस्थी अपार्टमेंट , नियर वैभव हाल , श्याद्री बंगलों के पीछे , एन.. एच नं. 8 पर , घोड़सार, अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " एसयूसी -4 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज कन्वर्सन किट टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सूमो जय " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 08 / 112 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है । उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज कन्वर्सन किट टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 टन है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 किं. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 5 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

मॉडल को सीलिंग करने के प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

इंडिकेटर की तल प्लेट और उसके सामने छेद करके , इन छेदों में से तार निकाल कर तार पर लीड सील से सिलिंग की जाती है । माडल को सीलबंद करने का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से ऊपर और 100 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 के , 2 × 10 के , 5 × 10 के , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 18 ) / 2008 ]

आर. माथुरबूथम , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 9, 2010/ PAUSA 19, 1931

[ PART II -SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 30th December , 2009

S.O. 94. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (ApprovalofModels) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Weighbridge conversion kit type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) of series " SUC -4 " and with brand name " SUMO -JAY" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured byM/ s . Sumo Jay Electronics Pvt . Ltd. , Shop No. 5 , Shrushti Apartment , Nr. Vaibhav Hall , B /h Sahyadri Bunglow , On N.Η. No. 8, Ghodasar , Ahmedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/08/ 112 .

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge conversion kittype) with a maximum capacity of30 tonne and minimum capacity of 100 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 5 kg . It has a tare device with 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

Figure- 1Model

Fig.- 2Sealing arrangement

Sealing is done through the holes made in the botton plate and front of the indicator then a wire is passea through these holes and the lead seal is fixed on the wire . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further, in exercise ofthe power conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5tonne and up to 100 tonne with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k , 2x10 or 5 × 10k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM -21 ( 18 )/2008 ]

R. MATHURBOOTHAM, Director of Legal Metrology 191 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 31 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 95.- 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 हैं :

अनुसूची

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि क्रम संख्या

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1 .

आई एस 15265 : 2003

1, नवम्बर 2009

30 नवम्बर , 2009 इस संशोधन की 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 , कानपुर , नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

| संदर्भ: सीईडी/राजपत्र ।

ए. के. सैनी, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( सिविल इंजीनियरी ) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS New Delhi , the 31st December , 2009

S.O. 95. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standard, 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

Sl . No.

No. and year of the

amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

1 .

IS 15265 : 2003

1, November 2009

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

Ref : CED/ Gazette ]

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

नई दिल्ली , 5 जनवरी , 2010

का.आ. 96.- 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 क्रम संख्या और वर्ष संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या

( 1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

15 दिसम्बर , 2009

संशोधन सं. 2 ,

नवम्बर , 2009

1. आईएस 7285 ( भाग 2 ) : 2004 फिर से भरे जा सकने वाले जोडा रहित इस्पात के गैस सिलिंडर विशिष्ट, भाग 2 1100 एमपीए ( 112 केजीएफ /वर्गएमएम ) से कम की नन्यता सामर्थ्य वाले इस्पात के क्वेंच्ड और टैम्प सिलिंडर ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण ) 192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 /PAUSA 19 , 1931

(2)

(1)

PARI 11 S300

(4)

(3)

01 दिसम्बर , 2009 संशोधन सं. 1 , नवम्बर , 2009

आईएस 13258 : 1991 अल्प दाब द्रवणीय गैसों के लिए 5 लीटर से अधिक जल क्षमता वाले वेल्डित अल्प 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 प्रयुक्त स्थाई रूप से बने द्रवित पेट्रोलियम गैस आधानों के लिए बहुप्रकायत्मिक वाल्व असेम्बली

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

| संदर्भ : एम.ई.डी. जी 2 : 1 सी. के. देश , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग )

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2010

S.O. 96. 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 of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

No. and Year of the Indian Standards SI . No.

(1)

(2)

IS 7285 ( Part 2) : 2004 Refillable seamless steel gas cylinders - Specification , Part 2, Quenched and tempered steel cylinders with tensile strength less that 100MPa ( 112kgt/mm² ) 2.

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 of used cylinders

3. IS 15100 : 2001 Multifunction valve assembly for permanently fixed Liquefiable Petroleum Gas ( LPG) containers for automotive use

SCHEDULE

Date from which the No. and year of the amendment

amendment shall have effect

(4)

(3)

15 December , 2009 Amendment No. 2 November, 2009

1 December , 2009 Amendment No. 1 November , 2009

1 December , 2009 Amendment No. 4 November, 2009

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

[ Ref: MED/G -2: 11 C. K. VEDA , Scientist F & Head (Mechanical Engineering )

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 4 जनवरी , 2010

संभावना है; का. आ. 97.- केन्द्रीय सरकार को प्रतीत होता है कि इससे उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में उल्लिखित भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राय किये जाने की अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) , अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) , ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त अयिनियम कहा गया है ) , की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में कोयले का पूर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना देती है ;

193

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9, 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाले प्लान सं. सीजीएम/जेएनआर/ भूमि/सीबीए/ 09 / 17 तारीख 18 जून , 2009 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर , बर्दवान ( पश्चिमी बंगाल ) के कार्यालय में या मुख्य महाप्रबंधक ( खोज प्रभाग ) कार्यालय, सेंट्रल माइन प्लानिंग एण्ड डिजाइन इंस्टीच्यूट , गोंडवाना प्लेस , कांके रोड , रांची में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता-700001 के कार्यालय में या निदेशक तकनीकी (योजना एवं परियोजना ) , ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सांकतोडिया , पोस्टः डिसरगढ़ , जिला बर्दवान ( पश्चिमी बंगाल ) पिन कोड 713333 के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

इस अधिसूचना के अंतर्गत आने वाली भूमि में हितबद्ध सभी व्यक्ति उक्त अधिनियम के धारा 13 की उपधारा 7 में निर्दिष्ट सभी नक्शों.. चाटों और अन्य दस्तावेजों को इस अधिसूचना के राजपत्र में प्रकाशन की तारीख से 90 दिन के भीतर निदेशक तकनीकी ( योजना एवं परियोजना ) , ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड , सांकतोडिया , पोस्टः डिसरगढ़ , जिला बर्दवान ( पश्चिमी बंगाल ) पिन कोड 713333 को भेजेंगे ।

अनुसूची

ब्लॉक- झांझरा कालीपुर भौगोलिक ब्लॉक , जिला बर्दवान ( पश्चिमी बंगाल )

(रेखाचित्र/प्लान संख्या:-सीजीएम/जेएनआर/ भूमि/सीबीए/09/ 17 तारीख 18 जून , 2009

( क) सभी अधिकार

क्रम मौजा गांव

जे. एल.

सं.

पुलिसस्टेशन थाना 1 .

17 सिरसा

फरीदपुर 2.

16 बालीजुरी

फरीदपुर 3. मधाईगंज

फरीदपुर 4. बनाबंदी

फरीदपुर

9 5.

फरीदपुर श्रीकृष्णपुर

( ख ) खनन अधिकार

i .

16 बालीजुरी

फरीदपुर

हेक्टर

टिप्पणी जिला

में क्षेत्र

बर्दवान

भाग

48.00

भाग

69.10)

बर्दवान

39.80

भाग

29.60

बर्दवान

भाग बर्दवान

23.80

-210.20 ( लगभग )

कुल:

भाग

19.00

बर्दवान

19,00 ( लगभग )

कुल:-

कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम 1957 की धारा 4 ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित होने वाले स्थल/ क्षेत्र का सीमा विवरण

मीमा विवरण: -

1234

रेखा , मौजा सिरसा , जे एल नं. 17 के बिंदु । से प्रारंभ होती है और मौजा सिरसा , जे एल नं. 17 के बिंदु 2.3 से गुजरती है तथा मौजा सिरसा , जे एल नं. 17 एवं मौजा बालीजुरी जे एल नं. 16 के सम्मिलित बिंदु 4 पर मिलती है ।

रेखा , मौजा सिरसा , जे एल नं. 17 एवं मौजा बालीजुरी जे एल नं. 16 के सम्मिलित बिंदु 4 से प्रारंभ होती है एवं मौजा बालीजुरी जे एल नं. 16 से गुजरती है तथा मौजा बालीजुरी जे एल नं. 16 मौजा एवं मौजा बनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। के सम्मिलित बिंदु 5 पर मिलती है । 55 क

रेखा , मौजा बालीजुरी , जे एल नं. 16 मौआ एवं मौजा बेनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। के सम्मिलित बिंदु 5 से प्रारंभ होती है और मौजा वालीजुरी जं एल नं. 16 से गुजरती है तथा मौजा बालीजुरी जे एल नं. 16 मौजा एवं मौजा वेनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। के सम्मिलित बिंदु 5क पर मिलती है ।

रेखा , मांजा बालीजुरी, जे एल नं. 16 मौजा एवं मौजा बेनाबंदी से एल नं. ।। के रग्गग्मलिन बिंदु रक से प्रारंभ होती है और उसी सम्मिलित सीमा रेखा से गुजरती है तथा मौजा बालीजुरी जे धुत्त नं. 16 एवं मांजा बेनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। के सम्मिलित बिंदु 6 पर मिलती है ।

रेखा , मौजा बालीजुरी , जे एल नं. 16 एवं मौजा बनाबंदी जं एल नं. ।। के सम्मिलित चिंदु से प्रारंभ होती है और मोजा बेनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। से गुजरती है तथा मौजा बेनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। से गुजरती है तथा मौजा बनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। कं बिंदु 7 पर मिलती है ।

रेखा , मौजा बेनाबंदी, जे एल नं. ।। के बिन्दु ? से प्रारंभ होती है और मौजा बनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। पं गुजरती है तथा मौजा बेनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। एवं मौजा श्रीकृष्णपुर जे एल नं. 9 के सम्मिनित बिंदु 8 पर मिलती है ।

रेखा, मौजा बेनाबंदी , जे एल नं. 11 एवं मौजा श्रीकृष्णपुर जे एल नं. १ के संयुक्त बिन्दु 8 से प्रारंभ होती है तथा मांजा श्रीकृष्णपुर जे एल नं. ० से गुजरती है तथा मौजा श्रीकृष्णपुर जे एल नं. 9 के बिंदु पर मिन्नती है ।

4729 G1 /09-6 194

9-10

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

[ PART II SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

रेखा, मौजा श्रीकृष्णपुर , जे एल नं. 9 के बिंदु 9 से प्रारंभ होती है और मौजा श्रीकृष्णपुर जे एल नं. १ से गुजरती है तथा मौजा श्रीकृष्णपुर जे एल नं. 9 एवं मौजा मधाईगंज जे एल नं. 24 के सम्मिलित बिंदु 10 पर मिलती है ।

10-11

रेखा, मौजा श्रीकृष्णपुर , जे एल नं. 9 एवं मौजा मधाईगंज जे एल नं. 24 के सम्मिलित बिंदु 10 से प्रारंभ होती है और मौजा मधाईगंज जे एल नं. 24 के बिंदु ।। पर मिलती है ।

रेखा , मौजा मधाईगंज जे एल नं. 24 के बिंदु 11 से प्रारंभ होती है और मौजा मधाईगंज जे एल नं. 24 के बिंदु 12 , 13, 14, 11-12-13-14-

15-16-17

15, 16 से गुजरती है तथा मौजा मधाईगंज जे एल नं. 24 एवं मौजा बेनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। के सम्मिलित बिंदु 17 पर मिलती है !

17-18

रेखा , मौजा मधाईगंज जे एल नं. 24 एवं मौजा बेनाबंदी जे एल नं. 11 के संयुक्त बिंदु 17 से प्रारंभ होती है और मौजा चंनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। सं गुजरती है तथा मौजा बेनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। एवं मौजा बालीजुरी जे एल नं. 16 के सम्मिलित बिंदु 18 पर मिलती है । 18-19-20- रेखा , मौजा बेनाबंदी जे एल नं. ।। एवं मौज बालीजुरी जे एल नं. 16 के सम्मिलित बिंदु 18 से प्रारंभ होती है और मौजा 21-22-23

बालीजुरी जे एल नं. 16 के बिंदु 19 , 20 , 21. 22 से गुजरती है तथा मौजा बालीजुरी जे एल नं. 16 एवं मौजा सिग्सा 'जे गुन्न * 17 के सम्मिलित बिंदु 23 पर मिलती है ।

23-24-25-

26-27-1

रेखा , मौजा बालीजुरी जे एल नं. 16 एवं मौजा सिरसा जे एल नं. 17 के सम्मिलित बिंदु 23 से प्रारंभ होती है और मांजा सिरसा जे एल नं. 17 के बिंदु 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 से भी गुजरती है तथा मौजा सिरसा जे एल नं. 17 के प्रारंभिक बिंदु । पर पर मिलती है ।

[ सं. 43015/28/2009 पी. आर. आई. इच्ल्यू ।। एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 4th January, 2010

S.O. 97. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that coal is likely to be obtained from the lands in the locality mentioned in the schedule hereto annexed;

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

The plan bearing number CGM / JNR/ LAND / CBA/09 / 17 dated the 18th June , 2009 of the area covered by this notification can be inspected at the office of the Collector , Burdwan ( West Bengal ) or at the office of the Chief General Manager ( Exploration Division ) , Central Mine Planning and Design Institute , Gondwana Palace , Kanke Road, Ranchi or at the office ofthe Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata 700001 or at the office of the Director ( Tech ) ( P and P ) . Eastern Coalfields Limited , Sanctoria, P.O. Dishergarh . Dist.- Burdwan (West Bengal ) Pin Code -713333 .

All person interested in the lands covered by this notification shall deliver all maps , charts and other documents referred in Sub- section ( 7) of Section 13 of the said Act to the Director ( Tech) ( P and P) , Eastern Coalfields Limited. Sanctoria . P.O. Dishergarh , District Burdwan, ( West Bengal) Pin number - 713333 within ninety days from the date of the publication ofthis notification in the Official Gazette .

SCHEDULE

JHANJRA - KALIPUR GEOLOGICAL BLOCK , DISTRICT BURDWAN , WEST BENGAL .

( DRAWING / PLAN NUMBER : -CGM / JNR/ LAND /CBA/ 09/ 17 Dated the 18th June , 2009 ) .

A. All right

J.L. Mouza (Village)

No. 1. Sirsha

17 2.

16 Balijuri

24 Madhaiganj

11 Benabandi

9 5. Srikrishnapur

Police Station District

Remarks

Area in Hectare

(Thana)

Burdwan

48.00

Part Faridpur

-do-

69.00

Part

39.80

-do-

Part -do-

29.60

-do-

Part -do-

-do-

23.80

Part Total

210.20 ( Approximately) 195 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

B. Mining right

Part

19.00

Burdwan

Faridpur

Balijuri

Total

19.00 ( Approximately) Bounday Description of the Area Being Notified Under Section 4 ( 1 ) of the CBA ( A & D ) Act , 1957 Line

Boundary description .

1-2-3-4

Line starts from point 1 of Mouza Sirsha , JL No. 17 and passing through point 2 , 3 of Mouza Sirsha , JL. No. 17 and meets at point 4 common point of Mouza Sirsha , JL No. 17 & Mouza Balijuri , JI . No. 16 .

4-5

Line starts point 4 common point of Mouza Sirsha , JL No. 17 & Mouza Balijuri , JI . No. 16 and passes through Mouza Balijuri , JL No. 16 and meets at point 5 common point of Mouza Balijuri . JL. No. 16 & Mouza Benabandi . JI . No. 11 .

5-5A

Line starts from point 5 common point of Mouza Balijuri , JL. No. 16 & Benabandi . JI . No. 11 and passes through Mouza Balijuri , JL No. 16 and meets at point 5A common point of Mouza Balijuri . JL. No. 16 & Benabandi , JL No. 11 .

5A-6

Line starts from 5A common point of Mouza Balijuri , JL No. 16 & Benabandi . JI . No. 11 and passes through the same common boundary and meets at point 6 common point of Mouza Balijuri , Jl . No. 16 & Benabandi , JL No. 11 .

6-7

Line starts from point 6 common point of Mouza Balijuri , JL No. 16 & Benabandi , II . No. 11 and passes through Mouza Benabandi , JL No. 11 and meets at point 7 , Mouza Benabandi , Jl. No. 11 .

7-8

Line starts from point 7 of Mouza Benabandi Jl . No. 11 and passes through Mouza Benabandi JL No. 11 and meets at point 8 common point of Mouza Benabandi JL No. 11 and Mouza Srikrishnapur . JI . No. 9 .

8-9

Line starts from point 8 common point of Mouza Benabandi JL . No. 11 and Mouza Srikrishnapur . JI . No. 9 . and passes through Mouza Srikrishnapur , JL No.9 and meets at point 9 of Mouza Srikrishnapur . JL. No. 9 .

9-10

Line starts from point 9 of Mouza Srikrishnapur , JL No.9 and passes through Mouza Srikrishnapur . J. No. 9 and meets at point 10. common point of Mouza Srikrishnapur , JL No. 9 and Mouza Madhaiganj , J1 , No. 24 .

10-11 Line starts from point 10 common point of Mouza Srikrishnapur . JL No. 9 and Mouza Madhaiganj , Jl . No. 24 and meets at point No. 11 of Mouza Madhaiganj , JL. No. 24 .

11-12-13-

14-15-16

Line starts from point 11 of mouza Madhaiganj , JL No. 24 and passes through point 12,13,14,15,16 all passes through mouza Madhaigaj II . No. 24 and meets at point 17 common point of mouza Madhaiganj . JI . No. 24 and Benabandi . JL No. 11 .

17-18 Line starts from point 17 , common point of mouza Madhaiganj , JLL No. 24 and mouza Benabandi , JL No. 11 and passes through mouza Benabandi , JL No. 11 and meets at point 18 common point of Mouza Benabandi , JL . No. 11 and mouza Balijuri . JL No ; 16 .

18-19-20- 21-22-23

Line starts from point 18 common point of Mouza Benabandi , JI . No. 11 and Mouza Batijuri , JI. No. 16 and passes through point 19, 20 , 21 , 22 all passes through Mouza Balijuri JL . No. 16 and meets at point 23 common point of Mouza Balijuri JL No. 16 and Mouza Sirsha JL No. 17 .

23-24-25-

26-27-1

Line starts from point No. 23 common point of Mouza Balijuri JL. No. 16 and Mouza Sirsha Jl . No. 17 and passes through points 24 , 25 , 26. 27 all passes through Mouza Sirsha , JL No. 17 and meets at starting point Lof Mouza Sirsha . JL No. 17 .

No. 6015 28 2009 - PRIW - 11

M. SHAHABUDEEN . Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 5 जनवरी 2010

का. आ. 98. केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसकं पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 4 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कोयला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 1936 तारीख 10 जुलाई , 2009 , जो भारत के राजपत्र के भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 18 जुलाई , 2009 में प्रकाशित की गई थी , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट परिक्षेत्र की भूमि में जिसका माप 766.00 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1800278 एकड़ ( लगभग ) है, सर्वेक्षण करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची ( यो ) में विहित उक्त भूमि में कोयला अभिप्राप्य है;

196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 / PAUSA 19 , 1931

PARE I S Sun अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए अनुसूची में वर्णित 743.83 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1838.00 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि में या उस पर के सभी अधिकार का अर्जन करने की, अपने आशय की सूचना देती है;

टिप्पण 1 : इस अधिसूचना के अधीन आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या सी । ( ई ) III /जेजेआर/ 802 0909 , तारीख 29 सितम्बर , 2009 का कलेक्टर , चंद्रपुर ( महाराष्ट्र) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , । , काऊंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता ( 700 001 ) क कार्यालय में या महाप्रबंधक , वेटर्स कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व विभाग ) , कोल ईस्टेट , सिविल लाईन्स, नागपुर 440 001 ( महाराष्ट्र ) के कार्यालय में निरीक्षण किया जा सकता है ।

टिप्पण 2 : उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के उपबंधों की ओर ध्यान आकृष्ट किया जाता है , जिसमें निम्नलिखित उपबंध है :

अर्जन की बाबत आपत्तियाँ-

" 8 ( 1 ) कोई व्यक्ति जो किसी भूमि में , जिसकी बाबत धारा 7 के अधीन अधिसूचना निकाली गई है , हितबद्ध है , अधिसूचना के निकाले जाने से तीस दिन के भीतर सम्पूर्ण भूमि या उसके किसी भाग या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के किन्हीं अधिकारों का अर्जन किए जाने के बारे में आपत्ति कर सकेगा ।

स्पष्टीकरण:-

( 1 ) इस धारा के अर्थान्तर्गत यह आपत्ति नहीं मानी जायेगी , कि कोई व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में कोयले उत्पादन के लिए स्वयं खनन भक्रियाएं करना चाहता है और ऐसी संक्रियाएं केन्द्रीय सरकार या किसी अन्य व्यक्ति को नहीं करनी चाहिए ।

( 2) उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन प्रत्येक आपत्ति , सक्षम अधिकारी को लिखित रूप में की जायेगी और सक्षम अधिकारी , आपत्तिकर्ता को स्वयं सुने जाने, विधि व्यवसायी द्वारा सुनवाई का अवसर देगा और ऐसी सभी आपत्तियों को सुनने के पश्चात् और ऐसी अतिरिक्त जाँच यदि कोई हो , करने के पश्चात् जो वह आवश्यक समझता है , वह या तो धारा 7 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचित भूमि के या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में एक रिपोर्ट या ऐसी भूमि के विभिन्न टुकड़ों या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकारों के संबंध में आपत्तियों पर अपनी सिफारिशों और उसके द्वारा की गई कार्रवाई के अभिलेख सहित विभिन्न रिपोटें केन्द्रीय सरकार को उसके विनिश्चय के लिए देगा ।

( 3 ) इस धारा के प्रयोजनों के लिए वह व्यक्ति किसी भूमि में हितबद्ध समझा जाएगा जो प्रतिकर में हित का दावा करने का हकदार होना. यदि भूमि या ऐसी भूमि में या उस पर के अधिकार इस अधिनियम के अधीन अर्जित कर लिए जाते हैं ! "

टिप्पण 3 : केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाऊस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता -700 001 , को उक्त अधिनियम की धारा के अधोन भारत के राजपत्र , भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) , तारीख 11 जून , 1983 की अधिसूचना सं. का.आ. 2519 तारीख 27 मई , 1983 द्वारा सक्षम प्राधिकारी नियुक्त किया है ।

अनुसूची

पेनगंगा ओपनकास्ट परियोजना

वणी क्षेत्र

जिला चंद्रपुर ( महाराष्ट्र )

( रेग्यांक संख्या भी । ( ई ) 111 /जे जेआर/ 802-0909 , तारीख 29 सितम्बर , 2009 )

सभी अधिकार

ग्राम का नाम

तहसील

जिला

टिप्पणी क्रम संख्या

पटवारी सर्कल

क्षेत्रफल हेक्टर में

विरूर

कोरपना

478.92

भाग

चंद्रपुर

कोरपना

दनोडा (रोत )

199.94

भाग

चंद्रपुर

कोरपना

64.97

बोरगांव

भाग

चंद्रपुर

कुल क्षेत्र :

743.83 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 1838.00 एकड़ ( लगभग) 197

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ग्राम विरूर में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक: -

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7, 8 , 9, 10, 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17, 18 , 19 , 20, 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26, 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 . 35,36/ 1 , 36/2 , 36/3, 37, 38 , 39 , 39ख , 39 , 40, 41 , 42, 43 , 44 , 45/1 , 45/2 , 46/1 , 46/2 , 47 , 48.49.50.51 , 52 , 53 , 54, 55/1 , 55/2 , 56 , 57 , 58/1 , 58/2 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62, 63 , 64, 65, 66/1 क, 66/ 1 ख, 66/2, 67/ क 1 , 67/क 2.67/ख 1 , 67/ख2, 68 , 69/1 , 69/2 , 69/3 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 78ख , 79, 80 , 81/1 , 81/2 , 82 , 83 , 84/1 , 84/2 , 85 , 86 , 87/ 1,87/2 , 88/1 , 88/2 , 88/3 , 89 , 90/1 , 90/2 , 91/1 , 91/2 , 92/1 , 92/2 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99 , 100 , 101 , 102 , 103 , 104/1 , 104/2 , 111 , 112, 113 , 114 , 122 , 123 , 124 , 125 , 126/1 , 126/2 , 127 , 128 , 129 , 130/1 , 130/2 131 , 132 , 133 , 134 , 135 , 136 , 137 , 138, 139 , 140/1 , 140/2 , 140/3 , 141 , 142/1 , 142/2 , 143/ 1 क, 143/ 1 ख, 143 / 1 ग, 143/ 1 घ, 143/2, 144, 145, 146 , 147 , 148 , 149 , 150/1 , 150/2 , 150/3 , 151 , 152/1 , 152/2 , 153/1 , 153/2 , 153/3 , 153/4 , 154 , 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159/1 , 159/2 , 160 . 161,162,163,164,165 , 166/ 1,166/ 2,167 / 1,167 / 2 , 167/3 , 168 , 169 , 170 , 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176 , 177 , 178.179 . 180.181 , 182 , 183/1 , 183/2 , 183/3 , 184 , 185 , 186 , 187 , 188/1 , 188/2 , 189 , 190/1 , 190/2 , 191 , 192 , 193/1 , 193/2 , 194/ 1 , 194/2 , 195/1 , 195/घ, 196/क, 196/ख, 197 , 198 , 199 , 200 , 201 , 202 , 203 , 220/1 , 220/2 , 221/1 , 221/2 , 221 / 3,227 / 1 , 227/2 , 228 , 229 , 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236/ क , 236/ ख , 237 , 238/ क, 238/ ख, 238/ग, 238 /घ , 238ड. , 238/च, 239, 253/1 क, 253/ 1 ख , 253/2 , 253/3 , 254 / 1,254 / 2,254 /3,255 / 1,255/ 2256 / 1,256 / 2 , 256/3,257/1,257 / 2 , 258 , 259 , 260 , 261 , 262, 263 , 264/1 , 264/2 , 265 / 1,265 / 2 , 266/1 , 266/2 , 266/3,266 /4,266/ 5 , 267/1 , 267/2 , 268 , 269 , 270 , 271 , 272 , 273 , 274/1 , 274/2 , 274/3 , 274 / 4,274/ 5,274/6,275 ( भाग ) . 276 ( भाग ) . 277 .

ग्राम बोरगांव में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक: -

46 , 52 (भाग ) , 53 , 54 ( भाग ) , 55, 56 , 57 , 58 , 59/1 , 59/2 ( भाग ) , 59/3 ( भाग ) , 60 ( भाग ), 67,68 .

ग्राम दनोडा ( रीठ ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लॉट संख्यांक: -

1,2,3/ 1 , 3/2 , 4/1 , 4/2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10, 11 , 12, 13 , 14, 15 , 16, 17, 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22, 23 ( भाग ), 26, 27, 29 ( भाग ) , 31 ( भाग ) , 41 , 42, 63 . 64, 65 , 66/1 , 66/2 , 67 , 68/1 , 68/2 , 69 , 70/1 , 70/2 , 71 , 72 / 1,72 / 2,72 / 3,72 / 4 , 72/5 , 72/6 , 73/1 , 73/2 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 , 79,80,81 , 82/1 , 82/2 , 82/3 , 83 , 84 , 85 , 86/1 , 86/2, 87 , नाला सड़क ।

सीमा वर्णन: -

क-ख :

रेखा ' क ' बिन्दु से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम विरूर के पेनगंगा नदी के किनारे से होते हुए प्लाट संख्यांक 254/3 , 254/2 , 254/1 , 257/1 , 258 , 259 , 260 , 274/1 , 274/5 , की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और सड़क पार करके प्लॉट संख्यांक 1 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 34 की बाह्य सीमा से गुजरती हुई ग्राम विरूर तथा बोरगांव की सम्मिलित सीमा को पार करती हुई प्लॉट संख्या 68 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ख ' पर मिलती है । ख-ग : रेखा बिन्दु ' ख ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम बोरगांव के प्लाट संख्यांक68 , 67 , 59/2 , 59/3 ( भाग ) , की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 59/3 , 59/2 , 60 ( भाग ) , 54 ( भाग ) , को पार करती हुई फिर से प्लॉट संख्यांक 60 (भाग ) , 52 ( भाग ) , से गुजरती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 52 , 53 , 46 , की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई ग्राम बोरगांव तथा दनोडा ( रीठ ) की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा पर बिन्दु ' ग ' पर मिलती है ।

ग-घ : रेखा बिन्दु ' ग ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम दनोडा ( रीठ ) के प्लाट संख्यांक 23 से गुजरती हुई प्लॉट संख्यां 27 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और प्लॉट संख्यांक 29 ( भाग ) , 31 ( भाग ) , को पार करती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 41 , 42 , 65 , 64, 63 , की बाह्य सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' घ ' पर मिलती है ।

घ-ङ: रेखा बिन्दु ' घ ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम दनोडा ( रीठ ) से गुजरती हुई प्लाट संख्यांक 63 , 67, 68/2 , 68/1 , की बाह्य सीमा के साथ होती हुई नाला पार करती है और ग्राम दनोडा ( रीठ ) और विरूर की सम्मिलित ग्राम सीमा को पार करती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 100 , 103 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती हुई बिन्दु ' ङ ' पर मिलती है । ङ-क:

रेखा बिन्दु ' ङ' से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम विरूर से होती हुई प्लाट संख्यांक 103 , 104/2 , 104/1 , 94 , 111 , 112 , 113 . 114 , 123 , 122 , 131 की बाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और सड़क पार करती हुई प्लॉट संख्यांक 202 , 203 , 198 . 220/2 , 221/3 , 221/2 , 227/1 , 227/2 , 239 , 238 /ड , 238 /घ , 253/2 , 253/3 , 253/ 1 ख , 2543 की वाह्य सीमा के साथ गुजरती है और आरंभिक बिन्दु ' क ' पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/14/2009 पी. आर. आई. डब्ल्यू ।।

एम. शहाबुद्दीन , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 5th January , 2010

S.O. 98. Whereas , by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S. O. 1936 dated the 10th July , 2009 , issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas ( Acquisition and Development ) Act .

198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 1957 ( 20 of 1957 ) ( hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India , Part II . section - 3 , sub- section ( ii ) dated the 18th July , 2009 , the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 766.00 hectares ( approximately) or 1892.78 acres ( approximately) of the lands in the locality specified in the Schedule annexed to that notification;

And whereas , the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of said lands prescribed in the Schedule ( s ) appended to this notification ;

Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of section 7 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire All Rights in or over the land measuring 743.83 hectares ( approximately ) or 1838.00 acres ( approximately) described in Schedule .

Note 1 : The plan bearing number C - 1 ( E ) III / JJR/ 802-0909 dated the 29th September , 2009 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected at the office of the Collector , Chandrapur ( Maharashtra ) or in the office of the Coal Controller , 1, Council House Street , Kolkata ( Pin 700 001 ) or at the . office of the General Manager, Western Coalfields Limited ( Revenue Department ) , Coal Estate , Civil Lines , Nagpur - 440001 ( Maharashtra ) .

Note 2: Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows :

Objections to Acquisition

8( 1 ) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under section 7 has been issued , may, within thirty days of the issue of the notification , object to the acquisition of the whole or any part of the land or of any rights in or over such land. "

Explanation: -

(1) It shall not be an objection within the meaning of this section for any person to say that he himself desires to undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not be undertake by the Central Government or by any other person .

(2) Ivery objection under sub - section ( 1 ) shall be made to the competent authority in writing , and the competent authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry , if any , as he thinks necessary , either make a report in respect of the land which has been notified under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make different reports in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land , to the Central Government , containing his recommendations on the objections , together with the record of proceedings held by him , for the decision of that Government .

(3) For the purpose of this section , a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act . " Note 3: The Coal Controller , 1 , Council House Street , Kolkata- 700 001 has been appointed by the Central Government as the competent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 2519 dated the 27th May . 1983. published in Part - II , Section 3. Sub- Section ( ii ) of the Gazette of India , dated the 11th June , 1983 .

SCHEDULE

PENGANGA OPEN CAST PROJECT

WANI AREA

DISTRICT CHANDRAPUR ( MAHARASHTRA)

(Plan number C - 1 ( E ) III / JJR/ 802-0909 dated the 29th September , 2009 ) All Rights

Name of

District

Remarks S

Tahsil

Area in Hectares

Village

Patwari Circle number

Virur

Korpana

478.92 199.94

Part Part Danoda (Rith)

Korpana

Chandrapur Chandrapur

64.97

Part

Korpana

Chandrapur

Borgaon

Total: 743.83 Hectares ( approximately ) or 1838.00 Acres ( approximately ) 199 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Virur :

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36/1 , 36 / 2,36/3 , 37 , 38, 39A, 39B , 39C, 40, 41 , 42 , 43 , 44,45/ 1,45 /2,46 / 1,46 /2,47 , 48 , 49, 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55/1 , 55/2 , 56 , 57, 58/158/2, 59 , 60, 61, 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 / 1A , 66 / 1B , 66/2 , 67 / Al , 67 / A2 , 67 /B1 , 67 /B2 , 68,69 / 1,69 / 2,69 / 3,70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78 / A , 78 /B, 79,80,81 / 1,81 /2,82,83,84 / 1,84 / 2,85,86,87 / 1,87 / 2,88 / 1,88 /2,88 / 3,89,90 / 1,90 / 2,91 / 1,91 / 2 , 92 / 1,92 / 2,93,94,95,96,97,98,99, 100, 101 , 102 , 103 , 104/1 , 104/2 , 111 , 112, 113 , 114, 122, 123, 124, 125 , 126/1 , 126/2, 127 , 128 , 129, 130/1 , 130/2 , 131 , 132, 133 , 134, 135 , 136, 137, 138 , 139, 140/1 , 140/2 , 140/3 , 141 , 142/1 , 142/2 , 143/ 1A, 143 / 1B, 143 / 1C , 143 / 1D , 143/2 , 144 , 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150/1 . 150/2 , 150/3 , 151 , 152/1 , 152/2 , 153/1 , 153/2 , 153/3 , 153/4 , 154, 155 , 156 , 157 , 158 , 159/1 , 159/2 , 160 , 161 , 162 , 163 , 164 , 165, 166/ 1 , 166/2 , 167/1 , 167/2 , 167/3 , 168 , 169 , 170, 171 , 172 , 173 , 174 , 175 , 176, 177 , 178 , 179 , 180, 181 , 182. 183/1 , 183/2 , 183/3 . 184,185,186,187,188 / 1,188 / 2,189,190/ 1,190/ 2,191 , 192 , 193/1 , 193/2 , 194/1 , 194/2 , 195 / C , 195 / D , 196 / Λ . 196/3 , 197 , 198 , 199, 200, 201, 202 , 203 , 220/1 , 220/2 , 221/1 , 221/2 , 221/3 , 227 / 1,227 / 2,228 , 229, 230 , 231 , 232 , 233 , 234 , 235 , 236 / A, 236/ B , 237 , 238/ A. 238 / B , 238 / C , 238 / D , 238 / E , 238 / F , 239 , 253 / 1A , 253/18 , 253/2 , 253/3,254/1,254/2 , 254/3 , 255 / 1,255/ 2,256/ 1,256/ 2,256/3 , 257/ 1,257/2,258,259,260 , 261 , 262 , 263 , 264 / 1,264 /2,265 / 1,265 /2,266/ 1,266 /2,266 / 3,266/4 , 266/5 , 267 / 1,267/ 2,268,269,270 、 271.272,273,274/ 1,274/2,274/3,274/ 4,274/ 5,274 / 6,275 ( Part ) , 276 (Part ) , 277 .

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Borgaon :

46, 52 ( Part ) . 53 , 54 ( Part ) , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59/1 , 59/2 ( Part ) , 59/3 ( Part ) , 60 ( Part ) , 67 , 68 .

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Danoda ( Rith ) :

1,2,3/ 1,3 /2,4/ 1,4/ 2,5,6,7,8,9,10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 ( Part ) , 26 , 27 , 29 ( Part ) , 31 ( Part ), 41 ,42.63. 64,65,66/1 , 66/2, 67, 68/1 , 68/2 , 69 , 70/1 , 70/2 , 71 , 72 / 1,72 /2,72 / 3,72 / 4,72 / 5,72 / 6,73 / 173 / 2 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77.78.79.80.81,82 / 1,82 / 2.82/ 3,83,84,85,86 / 1,86 / 2,87 , Nallah , Road .

Boundary description :

A- B:

Line starts from point ' A' passes through village Virur along with the Bank of Penganga River and outer boundary ofplot numbers 254/3 , 254/2 , 254/1 , 257/1 , 258 , 259 , 260 , 274/1 , 274/5 , crosses road then passes along with outer boundary of plot numbers 1 , 13 , 14, 15 , 16 , 26,27,28,29,30,31,34 , Nallah . then passes along the common village boundary of villages Virur and Borgaon then passes through village Borgaon and meets atPoint ' B ' on outer boundary of plot number 68 .

B- C:

Linè passes through village Borgaon along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 68 , 67. 59/2 , 59/3 ( Part ) , then passes through plot numbers 59/3 , 59/2 , 60 ( Part ) , 54 ( Part ) , again 60 ( Part ) , 52 ( Part ) , then proceeds along the outer boundary of plot numbers 52 , 53 , 46 and meets at Point ' C ' on common village boundary of villages Borgaon and Danoda (Rith ) .

C-D:

Line passes through village Danoda ( Rith ) and plot number 23 then proceeds along with the outer boundary of plot number 27 then passes through plot numbers 29 ( Part ) , 31 ( Part ) then proceeds along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 41 , 42 , 65 , 64 , 63 and meets at Point 'D' .

D-E:

Line passes thorugh village Danoda ( Rith ) along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 63 , 67 , 68/2 , 68/1. crosses nallah and common village boundary of villages Danoda ( Rith and Virur ) along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 100 , 103 and meets at Point 'E ' .

E-A:

Line passes through village Virur along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 103. 104/2 , 104/1 , 94 , 111 , 112 , 113 , 114 , 123 , 122 , 131 , crosses road then proceeds along with the outer boundary of plot numbers 202. 203 , 198 , 220/2 , 221/3 , 221/2 , 227 / 1,227 / 2 , 239 , 238 / E , 238 / D , 253/2 , 253/3 , 253 / 1B , 254/3 and meets at starting Point' A' .

[F. No. 43015/ 14 / 2009 - PRIW - I ] M. SHAHABUDEEN, Under Secy .

200

PART II--SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 6 जनवरी , 2010

का.आ. 99.- भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 3032 तारीख 4-11-2009 द्वारा श्री एन. के. सुंदरेसन को केरल राज्य में मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन विछाने के लिये उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त किया था;

और उक्त श्री सुंदरेसन का स्थानांन्तरण हो गया है और श्री के. वी. साबू को उनके पद पर नियुक्त किया गया है;

और उक्त श्री सुंदरेसन की मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में सेवाएं समाप्त हो गई है ;

अत: अब , भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में और भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना सं. का. आ. 3032 तारीख 4-11-2009 को अधिक्रांत करते हुए, नीचे दी गई अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( ! ) में वर्णित व्यक्ति को उक्त मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिये निम्नलिखित अनुसूची के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त करती है ।

अनुसूची

व्यक्ति का नाम और पता

अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र

( 1)

(2)

श्री के.वी.सानू , डिप्टी कलेक्टर,

सम्पूर्ण करल राज्य

मैसर्स गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में प्रतिनियुक्ति पर,

गंल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड , कोची , केरला

[ फा. सं. एल 14014/35/09- जा.पी. स्नेह पी. मदान , अक मन्ति MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 6th January , 2010

S.O. 99. Whereas , in pursuance of clause ( a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight of Liser in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , the Government of India vide Notification in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas S.O. 3032 dated 4-11-09 appointed Shri N.K.Sunderasan , Deputy Collector to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying of pipeline by M/ s . GAIL( India ) Ltd. in the State of Kerala, And, whereas , Shri Sunderasan has been transferred and Shri K.V.Sabu has been posted as lus successor :

And, whereas , the services of the said Shri Sunderasan with M/s . GAIL ( India ) Limited has come to an end .

Now, therefore, in pursuance of clause ( a ) of Section 2 of the said Act and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India , Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide S.O. 3032 dated 4-11-2009 Government of India hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Schedule given below to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying pipelines by the said M/ s . GAIL ( India) Limited in the area mentioned in column ( 2 ) of the said Schedule .

SCHEDULE

Area of Jurisdiction

Name and Address of the person ( 1)

(2)

Whole State of Kerala

Shri K.V. Sabu ,

On deputation basis to

Deputy Collector . Mis. GAIL ( India) Limited, Kochi,

Kerala

JF. No. L -14014/35/09 - G P.1 SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.

14 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

201

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9, 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

(1) नई दिल्ली, 5 जनवरी , 2010

पाटपुर-(जारी ) का.आ. 100.-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- नया सम्बलपुर- रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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 उप- धारा ( 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 या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के सबंध में श्री सुकान्त कुमार प्रधान , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप - नया सम्बलपुर- रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 1295 , फॉरेस्ट पार्क , भुवनेश्वर- 751009 ( उड़ीसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला-कटक

तहसील-बांकी

राज्य-उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गाँव का नाम

एयर वर्ग मीटर

प्लाट नं. हेक्टेयर

(2)

(1)

(3) (4) (5)

08 51

2939

पाटपुर

2938

2937

पाखराखाल

2907

00 15

2910

2911

00 03 61

00 00

2909

2912

2913

00 02 18

सिमिलिपुर

00 02 48

2918

2916

2917

00 03

4729 G1/09-7

(3)

(5) (2)

(4)

20 2915

29 2925

40 2928

(X)

2927

38 2929

2926

כא

79 2930

10 2931

2932

10566

10563

13 10562

10559

(X)

08 10560

(X)

10556

04 51 10554

10555

10553

43 10339

10338

(0)

10340

52 10341

10342

10333

10302

10301

(0)

10287

10285

(X)

(00

10258

(0)

10257

10 10256

10286

00.

20 10252

10255

10254

( X)

10763

(00

10241

10190

431

430

429

(0)

275

276

274

81 1386

1155

(X )

1387

1156

51 1157 202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

PARI 11 St- C. 3 ( ii)] (1)

(3)

(2)

(4) (5) "Paradip - New Sambalpur- Raipur -Ranchi Pipeline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited:

1388

00 00 40

सिमिलिपुर-(जारी)

1389

00 00

1390

1158

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;

1159

1160

1178

06 93

1176

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 tiser in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

1177

1173

1380

1198

1201

02 80

1199

1200

1203

1120

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 ) .

1111

00 00 95

SCHEDULE

1208

Tehsil: Banki District: Cuttack

State: Orissa 1438

Name ofthe

1209

Plot

Area

1307

No.

Village

Are

Hectare 1309

Square Metre

1301

(5)

(2)

(3) (4)

(1)

1300

2939

00 08

Patpur

1312

04 23

2938

38 00

1313

2937

86 1296

00 1311

2907

32 1314

2910

58 00

1315

2911

00 05

61 00

1316

2909

00 00

46 00

1319

2912

00 02

74 1320

15 40

2913

18 1323

1322

2918

48 1324

00 06

2916

00 1327

2917

06 1326

2915

00 1246

00 04 94

200

2925

05 [सं. आर-25011/23/2009-ओ आर-1 ]

2928

00 बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

00 01

2927

New Delhi , the 5th January, 2010

2929

2926

2930

79 S.O. 100 .. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi ( Jharkhand) , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(3) (4) (5) (1)

(2)

2931

Patpur-Contd.

2932

00 03

10566

10563

00 02

10562

10559

00 22

10560

10556

00 04

10554

00 01

10555

00 01

10553

10339

00 03

10338

10340

10341

00 03

10342

00 08

10333

00 07

10302

00 14

10301

10287

10285

00 00

10258

00 03

10257

10256

00 00

10286

00 00

10252

00 05

10255

10254

00 03

10763

10241

00 05

10190

431

46 Pakharakhal

430

429

275

00 03

276

00 04

274

1386

81 Similipur

1155

1387

203

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

(2)

(3) (4) (5) (1)

00 00

1156

Similipur-Contd.

1157

00 00

1388

00 00

1389

1390

1158

00 04

1159

1160

1178

1176

1177

1173

00 01

1380

1198

00 02

1201

1199

00 02

1200

00 02

1203

1120

00 00

1111

1208

1438

00 00

1209

1307

1309

00 06

1301

00 00

1300

1312

1313

1296

00 01

1311

1314

1315

00 01

1316

1319

1320

1323

1322

00 06

1324

1327

1326

1246

[No. R -2501 /23 /2009 -OR - 1 ]

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy .

204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 5 जनवरी , 2010

का.आ. 101. 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- नया सम्बन्नपुर- रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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 , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अत, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 को उप - धारा ( 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 अधिसुचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उर्पलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इवकीस दिन के भीतर , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री सुकान्त कुमार प्रधान , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, पारादीप नया सम्बलपुर- रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 1295 , फॉरेस्ट पार्क, भुवनेश्वर-751009 (उड़ीसा ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची जिला-कटक

[PART 11- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

(3)

(5) ( 1)

(2)

(4) तालबस्त-जारी

4648

4644

05 69

4642

4641

4640

4611

4601

4604

4602

4603

9272

4373

4285

4284

02 43

4283

4288

06 69

4281

4289

4290

4291

4292

4293

4277

4276

이

4294

-16

4192

राज्य-उड़ीसा

हसीन डगपड़ा

गाँव का नाम

क्षेत्रफल प्लाट नं.

एयर

4191

00 00 10

4193

4188

वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

(2)

(1)

(3) (4) (5) तालबस्स

4678

00 00

9682

9890

00 03 60

4673

4675

4670

4674

4662

4643

4645

4646

4647

4184

4187

4186

4300

4185

4183

4182

4173

4174

4129

4119

4120

4121

07 00

4030

00 65 205 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

95 (1)

4513

बिलपडासरधापुर- जारी

4022

66 तालबस्त-जारी

4512

4025

4511

4024

4510

4023

4509

4032

4508

4507

पदनपुर

75 33

4506

34 903

4505

4504

76 29

4503

57 28

4501

61 27

4500

99 21

4497

65 20

4498

60 18

4486

47 17

4927

63 64

4383

4467

08 15

4469

16 12

4468

98 83

4461

96 95

4462

70 %

4407

93 112

4406

12 111

4408

36 110

4405

52 109

4410

108

4411

22 107

4409

43 892

4412

10 891

4413

66 106

4415

67 1

4930

07 4715

4021

बिलपडासरधापुर

26 00

00 4709

4022

(00 4520

4028

4016

4519

(X)

4030

4518

4031

4517

4032

4516

(X)

4033

4515

00 004

4035

4514 206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19, 1931

( 1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) बेलपडासरधापुर- जारी 4034

4037

4041

4058

4059

4065

3918

(17 4071

3917

57 4070

82 4066

26 3916

27 4068

10 4067

04 3766

83 3763

30 3767

71 3762

40 3747

38 3746

00 3745

54 3737

15 3736

00'

10 3740

71 3510

38 3462

10 3461

47 3443

37 3444

26 3445

64 3446

06 43 3438

10 3434

32 3435

97 3404

50 3417

63 3416

05 3405

62 3415

80 3406

61 3414

ΟΙ

PART 1 Sin (1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) बिलपडासरधापुर- जारी 3411

3410

(X)

3327

3326

3329

(0)

3330

3332

3312

(X)

95 3311

16 3310

(00

84 3308

00 4252

(0)

65 4253

(00)

80 3303

(00

12 3302

(X)

80 3301

66 1435

(X)

66 1436

44 1437

73 1440

(09

1439

86 1438

85 1441

10 1408

(X)

39 1384

55 1383

54 1338

08 1313

66 1310

30 1311

26 1312

04 1305

18 1307

73 1306

16 1298

55 1299

18 1274

39 1279

10 1275

27 1276

00 05 27 1264

06 1277

10 207 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

03 (1)

2063

बिलपडासरधापुर- जारी

09 1262

00 बिलपडासरधापुर - जारी

2064

1263

4840

1259

(X)

2080

70 1260

2070

04 1254

2065

10 1256

2073

04 1255

2069

04 4906

4924

86 1684

(X)

557

बरपदनपुर

1694

04 36

558

45 1693

559

00 1692

561

12 1786

560

10 1785

215

48 00

03 1795

214

02 00

00 1794

213

39 1799

298

दुलणापुर

1797

गोबिन्दपुर

1798

319

1828

321

1824

320

1822

324

1836

323

1902

330

1903

(X)

328

1900

1328

1901

1327

1909

1330

1907

1331

79 1908

1332

10 1889

(X)

1333

47 1980

1334

01 1981

(0)

1335

1337

1982

00 00

1338

1987

1326

1883

1315

1882

000

1314

2045

1313

2046

(0)

1312

2047

1810

2044

1311

2041 208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

1309

गोबिन्दपुर-जारी

1293

1308

1307

1366

00 02 46

1526

1524

1523

1522

1520

1613

1553

14 30

1541

1542

1545

1546

1547

1552

1685

1687

1688

1690

786

785

783

784

767

768

769

770

772

771

51 गडांजत

543

83 544

95 545

00 03

00 742

53 741

03 597

38 601

00 02

86 600

ΟΙ

65 599

44 568

83 566

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5) गडजित-जारी

567

602

686

685

682

683

684

02 3116

45 969

34 968

71 959

68 958

83 957

71 956

10 954

46 2983

08 08 952

66 951

74 950

23 947

32 949

13 948

51 942

46 943

19 3430

44 938

64 1337

74 1338

53 1339

09 1340

43 1330

00 1327

60 1328

02 40 1325

08 1326

82 1320

30 1319

19 1318

3482

1317

(02

62 1314

98 1299

73 1298

71 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(1 )

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

209

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

3653

कुसुपंगी-जारी

1300

गडजित-जारी

1302

1294

1293

1288

1286

1289

3474

3473

1276

1280

3955

कुसुपंगी

3956

3953

3950

3949

3948

4148

3941

4217

3600

3618

3602

3619

3617

3616

3621

3623

3624

3625

3630

3641

3631

3632

3633

3634

3636

3635

3637

3649

3650

3651

4729 G1/09-8

3656

3657

3652

3661

3685

3537

3535

3539

3534

3532

3516

3692

3693

3694

3695

3843

3711

3712

3713

3399

3412

3398

3391

3390

3389

3388

00 03

3387

3386

3385

3384

3351

3352

3353

3354

3355

3356

3347

3357

3346

3345

3331

3333 210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

[PART 11- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] (1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 3334

कुसुपंगी

2593

कुसुपंगी-जारी

02 06 3335

2594

79 3344

00 03 07

2598

00 01

47 3336

2535

01 3337

2599

11 3343

2533

00 3338

2534

18 3332

2543

04 2785

2532

10 2774

2530

87 2778

2529

45 2779

2531

10 2784

ΟΙ

2528

74 2783

.00

2526

80 2782

2522

06 2781

2521

38 00

2771

2520

57 2770

2519

47 2790

2518

38 2791

2516

06 2792

4206

10 2793

2544

13 2767

2489

94 2766

2515

09 2765

2511

95 2685

4409

70 2684

2509

88 2764

00 43

2504

50 2686

2503

43 2687

2500

24 2688

2499

53 2576

2496

ΟΙ

88 2577

2495

95 2578

00 30

2494

98 4294

2490

81 2581

2491

04 2582

2488

% 2589

2487

61 2587

2486

14 2588

2485

92 2590

2473

02 2591

63 00

2484

2592

00 00

38 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

211

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

1398

कुसुपंगी-जारी

2483

कुसुपंगी-जारी

2436

2463

2464

2465

2469

2470

2471

2472

1699

1694

1695

1670

4158

4184

1669

1668

1681

1667

1684

1519

1518

1517

1516

1525

1515

1520

1521

1522

1523

1524

1532

1390

1533

1534

1535

1536

1389

1388

1387

1396

1397

(X)

1404

1403

1408

1409

1271

1252

(X)

1251

1250

1249

1247

1248

1209

000

1246

1244

1233

1232

1220

1219

1212

1211

1213

1214

1215

1216

(X)

1199

1201

1202

1203

1204

000

1430

1431

(X )

4105

(0)

975

(01

4110

05 60 4114

970

961

4153

(0)

957

956

(X)

4115 212

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4) कुसुपंगी-जारी

955

953

4269

4160

4084

4022

277

चकुलेस्वर

278

289

290

291

297

296

302

304

1378

02 73

320

20 319

46 318

15 317

00 05

35 316

41 315

96 314

51 331

24 313

43 342

00 11

46 332

10 341

46 343

02 344

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

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

347

चकुलेस्वर-जारी

01 10

1439

346

583

000

582

581

587

588

35 612

48 611

59 613

1336

1326

000

73 614

01 33 615

004 628

30 617

57 604

57 618

88 619

28 620

21 621

75 706

705

35 714

84 713

32 717

24 716

23 720

43 721

81 724

725

66 728

61 729

08 732

06 733

75 736

53 737

12 744

25 745

20 746

52 748

((X)

01 46 749

02 14 213 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

(3)

(5)

(4)

(2)

(1)

(5)

(4) (2)

(3)

(1)

751

04 00

383

पाथपुर-जारी

चकुलेस्वर - जारी

03 00

384

752

385

753

386

58 00

809

03 08

387

810

389

808

388

88 818

391

807

390

819

396

94 00

820

397

00 1292

395

1291

394

1290

1090

1289

1100

1287

1101

405

पाथपुर

1102

403

1093

30 00

416

1094

417

1099

00 00

418

1098

488

1097

81 00

489

1096

478

1095

490

22 51

1125

639

1131

00 00

640

1130

641

1127

00 00

642

1128

06 00

643

1129

647

(01

1136

648

1137

649

1173

21 00

650

1169

1170

651

1171

01 652

1165

00 00

654

1166

655

1163

89 402

3148

401

3112

400

महानदी

381

[सं. आर-25011/ 22/2009- आ.आर -1 ]

382

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव 214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19, 1931

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( 1) ] New Delhi , the 5th January, 2010

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

Contd. 4640

Talabasta

4611

4601

4604

01 S.O. 101 ..-- Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh ) and Ranchi ( Jharkhand), "Paradip - New Sambalpur - Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

4602

4603

9272

26 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 chedule annexed to this notification .

4373

4285

4284

4283

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

4288

4281

4289

4290

4291

4292

4293

4277

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) .

4276

01 SCHEDULE

4294

07 46

State: Orissa

District: Cuttack

Tehsil: Damapada

4192

4191

Plot No.

Name ofthe Village

Area Are

Hectare

4193

Square

Metre

4188

04 (1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

4184

01 4678

Talabasta

4187

2 00

9682

4186

00 9890

4300

00 4673

02 97

4185

00 .

4675

4183

15 4670

4182

4674

4173

38 4662

4174

4643

4129

02 4645

4119

04 4646

4120

03 4647

4121

4648

4030

65 4644

4022

91 4642

4025

10 00

4641

14 215

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/ पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

(4) (5)

(2)

(3)

03 04

4511

Biliparasaradhapur

4024

Talabasta Contd.

4510

06 90

-Contd.

4023

02 71

4509

4032

4508

Padanpur

02 40

4507

4506

903

4505

4504

4503

4501

4500

4497

4498

4486

4927

4383

00.

4467

4469

01 00

4468

4461

4462

4407

112

4406

111

4408

110

4405

109

4410

108

4411

107

4409

892

(X)

4412

891

4413

ΟΣ

106

4415

(X)

4930

4715

Biliparasaradhapur

38 00

4709

4021

(00

4022

4520

4028

4519

4016

4518

4030

4517

(00

(X)

4031

4516

(X )

4032

4515

4033

4514

(00

4035

02 95

4034

4513

4037

4512 216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2010 /PAUSA 19, 1931

[PART II S3 ( ii ) | (1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5) Biliparasaradhapur

4041

Biliparasaradhapur

3329

Contd.

00 38 4058

-Contd.

3330

10 4059

3332

00 4065

3312

00 95 3918

3311

-16 4071

33100

84 3917

3308

(01

(0) 4070

4252

(X )

ΟΙ

65 4066

4253

00 3916

08 00

3303

12 4068

3302

80 4067

3301

63 3766

1435

60 3763

1436

00 3767

1437

73 3762

1440

(X)

09 3747

1439

86 3746

1438

85 3745

1441

10 3737

1408

39 3736

00'

1384

55 3740

1383

54 3510

1338

08 3462

1313

17 3461

66 00

1310

00 3443

30 00

1311

26 3444

1312

(X)

05 3445

04 00

1305

01 3446

18 00

1307

73 3438

1306

00 3434

16 00

1298

09 3435

55 00

1299

05 3-404

18 00

1274

3417

00 00

1279

00 3416

10 02

1275

07 3405

27 00

1276

3415

27 00

1264

01 3406

06 00

1277

3414

00 00

10 01

1262

3411

00 00

12 00

1263

3410

10 00

1259

3327

03 00

00 08

1260

3326

01 00

16 10

1254

64 217

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19, 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

(5)

(3)

(2)

(4)

(1)

Biliparasaradhapur 2073

1256

Biliparasaradhapur

04- 54

2069

-Contd.

1255

-Contd.

4924

4906

(X)

557

1684

Barapadanpur

558

1694

559

1693

561

1692

560

1786

215

1785

214

1795

213

1794

298

1799

Dulanapur

26 00 06

1797

Gobindpur

1798

319

05 09

69 1828

321

40 00

00 1824

320

34 00

00 1822

324

1836

323

00 00

1902

330

00 1903

328

57 1900

1328

00 1901

1327

07 00

1330

1909

94.

02 1907

1331

00 00

1332

1908

10 00

00 1889

1333

47 00

04 1980

1334

(X)

01 1981

1335

1337

1982

1338

1987

(0)

1326

1883

1315

1882

1314

2045

1313

2046

1312

2047

1810

2044

1311

2041

1309

10 03

2063

1293

2064

1308

4840

1307

2080

1366

2070

(00)

1526

2065

4729 G1 /09-9 218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

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

(3)

(2)

(4) (5)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 00

684

02 Gobindpur-Contd. 1524

Garajit--Contd.

1523

3116

969

00 00

34 1522

968

1520

959

68 00

1613

958

83 00

1553

957

1541

956

10 00

1542

954

06 1545

06 50

2983

08 1546

952

66 1547

951

74 00

1552

950

1685

947

02 1687

16 94

949

00 1688

948

15 1690

06 786

942

46 00

08 785

943

19 00

44 00

3430

14 783

938

05 784

64 00

767

1337

74 00

00 768

1338

1339

08 769

770

1340

43 00

29 00

772

1330

00 771

1327

60 543

1328

Garajit

40 00

1325

00 544

08 545

82 00 03

1326

742

1320

741

1319

00 597

1318

05 601

3482

44 600

1317

62 599

1314

98 568

1299

73 566

1298

567

1300

602

1302

00 686

15 32

1294

02 43 00

55 685

1293

682

1288

01 683

1286

70 219

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(5)

(1)

00 91 00

02 59

1289

3685

Kusupangi--Contd.

Garajit-Contd.

3537

3474

3535

3473

3539

1276

3534

00 00

1280

10 08

3532

3955

Kusupangi

3516

3956

3692

3953

00 02

3693

3950

00 04

3694

3949

03 31

3695

3948

3843

4148

3711

3941

3712

4217

3713

3600

3399

05 44

3618

3412

3602

3398

3619

00 02 05

3391

3617

3390

3616

3389

3621

3388

00 02

3623

3387

3624

3386

3625

3385

-00

3630

3384

3641

3351

3631

3352

3632

3353

02 32

3633

3354

3634

3355

3636

3356

3635

3347

3637

3357

3649

3346

02 31

3650

3345

3651

3331

3653

3333

01 27

3656

3334

3657

3335

3652

00 03

3344

3661 220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

[ PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 00

11 Kusupangi - Contd. 3336

Kusupangi-Contd. 2599

3337

2533

00 3343

02 51

2534

18 00

3338

07 60

2543

04 3332

2532

10 2785

2530

87 2774

2529

45 2778

00 00

2531

10 00

2779

2528

02 2784

2526

80 2783

2522

02 2782

2521

38 2781

2520

57 2771

2519

01 00

2770

2518

02 2790

2516

06 00

2791

02 44

4206

10 2792

2544

13 2793

2489

2767

2515

09 2766

2511

2765

4409

00 00

2685

2509

2684

2504

50 00

2764

2503

43 2686

2500

24 00

2687

2499

53 2688

2496

88 2576

2495

95 2577

2494

98 2578

2490

81 00

4294

2491

02 2581

2488

96 2582

2487

61 2589

2486

01 2587

2485

92 2588

2473

63 2590

2484

33 2591

2483

00 00

2592

2436

20 2593

2463

00 00

2594

2464

33 2598

2465

04 2535

2469

02 221 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/ पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

(5)

(2)

(3) (4)

(1)

(X)

1252

Contd.

Kusupangi

2470

Kusupangi Contd.

1251

2471

1250

2472

1249

1699

1247

1694

1248

1695

1209

1670

1246

(X)

4158

4184

1244

00 00

1233

1669

1232

1668

04 1681

1220

01 1667

(X)

1219

76 00

00 1684

1212

1519

1211

96 1518

( X)

1213

1517

1214

1516

1215

1525

004

1216

1515

1199

1520

1201

1521

1202

1522

1203

1523

(0)

1204

1524

(0)

1430

1532

1431

1390

(0)

4105

1533

975

1534

(X)

4110

1535

4114

1536

97()

138 389

(X)

961

1388

4153

1387

957

1396

956

1397

4115

1398

955

1404

953

1403

1408

1409

1271 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

( 1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5)

4269

Kusupangi

40 - Contd. 88

ΟΙ

4160

4084

4022

00 11 34

Chakuleswar

277

278

289

290

291

297

296

302

304

15 97

1378

320

319

318

317

316

315

314

331

313

342

332

341

343

344

347

1439

346

583

[ PART II S14 . Stii ) | (1)

(2)

( 3) (4)

(5)

Chakuleswar 582

-Contd. 581

95 587

82 588

35 612

48 611

613

85 1336

85 1326

614

이

615

628

30 617

57 604

618

02 88 619

620

21 621

75 706

79 705

35 714

84 713

32 717

716

720

721

ΟΙ

81 724

11 725

728

61 729

08 732

06 733

75 736

12 737

744

25 745

20 746

52 748

01 46 749

02 751

00 02 00 752

18 753

70 223 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(3) (4) (5)

(2)

(4) (5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

00 00 08 96

809

Chakuleswar

386

Pathapur

387

06 64

-Contd.

810

-Contd.

389

808

388

818

391

807

390

819

94 00

396

820

397

1292

395

1291

394

1290

1090

1289

00 00

1287

1100

03 00

40 405

1101

Pathapur

00 00

10 403

1102

30 00

416

1093

417

1094

20 418

1099

47 488

1098

489

1097

45 478

1096

490

1095

639

1125

640

1131

641

1130

642

1127

643

1128

647

1129

00 22

648

1136

649

1137

650

1173

651

1169

652

1170

654

1171

655

1165

402

1166

401

1163

400

3148

381

3112

382

Mahanadi

383

[No. R - 25011 / 22/ 2009 - OR - I ]

384

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy .

385 224

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 10 दिसम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 102.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. । , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 116/94) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/25/93- आईआर(सी -1 ) ] स्नेह लता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 10th December , 2009 S.O. 102. In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 116/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , No.1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2009 .

[No. L- 30012/25/93 - IR ( C - I ) ]

SNEH LATA JAWAS , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT No. 1 , CHANDIGARH

Case No : -ID No. 116/94

Shri Sunil Kumar S/ o Shri Nanu Ram, New Bakra Market , Cross Road 12. Ambala Cantt .

[PART II SEC . 3( ii) ] industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( the Act in short ) for adjudication to thisTribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. Ambala Cantt . in terminating the services of Shri Sunil Kumar , Workman w.e.f 11-10-89 isjustified? If not , what benefits is he entitled and from what date ? "

After receiving the reference , parties were summoned: Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . It is the contention of the workman that he was employed as a Sweeper at Rail Head Depot under respondent no.2 , The Manager ( TM) , Indian Oil Depot , Indian Oil Corporation , Ambala Cantt . in the month of June , 1985 at monthly salary of Rs . 150. Management terminated his services without notice, or one month wages in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation on 11-10-89. He has completed 240 days of work from the date of his termination . On the above contentions , the workman has prayed for setting aside the termination order and for an order reinstating him into the services with full back wages and other consequential benefits .

Management of Indian Oil Corporation appeared and contest the claim of the workman . In its written statement the employer - employee relationship has been challenged by the management. It is contended by the management that workman was engaged on contract for a fixed term for sweeping. The wages so fixed were paidto him by the management . It is also contended by the management that workman has voluntarily surrendered his services and his services were not terminated . As he was not the employee of the management there was no question forterminating his services by Indian Oil Corporation .

Applicant

Versus

The Manager , TM , Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Depot , Ambala Cantt.

Respondent

APPRARANCES

: Sri R. P. Rana

For the Workman

: Sri P. S. Saini

For the Management

AWARD

Passed on: -24-11-09

Government of India vide notification No. L - 30012/ 25/93 - IR (Misc .)/C - I . dated 31-8-94 referred the following Bothofthe parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Workman filed his affidavit in support ofhis contention and claim and was cross - examined by learned counsel for the management . Likewise . Shri Stephan Ekka filed the affidavit on behalf of the management and the same was cross - examined by learned counsel for the workman . Workman filed certain documents . Letter dated 10-7-89 written by the workman to the Manager , TM , Indian OilDepot , Ambala Cantt , which is marked as Ex . W2 . The bill for the month of October and November of Rs . 300 paid to and signed by Sunil Kumar which is marked as Ex . PW3 . Another bill dated 10-1-89 of Rs . 150 for the month of December 1988 paid to and singed by Shri Sunil Kumar which ismarked as PW4 . PW5 to PW 11 are also the copies ofreceipts /bills for payment of wages for different months which are singed by Shri Sunil Kumar . Every bill is also counter singed with endorsement cancelled' by Indian Oil Corporation.

I have heard the parties at length and perused all the documents on record . It is not denied by the management 時間 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

that workman has not completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination. It is only contended that workman was working on contract for the fixed wages of Rs . 150 per month . The workman by his evidence has proved that he was engaged for sweeping work at the rate of Rs , 150 per month. Application W2 dated 10-7-89 which was received by the management on 11-7-89 speaks itself that workman was not working on contract or through a contractor. He was directly working under the administrative control of the management . The wages were also made good by the management directly to the workman . The receipts of payment which are on record also shows that payment was made good by the management of Indian Oil Corporation to the workman at the rate of Rs . 150 per month.

Thus , on perusal of the entire materials on record , it is evidently clear that workman was directly appointed by the respondent No. 2. He was paid the wages by the management and he was well under the administrative control of the management. A garlanding plea has been taken by the management without production of any document that workman was working on a contract .

The management has contended that workman himself surrendered his services , whereas , workman had denied it . Ex . W2 letter dated 10-7-89 makes it clear that workman approached the management for increasing his salary and to regularize his services . His services were terminated on 11-10-89. Right from the day the services of the workman were terminated. He was trying to get the work from the management . On perusal of the evidence , it is clear that the workman has not surrendered his employment but he was not premitted to work by the management.

The workman was working on monthly wages . As stated earlier, it is not the contention of the management that workman has not completed 240 days of work . Accordingly , this Tribunal has no hesitation to hold the contention ofthe workman that he has completed 240 days ofwork with the management in the preceding year from the date of his termination is true .

Admittedly, no notice was issued to the workman nor he was paid any retrenchment compensation. It makes the termination of the services of the workman illegal and void being against the provisions of the Act .

Whenever the termination order has been held to be void and illegal , there are two possible remedies available . The first remedy is reinstatement of the workman into the services on the same position from which his services were terminated and another remedy is a reasonable compensation. It is the settled principle of service jurisprudence that priority should be given for the first option meaning thereby , services of the workman should 4729 G1/09-10

225

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

be reinstated with or without back wages as the circumstances requires . In exceptional cases , the workman may be compensated with reasonable compensation . The exceptional cases , may be where there is no work available with the management , there is no post lying vacant etc. In such cases , the workman can be compensation with a reasonable amount of compensation . In this case the management has informed this Tribunal that another personisworking at his place and there is no place available for the workman . Under such circumstances , I am of the view that a reasonable compensation will meet the ends of justice .

The compensation to be awarded to the workman should be based on the reasonable criteria . The factors which constitute the reasonable criteria are the wages the workman was getting at the time of his termination , retrenchment compensation , one month wages in lieu of the notice, interest thereon , depreciation in money. inflation, judicial life of the case , cost of litigation etc. After considering all these factors , I am of the view that a compensation of Rs . 1,50,000 (one lakhs fifty thousand only) will meet the ends of justice . Accordingly, the management is directed to pay/deposited in the Tribunal an amount of Rs . 1,50,000 within one month from the date ofpassing the award . It is hereby made clear that if amount isgiven/paid within one month as directed, the management need not to pay any interest failing which the workman will be entitled for an interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum from the date of filing the petition till final payment . Let Central Government be informed for publication of award , and thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA . Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 11 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 103. - 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/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 191/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/397/96- आईआर ( वी-11 ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th December , 2009 S.O. 103. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Governinent hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 191: 97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court No.I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation 226

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 / PAUSA 19. 1931

===

to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2009 .

[No. L - 12012/397 /96 - 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 : ID No. 191/97

Shri Randhir Singh C/ o Tek Chand Sharma, 25 Sant Nagar , Civil Lines , Ludhiana.

.Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager , Punjab National Bank , Zonal Office , Feroze Gandhi Marker , Ludhiana

Respondent APPRARANCES

For the workman

: None

: Sri N. K. Zakhmi

For the management

AWARD

Passed on: 2-12-09

Government of India vide notification No. L - 12012/ 397 / 96-1R ( B - 11 ) dated 22-10-97 referred the following industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( ' the Act ' in short ) for adjudication to this Tribunal : --

Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in terminating the services of Shri Randhir Singh w.e.f 25-1-95 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled ? " After receiving the reference , parties were informed . Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The management has also provided with complete record of enquiry . This Tribunal as per law, heard the parties on fairness of enquiry . A detailed order was passed by this Tribunal on 13-10-09 holding the enquiry fair , proper and according to the principle of natural justice . However , parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence on decision making of the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority , if any , and on quantum of punishment . On 23-10-09 notices were issued to both of the parties informing them to adduce evidence before this Tribunal on 9-11-2009 . The management of the bank appeared but workman failed to appear . It is hereby made clear that learned counsel for the workman Shri T. C. Sharma

PART 1 St. 3 has requested a date for Monday . Considering this fact Monday i.e. 9-11-2009 was fixed for recording evidence on decision making ( perversity , if any ) of enquiry officer . disciplinary authority and on quantum of punishment . But neither , workman nor learned counsel for the workman appears on 9-11-09 . This Tribunal passed a detailed order closing the opportunity for adducing evidence Considering the judicial life of the case , opportunty was given to the parties to argue the case on 16-11-09 . For ends ofjustice , one more opportunity was given to the workman to appear and to argue the case on 1-12-09 . The workman has not availed this opportunity . Accordingly, arguments of the management on decision making of the enquiry officer and on quantum of punishment were heard .

I have gone through the entire materials on record. The workman was charge - shected for embezzlement of Rs . 32,500 . On perusal of the enquiry proceedings and enquiry proceeding , it is clear that the workman not only admitted the charge but also deposited the amount of Rs . 32,500 in question . On perusal of entire proceedings and enquiry report , I am unable to see any perversity or biasedness on behalf of the enquiry officer . The enquiry officer, after perusing all the materials on record and considering the admission of workman coupled the act of depositing an amount of Rs . 32,500 rightly hold the charges proved against the workman . i am unable to make any interfere in findings of the enquiry officer. Likewise , the disciplinary authority after affording the proper opportunity of being heard awarded the punishment The proved misconduct is the embezzlement of Rs . 32.500 , the pabh money from the bank . The punishment awarded is termination of the services of the workman . The punishment awarded is , in my view , proportionate to the committed misconduct . No interference in the disciplinary proceedings is also required by this Tribunal . Accordingly , this reference is answered positively that workman has rightly been terminated from the services of the bank . The workman is not entitled for any relief. Let Central Government be approached for publication of award, and thereafier , file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA . Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , ।। दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 104.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केनरा बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 106/93 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12 2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/121 /93 आईआर( बी-11 ; यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 11th December , 2009 S.O. 104. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 106/93 ) of the Central Government industrial Tribunal Labour Court No.1 . Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2009.

No. 1-12012/ 121 / 93 - JR ( B - II ) ]

U. S. PANDEY , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No : ID No. 106/93

Shri Arun Ghai , Central Committee Member, Canara Bank StaffUnion , B - XI , 1662 , Rari Mohalla, Ludhiana - 141001

Applicant

Versus

The Deputy General Manager , Canara Bank , Circle Office, Sector - 34, Chandigarh- 160034

Respondent APPRARANCES

: Sri T. C. Sharma

For the morkman

: Sri Ashok Jagga For the management

AWARD

Passed on : 2-12-09

Government of India vide notification No. 1. - 12012/ 121 / 93 - IR ( B - II ) dated 2-9-93 referred the following industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( ' the Act ' in short ) for adjudication to this Tribunal : ---

"Whether the claim of Carrara Bank Staff Union , Ludhiana that Shri S. S. Gulati was a " workman " as defined under the Industrial Disputes Act and is eligible for availing the legal remedies available under the Industrial Disputes Act is correct ? If so, whether the action of the management of Canara Bank in dismissing Shri S. S. Gulati from the services of the Bank is justified ? What relief, if any , Shri Gulati is entitled to ? "

227

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 / पौष 19 , 1931

Afterreceiving the reference , both of the parties were informed . Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . Both of the parties were also afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Evidence of both of the parties was recorded. Entire enquiry life and the : file regarding the disciplinary authority proceedings are on record.

The main issues before this Tribunal are :

(1 ) Whether the petitioner is a workman under the Industrial Disputes Act ?

(2) If yes , whether his dismissal from the services is justified?

On issue No. 1 , the Tribunal has not to consider only his designation but the work entrusted to and duties discharged by him . During the period in quesion , the workman was working as cashier . There is no dispute on this issue that he was working as a cashier and there was ne managerial duties entrusted to him . For considering the definition of the workman , it is to be seen by this Tribunal , whether the person concern was entrusted the managerial and supervisory responsibilities ? After going through all the materials including the oral and documentary evidence , I am of the view that during the period in question , the workman was working as a cashier and the management has failed to prove that he was discharging the responsibility of Manager . Meaning thereby , supervisory and managerial nature of work has not been proved by the management . Accordingly , I am of the view that Shri Surjit Singh Gulati was workman for the purpose of this reference under Industrial Disputes Act .

The next issue is whether his dismissal from the services was justified . The so - called misconduct for which the enquiry was conducted was admitted by the workman before enquiry officer . It was not only admitted but the reason for committing embezzlement in public funds was also given . He has also deposited the amount in the bank . In this reference , the workman has only challenged the legality of his confessional statement and deposition of amount . As per the contention of the workman he has confessed under duress and has deposited the amount under threat of losing hisjob . The details and nature of threat , if any, has not been proved by the workman . On perusal of entire evidence on record, it is evident that workman admitted for misappropriating the funds as follows :

(Debit Entries )

Date

Amount (Rs .)

10,000

1. 27-2-84

10.000

2. 2-5-84

5,000

3. 4-5-84 228

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 /PAUSA 19 , 1931

5,000

4. 3-7-84

5. 12-2-85

10,000

(Credit Entries )

Dato

Amount

1. 27-12-84

7,600

2. 21-2-85

5,000

3. 1-3-85

3,000

He has also admitted that deposition of amount as follows: -

Date

Amount

1. 2-7-85

40,000

2. 3-7-85

20,000

In his admission he has not only stated that he admitted frecly without any pressure but has also stated the deposition of amount free of any duress . He has also mentioned the reasons for misappropriation of funds .

Under such circumstances , when the workman has admitted all the charges leveled against him and in consequent to admission of charge also deposited the amount in the bank , it is not open for the workman to claim that enquiry was not properly conducted . The enquiry officer rightly on the basis of the detailed confessional statement of the workman and his act of depositing amount , has given the enquiry report . I am unable to trace out any cause for interference in the enquiry report and the findings of the enquiry officer.

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] प्राप्त हुआ था। को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2009 को [सं. एल-33012/3/2007- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th December , 2009 S.O. 105. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.7 / 2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Chennai Port Trust and their workman . which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2009.

[No. L - 33012/3 /2007 - IR ( B - II ) ) U. S. PANDEY , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Monday, the 30th November , 2009

Present : A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 7/2008

(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Madras Dock Labour Board ( C & F ) and their Workman )

BETWEEN

Sri . P. Varadhan

The workman was afforded the proper opportunity of being heard before the punishment . The punishment awarded to the workman in my view is in proportionate to the committed misconduct and this part of this reference does not require any interference .

Accordingly, I am of the view that Shri Surjit Singh Gulati is a workınan and his dismissal from the services by the bank is legal and justified. No interference in enquiry report or the disciptinary proceedings is called for. The reference is acco , dingly answered . Let Central Government be approached for publication of award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , ।। दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 105.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का ( 4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चेन्नई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 7/2008 )

1st Party/ Petitioner

Vs.

II Party / Management The Chairman : Madras Dock Labour Board ( C & F ) No.1 , Rajaji Salai , Chennai Port Trust Chennai -600001

APPEARANCE

Forthe 1st Party Petitioner : M / s . K. V. Krishnaswami Forthe 2nd Party/ Management : Sri Dharanichander

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L -33012/ 3 /2007 - IR ( B - II ) dated 1-2-2008 referred the following Industrial Disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

"Whether the refusal of Madras Dock Labour Board, Chennai for alteration of Date of Birth of Shri P. Varadhan , ex - Mazdoor , Madras dock Labour Board , Chennai is fair legal and justified ? If not , to what relief Shri P. Varadhan is entitled to ? "

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dsipute , this Tribunal has numbered it as I.D. 7/2008 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their Advocates and filed their Claim , Counter and rejoinder Statement as the case may be .

3.A summary of the claim statement is as follows :

The petitioner while was a Mazdoor under the Respondent ever since from 1972 and regularized in 1988 was terminated on 1-7-2001 . At the time of his initial appointment no age proof had been demanded by the Respondent which was demanded for in 1988. He could produce the Age certificate only on 28-12-1997 since he had to obtain it from a far off place . In the meantime the Respondent got his age fixed as 45 years as on 10-5-1988 under medical reference whereas his actual Date of Birth is 5-7-1950 and he was aged only 38 years in 1988. The Respondent refused to change the date of birth erroneously fixed in spite of several representations . His Birth Certificate produced was also refused to be considered . As per the correct date of birth his retirement has to be only in 2010 at the age of 60 years but he is wrongly terminated on 1-7-2001 depriving him 9 years of valuable service . Under a wrong advice , Civil Suit filed as O.S. 3090/2001 at Chennai was dismissed on 30-1-2006 . Hence the delay in raising this dispute with the claim for setting aside his termination and for reinstatement into service with all attendant benefits .

229

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

The petitioner is a Harijan ( SC ) . He did not have any knowledge regarding service procedures . His effort to obtain a School Certificate from a remote village could not materialize and he was informed that it being an instance of 24 years old , some time would be taken to locate the records . He could get Certificate only on 10-12-1997 . In the meantime , his age had been fixed at 45 years by the Respondent . The Respondent was not satisfied with the School Certificate and he was further asked to produce Birth Certificate which he could get only on 16-3-1998 from Corporation of Chennai but no action was taken to change the Date of Birth for a long time in spite of efforts by himself and that by Trade Union . His representation dated 27-6-2000 was not responded to . There was also no response to a legal notice at his instance or to the reminder . Though he was called for enquiry on two occasions , it was never conducted . Against the list of persons due to retire on 1-7-2001 issued by the Respondent, though representation was made by the Union , he was only made to retire on 1-7-2001 . Hence the prayer .

Points for consideration are :

( i ) Whether the refusal of the Respondent to alter the Date of Birth of the petitioner is fair , legal and justified ?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?

6. On the side of the petitioner . Ex . Wl and Ex. W2 and on the side of the Respondent Ex.M1 to Ex.M6 were marked , ali on consent . No oral evidence was adduced on either side .

Points 1 and 2

4. In the Counter statement , contentions raised briefly read as follows:

At the time of regularization , the petitioner failed to produce his Birth Certificate and , therefore , his age was got assessed by the Medical Board as 45 years as on 10-5-1988 which the petitioner accepted as his age . The said age was recorded in all the records fixing his retirement age as 30-6-2001 . He had been informed that under no circumstances his age will be altered later even if relevant documents are submitted . The petitioner's representation at the fag end of retirement to alter the Date of Birth was rejected on 6-12-2000 and he was informed accordingly further informing that request for alteration of Date of Birth is to be submitted within 5 years of regular service . The petitioner cannot blame the administration for his own fault as an afterthought . There is no illegal termination of petitioner's service . The Claim Petition is only to be dismissed .

5. In the Rejoinder the further contentions over and above those raised in the Claim Statement by way of repetition briefly read as follows :

7. This is a case of a petitioner whose request for alteration of his age was not allowed by the Respondent / Management in the wake of which he was made to retire on 1-7-2001 . According to the petitioner , he entered service in 1972 as Mazdoor. When he was regularized in 1988 in proof of age the Respondent placing reliance on the report of the MedicalBoard fixed it as 45 years as on 10-5-1988 while his actual Date of Birth is 5-7-1950 and his actual age in 1988 is 38 years . Admittedly he produced his Age Certificate from school only on 28-12-1997 . The petitioner has mentioned about his hard hit position to obtain it earlier and produce it by mentioning the difficulty to locate it by school authorities being an instance of remote past of long antiquity . Again the school in which he had studied was also located at a far off place . According to the petitioner, the Respondent wanted him to produce a Birth Certificate also when he filed the certificate from the school . The Birth Certificate he could manage to get only on 16-3-1998 from the Corporation of Chennai . According to the Respondent , the petitioner had accepted his age fixed by 230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] theMedical Board as 45 years and the said age was recorded Certificate fromthe Corporation of Chennai . The petitioner complied with the said requisition also . Even thereafter the Respndent has not been prepared to consider the request of the petitioner to alter his age and allow him to enjoy the extended benefit of prolongation of service as well as his retirement on superannuation . When the Respondent demanded the petitioner to produce the Birth Certificate from the local body over and above the School Certificate and when the same also was produced by the petitioner before the authority , it is not lawful for the Respondent to deny the petitioner's right to have his age altered in the records and to extend him the benefit of extended service and extended superannuation . The requisition of the Respondent to produce the second Birth Certificate when the petitioner produced the first School certificate is one capable of instilling in the mind of the petitioner a legitimate expectation of his claim being considered in his favour provided the certificates are proved bonafides . The refusal of the Respondent to consider them is totally unjust and arbitarry and against the principles of natural justice. Though there is a rule or the semblance of a rule which postulates that for alteration of the age the application should be filed within 5 years of the regularization, it cannot be understood as an invariably inviolable rule in all situations especially in the case of adjudication in the Industrial and Labour field. Here the petitioner had been enthusiastic in procuring certificates or documents which would exactly show his Date of Birth though initially he failed at the time of regularization of his service . The petitioner discernibly is not a person who has slept over his right for a long time to deny the remedy to him. According to the petitioner , he is entitled to retire in 2010 at the age of 60 which has not been challenged by the Respondent by reason of the documents proving his Date ofBirth as 5-7-1950 , he is entitled to continue till the year 2010 and retire accordingly. In order to entitle the petitioner for the alteration of his Date of Birth what are required according to the decisions of the Apex Court are that the petitioner should be able to produce genuine and exact proof of his age and he shall also apply within a reasonable time . In the case on hand , it could be seen that the petitioner has been zealously taking steps to procure certificates in proof ofhis age and produce them before the authorities but in spite of that they have not been prepared to consider them. When the Date of Birth of the petitioner as found in Ex.WI and Ex.W2 are accepted it couldbe found that at the time of his leaving the school , he was within the age range at which he could be qualified to be a student . Therefore, the action of the Respondent is illegal , unjust , arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice . Hence the petitioner is entitled to have his age altered on hisproduction of originals of Ex.W1 and Ex.W2 to the authorities and on their satisfaction they can be acted upon safely, they should allow the age of the petitioner to be in all the records fixing his retirement age as 30-6-2001 . Further according to the Respondent at that time, the petitioner had been informed that under no circumstances his age will be altered even if relevant documents are submitted . Again he was informed as to the position of rule that request for alteration of Date of Birth is to be submitted within 5 years of regular service . Ex.W1 , copy of BirthCertificate and Ex.W2 copy of record sheet issued from school show the Date of Birth of the petitioner as 5-7-1950 . Ex . W1 is dated 16-3-1998 and Ex . W2 is dated 10-12-1997. As per these documents , the petitioner's date ofbirth is 5-7-1950 and according to the petitioner when that age is taken into account , he is due to retire only in the year 2010 at the age of 60 as his superannuation age . The failure of the petitioner to produce such certificates at the time of his regularization in 1988 had thereupon entailed in his age being fixed by a Medical Board according to which the petitioner was aged 45 years in 1988. At the relevant time, the petitioner is understood to have been informed thathis age will not be allowed to be changed and hereafter even if he produced any relevant documents . One should not lose sight of the rule that a person may be entitled to produceprooffor the alteration of his age within 5 years of his regularization . In that case the petitioner could have been permitted to produce documents to alter his age at least by 1993 within which under the rule one is permitted to produce documents to change the Date of Birth . There is no reason why in spite of such a rule favourable to the petitioner being there , the petitioner was asked even in 1988 that he shall not be permitted to file any documents to change his age even if he produces relevant documents . Such of the stand of the Respondent is quite illegal , arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice . For the mere reason that he was not in a position to produce documents proving his correct age at the time of regularization in 1988 and, therefore, the Management had to depend upon the report of the Medical Board then does it mean that at a later point of time within the above period limited by time he cannot be permitted at all to produce relevant documents and get his age changed in the event of the earlier one recorded with reference to the Medical Report is wrong? The direction given by the Respondent restraining the petitioner from producing the documents is quite arbitrary , injust and illegal . Later on when the petitioner managed to produce documents to prove his age which when recorded will be of advantage to him in his career prolonging his superannuation age quite extending for a considerable period does it mean that the petitioner's entitlement to that is to be arbitrarily refused? The petitioner has given vaild explanation as to why he could not produce relevant documents in time . When he filed the records from the school showing his date of birth as 5-7-1950 , there was further demand from the Respondent to produce Birth [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

altered accordingly and allow him to continue in service accordingly as his retirement is 58 years or 60 as the case may be . If there is no vacancy to accommodate him without doing any prejudice to his juniors or anybody , waiting in a list to be employed from it in a vacancy against which the petitioner may not have to be adjusted , he shall be allowed to enjoy his service benefits as though he continued in service and the retiral benefits as well . The petitioner is entitled to the above reliefs and the Respondent is directed to provide all the benefits to him within one month .

16. The reference is answered accordingly .

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 30th November, 2009 )

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

For the ist Party/Petitioner :

None

For the 2nd Party/Management

None

Documents Marked :-

From the Petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ex.W1

BirthCertificate issued by the Corporation of Chennai Ex.W2

Mark Sheet of the petitioner issued by the Headmaster of School .

From the Management side :

Date

Ex.No.

Description

Ex.M1

10-8-1988 Medical Board Certificate Ex.M2.

13-2-1990 Letter from 2nd Party to the 1stParty

Ex.M3

16-2-2001 Letter from the 2nd Party to the 1st Party

30-1-2006

Ex.M4

Degree passed by the II , Asstt. City Civil Court in O.S. No. 3090 of2001

Ex.M5

Copy of extract of chapter 58 of from Swamy's -Establish- ment and Admn . reg . clause on Declaration of Date of Birth

Ex.M6

Copy of the Minutes of the meeting held in CPT Board Room containing appoint-

231

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

ment of Trustees on the Chennai Port Trust Board with effect from 1-4-2008 नई दिल्ली , 11 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 106. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 239/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है . जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/306/96- आईआर ( बी -11 ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th December , 2009 S.O. 106. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.239 /97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2009.

[No. L. - 12012/300 / 96 - IR ( B - II ) ]

U. S. PANDEY , Section Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO , CGIT /LC/ R/ 239/ 97

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN Shri Prakash Srivastava ,

Workman/Union Bloak No. E/ 10 , Sector - VI , State Bank Colony , Bhilai Nagar , Durg Distt . Chhattisgarh

Versus

Management The Sr. Manager , UCO Bank , Civic Centre , Bhilai , Durg Distt . Chhattisgarh

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of November , 2009 The Governmentof India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 12012 / 300 / 96 - IR ( B - II ) dated 6/14-8-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-- 232

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 / PAUSA 19 , 1931

" Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank , Bhilai in not empanelling and absorbing Shri Prakash Srivastava as permanent employee , in terms of Memorandum of Settlement dated 12-10-89 is lawful and justified ? If not to what relief the workman. is entitled to ? "

2. The case of the workman in short is that the workman was working as Messenger in the non - applicant Bank w.e.f. 1986 to 1988 and worked for more than 291 days during the period of three years . He had worked continuously for more than 240 days in a calendar year before termination . It is further stated that he was not allowed to work from January 1991. He was terminated without complying the provision of Sec - 25F of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947. After his termination , Bhola Yadu and Papa Rao were engaged by the management . It is stated that the bank entered into a settlement with the employers Federation and Associations on 19-10-89 whereby the workman was within the eligibility criteria for absorption but he had not been engaged in view of the settlement . The action of the management / non- applicant in not absorbing and impanelling him as a permanent employee is against the inemorandum of settlement dated 19-10-89 . Similarly situated persons Shri Tarun Kumar Yadav and Kanhaiya were subsequently regularized by the non - applicant by giving them the benefit of settlement dated 19-10-89 . On these ground , the reference be answered in favour of the workman.

3.The non - applicant/ management appeared and filed reply to the statement of claim . The case of the management , inter alia , is that there is no post of messenger in the Bank . Itisdenied that the workman had worked for 240 days in a calendar year rather he worked as casual labour on exigencies from 1986 to 1988 for only 237 days as in Annexure R - I . It is stated that there was no work for casual labour as such he was not engaged after 1989 and no one was engaged thereafter as casual labour . The workman was not fulfilling the eligibility criteria of the settlement dated 19-10-1989 . The workman is said to have not made any application to the Branch or Divisional office on or before 30-11-89 which was the cut out date for submitting application of the daily wager . There is no discrimination or malafide action of the non - applicant . Hence the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. The issue for consideration is as to wehether the action of the management in not empanelling or absorbing Shri Prakash Srivastava in terms of settlement dated 12-10-89 is lawful and jutified?

5. The workman has examined oral evidence and has filedphotocopies of the documents . Before discussing oral evidence , let us examine the settlement dated 12-10-89 . In fact the settlement is dated 19-10-89 instead of 12-10-89 which is filed by the workman (Annexure W/3 ) . The said

[ PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) |

===

settlement is also relied by the management . As such it is an admitted document . This settlement is for empanelment and absorption of persons engaged on daily wage basis . The workman has stated that he had worked more than 240 days during the period of three years . The workman has referred Para - 2( a) and 2 ( b ) of the settlement dated 19-10-89 . It runs as follows-

" 2.Eligibility Criteria:

a . Only persons who have been engaged as casual worker for full day's work and who have been discharging any of the normal duties in the Bank in the subordinate cadre as causual workers for a period 240 days or more with or without interruption during the period of 3 years immediately preceding this settlement. However . those who have been engaged as water boy on daily wage would not be eligible for being considered for absorption under this settlement .

b . For the purpose of computing 240 days holidays and Sundays in a week would be included if such person has been engaged for the rest of the days in the said week . "

This settlement shows that if the casual worker was employed for a period of 240 days or more with or without interruption during the period of three years immediately preceding the settlement , he would consider to be eligible for empanelment and absorption.

6. The learned counsel for the management has argued that there was a cut out date for filing application by the workman . The management has referred Para 3 ( a ) of the said settlement which runs as follows : --

" 3. Procedure for absorption:

a . Persons entitled for being absorbed in terms of this settlement shall apply to the Competent Authority in a prescribed manner on or before 30th November 1989. On receipt of such applications , the particulars would be verified to satisfy that he meets the necessary eligibility criteria.

Now the evidence is to be examined in the light of the clauses of the settlement for determination as to whether the workman is entitled for empanelment or absorption . The workman Shri Parkash Srivastava has stated in his evidence that he was appointed on daily wages on 5-10-86 and had worked more the 40 days in a calendar year . The documents annexure W/ I and W/ 2 are filed by him. Annexure W/ 1 is the reply of the management before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Raipur . This reply shows that from 1986 to 1988 the workman had worked for 252 days . Annexure W/ 2 shows that in computing with holidays and Sundays , the days come to 291 days . This shows that he had worked more than 240 days in terms of the settlement dated 19-10-89 .

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

7. Now the another important point is that as to whether he had filed an application for empanelment or absorption within the cut out date on or before 30-11-89. The workman Shri Parkash Srivastava has not stated in his evidence that he had filed any application in the light of the settlement . One workman has also not filed any document to show that he had filed application within the time. It is clear that no application was filed within the cut out date as provided in clause 3 (a) of the settlement dated 19-10-89 . This shows that on expiry of the cut out date for filing application , the workman is not entitled to avail the benefit of the said settlement .

8. The management has examined Shri A. K. Sood who was Senior Manager , UCO Bank, Krishna Branch , Adhartal Branch , Jabalpur . He has stated that the workman never made any application as required under circular No. CHO /PAS / 89 of 19-10-89. In cross - examination , this witness is not ever suggested that the workman had made application as per the settlement . This shows that no application was filed by the workman before the management Bank within cut out period and chapter for empanelment or absorption was closed thereafter. This clearly shows that the worker is not entited as per the settlement dated 19-10-89 . Accordingly this reference is decided in favour of the management and against the workman/ applicant .

9. In the result, the award is passed without costs .

10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment as per rules.

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 11 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 107. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार विजया 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 2/93 आफ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-12011 /83/2001- आईआर( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th December , 2009 S.O. 107. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 2/93 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 Vijaya Bank and their workman, 4729 GI /09-11

233

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2009 .

[No. L- 12011 /83/2001 - IR (B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY , Section Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2, AT MUMBAI Present : A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT - 2/93 of 2001

Employers in relation to the Management of Vijaya Bank The General Manager Vijaya Bank, Regional Office 1stfloor , S.V. Road Santacruz (W) Mumbai -400 054.

AND

Their Workmen

The Regional Secretary Vijaya Bank Employees ' Association 27/9 -B , Wadia Building Cawasji Patel Street , Fort Mumbai -400 001

APPEARANCE

: Mr. R. S. Pai , Advocate Forthe Employer For the Workmen :Absent

Mumbai Dated: 6th November , 2009 AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour by its OrderNo. L - 12011 / 83 /2001 - IR ( B - II ) dated 27-7-20011 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 disputes to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the management of Vijaya Bank to remove Shri M. B. Nikam from services of the Bank vide order dated 14-1-2000 is justified and proper? If not, then what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. Notices were sent to second party repeatedly. Though second party appeared through advocate and filed claim statement , but unable to file affidavit in support of the claim statement . After waiting for long time for affidavit and looking that, second party is not pursuing matter , it is disposed of for want of prosecution . Hence the order:

ORDER

Reference is disposed of for want of prosecution. Date: 6-11-2009

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer 234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 / PAUSA 19 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 11 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 108.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) को 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 2/21 आफ 2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/151 /2000 - आईआर( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th December , 2009 S.O. 108. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. 2/21 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 10-12-2009 .

[No. L- 12012/ 151 /2000 - IR ( B - II) ] U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . II AT MUMBAI

Present

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 2/ 21 of 2001

Employers in Relation to the Management of Syndicate Bank

The Deputy General Manager , Syndicate Bank , Zonal Office , Maker Towers, ' E ' Cuffe Parade , Colaba, Plot No. 85 , Mumbai -400 005

[PART 11 St. 3( it) | AWARD PART II

The reference is sent to this Tribunal by the Under Secretary of the Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L - 12012 / 151/ 2000 - IR ( B - I ) dated 6thFebruary , 2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, have referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Syndicate Bank, Mumbai by dismissing Shri Kashinath K. Ovhal from the services of the Bank is justified and proper? If not , then whatrelief the workman is entitled to? "

2. The Second Party workman raises the dispute regarding his dismissal of 1989. first raising it before Conmptent Authority who sent it to this Tribunal for adjudication , by its letter dated 6th February , 2001 . contending that , the charges levelled against him were vague and not to the point . Enquiry was not conducted properly . Charges were not proved against him . Opportunity was not given to him to participate in the enquiry .Haste was made by the Enquiry Officer . Enquiry Officer was bias and determined to convict the Second Party Workman. There was no evidence of any type before the Enquiry Officer of the concerned witnesses like M/ s . Shakti Enterprises or Gaikwad. The allegations levelled against 2nd Party Workman were of vague nature since these were not proved and since there was no enquiry as expected. Ist Party cannot take such a drastic action of dismissal against Second Party Workman on this type of Inquiry and its finding . So it is prayed that , dismissal issued against Second Party by set aside with directions to 1st Party to reinstate him with benefits of back wages and continuity of service .

First Party

AND

Kashinath K. Ovhal , C. Dinesh M. Bhoir , Their Workman , Nalini Niwas , New Ambarnath Village . Vadawli , Badlapur-421 503 .

Second Party

APPEARANCE

FortheEmployer

For the Workman :

: Mr. R. N. Shah , Advocate Mr. Vasant J. Amberkar , Advocate

Dateof reserving Award: 10-08-2009 . Date of Passing of Award : 10-11-2009 .

3. This claim of the 2nd Party is disputed by the Ist Partyby filing exhaustive reply at Exhibit 10 containing 16 pages , initially denying the case of the 2nd Party, then giving explanation and again answering each point para wise of the 2nd Party taken in the Statement of Claim, as well as point wise and made out the case that, charges levelled against 2nd Party Workman were true and correct Those were proved against him. Enquiry was conducted by following principles of natural justice . Full opportunits was given to the 2nd Party Workman . 2nd Party participated in the enquiry ; cross examined the witnesses of the Ist Party . There was sufficient evidence against 2nd Party Workman before Inquiry Officer to answer those charges levelled against him and convict him . It is denied that, there was no evidence before the Inquiry Officer who gave finding against the 2nd Party . So it is submitted that . inquiry conducted be observed as just and proper and finding not perverse. It is submitted that , punishment given to 2nd Party is just and does not require and interference 4. Rejoinder is filed by 2nd Party at Exhibit 11 stating and contending that , he has taken amount from one Karadkar assuring him that , the said amount will be returned to him or deposited in his Bank account on his name and at [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

we ist the material time he could not return the amount to Karadkar but he deposited the said amount and later on Karadkar withdrew the said amount from the Bank . It is contended that , copies of the documents are annexed separately. It is further stated that , as regards charge of taking amount from Shri Gaikwad by 2nd Party is concerned , is totally false and frivolous allegation levelled against him . It is not proved against him . It is further stated that , as regards charge of taking second stage of housing loan Party for repairing and decorating his house is ot the said amount was sanctioned by the Bank badamy unable to utilize it since there was increase in costlinawrial to repair and decorate the house and 25 sre , hoes unable to utilize the said amount for the said purpose only. It is stated that , amount was sanctioned by the lat which was legal one and for that Ban cannot brained Wasty Workman . It is further stated that , the cherved aainst him are denied by him and those are d tated that , since amount of Karadkar was resned to Karadkar and since Karadka wandrow the sand.moohr the Bank no charge on that can be levelled and treated psed against him . It is ' urther stated that, the amount sation to him of Rs . 20,360 was sent to the Contractor whom the work was given . However, said Contractor unable to carry of the work of repairs and to decorate the house, due to rise in the cost of material add as such , he cannot be held responsible for the same . So it is submated that , the charges levelled against him are baseless and the punishment imposed upon him is harsh and disproportionate to the charges levelled against him.

5. In view of the above pleading issues were framed by Ld . Predecessor at Exhibit 12. Out of those , issues No 1 and 2 were treated as preliminary issues and now issues Nos . 3 and 4 which were framed are now takecup for consideration which I answer as under :

Issues

Findings

Yes

3. Whether the action of the Management of Syndicate Bank , Mumbai , by dismissing Shri Kashinath K. Ovhal from the services of the Bank is justified and proper ?

4. What relief Shri Ovhal is entitled to?

Does not survive .

REASONS :

Issue Nos . 3 & 4 :

6. This is second round of litigation which is on the point of quantum of punishment . By passing Award I this Tribunal decided enquiry fair and proper as well as finding not perverse .

7. It is to be noted that , the charge of misconduct was leveled vide charge sheet dated 18-1-1988 , from pages 21 to 25 , annexed with Exhibit 15 was levelled against the concerned workman. Said charge is regarding receiving amount from outsiders by giving assurances for getting them employment , charge of removing Bank documents

235

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

like Saving Bank account slip books , Cheque Books and pass books which were in the custody of the Bank arıd charge ofpreparing false and bogus documents to impress upon outsiders regarding their work were levelled against the concerned workman . It is to be noted that , those are serious charges leveled against the concerned workman . Since enquiry was held just and proper and finding not perverse now reference is kept for deciding the quantum of punishment.

8. According to 2nd Party punishment is harsh or disproportionate. Whereas case of the Ist Party is that , it is just and proper .

9. To prove that 2nd Party placed reliance on his affidavit filed for second time in this proceedings at Exhibit 34 stated and contended that , he has not misappropriated the amount as alleged in the charge sheet. He states that , no monetary loss has occurred to the Bank due to his alleged activities . He states that , the punishment is disproportionate . He states that , the charges are not proved against him . In the cross he states that , serious charges were levelled against him vide charge sheet dated 18-1-1988 . He states that , previously his one increment was withheld . He further states that, the said punishmen was imposed upon him and it was just , proper . He admits that , he attendant house work in Reserve Bank of India quarters . He states that , he was doing that work for 8-10 years . He states that in that period he was earning Rs.4000 per month . He states that , he did not apply for any employinent and on that , he closed his evidente . Against that , no evidence is led by the 1st Party and by Exhibit it intimated its decision not to lead any evidence .

10. Written arguments are filed by Ist party at Exhibit 39. Against that , no written arguments were submitted by 2nd Party so matter was kept for his arguments .

1. Here it is to be noted that , serious charges of receiving the amount from outsiders on false assurances , using blank saving Bank account slips , pass books and removing the same from the custody of the bank and using those for false and frivolous documents and transactions and to gain monetary benefits out of it are levelled against the concerned workman . It is to be noted that , said is not challenged seriously by concerned workman . The enquiry is observed as just and proper and its finding not perverse . In the domestic enquiry concerned workman was held guilty of the charges levelled against him . Now stage is kept for deciding whether the punishment awarded to the concerned workman is just and proper ?

12. When serious charges were levelled against the concerned workman which are not denied by him and which are proved in the enquiry, in my considered view no importance is require to given to the mere statement of the 2nd Party that , quantum of punishment is not proportionat to the charges levelled against him . On the contrary Ist Party's Advocate placed reliance on the citation published in 1998 I CLR page 1093 in the case of Union Bank of India vs Vishwamohan where Apex Court observed that , in case ofproved misconduct like charge of misappropriation , no leniency is attracted . Besides he placed reliance on the 236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

citation published in 2005 I CLR page 959 in the case of Bharat Heavy Electricals Ltd. vs M. Chandrasekhar Reddy & Ors . where Apex Court observed that , when enquiry is observed fair and proper and or charge are proved against the concerned workman , in that case , it is not necessary to interfere in the punishment awarded on the workman. He also placed reliance on the citation published in 2005 I CLR page 1074 in the case of Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board vs Jagdish Chandra Sharma where Apex Court observed that , there must be discipline in the organization , when charge is proved in that case , it is not necessary to interfere in the administrative decision taken by the Management.

13. It is to be noted that , decision given by this Tribunal while passing Award Part I where enquiry was . observed just and proper and finding not perverse is not challenged by the 2nd Party and said finding subsists . Now, as stated above , point before us is to decide whether punishment awarded of dismissal is just and proper ? As stated above , serious charge of taking money from outsiders , removing documents from the Bank's custody and using in fabricating the documents is levelled against the concerned workman , which are definitely charge of serious nature and definitely said act goes against the interest of the Bank as 2nd Party has misused his position , cheated the Bank as well as parties and gained personally from the said transactions . When that is the position definitely it affected on the reputation of the Bank. Besides 2nd Party is not talking about finding given by Enquiry Officer. Even at this stage he states that , the charges are not proved and in my considered view this Tribunal cannot now decide against that point when it is decided while passing Award I.

14. If consider all this coupled with the case made out by both I am of the considered view that , the punishment awarded of dismissal on the concerned workman who was working in the bank , if it is considered with his position and the place of employment does not require any interference . So I answer this issue in negative and passes the following order :

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to its costs .

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Bombay

10thNovember , 2009

नई दिल्ली , 11 दिसम्बर, 2009

का.आ. 109.- 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 -2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/53 ऑफ 2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 /96/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , अनुभाग अधिकारी

PARI II -SEC . 3 ( ii )| New Delhi , the 11th December , 2009 S.O. 109.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 2/53 of 2003) 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 Bank of Baroda and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 10-12-2009 .

[ No. L - 12011 /96 /2003 - IR ( B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT MUMBAI

Present

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT- 2 / 53 of 2001

Employers in Relation to the Management of Bank of Baroda

The Deputy General Manager , Bank of Baroda Mumbai Main Office , P. B. 505 , Jeejebhoy Towers .

Dalal Street, Fort ,

Mumbai -400001

.... First Party

V/ s

Their Workman ,

The General Secretary , Bank of Baroda Employees Union , Bank ofBaroda Bldg ; 10/12 Bombay Samachar Marg ,

Mumbai-400 023

.... Second Party

APPEARANCE

Forthe Employer : Shri Lancy D'Souza , Legal Advisers of Bombay Chamber of Comm . and Inds . Mumbai

Forthe Workman : Shri M. B. Anchan , Advocate , Date of reserving Award : 12-08-2009 . Date of Passing the Award : 05-11-2009 . AWARD

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the proceedings are as under :

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No.L - 12011 / 96/ 2003 - IR ( B - II ) dated 10th September , 2003 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

"Whether the action of the Management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of Sh . Vijay S. Kawade , Cashier-cum- Clerk is justified ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ? " 237 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 / पौष 19 , 1931

without permission and continued said habit which affected 2. Claim Statement is filed by the 2nd Party under the signature of the General Secretary of Bank of Baroda Employees ' Union making out the case that , the Workman involved in the reference joined services of the Bank as a Clerk in the year 1981 and worked continuously at its Bank's main office . It is further contended that , the concerned workman was regular in attendance and punctual in his work. It is stated that , however , due to some chronic stomach ailment he was required to take medical treatment from private medical Doctor . It is stated that , he was under the treatment from 20-1-1995 and regarding his absensee , he informed Mr. Das , Senior Manager . It is stated that , however , he was served with a letter dated 11-2-1995 asking him to report on duty . It is stated that , since he was critically ill and he was served with a letter he went to the Bank to report for his duties but he was not permitted to report on duty. It is further stated that , again on next day 2nd Party tried to report on duty . However , he was not permitted to do so and by another letter Bank treated the absenteeism ofthe concerned workman as voluntary retirement of 2nd Party . It is stated that , no termination letter was issued by the Bank . It is stated that , the Bank without following due process of law treated the concerned workman involved in the reference as voluntarily retired which is not fair . It is stated that , in fact it is the termination on account of absenteeism . In fact Management cannot terminate the workman involved in the Reference on that ground since he had informed it about his absenteeism. It is stated that, no charge sheet was served and no enquiry was conducted holding him guilty of the charge of absenteeism . It is submitted that , the action taken by the Management be quashed and set aside with directions to it to reinstate him with benefit of back and continuity of service .

on the working of the Management . Even Bank by letter dated 24-5-1983 informed concerned workman that , if he failed to report on duty it will treat his absensee as voluntarily retirement . It is stated by the 1st Party that , no improvement was shown by the concerned workman and he continued to remain absent unauthorisedly , hence action was taken against him and charge sheet dated 16-11-1983 was issued to the concerned workman leveling charge of remaining absent unauthorisedly and treating said absensee as voluntary retirement alleging that , he remained absent unauthorisedly without permission . It is stated that, charge of late attendance was also levelled against him . It is also stated that, charge of committing acts of disorderly and indecent behaviour was also levelled against the concerned workman and about his indulgence in violence in the Bank premises were also levelled against the concerned workman . It is stated that , for that punishment of stoppage of two increments was imposed upon the concerned workman in August , 1984. Even then no improvement was shown by the workman involved in the reference . It is stated that , even after receipt of the said letter dated 11-8-1984 concerned workman unauthorisedly remained absent and by letter dated 15-11-1984 Bank informed the concerned workman to report on duty on or before 15-12-1984 with reasons of his unauthorized absenteeism which he did not did and treated that he is voluntary retired . It is further stated that , he reported on duty from 4-12-1984 but subsequently the concerned workman remained absent from 28-1-1985 and the Bank by letter dated 11-2-1985 informed the concerned workman about said absenteeism and gave him warning . Same thing happened while issuing letter dated 20-2-1985 and 17-6-1987 as well as 16-7-1987 while sending reminders to the concerned workman on number of occasions , however , no note was taken by the concerned workman which reveals that , 2nd Party was not interested and it treated it as not interested and treated him as voluntarily retired from employment . It is stated that , decision taken by the Management in treating him as voluntarily retired does not require any interference and pray to reject the reference.

4. 2nd Party filed rejoinder at Exhibit 12 stating same story as stated in the claims statement .

5. In view of the above pleadings Issues were framed atExhibit 14. Out of which issues Nos . 1 and 2 were treated as preliminary issues which I answer as follows :

Issues

Findings

1. Whether Reference is maintainable ?

2. Whether there is inordinate delay in making reference on which 2nd Party is not entitled to get relief ?

REASONS :

ISSUES NOS . 1 & 2 :

6. 2nd Party Union claims that action taken by the Ist Party treating the concerned workman as voluntarily 3. This is disputed by Ist Party, Bank, by filing written statement at Exhibit 9 making out the case that , the reference is not maintainable and deserves to be rejected solely on that ground . It is submitted by the Bank that , treating the concerned workman as voluntarily retired does not amount to termination . It is further stated that , meaning drawn by the Union regarding decision taken by the Bank treating the concerned workman involved in the reference as voluntarily retired is wrongly taken by it and on that sole ground, reference is not maintainable . Besides , it is stated that , there is inordinate delay of 9 years which is not explained as to why Union chose to challenge the decision of the Management after 9 years . It is not explained as to why it unable to raise dispute in 9 years and no reason is givenabout delay . No explanation is given as to why Union decided to raise dispute after 9 years . It is stated that , in 1981 and 1982 the concerned workman remained absent for 54 days without intimation and permission . It is stated that , by letter dated 29-5-1982 Management communicated to concerned Workman with a warning to report on duty otherwise it will treat his absensee as voluntarily retirement . It is stated that , by letter dated 14-3-1983 concerned workman was informed about his unauthorized absenteeism without permission and sanction . It is stated that , for 127 days he remained absent in the year 1981-82 and 1983 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

238 ==

retired is nothing but termination without giving opportunity to the concerned workman . On number of occasions explanation was given. However, it was not considered and without giving charge sheet and holding enquiry and following due process of law the concerned workman was terminated . Dispute raised reveals that, the concerned workman was in the habit of remaining absent onnumber of occasions and even charge sheet was issued and he was asked to report on duty , however , he did not show any improvement which compelled the Bank to treat the concerned workman as voluntarily retired.

7. To prove that , 2nd Party placed reliance on his affidavit filed at Exhibit 16 in lieu of his examination - in- chief repeating the same story as stated in the Statement of Claim. In the cross he admits that, he was making correspondence with the Bank even after his termination. He admits that , he was absent from 16-9-1994 to 10-4-1995 . He admits that, every correspondence sent by him was replied by the Bank. On that , 2nd Party closed the evidence and filed closing purshis at Exhibit 17 .

8. 1stParty chose not to lead any evidence and filed closing purshis at Exhibit 18.

9. Written arguments were filed by the 2nd Party at Exhibit 19 and replied by the Ist Party by filing written arguments at Exhibit 21 with list of citations at Exhibit 22 .

10. 2nd Party tried to make out the case that, the concerned workman was unnecessarily punished without following due process of law . It is his case that, no charge sheet was served , no opportunity was given and no decision was given treating him as voluntarily retired . Whereas case of the 1st Party is that , on number of occasions he was absent and he was informed to report on duty. However , he failed to report and explain about his absenteeism which invite Ist Party to treat him as voluntarily retired. It is case of the 1st Party that, after 9 years dispute is raised and no delay is explained . It is filed only just to test the luck and no other meaning can be drawn from it .

11. Perused proceedings and the written arguments submittedby both . Gone through the evidence led. It is to be noted that , number of letters were sent by the 2nd Party Workman to Bank as produced with Exhibit 13 reveals that , the concerned workman was given opportunity on number of occasions and it also reveals that, Bank was asking him to report on duty . It shows that , if he did not report it will treat his absence as voluntarily retired . Though 2nd Party filed documents with list Exhibit 15 and though relied on some medical certificates which are produced in the form of Xerox copy, are not proved by leading cogent evidence. No specific case is made out on that point . Only vague case is made out as rightly questionedby the 1st Party. The concerned workman has not explained as to why he decided to challenge the order/decision of the 1st Party after 9 years . Besides , there was no termination but Ist Party treated 2nd Party as voluntarily retired . It is a matter of record that, the 2nd Party admits absenteeism. Record reveals that, 2nd Party admits the charge of absenteeism leveled against him . Even he admits that , his every

[PART II SEC. 30 ) correspondence was replied by the Bank . Besides it is not denied by the 2nd Party that,decision of the 1st Party is challenged after 9 years . It is also admitted fact that , it is not explained as to why dispute is raised after 9 years and even there is no termination and when it is challenged after 9 years definitely it need to see whether it is legal or otherwise ?

12. The Ld . Advocate for the 1st Party placed reliance onthe citation published in 2006 II LILJ SC page 1046 in the case of State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Vs. Om Prakash Sharma, where Apex Court observed that . if Section 254 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 was not found to be violated then question of setting aside termination does not arise . In this case it is not pointed out that . Bank has violated Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act . 1947. Besides he relied on citation published in 2000 LAB IC page 2326 of Supreme Court in the case of Syndicate Bank Vs. General Secretary, Syndicate Bank Staff Association & anr, wher Apex Court observed that , when they have served notic on delinquent of calling upon him to report and he tails 1 do so , question of action by Bank under Bipartite Settlemen cannot be challenged and which cannot be disturbed b theCourtsdirecting the Bank to reinstate such a workman In the instant case same thing happened. The citatron referred by 1st Party's Advocate published in 2000 (2) 11.1 page 21 in the case of Nedungadi Bank Ltd. Vs. K.P. Madhavankkutty where it is observedby the Apex Court that, even if no time limit is specified it does not mean that , a power ofGovernment to make reference can be exercised atany point of time. In this matter same thing as happened where dispute is raised against decision taken by the Bank treating the concerned workman as voluntarily retired is challenged after nine years . No reason is given as to why it was not disputed in 9 years . In citation referred by Ist Party'sAdvocate published in 1997 II CLR page 438 in the case of State of Haryana Vs. Miss Ajay Walia where Apex Courtobserved that , if there is inordinate delay , the Court cannot entertain the relief. Same view is taken by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the citation published in 2007 11 LILJ page 1076 in the case of Satbir Singh Vs. Management of Supdt. Engineer and by our Hon'ble High Court while deciding Writ Petition No.4061 of 1997 in the case of Chandrakant V. Shinde Vs. Sahayak Sanchalak Arogya Seva .

13. Ifwe consider all this coupled with the case made outby both and law looking the where 2nd Party is not sure about its own case regarding concerned workman . I am of the view that , such a reference is not maintainable as thedelay is not explained . Hence , I answer these Issues to thateffect and conclude that reference is not tenable . Hence. theorder:

ORDER

Reference is not tenable Hence disposed off with no order as to its costs .

Bombay

5thNovember , 2009

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 11 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 110.- 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 एरनाकुलम , के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 47/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011 / 168 /2005 - आई. आर. ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय, अनु. अधिकारी New Delhi , the 11th December , 2009 S.O. 110. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 47 / 2006 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Ernakulam 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 10-12-2009.

[ No. L- 12011 / 168 / 2005 - IR ( B - II ) ] U.S. PANDEY, Section Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present : Shri P. L. Norbert , B.A. , L. L. B. , Presiding Officer (Wednesday the 25th day of November , 2009 / 4th Agrahayana , 1931 )

I.D. 47/2006

Union : The Secretary, Bank of Baroda Employees ' Union (Kerala ) , C / o . Bank of Baroda , Banerjee Road , Ernakulam North .

By Adv . Ashok B. Shenoy .

Management : The Assistant General Manager , Bank of Baroda , Regional Office , P.B. No. 5095 , Karimpanal Arcade, Fort , Thiruvananthapuram.

By Adv . M / s . B.S. Krishnan Associates .

This case coming up for hearing on 25-11-2009 , this Tribunal - cum - Labour Court on the same day passed the following.

AWARD

This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of Industrial Disputes Act claiming regularisation of service of 53 employees in Bank of Baroda . During the pendency

239

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

of the case six employees were considered for absorption by the management on the basis of a scheme evolved by the management in 2008. In view of this six workers withdrew their claim . A few others were disengaged by the management . The remaining workers submitted through their counsel that they too may be permitted to withdraw the dispute without prejudice to their right to raise an industrial dispute in case their rights for regularisation are denied by the management, though they are eligible for regularisation . An endorsement is made to that effect by the counsel for the union . The management has no objection . In view of this submission reference is disposed off as under.

An award is passed allowing the union to withdraw the claim of workers without prejudice to their rights to raise a dispute in case they are denied benefits of the scheme for regularisation , despite their eligibility for regularisation and also in case of termination of service not in accordance with the procedure under I.D. Act .

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

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 25th day ofNovember , 2009.

Appendix P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 14 दिसम्बर , 2009 Nil का.आ. 111. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी.बी.एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट [ संदर्भ संख्या 439/2005 (62/95 ) ] को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/119/ 1995- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th December , 2009 S.O. 111. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award [ Ref. No. 439/2005 ( 62/95 ) ] of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court No. 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Court Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BBMB and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2009 .

[No. L- 22012/ 119 / 1995 - IR ( C - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer 240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

ANNEXURE

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

CASE NO . I.D. NO . 439/2005 ( I.D. 62/95 )

Shri Brijeshwar Malik S/ o Godhan Ram , Vill . & P. O. Atail , Teh . & District Rohtak .

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] The main contentions of the workman in his pleadings and evidence are that no proper opportunity was given to him . Enquiry Officer has not fairly conducted the enquiry and there- had been the violation of principle of natural justice while conducting the inquiry . The management contended that a proper and reasonable opportunity was given to him while conducting inquiry and principle of natural justice was adhered to by the EnquiryOfficer .

Applicant

Versus

The Engineer- in- Chief/ TS , Bhakra Beas Management Board , Chandigarh .

Parties were afforded opportunity for adducing evidence . Evidence of the parties was recorded . Complete inquiry proceeding is before this Tribunal . I have heard the parties at length and perused the entire material on record.

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

: Sh. Naunihal Singh & Amanjot Singh , Advocates .

For the Management : Ms. Sumarjit Kaur , Advocate .

AWARD

Passed on 2-12-09

Government of India vide Notification No. L - 22012/ 119 / 95 - IR ( C - II ) Dated 12-07-1995 by exercising its wers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal : ----

"Whether the action of the Management of BBMB in ordering compulsory retirement of Shri Brijeshwar Chowkidar w.e.f. 16-4-93 is legal and justified ? Ifnot ,to whatrelief the workman is entitled and from which date ? " On perusal of the pleadings and evidence of the parties , it is evidently clear that workman was charge- sheeted twice . Charge Sheet dated 15-01-1992 contains 3 charges , whereas , Charge - sheet dated 17-02-1992 contains 7 charges . In Charge- sheet dated 15-01-1992 the workman was charge sheeted for drinking wine during office hours , misbehaving the officials in the office in general and particularly with Engineer P.P. Singh in the presence of other persons . Charge Sheet dated 17-02-1992 contains 7 charges relating to theft of certain office articles from the office , tampering and misusing the official telephone No. 73115 provided to the Office of the Bhakra Beas Management Board in question , tampering of Confidential Report locked in Almirah , refusal to deliver Office Memo and to perform office duties assigned to him , threatening Shri Kanwar Singh Chowkidar to put the office on fire and remaining willfully absent from duty from 03-05-1990 to 14-06-1990 and producing a fake Medical Certificate .

The main contention of the learned legal representative for the workman is that it is the case of no evidence . The workman was charge- sheeted for drinking alcohol , whereas , he was in drunken position has not been proved . He was not medically examined and in absentia of forensic report enquiry officer has wrongly held that he was in drunken state . Regarding the confession , learned counsel for the workman has contended that confessional statement was not free and when the workman was charge- sheeted, he withdrew the confessional statement and denied all the charges . Thus , as per arguments of legal representative of the workman , the confessional statement , which is withdrawn by the workman , cannot be relied upon .

Learned legal representative of the management has contrarily argued on nature of inquiry and proving of all the charges against the workman .

On different charges Enquiry Officer conducted the inquiry separately and a separate report was submitted for both of the charges .

OnCharge - sheet dated 15-01-1992 , on Charge no . 1, as more as statement of 7 persons were recorded . On charge no.1, 2 and 3 preliminary enquiry was also conducted . The report of preliminary inquiry is also on record . The statements of persons recorded as witnesses by the preliminary Enquiry Officer , were also recorded by Enquiry Officer Shri Tuli . They all have stated that the workman was in a drunken state of affairs when he entered in the office of Engineer , P.P. Singh . He misbehaved with the persons , used the filthy language to the Chairman . When he was asked to go out , he became very violent . It was very difficult for the persons present over there to keep him out of the room . It is true that no medical examination of the workman was conducted to prove that he has consumed alcohol on that day . But there are two confessional statements on record written in the handwriting of the workman that he consumed alcohol at about 11.30 AM and 2.00 PM during office hours on the day in question . The workman has challenged the confessional statement on the ground of his free will to confess .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

The inquiry before this Tribunal is of different nature and cannot be compared with criminal and civil proceedings . The behaviour of workman was assessed by all the witnessed including complainant that was supported by confessional statement of the workman . There is no iota of evidence on record to prove that the confession made by the workman was not voluntary . Medical examination is necessary before the criminal court to prove a criminal case (charge ) against any accused beyond shadow of doubt . In the proceedings before this Tribunal , the evidence regarding general behaviour of any witness issufficient, if it is credible and has nexus with the act of the workman allegedly said to be misconduct. All the witnesses have given the evidence that on his general behaviour , he was looking as drunken man . No doubt , he has not consumed the liquor in their presence . His behaviour was not that of a normal man and he seems to be in drunken position is supported by the confessional statement of the workman . Thus , absence of forensic evidence on the basis of blood and urine sample of workman is not material in the proceedings before this Tribunal and in departmental proceedings . Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer has rightly given the report on charge no . 1 to be wellproved.

Resttwo charges are relating to misbehaviour , which are well proved by the independent evidence . The opportunity to cross - examine of all the witnesses was afforded to the workman. Accordingly, the Enquiry Officer has rightly given the report on charge no . 2 and 3 being wellproved.

Regarding charge - sheet dated 17-02-1992, charges nos. 1 , 4, 6 and 7 (partly), were not proved before the Enquiry Officer . On charge no. 2, there is an evidence of an eye witness and documentary evidence to prove that the workman has not only tampered with official telephone instrument but he has misused the telephone by permitting other persons to make calls during odd hours . The telephone instrument was recovered from his custody, which was used for making such calls . This instrument was identified by the witness . The telephone bills of the period in question also prove the misuse of the telephone . Before the period in question meaning thereby from 15-06-1990 to 11-09-1990 , the average telephone bil ! ofthe office was Rs . 2050 bye monthly . Average telephone bill after 11/1990 was reduced to Rs . 1550 bye - monthly, but the telephone bill of period in between 15-08-1990 to 11-09-1990 was Rs. 11,000 bye -monthly. This billing also corroborates the statement of eye witness that the workman misused the telephone. Hence , the Enquiry Officer has rightly held the charge well proved against the workman .

Likewise , on charge no . 3 and 5 , independent witnesses were recorded and after perusal of the inquiry report and its proceedings , I am of the view that there is no occasion for this Tribunal to interfere in the findings of the Enquiry Officer. It is only the charge no . 7, which is held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer partly . Charge no.7 is regarding misbehaving with the Medical Office of the BBMB . Providing the false Medical Certificate has been 4729 G1/09-12

241

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

held to be proved by the Enquiry Officer . The only evidence to prove the falsehood of the Medical Certificate filed by the workman is the statements of the Medical Officer who has not examined the workman nor have any concern with the Medical Certificate . Thus , I am of the view that Enquiry Officer has wrongly held the charge no . 7 proved and this part requires interference in the inquiry report . Thus , charge no . 1,4, 6 and 7 are not proved against the workınan and rest i . e . 2 , 3 and 5 are well proved .

Disciplinary authority on the basis of the charge- sheet awarded the punishment of compulsory retirement ofthe workman from the services . It is challenged by the workman on the grounds that opportunity of being heard on the quantum of punishment was not given to him . Management has filed the rules and regulations of the department . Rule 4 specifically reveals that if the punishing authority having regard to its findings on all or any of the articles of charge and on the basis of the evidence adduced during the inquiry is of the opinion that any of the penalties specified in Clause V to IX of Regulation 5 should be imposed on the employee, it shall make an order imposing such penalty and it shall not be necessary to give the employee any opportunity of making representation on the penalty proposed to be imposed. Misconduct and the penalty proposed to be given falls under clause V to IX of Regulation 5. Accordingly , as per rules of department , it was mandatory on the part of punishing authority to give an opportunity on filing written representation on proposed punishment .

I have also gone through Regulation 10 of concerned rules . Regulation 11 contains the procedure to be followed by the Enquiry Officer . The Enquiry Officer has violated the procedure as such. Proper opportunity of being heard was afforded to the workman and there was no violation of principle ofnatural justice . Now the question arise . whether the punishment awarded to the workman is proportionate to the committed misconduct ? The punishment awarded is compulsory retirement, whereas , the misconduct proved is misbehavior with the senior officers after drinking alcohol during office hours and misusing the property of the office ofmanagement.

Discipline of any organization is its backbone. An institution cannot survive without discipline . The acts of workman misbehaving officers and officials after drinking alcohol is a threatening act to the existence of any institution . Such type of workman never deserves to be in service and the management has rightly but very politely showed him the way out of the office . In my view, the punishing authority was very polite while awarding the punishment ofretirement and no interference is required in the punishment awarded to the workınan .

Accordingly, the reference is answered . Let the Central Government be approached for publication of the award and, thereafter, file be consigned - to record room.

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer 242

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 14 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 112.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 266/2000 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/500/1999- आईआर ( सी -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th December , 2009 S.O. 112. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 266/2000 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2009 .

[No. L- 22012/500/ 1999 - IR ( C - II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case I. D. No. 266/2000

The President, Food Corporation of India Ancillary Labour Union , Basti Sunwa Wali , Ward No. 2, Nai Abadi , Ferozpur , Ferozepur

PART 1 S3 ( );

workman . The reference was referred by the Central Govt . in 2000 and already nine years old .It appeared that workman isnot interested to pursue with the present reference. In view of the above , the present reference is returned as such to the Central Govt . for want of prosecution . Central Govt. be informed . File be consigned .

Chandigarh . 17-11-09

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 14 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 113. - औद्योगिक विवाद अििनयम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61 2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14 12 2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/265/2003 आईआर ( सीएम- II)] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th December , 2009 S.O. 113.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 61 2004) of the Central Govt. Indus . Tribunal - cum-Labour Court . Lucknow as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 14-12-2009 .

[No. L-22012/265/ 2003 - IR ( CM - II ) | AJAY KUMAR GAUR . Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

--Applicant

Versus

FCI , Ferozepur , District Manager , F.C.I. 151 , Sant Lal Road, Ferozpur ( Punjab)

--Respondent APPEARANCES

: None

For theworkman For the Management : Shri N. K. Zakhmi .

AWARD Passed on 17-11-09

Central Govt . vide notification No. L -22012 / 500/ 99- IR (CM - II), dated 13-07-2000, has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of FCI in terminating the services of the workers (as in Annexure) without paying them any retrenchment compensation is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workmen are entitled ?"

2. Case repeatedly called. None appeared for the CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT. LUCKNOW Present : Shri N.K.Purohit , Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 61/2004

Ref. No. 22012 /265/ 2003 - IR ( CM - II) dated 23-6-2004

Between The State Secretary .

Bharitya Khadya Nigam Karmachari Sangh . 5/6 , Habibullah Estate , Lucknow

(Espousing cause of Shri Ram Kishan ) AND

The Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India. 5/6, Habibullah Estate , Lucknow.

AWARD 26-11-2009

1. By order No. L - 22012 / 265 / 2003 - IR ( CM - 11 ) dated 23-6-2004 the Central Government in the Ministry of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Labour , New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) referred this industrial dispute between the State Secretary , Bharitya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh , 5/6 , Habibullah Estate , Lucknow ( Espousing cause of Shri Ram Kishan) and the Regional Manager , Food Corporation ofIndia , 5/6 , Habibullah Estate , Lucknow for adjudication .

2. The reference under adjudication is:

"Kya Prabandhan , Bharitya Khadya Nigam Lausan Dwara Karmkaar Shri Ram Kishan se Rupae 15,51 ki recovery dandadesh dinank 14-1-2003 ve dura kiya Jana Nayaysangat Hai Yadi Nahi, to sambandhe Karmkaar kis Anutosh ka Haqıdaar Hai ?" 3. The case of the workman's union , în oric the workman , Ram Kishan was served upon ahangeet dn.ed 12 /14-8-2002 for alleged storage loss amonging to R 5,938 under Regulation 60 ofthe Staff Regulation 197 ) 1s been alleged by the workman's union that the plinary Authority has passed the impugned penalty ora dated 14-1-2003 , imposing penalty for recovery of Rs . 15,518 upon the workman without considering the reply dated 28-8-2002 , submitted by the workman . It has been submitted by the workman's unton that it is QC staffwhich is responsible for giving required treatment to the food grain to maintain proper health of the grain and depot staff is not responsible for this at all ; and also the factors causing storage loss , such as birds and rodents were not taken into account by the management of FCI while passing impugned order . Further , it has been alleged by the workman's union that the impugned order is against principles of natural justice and also that of provisions contained in Regulation 60 ( 1 ) ( d ) of Staff Regulations 1971 , and accordingly, has prayed that the impugned order dated 14-1-2003 be set aside with consequential relief to the workman .

4. The management of the FCI has disputed the claim of the workman's union by filing its written statement wherein it has submitted that its action in imposing minor penalty vide order dated 14-1-2003 was in accordance with the Regulation 60 of FCI ( Staff) Regulation, 1971 and the workman was given full opportunity to defend himself, thus , there is nothing illegal with it . Further it has been submitted that the workman has not exhausted channel of alternative remedy provided under FCI ( Staff) Regulation , 1971 against the impugned order inasmuch as the reference order is bad in law; and accordingly, it has prayed that the claim of the workman's union be rejected without any relief to the workman concerned .

5. The workman's union has filed rejoinder wherein it has introduced nothing new , apart from reiterating facts already stated in the statement of claim .

6. The parties have filed documents in support of their respective claim . The case proceeded ex -parte against the workman's union when it failed to furnish its evidence in spite of ample opportunity being provided to it vide order dated 9-1-2006 ; and accordingly the management was

243

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

directed to put its evidence . The management examined Smt. Santosh Bakshi , Asstt . GM , FCI in support of their claim . The parties filed their written arguments apart from submitting oral submissions in support of their case .

7. Heard representatives of both the parties and scanned the documents on record .

8. The question under consideration is whether the recovery of Rs . 15,518 from the workman as penalty vide impugned order dated 14-1-2003 is justified ? "

9. The learned representative on behalf of the union has urged that the workman has categorically stated in para 4 ofthe claim statement that there was no norm in FCI to decide the justification of storage loss . The FCI has admitted this in the para 6 of the written statement . He has further submitted that no document has been referred in the charge sheet, therefore, documents not mentioned in the charge sheet cannot be considered. The Disciplinary Authority has not mentioned in its order as to which documents have been considered as such the impugned order is non - speaking and non - reasoned and findings are voilative of principles of natural justice . He has also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has not considered the reply of the workman , therefore , it is also violation of Regulation 60 ( 1 ) ( c ) of FCI ( Staff) Regulation , 1971 He has further submitted that the objection raised by the opposite party regarding validity of reference order is also not sustainable as validity of reference cannot be decided by the Tribunal . He has also submitted that objection regarding non availing alternate remedy of appeal is also liable to be rejected . In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on:

(i) 1999 SCC ( L & S ) 429 Kuldip Singh vs. Commissioner of Police .

( ii) . 1995 FLR ( 70 ) 858 UPSRTC vs. Sarfaraj Hussain .

(iii) . 2000 SCC ( L & S ) 85 Hardwari Lal vs. State of UP.

( iv). 2005 (23 ) LCD 1101 Ayodhya Singh vs. Oriental Bank of Commerce .

( v) . 2007 ( 2 ) SCC ( L& S ) 264 National Engineering Industries vs. State of Rajasthan .

(vi ) . 1984 SCC ( L & S ) 21 Jai Bhagwan vs. Management of Ambala Central Cooperative Bank.

(vii ) 1976 SCC ( L & S ) 398 DPO , Southern Railway vs. T.R. Chellappan .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

the impugned order after considering reply ofthe workman and there is no illegality in the order . He has also raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the reference on the grounds that the workman has not availed alternate remedy of appeal before the Appellate authority and reference is misconceived and bad in law as the same hasbeenmade without application of mind and considering the case of the management of FCI .

11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by both the sides . The preliminary objection raised by the management of the Corporation regarding maintainability of reference order on ground of not availing alternate remedy is not tenable in the light of principle laid down in 1984 SCC ( L& S ) 21 Jai Bhagwan vs. State of Haryana that existence of alternate remedy such as by the way of appeal would not confirm upon the Tribunal discretion to reference to adjudicate the reference referred to it. The other preliminary objection that reference is bad in law is also not sustainable as it is well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2007 (2 ) SCC ( L & S ) 264 National Engineering Industries vs. State of Rajasthan that validly of reference cannot be decided by the Industrial Tribunal as it is creature of statute and it gets jurisdiction on the basis of reference .

12. Penalty of recovery is a minor punishment and it is to be seen whether procedure for imposing minor penalty has been followed or not and whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice. Regulation 60 of FCI ( Staff ) Regulation , 1971 envisages that no order subject to sub Regulation ( iii) of Regulation 59, imposing on an employee any of the penalties described in clause . ( i ) to ( iv ) of Regulation 54 shall be made except after informing the employee . of the decision to take action against him on imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour onwhich it is proposed to be taken and after giving him opportunity of making such representation and after taking the representation , if any , submitted by the employee and record of inquiry , if any , into consideration . The Disciplinary Authority is also required to record finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour.

13. It is not disputed that in the present case memo dated 12-8-2002 ( 7/1 ) along with statement of imputation of misconduct (7/2) was served upon the workman and reply dated 28-2-2002 (7/3 ) to the said memo was submitted by theworkman.

14. In the statement of imputations of misconduct it is alleged that during the period August , 2001 while the workman was posted as AGI ( D ) at FSD Parasa Khera , failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty . On August 1, 2001 79 Quintal 92 Kg 500 gm of storage loss ofrice was found amounting to Rs . 65,938/ - , during storage period for 1 year 7 months 18 days which was quite unjustified . Thus , the workman manipulated in record and shown as it storage loss to hide his misconduct . According to the allegations against the workman , the alleged misconduct was that he manipulated in records of the storage in connivance with other depot staff and shown it

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] as storage loss to hide his misconduct ; but the findings of the. Disciplinary Authority on the alleged misconduct is that losses are due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the workman , Ram Kishan . Thus , the findings ofthe Disciplinary Authority are not in commensurate with the allegations in the statement of imputations of misconduct .

15. The workman contended in his reply that the rice stock was received at 14.9% moisture in stack No. 3B /10 and 14.8% moisture in stack No. 3C/ 3 by the technical staff posted at union No.3 under supervision of Shri N. K. Dubey, AM ( QC) . During storage period of said rice stock the moisture contents reduced up to 11.5 % in stack No. 3B/ 10 and in stack No. 3C/3 up to 11.8 % in the month of May, 2001 while at the time of dispatches of the stock moisture contents shown by the TAS are 12.8 % and 12.9% respectively . As such , the quantity of storage loss is justified in reference to the moisture reading recorded in May , 2001. He further contented that the storage fosses also increased due to unavoidable circumstances i.e. bird trouble, poor texture of gunnies at the time of dispatches . use of iron hooks by the labourers etc.

16. Upon perusal of the impugned order , it is evident that the Disciplinary Authority has not discussed the contentions raised by the workman in his reply . The Disciplinary Authority has passed following order:

"The undersigned after careful and dispassionate examination of the representation submitted by the C. O. contents of charge sheet and documents related to the case , finds that the points of representation furnished by C.O. on abnormal storage loss in his unit are not convincing . The undersigned after considering the reasons given by C.O. for storage loss in his submission to charge sheet and also taking into account the driage due to reduction in moisture contents storage period etc. still finds that the loss to the tune of Rs . 15518.00 is monetary value remained unjustified . These losses are due to carelessness and negligence on the part of said Shri Ram Kishan , AGI ( D) for which he should be penalized ."

In the said order it is mentioned that after careful examination of the representation , contents of charge sheet and documents related to the case , the Disciplinary Authority did not find points of representation regarding storage loss convincing , but it is not mentioned what documents relating to case were perused and on what basis he did not find the contention raised by the employee non- convincing . Further, there is no reference of any document in the statement of imputations of misconduct and as per legal proposition laid down in 1999 SCC ( L & S ) 429 Kuldeep Singh case Hon'ble Apex Court document not mentioned in the charge sheet cannot be considered.

commodity and does not absorb water due to change of weather . In para 08 , further pleaded that the internal moisture content plays an important role in reducing the weight of the food grain which is natural phenomenon and as such is beyond the control of the workman . Apart from this there are number of factors which are responsible for storage loss such as micro - organisms , longer period of storage , rats birds etc. In the written statement filed by the FCI , there is no categorical denial in regards to said pleadings . Similarly there no categorical denial of the averments made in para 09 to 12 in the statement of claim . Thus , impliedly admitted the averments made by the union that there are no norms to justify the storage losses and it is evident from the impugned order itself. In charge it is alleged that the storage loss to the tune of 79.92.500 Quintals valuing Rs . 65,938 was found which is unjustified; but in impugned order the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs . 15,500 only . The Disciplinary Authority has mentioned that the loss to the tune of said amount of monetary value remained unjustified. He has not given any reasons how and on what reasons or norms . he had found the loss to the tune of Rs . 15,500 unjustified and remaining as justified . The impugned order in this regard is arbitrary and non- reasoned.

18. The management of FCI has examined Smt . Santosh Bakshi , AGM to justify the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority. She has stated the procedure for determining the loss and tried to explain the reasons on the basis of which the Disciplinary Authority found the loss to the tune of Rs . 15,000 unjustified . In cross - examination she has stated that since year 2004 detailed speaking orders are been passed earlier Disciplinary Authority used to pass brief orders for imposing penalty . In cross - examination she could not explain what documents were considered by the Disciplinary Authority .

19. Admittedly , the impugned order was passed on 14-1-2003 and it is evident from the order itself that it is non - speaking order . It is not mentioned in the order on what basis or norms the losses were found justified and unjustified . If or is non - speaking and non - reasoned the lacuna cannot be filled up by substituting reasons through oral evidence . The Disciplinary Authority is duty bound to consider the reply and record reasons for disagreement and record its findings by speaking order .

20. It is well settled legal position that the Tribunal would not interfere with the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as a matter of course . The Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the findings and assume the role ofAppellate Authority. The Tribunal cannot reconsider or reappraise the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of conclusion arrived on record by the Disciplinary Authority unless there is violation of principle of natural justice or it is perverse .

21. In instant case . the Disciplinary Authority has not mentioned as to which document , have been considered. Further , there is no reference of any document in the statement of imputations of misconduct . The

245

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

Disciplinary Authority has mentioned in the impugned order that he did not find reply convincing without assigning any reason . The said order has been passed in cursory manner . The Disciplinary Authority has also not mentioned on what basis or norm he found losses as justified or unjustified as such the impugned order is non- speaking non - reasoned and violative of principles of natural justice and also violative of Regulation 60 ( 1 ) ( c ) of Staff Regulations 1971 , therefore, liable to be set aside .

22. In view of the above discussions the impugned order dated 14-1-2003 imposing penalty of recovery of Rs . 15,518 is unjustified . Thus , the same is set aside . 23. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

24. Award as above .

Lucknow 26-11-09

N. K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 114. - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 59/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -22012/263/2003- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th December , 2009 S.O. 114. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 59/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 14-12-2009 .

[ No. L- 22012/ 263 / 2003 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

I.D. No. 59/2004 Ref. No. L- 22012 /263 /2003 - IR ( CM - 11 ) dated 23-6-2004 BETWEEN

The State Secretary, Bharitya Khadya Nigam Karmachari Sangh , 5/6, Habibullah Estate , Lucknow . (Espousing cause of Shri A. K. Agarwal ) 246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

AND

The Regional Manger , Food Corporation of India , 5/6 , Habibullah Estate , Lucknow.

AWARD

Dated: 26-11-2009

1.By order No. L - 22012/263 /2003 - IR( CM - II) dated:

23-6-2004 the Central Govermment in the Minsitry of Lobour , New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub section ( 1 ) and sub section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 referred thisindustrial dispute between the State Secretary, Bharitya Khadya Nigam Karmachari Sangh , 5/6 , Habibullah Estate, Lucknow ( Espousing cause of Shri A. K. Agarwal) and the Regional Manger , Food Corporation of India 5/6, Habibullah Estate , Lucknow for adjudication.

2. The referece under adjudication is:

"Kya Prabandhan , Bharitya Khadya Nigam, Lucknow Dwara Karmkaar Shri A. K. Agarwal se Rupae 24,560/- ki recovery Dandadesh Dinank 14-1-2003 ke Dwara kiya Jana Nayaysangat Hai ? Yadi Nahi , to Sambandhit Karmkaar kis Anutosh ka Haqdaar Hai ? " 3. The case of the workman's union , in brief, is anat the workman , A. K. Agarwal was served upon a charge sheet dated 12 / 14-8-2002 for alleged storage loss amounting to Rs . 65,324/-under Regulation 60 ofthe Staff Regulation 1971. It has been alleged by the workman's union that the Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned penalty order dated 14-01-2003 , imposing penalty for recovery of Rs . 24560/- upon the workman without considering the reply dated 29-08-2002 , submitted by the workman. It has been submitted by the workman's union that it is QC staff which is responsible for giving required treatment to the food grain to maintain proper health of the grain and depot. staff is not responsible for this at all ; and also the factors causing storage loss , such as birds and rodents were not takeninto account by the management of FCI while passing impugned order . Further , it has been alleged by the workman's union that the limpugned order is against principles of natural justice and also that of provisions contained in Regulation 60 ( 1 ) ( d ) of Staff Regulations 1971 ; and accordingly, has prayed that the impugned order dated 14-01-2003 be set aside with consequential relief to theworkman.

4. The management ofthe FCI has disputed the claim of the workman's union by filing its written statement wherein it has submitted that its action in imposing minor penalty vide order dated 14-01-2003 was in accordance with the Regulation 60 of FCI ( Staff) Regulation , 1971 and the workman was given full opportunity to defend himself, thus, there is nothing illegal with it . Further it has been submitted that the workman has not exhausted channel of alternative remedy provided under FCI ( Staff) Regulation , 1971 against the impugned order inasmuch as the reference

PART II- SEC. 3 ( 1 )

===

order is bad in law; and accordingly it has prayed that the claim of the workman's union be rejected without any refiet to the workman concerned .

5. The workman's union has filed rejoinder wherein it has introduced nothing new, apart from reiterating facts already stated in the statement of claim .

6. The parties have filed documents in support of their respective claim . The workman examined himself whereas the management examined Smt . Santosh Bakshi , Asstt .GM, FCI in support of their claim . The parties filed Their written arguments apart from submitting oral submissions in support of their case .

7. Heard representatives of both the parties and scanned the documents on record .

8. The question under consideration is whether the recovery of Rs . 24,560/ - from the workman as penalty vide impugned order dated 14-01-2003 is justified

9. The learned representative on behalf of the union has urged that workman has categorically stated in para 4 of the statement claim that there was no norm in FCI t decide the justification of storage loss . The FCI has admitted this in the para 6 of the written statement . He has further submitted that no document has been referred in the charge sheet , therefore , documents not mentioned in the charge sheet cannot be considered . The Disciplinary Authority has not mentioned in its order as to which documents have been considered as such the impugned order is non - speaking and non - reasoned and findings are violative of principles of natural justice . He has also submitted that the Disciplinary Authority has not considered the reply of the workman, therefore , it is also violation of Regulation 60 ( 1) (c) of FCI ( Staff) Regulation. 1971. He has further submitted that the objection raised by the opposite party regarding validity of reference order is also not sustainable as validity of reference cannot be decided by the Tribunal . He has also submitted that objection regarding non availing alternate remedy of appeal is also liable to be rejected . In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on:

(i) . 1999 SCC ( L & S ) 429 Kuldip Singh vs. Commissioner of Police .

( ii). 1995 FLR(70 ) 858 UPSRTC vs. Sarfaraj Hussain.

( iii) . 2000 SCC ( L& S ) 85 Hardwari Lal vs. State of UP.

( iv) . 2005 ( 23 ) 1.CD 1101 Ayodhya Singh vs.Oriental Bank ofCommerce .

(v ) . 2007 (2 ) SCC ( L & S ) 264 National Engineering Industries vs. State of Rajasthan .

(vi ) . 1984 SCC ( L & S ) 21 Jai Bhagwan vs. Management of Ambala Central Cooperative Bank .

(vii) . 1976 SCC ( L & S ) 398 DPO , Southern Railway vs. T.R. Chellappan .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

10. Per contra , the learned representative on behalf ofthe corporation has urged that the FCI has not admitted any of the averments of the statement of the claim. The averment in written statement " the aforesaid is matter of records hence do not call for reply " does not mean FCI is admitting any of the averment. It means only that the claimant is put to prove his contention as stated in the statement of claim . The Disciplinary Authority has passed the impugned order after considering reply of the workman and there is no illegality in the order . He as also raised preliminary objections regarding maintainability of the reference on the grounds that the workman has not availed alternate remedy of appeal before the Appellate authority and reference is misconceived and bad in law as the same has been made without application of mind and considering the case of the management of FCI .

11. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions made by both the sides . The preliminary objection raised by the management of the Corporation regarding maintainability of reference order on ground of not availing alternate remedy is not tenable in the light of principle laid down in 1984 SCC ( L & S ) 21 Jai Bhagwan vs. State of Haryana that existence of alternate remedy such as by the way of appeal would not confirm upon the Tribunal discretion to reference to adjudicate the reference referred to it . The other preliminary objection that reference is bad in law is also not sustainable as it is well settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in 2007 ( 2 ) SCC ( L & S ) 264 National Engineering Industries vs. State of Rajasthan that validly of reference cannot be decided by the Industrial Tribunal as it is creature of statute and it gets jurisdiction on the basis of reference .

12. Penalty of recovery is a minor punishment and it is to be seen whether procedure for imposing minor penalty has been followed or not and whether the impugned order has been passed in violation of principle of natural justice . Regulation 60 of FCI ( Staff) Regulation 1971 envisages that no order subject to sub Regulation ( iii ) of Regulation 59, imposing on an employee any of the penalties described in clause ( i ) to ( iv ) of Regulation 54 shall be made except after informing the employee of the decision to take action against him on imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour on which it is proposed to be taken and after giving him opportunity of making such representation and after taking the representation , if any , submitted by the employee and record of inquiry , if any , into consideration . The Disciplinary Authority is also required to record finding on each imputation of misconduct or misbehavior .

13. It is not disputed that in the present case memo dated 12-8-2002 ( C - 7 ) along with statement of imputation ofmisconduct ( 7/2 ) was served upon the workman and reply dated 29-8-2002 ( 7/3 ) to the said memo was submitted by the workman .

14. In the statement of imputations of misconduct it is alleged that during the period August, 2001 while the

247

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

workman was posted as AG II ( D ) at FSD Parasa Khera . failed to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty . On August 1 , 2001 79.18 Quintal of storage loss of rice was found amounting to Rs . 65,324 during storage period for lyear 9 months which was quite unjustified. Thus , the workman manipulated in record and shown as it storage loss to hide his misconduct . According to the allegations against the workman , the alleged misconduct was that he manipulated in records of the storage in connivance with other depot staff and shown it as storage loss to hide his misconduct; but the findings of the Disciplinary Authority on the alleged misconduct is that losses are due to carelessness and negligence on the part of the workman . A.K. Agarwal . Thus , the findings of the Disciplinary Authority are not in commensurate with the allegations in the statement of imputations of misconduct.

15. The workman contended in his reply that the rice stock was received after 100% weighment at FSD Paras Khera in stack No. 4A/ 2 and 4C/ 9 during the period from 1-2-99 to 21-12-99 and 1-12-99 to 21-12-99 respectively under supervision of Shri S.C. Gupta , AG - I ( D ) with the assistance of other staff . He has further contended that he took charge of stock ofunit No. 4 along with stock of stack No. 4A/ 2 and 4C/9 from Shri S.C. Gupta, the ten AG - I ( D ) on 31-8-2001 on peripheral counting of bags only; whereas the stock of stack No. 4A/ 2 and 4C/ 9 was dispatched on 27 & 28-8-2001 . Further at that time he was posted at railhead to supervise the rack loading . The loading operation from stack No. 4A/ 2 & 4C/9 were supervised by Shri Saadat Ali , Ag - II (Q ) under the direct , supervision of Shri , B.D. Sharma , AM ( D) , unit No.4 . He has also contended in his reply that the stock having moisture contents between tolerance limit 14% to rejection limit 15 % appropriate full value quality cut were imposed by quality control staff. This full value quality cut were recovered from the State Govt . and value so recovered from State Govt . which is 1 % and adjusted against storage loss must be deducted to determine net storage loss . He also raised contention that during storage period of said rice stock the moisture contents reduced up to 11.7% in stack No. 4A/2 and 11.4 % in stack No. 4C/ 9 in the month ofMay 2001 while at the time of dispatches of the stock moisture contents shown at 13 % and 12.9% respectively. But the moisture content once released during storage period cannot be regained up to maximum extent . Further , storage losses also increase due to unavoidable circumstances i.e. bird trouble , poor texture of gunnies etc. Thus , the storage losses have occurred due to natural causes which are beyond the human control .

" The undersigned after careful and dispassionate examination of the representation submitted by the C.O. contents of charge sheet and documents related 248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

to the case , finds that the points of representation furnished by C.O. on abnormal storage loss in his unit are not convincing . The undersigned after considering the reasons given by C.O. for storage loss in his submission to charge sheet and also taking into account the driage due to reduction in moisture contents storage period etc. still finds that the loss to the tune of Rs . 24560.00 is monetary value remained unjustified . These losses are due to carelessness and negligence on the part of said Shri A.K. Agarwal , AG II (D) for which he should be penalized. " In the said order it is mentioned that after careful examination of the representation , contents of charge sbeet and documents related to the case , the Disciplinary Authority did not find points of representation regarding storage loss convincing , but it is not mentioned what documents relating to case were perused and on what basis hedid not find the contention raised by the employee non- convincing. Further, there is no reference of anydocument in the statement of imputations of misconduct and as per legal proportion laid down in 1999 SCC ( L& S ) 429 Kuldeep Singh case Hon'ble Apex Court document not mentioned in the charge sheet cannot be considered .

17. It is also pertinent to mention that in para 04 of the statement of claim the union has alleged that there are no norm in FCI to decide the justification of storage loss . In para 07 he has pleaded that rice is a non-hygroscopic commodity and does not absorb water due to change of weather. In para 08 , further pleaded that the internal moisture content plays an important role in reducing the weight of the food grain which is natural phenomenon and as such is beyond the control of the workman . Apart from this there are number of factors which are responsible for storage loss such as micro - organisms , longer period of storage , rats birds etc. In the written statement filed by the FCI , there is no categorical denial in regards to said pleadings . Similarly there no categorical denial of the averments made in para 09 to 12 in the statement of claim . Thus, impliedly admitted the averments made by the union that there are no norms to justify the storage losses and it is evident from the impugned order itself. In charge it is alleged that the storage loss to the tune of 79.18 Quintals valuing Rs . 65,324 was found which is unjustified; but in impugned order the Disciplinary Authority has imposed the penalty of recovery of Rs . 24,560 only . The Disciplinary Authority has mentioned that the loss to the tune of said amount of monetary value remained unjustified. He has not given any reasons how and on what reasons or norms he had found the loss to the tune of Rs . 24,560 unjustified and remaining as justified. The impugned order in this regard is arbitrary and non - reasoned.

18. The workman , A.K. Agarwal has stated in his statement on oath that he had taken charge of the depot on 31-8-2001 as AG.II. ( D) whereas shortage for which penalty ofrecovery had been imposed is pertaining to 28-08-2001 .

[PART II --SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 19. The management of FCI has examined Smt . Santosh Bakshi , AGM to justify the impugned order passed by the Disciplinary Authority . She has stated in her cross - examination that allegations of storage loss are for the period of August, 2001 which means that the loss has occurred prior to August , 2001. She has also admitted that the workman had taken charge as AG - II ( D ) on 31-08-2001; But she has stated that the workman was posted inthe same unit prior to 31-08-2001 . Thus , it is notdisputed that the workman had taken charge as AG II ( D ) on 31-08-2001 the workman has stated that at that time stack No. 4A/2 and 4C/9 had already been dispatched on 27 & 28-08-2001 . The above statement of the Workman also finds support from paper No. 7/6 and 7/7 , which reveals that stack No. 4A/2 and 4C/9 were liquidated on 28-08-2001 i.e. prior to taking charge by the workman as incharge , but the contention of the workman on this material point has not been considered by the Disciplinary Authority in impugned order . It is evident from order itself that it is non- speaking and non- reasoned order . It is not mentioned in the order that on what basis losses were found justified and unjustified . The Disciplinary Authority is duty bound to consider the contentions raised in the reply to the charge sheet and record reasons for disagreement and its findings by speaking order .

20. It is well settled legal position that the Tribunal would not interfere with the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority as a matter of course . The Tribunal cannot sit in appeal over the findings and assume the role ofAppellate Authority. The Tribunal cannot reconsider or reappraise the evidence and substitute its own conclusion in place of conclusion arrived on recordby the Disciplinary Authority unless there is violation of principle of natural justice or it is perverse .

21. In instant case , the Disciplinary Authority has not mentioned as to which documents have been considered. Further , there is no reference of anydocument in the statement of imputations of misconduct . The Disciplinary Authority has mentioned in the impugned order that he did not find reply convincing without assigning any reason . The said order has been passed in cursory manner . The Disciplinary Authority has also not mentioned on what basis or norm he found losses as justified or unjustified as such the impugned order is non- speaking , non - reasoned and voilative of principles of naturaljustice and also voilative of Regulation 60 ( 1 ) ( C ) of StaffRegulations 1971 , therefore , liable to be set aside .

22. In view of the above discussions the impugned order dated 14-01-2003 imposing penalty of recovery of Rs . 24,560 is unjustified. Thus , the same is set aside .

23. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

24. Award as above .

Lucknow 26-11-09

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

249

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9, 2010/पौष 19, 1931

नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 115.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , असनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 67/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-22012/335/2005 - आईआर ( सीएम-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th December , 2009 S.O. 115. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 67/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bansra Colliery of M/s . ECL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2009 .

[No. L-22012/335/2005 - IR ( CM - 11 ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Manoranjan Pattnaik, Presiding Officer Reference No. 67 of 2006

Parties : The Agent , Bansra Colliery of M/ s . ECL, Bansra , Burdwan

Vrs .

Dy. President, Colliery Mazdoor Union , 27 G.T. Road, Asansol , Burdwan .

REPRESENTATIVES

: None

For the Management

None

Forthe Union (Workman)

State: West Bengal Industry : Coal

Dated , the 23-09-2009

AWARD

Inexercise ofpowers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt. of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L -22012/ 335/2005-1R ( CM- II) dated 05-09-2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

4729 G1/09-13

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of M/s . ECL in dismissing Shri Sukumar Kora , U. G. Loader , from service w.e.f. 07-09-2003 is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief is the workmen entitled ? " Having received the Order No. L-22012/ 335/ 2005 - IR (CM- II) dated05-09-2006 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 67 of2006 wasregistered on 25-09-2006 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

The workman nor his authorized representative nor the Union raising this Industrial dispute ever filed statement of claim and did not make their appearance at all. The management too did not take any steps apparently finding the workman's no interest for redressal . As such there is reason to find that no dispute exists and the workman is entitled to no relief . Hence

ORDERED

Let an " Award" be and same is passed as per above . Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 116.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947, का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस. ई.. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 40/1996 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/197/1995- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th December , 2009

S.O. 116. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 40/1996) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the 250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2009 .

[No. L - 22012/ 197/ 1995 - IR(C - II)] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMΕΝΤ INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/ 40/96

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan The General Secretary,

M. P. Koyla Mazdoor Sabha , ---(HMS) , Post South J. K. D. Colliery,

Workman/Union Distt. Surguja (MP)

Versus

Sub Area Manager ,

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] issubmitted that the workmen as per list attached with the reference be regularized with all consequential benefits from the date of their engagement .

3. The non- applicant/management appeared and filed reply of the statement of claim . The case of the management , interalia, is that it is denied that Shri Ramesh Chand and 14 others were working as sweeper in Ramnagar S.A. The non - applicant had sufficient number of sweepers in its roll for sweeping and sanitation . The sweeping manpower was 31 against the project provision of 21 m 1986. The management is said to have awarded work order for removal of debris and garbage which was accumulated after sweeping by the regular employees . The contractor was required to simply lift the garbage and dispose it off at a specified place . This job cannot be construed as job e sweeping . It is stated that the management had no knowledge as to whether the contractor had utilized the service of these workmen for execution of the work order awarded to him . The management had never engaged contract labours in prohibited category ofjob , i.e. sweeping . The management had not appointed , taken work nor supervised the work of the so called workmen . As such , the question of less payment does not arise . It is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the manageinent.

.Management

Ramnagar Area, SECL , Post Jhimar Colliery, Dastt Shahdol (MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of November , 2009 !. TheGovernment of India , Ministry of Labour vide itsNotification No. L- 22012/ 197/95 - IR ( C - II) dated 30-1-96 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: -

"Whether the demand of the General Secretary , M. P. Koyła Mazdoor Sabha ( HMS ) for regularization of the sweeping workers named in the schedule below on the tell of Ramnagar RO Hasdeo Area of SECL. is legal and justified ? To what relief these workers are entitled ?" 2 The case of the Union/workmen in short is that the 15 workmen were engaged by the management for sweeping work in Ramnagar reorganization since 1986 and their services were utilized to keep the area round the Colliery chowrahas and colliery drains in good condition ander the supervision of Medical Officer . Their attendance was marked by the management personnel . The work of these workmen was of perennial nature and they were ngaged in prohibited category of work . Their work was similar to the regular employees who were paid category I and II wages . These workmen is said to have been engaged diretly by the SECL for sweeping work and they had completed 240/190 days in a calendar year . The regular s' rength of the sweeping workers were decreasing every due to different reasons . Under the circumstances , it yea

4. After filing statement of claim , the Union/ workmen became absent . The case was fixed for evidence of the workmen but the Union/workmen did not file any evidence . As such the then Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against the Union/workmen on 30-8-07.

5. The only issue is as to whether the demand of the union for regularization of the sweeping workers as in the schedule , of Ramnagar , R.O. Hasdeo Area of SECI is legal and justified ?

6. To prove the case , the management has examined one witness . Shri T. Samuel was working as Personnel Manager at Ramnagar Sub Area of SECL . He has stated thatthe so called 15 workmen were never worked as sweeper in Ramnagar sub Area. The sweeping man power of the non - applicant was 31 as against the project provision of 21 in 1986. He has stated that the non - applicant awarded work order for removal of garbage and debris which was collected bythe regular sweepers and the contractor was required to simply lift the garbage and disposed it off at a specified place . The non- applicant has filed copies of those documents in support of the work order to contractors which are MD - 1 and MD -5 . He has stated that the work order shows that it was only for removal of garbage within 14days and for dumping at a particular place . He has further stated that the removal of debris and garbage and dumping itaway can neither be termed as sweeping nor it is prohibited by the Ministry. His evidence clearly shows that there was no contract for labour supply . His evidence isunrebutted . There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence { भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Hisevidence clearly shows that the so called workmen were never in the employment of the non -applicant.

7. The documents filed by the management show that the management invited quotations and the work order was issued to lowest contractors for removal of garbage . Accordingly after execution of the work, the bill war submitted after completion certificate and the payment was made . These documents clearly show that none of the so called workmen were engaged in sweeping work. l'us it is clear that the demand of the union for regularization of the workmen, as in schedule , of the reference is not inga ! and justified. Accordingly the reference is answered in favour of the non - applicant/ management

8. In the result , the award is passed expo :Against the union/workmen without any order to costs .Let the copies of the award he sort to the vernment of India , Ministry of Labour & Employmen er rules .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली , 14 दिसम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 117. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 95/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -22012/456/2004 - आईआर(सीएम-1 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th December , 2009 S.O. 117. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 95/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Pure Searsole Colliery of M/ s . ECL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2009 .

[No. L- 22012/ 456/2004- IR ( CM - II) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Manoranjan Pattnaik, Presiding Officer Reference No. 95 of 2005

Parties : The Agent , Pure Searsole Colliery of M/ s . ECL , Searsole Rajbari , Burdwan

251

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 19:31

Vrs .

Sri Chitta Bagdi , Devchandnagar , P. S. Jamuria , Burdwan.

REPRESENTATIVES

: None

For the management

Forthe union (workman) : None

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated, the 15-09-2009

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012 / 456/ 2004 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 01-09-2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tiribunal.

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of the management of Pure Searsole Colliery of M / s . ECL in dismissing Shri Chitta Bagdi , U. G. Loader , from service is fegal and justified ? If not to what reliet is the works en entitled ? "

Having received the Order No. 1-22012 /456 /2004 - IR (CM- II) dated 01-09-2005 of the above said reference from theGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No.95 of 2005 was registered on 09-09-2005 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims. In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .

The workman nor his authorized representative nor the Union raising this Industrial dispute ever filed statement of claim and did not make their appearance at all . The management too did not take any steps apparently finding the workman's no interest for redressal . As such there i reason to find that no dispute exists and the workman is entitled to no relief . Hence

ORDERED

Let an "Award" be and same is passed as per above . Seno the copies of the order to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer 252

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 /PAUSA 19 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 14 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 118.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 96/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/464/2004- आई. आर. ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th December , 2009 S.O. 118. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 96/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Satgram Area of M/ s . ECL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2009 .

[No. L - 22012/ 464/2004- IR ( CM - II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Manoranjan Pattnaik , Presiding Officer Reference No. 96 of2005

Parties : The Agent , kalidaspur Project ofM/ s . ECL , Bhara Kalibari , Burdwan

Vrs.

Sri Ayan Bouri , Vill . Phunberia , P.O. Samdi , Burdwan.

REPRESENTATIVES

For the management : None

For the union ( workman) : None

Industry : Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated , the 23-09-2009

AWARD

in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L-22012/464/2004- IR (CM - II ) dated 31-08-2005 has been

[PART 11 --SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal .

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of the management of Kalidaspur Project under M / s . ECL in dismissing Shri Ayan Bouri , Loader , from service w.e.f. 07-01-1999 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief is the workmen entitled ? יי

Having received the Order No. 1. - 22012 / 464 / 2004 - IR (CM- II) of the above said reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No.96 of 2005 was registered on 09-09-2005 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .

The workman nor his authorized representative nor the Union raising this Industrial dispute ever filed statement of claim and did not make their appearance at all . The management too did not take any steps apparently finding the workman's no interest for redressal . As such there is reason to find that no dispute exists and the workman is entitled to no relief . Hence

ORDERED

Let an " Award " be and same is passed as per above . Send the copies of the order to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 14 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 119.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 97/2005 ) 'को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012 /490/2004- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th December , 2009 S.O. 119.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 97/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Industrial Dispute between the management of M / s . Eastern Coalfields Limited , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2009.

[No. L - 22012 /490 / 2004 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Manoranjan Pattnaik , Presiding Officer Reference No. 97 of 2005

Parties : The Agent , Sangramgarh Colliery of M/ s. ECL, Samdi Burdwan

Vrs.

Sri Basudeb Bhandari , Electric Helper , Sangramgarh Colloery , P.O. Sarndi , Burdwan REPRESENTATIVES

None

For the management :

For the union ( workman) : None

State : West Bengal Industry : Coal

Dated, the 23-09-2009

AWARD

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L - 22012/ 490 / 2004 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 29-08-2005 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of the management of Sangramgarh Colliery of M / s . ECL in dismissing Shri Basudeb Bhandari , Electric Helper from services on 29-09-2002 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief is the workmen entitled ? יי

Having received the Order No. L- 22012 / 490 / 2004 - IR (CM - II ) dated 29-08-2005 of the abovesaid reference from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No.97 of2005 was registered on 09-09-2005 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the

253

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned.

The workman nor his authorized representative nor the Union raising this Industrial dispute ever filed statement of claim and did not make their appearance at all . The management too did not take any steps apparently finding the workman's no interest for redressal . As such there is reason to find that no dispute exists and the workman is entitled to no- relief . Hence

ORDERED

Let an " Award " be and same is passed as per above . Send the copies of the order to the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 120.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 30/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -22012 / 126/2005 - आई.आर. ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th December , 2009 S.O. 120.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 30/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 14-12-2009 .

[No. L- 22012 / 126 / 2005 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Present : Shri Manoranjan Pattnaik , Presiding Officer Reference No. 30 of 2006

Parties : The Agent , Damra Colliery of M / s . ECL, Kalipahari , Burdwan

Vrs .

254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

General Secretary, Koyla Mazdoor Congress , Gorai Mansion , G.T. Road , Asansol , Burdwan .

REPRESENTATIVES

None

Forthe management :

For the union (Workman) : None

Industry: Coal

State : West Bengal

Dated, the 23-9-2009

AWARD

Inexercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) Government of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 126/2005 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 21-07-2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by thisTribunal :

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of ECL in not providing employment to dependent Sri Madhab Bouri ofLate Doman Bouri , Ex- Boiler Fireman is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the workmen is entitled ?"

Having received the Order No. L- 22012/ 126/ 2005 - IR (CM - II ) dated 21-07-2006 of the above said reference from the Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No.30 of 2006 was registered on 14-08-2006 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered postto the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .

The workman nor his authorized representative nor the Union raising this Industrial dispute ever filed statement of claim and did not make their appearance at all . The management too did not take any steps apparently finding the workman's no interest for redressal . As such there is reason to find that no dispute exists and the workman is entitled to no relief . Hence

ORDERED

Let an "Award" be and same is passed as per above . Send the copies ofthe order to the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer

[ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) } नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 121.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय नं.1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 151/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22012/119/1997- आईआर (सी II) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December , 2009 S.O. 121. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No 151/98) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexur in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 15-12-2009

[No. L -22012/ 119/ 1997 - IR ( C- !!)

AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. ID No. 151/98

Shri Pritam Chand S/ o Shri Roora Ram , Village Wada . P. O. Lakhanpal , Gurdaspur

...Applicant Versus

The District Manager , F. C. I. , Tibri Road , Gurdaspur

....Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

: SriHitesh Nagpal For the Management : Sri Ravi Kant Sharma .

AWARD

Passed on 2-12-09

Government of India vide Notification No. 1. - 22012 119/97 - IR ( C - II ) dated 21-7-98 referred the following Industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial DisputesAct , 1947 (the Act in short ) for adjudication to thistribunal :-

14 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

" Whether the action of the management of F.C.I. in terminating the services of Shri Pritam Chand w.e.f. 31-12-94 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from what date ?"

I have perused the pleadings of the parties . The main dispute which is clear from the pleadings of the parties is whether the workman Shri Pritam Chand had ever worked with the management of FCI directly or through TMC ( Three Member Committee) . It is the contention of the workman that he was working with the Food Corporation of India , Gurdaspur Depot as Handling labour ( Palleydar ) since 1979- 80 continuously and regularly till his illegal termination w.e.f. 31-12-94 . He was getting wages between 2000 , 2500 permonth at the time of his illegal termination . The payment ofwages were made good to the workman through T.M.C. constituted by Sarvshri Rattan Singh , Satta Masih , and Nishan Masih in accordance with the policy of Food Corporation of India and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court . His services were terminated by the T.M.C. (three member committee ) and Food Corporation of India without notice and retrenchment compensation arbitrarily. Juniors to him were retained in the services . His services were illegally terminated and four persons namely Sarvshri Dhian Masih, Sukha Masih , Gurnam Masih and Kaku Masih were appointed . Workman requested F.C.I. and T.M.C. several times but no heed was given to his request . Accordingly , vide demand notice dated 12-03-96 , and industrial dispute was raised and on failure of conciliation report , this reference .

The management of respondent vide written statement contested the claim and denied all the materials facts relied upon by the workman . The employer - employee relationship was challenged with the contention that Shri Pritam Chand had never worked with Food Corporation of India or T.M.C. His name did not figure in the list of persons prepared by T.M.C. It was also contended that no junior was retained and no fresh recruit were made . The service of the workman was not terminated because he was no more in services with the Food Corporation of India.

Parties were afforded the opportunity of being heard. Shri Pritam Chand filed his affidavit . He was cross - examined by learned counsel of the management as WW1 on 02-11-04 . Shri Surjit Masih , Bhagwan Dass and Shri P.K. Nayak also appeared for workman , filed their respective affidavits and they were cross - examined respectively as WW2 , WW3 and WW4 by learned counsel for the management . Shri Akhilesh Yadav , Area Manager , Gurdaspur , F.C.I. filed his affidavit for management and he was cross -examined in detail by learned counsel for the workman.

All the relevant documents are on record .

I have heard the parties at length . The documents filed by the workman regarding the list of persons working

255

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

in F.C.I. through T.M.C. figure the name of one Shri Pritam Chand S / o Shri Beli Ram . The name has been highlighted and relied upon by the workman but as contended by the workman his father's name is Roora Ram and not Beli Ram . There is another Shri Pritam Chand S / o Shri Beli Ram who had worked with Food Corporation of India . It is admitted by WWI in his cross - examination at page no . 2 in 11th line from the bottom that Shri Pritam Chand S/ o Shri Beli Ram wasworking as Chaudhary in Food Corporation of India . It means that there is no confusion regarding another Shri Pritam Chand.S / o Shri Beli Ram working in Food Corporation of India . In all the attendance register filed by the management name of Shri Pritam Chand S / o Shri Beli Ram is highlighted . In these documents there is no other name of Shri Pritam Chand S / o Shri Roora Ram .

During the course of arguments learned counsel for the workman argued that workman had worked with gang no . 2 through T.M.C. Accordingly , this Tribunal directed the management to file entire record regarding the attendance register of workers who had worked during the period in question in gang no . 2. Entire record was filed by the management and this record does not figure the name ofthe workman .

It is not disputed that on direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court , management of Food Corporation of India introduced the system of T.M.C. ( three member committee) for payment of the wages directly to the workman on abolition of the contract system . As per the policy , the contractor was supposed to give the list of workers working under him , which provided the services to the Food Corporation of India and on the basis of that list every worker discharged the work in Food Corporation of India and was to pay the wages through a mechanism named as T.M.C. ( three member committee) . Learned Counsel for the workman has pressed two issues very seriously . Firstly, co-worker who is the office beare has adduced the evidence that they have seen the workman working with the management of Food Corporation of India . The second contention is that the list which was provided with by the contractor to the Food Corporation of India on introduction ofT.M.C. system has not been filed by the management . Onthe basis of these two contentions ( not doubt there are other contentions as well ) the workman has requested for setting aside his termination order and directed the management for reinstating his services with back wages . The workman has relied upon on the following case laws :-

( 1) R. M. Yellatti Vs. Asstt . Executive Engineer , 2006 , S.C. cases (L& S ) 1 ,

(2) U.P. State Brassware Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Uday Narian Pandey , 2006 S.C. cases ( L& S) 250 ,

(3) Food Corporation of India Workers Union Vs. TheFood Corporation of India, 1996 ( 4 ) SCT 295 , 256

[PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

(4) Surendranagar District Panchayat Vs. Dahyabhai Amarsinh , 2006 , S.C.C. (L& S ) 38 .

(5) Manager , Reserve Bank of India , Bangalore Vs. S.Mani and Others , 2005, S.C.C. (L& S ) 609.

(6) Gurbachan Singh Vs. M/s Jagyasu Re-rolling Mills and another , 2002 (4) L& S (JR) 410.

(7) Man Behal Vs. Food Corporation of India, 1993

(3) S.C.T. 56 .

I have gone through all the case laws filed by the workman. In Food Corporation of India workers Unions Vs. Food Corporation of India (supra) Hon'ble the Supreme Court has dealt with the question of identity of workman . Hon'ble the Apex Court had directed that technality should not guide the Tribunal and identity of the workman had to be tested on the basis of material on record .

It is the contention of the workman that he worked withthe management of Food Corporation of India till the mechanism of T.M.C. was adopted and implemented . As per the contention of the workman he worked with the Food Corporation of India through contractor and on introduction of T.M.C. ( three member committee) mechanism in F.C.I. through T.M.C. The best evidence is the list ofworkers maintained by the Food Corporation of India. Inthis list name of the workman did not figure . During course of arguments , it was informend by the workman that he was working in gang no . 2. The Food Corporation of India was directed to provide with the list of workers working in gang no . 2 during the period in question . The management of Food Corporation of India comply with the order and filed the list of workers working in gang No. 2 during the period in question . In this list as well , the name ofworkman did not figure .

workman has himself admitted to work that the T.M.C. , the list provided by the ' Thekedar ' containing the name ofthe workers working under him for Food Corporation of India is not too much of significance . To prove that he has worked under T.M.C. he has just produce three witnesses who allegedly to have seen him working under T.M.C. But I am unable to find out any iota of documentary evidence to provide that he had ever worked under I.M.C. mechanism. It is true that provisions of Indian Evidence Act , are not applicable in the proceedings before the Tribunal , but for adjudication of this reference on the basis ofjustice , equity and good conscious , the principles of evidence can be taken into consideration . The reliable evidence is the documentary evidence regarding identity and working of the workman with T.M.C. The oral contents regarding any documents come at the second stage . Entiredocuments have been placed on record by the management and the name ofthe workman did not figure . It is not the contention ofthe workman that the documents filed are forged and fabricated. At the cost of repetition , during arguments workman claimed that he had worked with ga.'g No 2. This Tribunal at once directed the management to file the it of the workmen who had worked for gang No. 2 during the period in question . Entire record was filed and the name of theworkman did not find figure . Thus , the cumulative effect of the oral evidence adduce by the workman and the documentary evidence place on record by the management his that the workman failed to prove his identity that he had ever worked with Food Corporation of India in T.M.C. On is failure to prove his working as the worker through T.M.C. , I am of the view that there is no employer- employee relationship between the management of Food Corporation of India and the workman . Shri Pritam Chand S/ o Shri Beli Ram has filed his affidavit that he worked with the Food Corporation of India and no other Shri Pritam Chand S / o Shri Roora had every worked under T.M.C. The affidavit filed by Shri Pritam Chand cannot be considered as such because Shri Pritam Chand S / o Shri Beli Ram could not be cross - examined because of his sad demise but the contents which are admitted to the workman can be relied upon and it is admitted that Shri Pritam Chand S/ o Shri Beli Ram has worked in Food Corporation of India through T.M.C. As stated earlier that there is one more Pritam Chand S/o Beli Ram whose name figured in the list. It is admitted by the workman and all the other witnesses deposed for the workman that Pritam Chand S /o Beli Ram was another workman working with Food Corporation of India . So , there is no confusion and doubt in the name of Pritam Chand S/o Beli Ram whose name find figure in the list . In the entire list the name of Pritam Chand S/ o Roora Ram did not find place.

Thus , on the basis of the above observation , I am of the view that there is no employer -employee relationship between the workman and the management of Food Corporation of India . Accordingly , no question for terminating the services of the workman arises . The reference is answered as such . Let Central Government be approached for publication of award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

It is also the claim of the workman that he worked through T.M.C. Thus , it is not the contention of the workman that his name was not forwarded by the contractor to the Food Corporation of India at the time of the abolition of the contract system and introduction of T.M.C. mechanism . The workman has contended that he worked under the T.M.C. , was paid wages by the T.M.C. and his services were terminated by T.M.C. and F.C.I. Once the

G. K. SHARMA. Presiding Officer

14 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 15 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 122.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस. ई. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद मे केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/05 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 15-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/96/2004- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 15th December, 2009 S.O. 122.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 18/05) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 15-12-2009.

[No. L-22012/96/2004- IR (CM- II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT/LC /R/ 18/05

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

257

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

"Whether the action of the Chief General Manager. Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL in not promoting Shri Nageshwar Singh from Clerk Gr - III to Gr- II before / alongwith his juniors is fair and justified ? If not , to whatrelief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date ? "

2. The workman inspite of proper notice did not appear , therefore , the case proceeded ex parte against him on4-7-07.

3. The case of the management is that the workman claimed promotion from the post of Clerk Gr . III to Gr. II w.e.f. 31-7-98 alleging that he was superseded by his juniors . It is stated that a DPC for promotion from Clerk Gr. III to Gr.II on the basis of seniority - cum- merit basis was constituted in the month of Feb. 98. The workman Shri Nageshwar Singh was rated as " Average " for the year 1995-96 by the DPC and as such his performance was not found satisfactory. The promotion is not matter of right rather it is also linked with performance . Subsequently, he waspromoted to Gr. II on 31-3-99 after finding him fit . It is submitted that the award be passed in favour of the management.

4. The only issue for decision is as to whether the action ofthe management in not promoting Shri Nageshwar Singh from ClerkGr . III toGr . II before / alongwith juniors is fair and justified ?

.Workman/Union

The Joint General Secretary , Rashtriya Colliery Workers Federation (Now RCMC) PO Kotma Colliery, Distt . Shahdol (MP)

Versus

The ChiefGeneral Manager , Jamuna & Kotma Area of SECL , PO -Jamuna Distt . Shahdol ( MP)

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 29th day of June , 2009 1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 22012/96/2004 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 1-02-2005 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :-

4729 G1 /09-14

5. To prove, the management has adduced oral and documentary evidence . Management witness Shri V. D. Bhinde was working as Personnel Manager in the year 1998 at Jamuna Kotma Area. He has stated that the workman claimed promotion w.e.f. 31-7-98 but the Departmental Promotion Committee ( in short DPC) had not found him fit. He has further stated that eligible candidates were promoted onthe recommendation of DPC . The said DPC proceeding is marked as Exhibit M/2 . The annual appraisal of the workman of the relevant period is also proved which is marked as Exhibit M/3 . This shows that he was average . He has further stated that subsequently he improved his performance and was found fit by the DPC and was promotedfrom 31-3-99. The copy of the said promotion letter is marked as Exhibit M/4 . Thus it is evident from the discussion made above that the action of the management was fair and justified . The issue is , accordingly , answered.

6. In the result, the decree is passed ex parte against the workman and in favour of the management without any costs.

7. Copy of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer 258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19, 1931

नई दिल्ली, 16 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 123.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का. 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिन्ध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय-1 , चंड़ीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 14-12-2009 को फप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/172/97- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय, अनुभाग अधिकारी New Delhi , the 16th December , 2009 S.O. 123. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 15/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court- I Chandigarh , now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the managenient of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 14-12-2000

[ No. L- 12012/ 172/97 -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. 15/98

Sh . Joginder Singh , C/ o Tek Chand Sharma , 25, Sant Nagar , Civil Lines , Ludhiana - 144001 .

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

=== islegal and justified? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled and from what date?" 2. Case repeatedly called . Workman is not present for his evidence . The case is already eleven years old . Despite knowledge the workman has not put up his apearance for his evidence . It appears that workman is not interested to peruse with the present claim in reference. Hence, the present claim in the reference is returned to the Central Government as not perused by the workman. Central Government be informed. File be consigned Chandigarh, 19-11-2009 , Ludhiana Camp Court

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 124.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके स्र्मकार्य के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नागपुर पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/49/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/211/2003 आई आर ( डो.यू. )। सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the i 7th December , 2009

...Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank , ZonalOffice- II , Model Town , Jallandhar - 144001

S.O. 124 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref No CGIT/NGP/49/2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employer in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009 .

[No. L -40012/211 /2003 -IR ( DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

.Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

Shri Tek Chand Sharma

: Shri J.S. Sathi

For the management

AWARD

Passed on: 19-11-2009, Ludhiana Camp Court Central Govt . vide notification No. L- 12012 / 172/ 97 / IR (B - 11), dated 13-1-98 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication;

"Whether the action of the management of the Punjab & Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Joginder Singh, S/ o Beant Singh , w.e.f. 16-1-95 BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER. CGIT -CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 49/2004 Dt.: 7-12-2009 :

Petitioner/ PartyNo. 1

Shri Laxman Balnath Jadhav . Lohgaon Road, Sakhala Plot. Behind Parli Railway Gate, Opp . Dr. Dagade Hospital, Parbhani , Tehsil & Dist , Parbhani -431401

Versus

Respondent/ PartyNo. 2

The General Manager, Telecom . BSNL, Kothari Complex , Shivaji Nagar , Nanded .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD

Dated: 9thNovember , 2009 1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri Laxman Balnath Jadhav, Lohgaon Road, Sakhala Plot , Behind Parli Railway Gate , Opp . Dr. Dagade Hospital , Parbhani (Party No. 1) and the General Manager , Telecom . BSNL , Kothari Complex , Shivaji Nagar , Nanded , ( Party No. 2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L -40012 / 211 / 2003 - IR ( DU ) dated 31-5-2004 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.

2. " Whether the action of the management of BSNL , Nanded in removing from service Shri Laxman Balnath Jadhav , Ex - Casual Driver by verbal order is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

3. The complainant approached to the Court with the prayer to declare the action of the management BSNL , Nanded of verbal removal the complainant from the service is unjustified with consequential relief of reinstatement and regularization as a Driver with full back wages . He has contended that he was appointed by the department by giving appointment order in writing from time to time. He worked right from the day of appointment till the oral termination dt . 7-8-2001 . He was engaged as a casual workman and his services were continued by the management till his removal . He worked years together and each year for 240 days continuously . However , he is not regularized by the management and finally removed him from the service . According to him , the action of continuing as a casual labour for years together is unfair labour practice and he is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages . He was not given notice pay , or retrenchment compensation while terminating the services . Thus according to him his removal is illegal and he has challenged it . He claimed reinstatement with full back wages .

The management despite the notice did not appear and resisted the claim . Therefore , the contention of the petitioner remained unchallenged and that has not been contraverted by the management . To support his claim, the petitioner has filed his own affidavit and his evidence also remained without cross - examination . From the evidence and the documents filed by the petitioner it seems that there are so many letters and certificates showing that the petitioner has worked as a Driver for more than 240 days every year . No doubt, the gaps are given to him from time to time but those gaps are artificial as stated by the petitioner . Since there is no challenge to his evidence as well as his statement of claim which are supported by the Xerox copies of the documents , there are no reasons to disbelieve it . It seems that he has worked for more than 240 days in each year . However , he is continued as a casual worker and finally he has been terminated. In my view , he

259

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

is entitled for the reinstatement. However , since he was not in regular service , he is not entitled for back wages as well as retrenchment compensation and notice pay . Hence , I pass this partly affirmative award with the specific order . He should be reinstated as a Driver on his earlier post and his service should be regularized from the date of this award. Hence this affirmative Award .

Dated: 7-12-2009 A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 125.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी /एनजीपी/ 77/ 2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय भरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40011 /56/2003 - आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009 S.O. 125.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. CGIT /NGP / 77 /2004 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009 .

[No. L -40011 / 56 / 2003 - IR ( DU ) } SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CGIT - CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT / NGP / 77 / 2004 , Date : 30-11-2009 :

Petitioner/ Party No. 1

The Branch Secretary . National Federation of Telecom Employees , M / s . BSNL , O / o Sub Divisional Office ( Phones ) Chandrapur (MS) Versus

Respondent/ : Party No. 2

The General Manager , Telecom. BSNL , Behind Jayant Talkies , Chandrapur (M.S. ) AWARD

Dated: 30th November , 2009 1. The Central Governinent after satisfying the existence ofdispute between the Branch Secretary , National Federation of Telecom Employees , M / s . BSNL , O / o Sub 260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 9, 2010/PAUSA 19, 1931

Divisional Office ( Phones) Chandrapur (Party No. 1 ) and the General Manager, Telecom , BSNL , Behind Jayant Talkies, Chandrapur ( M.S. ) ( Party No. 2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its No. L-40011 / 56/ 2003 - IR(DU ) dated 12-8-2004 under clause (d) ofsub- section (1 ) and sub -section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 [ 14 of 1947] with the following schedule.

2."Whether the action of the management in relation to General Manager , BSNL , Chandrapur in terminating the service of Smt . Vimal Balaji Dhakate, Ex- Sweeper-cum- Water workman by verbal order instead of regularization her in service as per the decasualization policy of the department is legal and justified ? If not, what is the relief to which the workman is entitled "

3 The petitioner Smt . Vimal Balaji Dhakate approachedto this Court with no prayerby filing an affidavit under the caption as a statement of claim on behalf of Party No. 1 However , Paragraph No. 11 indicates that Smt . Vimal Balaji Dhakate be ordered to be reinstated in service w.e.f. 1-1-2003 with all the consequential benefits like back wages , regularization and seniority.

4. According to her, her mother Smt . Laxmi Wd/o Mangru Somkusre was working as a Part-time Sweeper cum Water-Woman at Telephone Exchange Office at Brahmapuri District, Chandrapur since 1966 till her death in the year 1998. The pay scales of the Part- time worker were revised from time to time. Her mother has submitted an application on 20-1-1993 with a request to allow her being a only daughter as she has become old and weak and unable to discharge duties. Her application was not replied but since then the petitioner Smt . Vimal Balaji Dhakate is working as a Part-time Sweeper cum water-person with the respondent . Initially, she worked on behalf of her mother till her death on 16-1-1998 and thereafter as a regular part time worker . She has made various correspondences but no reply was given by the management . Government of India, Department of Telecom Services , New Delhi issued orders for conversion as a Part- time casual labourers working for less than 4 hours per day into full time casual labourers. Therefore her duty which was less than 4 hours per day she be treated as a full time worker and as she has completed more than 240 days , she should be given regularization as per various circulars of the Telecom Deaprtment. She complaint on 20-12-2002 to the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central) , Chandrapur. However the management Party No. 2 terminated her services by oral orderw.e.f. 1-3-2003 . She challenged her termination before ALC, Chandrapur . No response was received from the management. Therefore she approached to this Court with the prayer as mentioned above.

5. The management appeared and filed its written statement denying her contention that she was working as aPart- time Sweeper cum water women at Chandrapur since 1966. The mother of Party No. I was engaged as a Part-time Sweeper by the Party No. 2 under letter dated 21-1-1993 the

[PART II SEC . 3( ii) ] management has denied that after death of her mother, the petitioner Smt . Vimal Dhakate was working on behalfofher mother and thereafter as a regular Part - time worker with them. According to it, Smt. Vimal Dhakate was never engaged by the Party No. 2. So far as the circular and policyofthe department is concerned, there are no disputes butthose are not in any way helpful to the petitioner . Her claim is misleading . According to the management , the petition is not maintainable because she was not at all in the employment of the management and there are no relation as a master and a servant between Party No. 1 and 2.Hermother had worked till her death and she is paid for the same. It is admitting that on 20-1-1993 the mother of the petitioner had submitted the letter requesting to give a job to her daughter Smt . Vimal in her place . However, she was never engaged by the management. Finally, the Party No. 2 hasprayed to dismiss her claim.

6. Heard the counsel for the parties perused the evidence and the documents filed by the petitioner . The petitioner examined herself while on behalf of the management Shri Purushottam s / o Tatyaji Nitnaware , Divisional Engineer (Admn) has been examined . From their evidence as well as the documents it seems that there are no dispute regarding appointment of mother of the petitioner namely Smt . Laxmi wd/ o Mangru Somkusre and that she worked till her death in the year 1998. It is also undisputed that Smt. Laxmi working as a part - time Swceper in the office at Brahmapuri . However, the disputes are regarding the appointment and the consequent upon the duties performed by Vimal Dhakate who is claiming as daughter of Smt . Laxmi Somkusre . According to Vimal Dhakate, the petitioner, she worked from 1995 to 1998 in the place of her mother Smt . Laxmi , because Smt. Laxmi being old was unable to perform her duties and after death of Smt . Laxmi she herself has worked till her termination retrenchment. She claims that even on her own accord after the death ofher mother she worked for more than 120/240 days every year and thus she has acquired the permanency. According to her, she is entitled for the permanent post of the Sweeper in the office of Respondent . She made many representations but the management turned its deaf ear towards her demand . Finally according to her , this is reason for approaching her to Labour Commissioner and consquently raising the dispute .

7. The management has denied even existence of relationship as an employee and master . Accordingto it, the petitioner has never worked in their office either as a part-timeSweeper or during the life time ofher mother Smt. Laxmi . It has admitted that the Petitioner had applied by making the representation to appoint her in the place of her mother when she was old as well as after her death . However, it was simple demand . The management claims that she never worked as a Part - time Sweeper in its office .

8. As indicated above , the Petitioner has stated as per her statement of claim and produced copies of representations made by her . The copies of representations show that it was simple demand for job/service . She had [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

demanded a job in place of her mother before her death as well as subsequent to it. However , there is nothing on record to show that she worked at any time under the management . Only representation will not suffice to substantiate her claim . The oral evidence not supported by any documents has no value . No doubt, one forwarding letter , which is also not clear , sent by the Sub-divisional Engineer (Telecom ) , Brahmapuri proposing to engage a daughter of Smt . Laxmi . But , the letter does not disclose thatpresent petitioner was engaged at any time as per her request . The forwarding letter also not indicates or supported that she was working in the place of her mother at any time . The remaining letter i.e. appointment letter is in respect of the mother of the petitioner , which are not at all helpful to Smt . Vimal to show her own appointment much less period of her working . Thus , both these documents are of no use of the petitioner Smt. Vimal to prove that she was working and she is entitled for any permanency . So far as other circular are concerned there are no dispute that as policy of management , the Part- time workers should be absorbed but the real question is whether the present petitioner Vimal Dhakate has any time worked under the management . There is no appointment order showing her appointment after the death of her mother or any documents showing the payment was made to her as a Part - time servant after the death of her mother .

9. The most important thing is that there is no sanctioned post of the Sweeper with the management . The management has in clear term stated it. When there is no sanctioned post how there can be vacancy and the engagement ofthe petitioner . Unless existence ofvacancy on the sanctioned post is available , the regularization or absorption cannot be granted .

10. The same thing is in respect of alleged recruitment even assuming that orally she was appointed . There is nothing to show that her name was sponsored by the employment exchange or she was appointed on compassionate ground . All these thing does not arise because there was no sanctioned post and considering above facts no relief can be granted to her . There is nothing on record to show that she was retrenched at any time. In short there is not the iota of evidence to substantiate her claim of illegal retrenchment . Hence , in my view , the petitioner failed to prove the claim and the reference deserves to be dismissed . Accordingly , I pass this negative award.

Date: 30-11-2009

A. N. YADAV , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 126.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सीनियर सुपरिन्टेन्डेन्ट ऑफ पोस्ट ऑफिस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में

261

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं.- !, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 229/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -40012 / 222/ 99 आई आर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009 S.O. 126. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 229/99 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , No. - I Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employer in relation to the management of Sr. Superintendent of Post Office and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009 .

[No. L - 40012 / 222 / 99 - IR ( DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH , Case No. 1. D. No. 229/99

Shri Harbans Lal S / o Shri Makhan Lal C / o Shri B. R. Parbhakar , 63 - C , Kailash Nagar , Model Town , Ambala (Haryana) .

...Applicant

Versus

The Senior Superintendent of Post Office , Ambala Division . Ambala Cantt . (Haryana ) -133001 .

Respondent

APPEARANCES

Shri R. P. Rana

For the workman :

For the management : Shri Sanjeev Shrama

AWARD Passed on 7-12-09

Government of India vide notification No. L - 40012/ 222/ 99 / IR ( DU ) , dated 21-10-1999 referred the following industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , ( the Act in short ) for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the Sr. Supdt . of Post Office, Ambala Division and Asst . Sr. Supdt . of Post Office , Yamunanagar in terminating the services of Shri Harbans Lal S/ o Shri Makhan Lal w.e.f. 27-06-96 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

After receiving the reference , parties were informed. Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . It is 262

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 9, 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

clear from the pleadings of the parties that case of the workman in nut -shell is that he was employed as EDDA in Kot Branch on 02-05-95 on a monthly salary of Rs . 900/- permonth and continue to work up to 27-06-96 . His services were terminated without notice or one month wages in lieu ofthe notice and other terminal dues against the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act . One Shri Surjit Singh was appointed by the department after termination of his services without affording him the opportunity to work . He has completed more than 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination . On the basis of the above pleadings , the workman has prayed for setting aside the order ofhis termination from the services and for the consequential order directing the management for reinstatement of the services of the workman along with consequential benefits .

The management appeared and denied the allegations of the workman by filing written statement. It is contended by the management that one Shri Ranbir Singh was appointed as EDDA in Kot branch w.e.f. 26-05-94 as substitute of Shri Surjit Singh . Shri Surjit Singh was removed from the services and the services of Shri Ranbir Singh were regularized w.e.f. 26-05-94. On the post of EDDA , Kot branch , vacated by Shri Ranbir Singh , Shri Sant Kumar was selected as per the rules of the department . Shri Sant Kumar joined the services but resigned and refused to work on 01-05-95 . The next man in the selected list was Shri Harbans Lal and he was given the appointment . One Shri Ranbir Singh filed Original Application in Central Administrative Tribunal , challenging the selection of Shri Sant Kumar and Harbans Lal . The selection was set- aside by Central Administrative Tribunal , vide order dated 27-03-96. Against the vacant post of EDDA , the management again recruited Shri Ranbir Singh strictly as per the policy of rules and as per the directions given by Central Administrative Tribunal , vide order dated 27-03-96 . Shri Ranbir Singh joined on post and the services of Shri Harbans Lal automatically terminated in view of the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal , dated 27-03-96 .

Apart from it , the management has also challenged the contention of the workman that he has the right for reinstatement into the services .

Parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Oral evidence was recorded. Documentary evidence including order of Central Administrative Tribunal dated 27-03-96 is on record. I have perused the evidence, oral and documentary and other materials on record. Parties were heard at length . Shri Harbans Lal has not mentioned aboutthe litigation before Central Administrative Tribunal in his statement of claim . He has even not mentioned how he was appointed to the post of EDDA. He has not mentioned that he was selected by the selection board and the selection was made strictly as per the rules of the banagement . He has simply mentioned in his statement of claim and affidavit that he was temporarily appointed as EDDA and had worked for 240 days continuously in the

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

== preceding year from the date of his termination . In this reference , the workman is guilt of concealing the material facts . The management in compliance ofthe directions given by Central Administrative Tribunal , vide order dated 27-03-96, in Original Application No. 961 /HR/ 95 , Shri Surjit Singh vs. Union of India , in which Shri Harbans Lal is also the party as respondent No. 3 , selected the candidate afresh as per the rules of the department and as per the direction givenby the Central Administrative Tribunal .

The materials on record reveals it that on the basis of selection previously made by the postal department , Shri SantRam was at serial No. 1 for the post of EDDA and Snri Harbans Lal was next to him. Shri Sant Ram was given appointment and on his refusal , as per rules , Shri Harbans Lal who was next in the seniority list , was given the appointment. This entire process of appointment was held to be illegal by the Central Administrative Tribunal and, accordingly, was setting aside . Central Administrative Tribunal , vide order dated 27-03-96 , held that till the fresh appointment as per rules and as per direction given in the order are not made the present arrangement may continue . Thus , even after declaring the selection process and appointment of Shri Harbans Lal illegal , he continuedto work as per the direction given by Central Administrative Tribunal . Thus , his appointment and working with the postal department as EDDA was illegal vide order dated 27-03-96 .

The postal department as per the direction of the Central Administrative Tribunal again selected the candidates on merits . As per the criteria given in the order dated 27-03-96, which was passed as per the rules of the department, Shri Ranbir Singh was selected and he was appointed as EDDA . To work as EDDA by Shri Harbans Lalwas permitted by the Central Administrative Tribunal till the fresh recruitment is made . The period for fresh recruitment was also mentionedby the Central Administrative Tribunal and that was for three months . Withinthree months the postal department completed the selection process and one Ranbir Singh was appointed as EDDA . Accordingly , the services of Shri Harbans Lal , the workman , were automatically terminated and the postal department has not terminated his services .

The selection procedure in which Shri Ranbir Singh was selected and appointed as EDDA is not the subject matter of this reference . The virus of selection which was made as per the rules and as per the directions given by the Central Administrative Tribunal , vide order dated 27-03-96, isnot the subject matter of this reference . Accordingly , the termination ofthe workman Shri Harbans Lal is not illegal and he is not entitled for any relief. Let Central Government be informed for publication of the award , and thereafter, filebe consigned to record room .

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 127.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार दूरसंचार [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

विभाग के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं.- I, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 122/94 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -40012/ 115/ 94- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009 S.O. 127. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.122/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , No. - 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Department of Telecom and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-12- 2009.

[No. L-40012/ 115 /94- IR (DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, C'ENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIALTRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH.

CASE ID No. 122/94

263

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

It is the claim of the workman that he worked continuously with the management for 256 days w.e.f. 7-10-92 to 23-7-93 . He was paid wages at the rate of Rs . 42 /- per month . His services were terminated on 27-7-93 without issuing any notice or one month wages in lieu of the notice and terminal dues . His termination is illegal and void being against the provisions of Section 25 F of the Act . Juniors to him Shri Mukesh Kumar and Shri Rajinder Singh were retained in the services , whereas , the services of the workman was terminated. After the termination of the services of the workman one Shri Surinder Kumar was also engaged without affording the opportunity to the workman .

Management appeared and denied all the allegations of the workman as alleged by him in his statement of claim . It was contended by the management that workman has abondoned his services and his services were not terminated by the management . It is further contended by the management that the workman has not completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination .

Parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence. The workman Shri Pritpal Singh filed his affidavit and he was cross - examined by the learned counsel for the management in detail . On behalf of the management one Smt . Savita Rattan , Senior Accounts Officer filed her affidavit and she was cross - examined by learned counsel for the workman .

--Applicant

Shri Pritpal Singh S / o Shri Karora Singh , Vill . & P.O. Maloya , U.T.Chandigarh .

Versus

The District Manager , Department of Telecommunication , Sector 18 , Chandigarh -- Respondent

APPEARANCES

Shri S. P. Sharma .

For the workinan :

Shri G.C. Babbar .

For the management:

AWARD

Passed on 4-12-2009

Government of India vide Notification No. L -40012/ 115 / 94 - IR ( DU ) , dated 23-09-94 referred the following industrial dispute under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , ( the Act in short ) for adjudication to this Tribunal : ---

" Whether the action of Department of Telecommunication in terminating the services of Shri Pritpal Singh S/ o Karora Singh w.e.f. 23-7-93 is proper , legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ? "

After receiving the reference parties were informed. Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . On perusal of the pleadings of the parties , it is evidently clear that main dispute between the workman and the management is regarding the termination of the workman .

I have heard the parties at length and perused all the materials on record . Management was directed to file the relevant documents relating to the services of the workman . The management failed to file the same. Consequently , this Tribunal pass a detailed order treating the documents filed by the workman as secondary evidence .

The main issues for adjudication before this Tribunal are :-

( 1 ) Whether the workman has abandoned his services voluntarily ?

(2) Whether the workman has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination ?

(3 ) Relief , if any.

So far as issue No. I is concerned the management failed to file any cogent evidence regarding the surrender of the services by the workman . In very garlanding words the management has repeatedly stated in its pleadings and affidavit that workman surrendered his services . But there is no iota of evidence to prove that the workman surrendered his services . Moreover , right from the day of the termination of the services , the workman is trying to get the work , is a circumstance to prove that he has not voluntarily surrendered his services . The documents filed by the workman also corroborate the above circumstance of continuing steps by the workman to putting himself into the services . Thus , I am of the view that the workman has not voluntarily surrendered his services .

264

[ PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

photocopies of the documents filed by the workman shall be read over and considered as secondary evidence . Moreover, the management was given opportunity for filing thedocuments in original . Without explaining any reasons the management could not file the documents . It was the only explanation given by the management that documents are not traceable . It was not the case of the management that documents have been weeded out as per the rules . Under such circumstances , where it was the duty of the management to preserve the documents during the pendency of this dispute and to file the same in original . adverse inference shall also be taken by this Tribunal on failure of filing the same. The nature of the adverse inference as per the settled law of services jurisprudence is that it shall be presumed the workman has completed 240 days of work- in the preceding year from the date of his termination . Thus , on both of the counts namely taking adverse inference on account of failure of the management to file original document and considering the documents filed by the workman as secondary evidence , I am of the view that workman has completed 240 days of work with the management in the preceding year before the date of his termination.

The next issue is whether the workman has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date ofhis termination . It is the issue of facts and law both . The workman in his pleadings in para No. 2 of the statement of claim has categorically mentioned the working days from October 1992 to July 1993. In its written statement the same has been admitted by the management by stating in para No. 2 of written statement that the details of the period shown by the applicant in its para of the statement of claim are not denied . It is only contended by the management thatfrom 23-07-93 the workman did not come for the work . On this fact the Tribunal has given the finding while adjudicating the issue No. 1. The management has also challenged the process of appointment of workman by stating that no appointment letter was given to the workman and his appointment was not as per the procedure laid down in the rules . Management has also linked it with the regularization of the services of the workman . In my view, these two issues are separate and distinct . The workman was working on daily wage basis is admitted to the management. The Industrial Disputes Act also protect the services or any other right relating to the services of a daily waged worker . The Act never prohibits the termination of any daily waged worker , but it regulates the termination . The Act regulates the termination in the sense that if management desire to terminate the services of a daily waged worker , it has to follow the procedure laid down in the Act . Meaning thereby , one month notice or one month wages in lieu of the notice and legal terminal dues are legal pre- condition for termination of any daily waged worker. If the management has not done so , it is not open to the management to raise the issue of illegality of his initial appointment as daily waged worker and regularization of the services . Regularization of services is also a distinct issue and has no nexus with the reference which is to be answered in this industrial dispute . In this reference the legality of the termination order is in question and not the regularization of the services of the workman . Evenifthe termination order is held to be illegal , it does not give any power and jurisdiction to this Tribunal to pass an order on regularization of the services of the workman .

As stated earlier, at the cost of the repetition , the management has admitted period for which the workman has alleged to work with the management . If the period is calculated, it comes to more than 240 days . For few months theworkman has worked almost for 30 days and for rest of the days he has worked 27 days , 26 days or 28 days etc. Thus, breaks in between the period ( Sundays and holidays ) as per the present law of service jurisprudence shall be countedwhile calculating the working days of the workman.

Itis admitted that no notice or one month wages in lieu ofthe notice or terminal dues were given to the workman before the date of his termination . It renders his termination illegal and void being against the provisions of the Act . When the termination of the services of any workman is declared null and void being against the provisions of the Act, there remains two remedies available . The first remedy isreinstatement ofthe workman with or without back wages and the second remedy is a reasonable compensation . It is the settled principle of service jurisprudence that priority should be given for reinstatement of the workman into the services . In exceptional cases a reasonable compensation may also be awarded to the workman . In Dhani Ram Vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court , Faridabad 2007 ( 1 ) .S.C.T 5, Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held that reinstatement ofthe workman in the services is also possible . Recently Hon'ble the Apex Court in New India Assurance Company Ltd. Vs. Sankaralingam 2008 ( 10 ) S.C.C .. 698 has upheld the reliefofreinstatement of a part time sweeper - cum- waterman. Thus , I am of the view that workman considering the facts and circumstances of the case , is entitled for his reinstatement into the services . It is also made clear that he is also entitled for the benefit of circular letter. G - 2. P / T Staff/Approval/ 1625 , dated 21-05-1993 regarding recruitment to the cadre of regular Mazdoor , group 'D' . ifhe isotherwise eligible after his reinstatement into the services . Considering the facts and circumstances of the case. I am ofthe view that workman shall alse titled for 50 per cent ofback wages . The management is directed to reinstate the workman , payment of 50 per cent of wages and to give the benefit of above mentioned circular letter within one month from the publication of the award. i.et Central Government be informed for publication of award, and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

The documents on record proved , that workman was directly working with the management . He was appointed by the management . He was under the administrative control of the management and was paid wages by the management . No doubt , in cross - examination , the witness' ofthe management has challenged , the genuineness of the documents ( photocopies ) filed by the workman . Butthis Tribunal vide order dated 03-08-2006 has made it clear that

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

नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 128.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मिलिट्री फार्म के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. - 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 136/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-14012/3/91- आई आर (डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th December, 2009 S.O. 128. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 136/91 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, No 1 Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Military Farm and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009 .

[No. L- 14012/3 /91 - IR ( DU) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No : -ID No. 136/91

Shri Prem Pal S/ o Shri Ram Dass C/ o Shri K. R. Tripathi , H. No. 32, Street- Kumtewali , Delhi Gate , Ferozepur City.

265

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

Afterreceiving the reference , parties were informed. Both of the parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . On opportunity provided by this Tribunal , oral and documentary evidence was recorded filed. I have gone through the pleadings and evidence of the parties . The main dispute between the management of respondent Military Farm and the workman is whether the workman has voluntarily abandoned his services on 20-05-90 or his services were terminated by the management of respondent?

It is the contention of the workman that he worked as temporary worker with the management of respondent Military Farm from 04-04-87 to 20-05-90 . He has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination . His services were terminated without notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and without terminal dues.

The management of respondent Military Farm challenged the contention of the workman by filing written statement . It was contended by the management that the services of the workman were not terminated , but he has voluntarily abandoned his services on disclosure of the fact that he has mentioned wrong date of birth at the time ofhis appointment by the management of Military Farm. It was further contended by the management that there was some fabrication in the document relating to the date of birth of the workman and on disclosure of this fabrication , workman voluntarily abandoned his services.

Applicant

Versus

The Officer Incharge , Military Farm , Ferozepur Cantt . Punjab. Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

: Shri T.C. Sharma

Shri K.K. Thakur

For the management

AWARD

Passed on : -4-12-09

Government of India vide notification No. L- 14012/ 3/91 - IR (DU ) , dated 27-09-91 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 Officer - In- Charge , Military Farm , Ferozepur Cantt . Punjab in terminating the services of Shri Prem Pal S/ o Shri Ram Dass Casualworker w.c.f. 20-05-90 is justified ? If not, to whatrelief is the workman entitled ? "

4729 G1 /09-15

Onperusal of the evidence on record , it is evident that services of the workman were terminated by the management on the ground of his date of birth . As per the contention of the management the actual date of birth of the workman was 01-02-1972 , whereas , he shown the date ofbirth in his transfer certificate as 01-02-1970. At the time ofappointment , xerox copy of certificate was provided with and there was a cutting in figure zero (0 ) in his date ofbirth . The figure two (2) in 1972 was fabricated as figure zero( 0 ). TheMilitary Farm conducted an enquiry. Letter was issued to the college concern . Certificate of the college is on record showing the date of birth of the workman as 01-02-1972 instead of 01-02-1970 . When the workman was asked to explain and police authority were approached for taking necessary action on fabricated document , workman preferred to file his affidavit and the affidavit of his father . Inaffidavits this fact was narrated by the workman and his father that the date of birth of the workman is 01-02-1970, butwrongly it was mentioned as 01-02-1972 , in the records ofthe school . The workman said it to be a clerical mistake . It is undoubtedly true that workman admitted his date of birth as 01-02-1970 and also admitted the date of birth entered into the documents of the school as 01-02-1972 . It is consequently admission of the workman that he fabricated figure two (2 ) to make it zero (0 ) in the document which was provided with to the management at the time of his appointment. But the affidavits filed by the workman 266

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 / PAUSA 19 , 1931

were not considered by the management and the affidavits remain as such .

One fact has emerged before the Tribunal that during conciliation proceedings before ALC / Conciliation Officer, the management offered for absorption of the workman as groupoup D ' employee without back wages . The workman refused the offer .

Regarding the status of the temporary employee , it is also the law of services jurisprudence that if misconduct is alleged against him a proper enquiry should be conducted by the management before terminating his services . It is true that enquiry was conducted but it is a half journey made by the management and without proper enquiry report and without conducting the enquiry as per the procedure laid down in the rules of the Military Farm , services of the workman was terminated . That seems to be the reason that management agreed for providing the services to the workman against any of the group ' D ' vacancy without back wages . The management was very much right in approach . It may be the adamancy of the workman , ill advice or some other cause that he refused to the offer for group 'D' services . Accordingly , I am of the view that partial enquiry was conducted by the workman instead of full and as per the offer given by the management to the workman for providing him the services against any group ' D ' vscancy , the parties has a right to agitate the same process before this Tribunal as well .

The industrial Disputes Act came into force for specific purpose . The specific purpose for constituting this Labour Court and the office of the Conciliation Officer is to protect the interest of labour which is an important class of Indian democracy against the arbitraryness of management . There is a socio - economic disparity and imbalance between the management and the workman and duty of the Tribunal is to balance it , subject to the provisions of the law . The Tribunal has to see that management should not be in the position because of his sound socio -economic condition to suppress the rightful wish and desire of the workman . No doubt , in this case it is the fault ofthe workman . He should have not filed the such document . But the management without conducting proper enquiry terminated the services of the workman . As stated earlier , at the cost of the repetition , even in the case of the temporary employee , if misconduct is alleged against him , his services could not be terminated without conducting a proper enquiry and without affording the proper opportunity of being heard . The enquiry was partially conducted and the management tried to rectify it by making an offer of appointment of the workman against any group vacancy without back wages . Reasons may be several butthis offer could not materialized . This offer of the management has to be considered with the same spirit for which the Industrial Disputes Act was enacted and this Tribunal was constituted under its provisions . Meaning thereby , there should be a liberal construction of any clause of the pleadings while interpretating it. The management has specifically admitted that he offered the services to the

PART II S workman against any group D vacancy and in my opinion that offer has not yet been withdrawn by the management and still exists . On perusal of the entire materials on record there is no iota of evidence that management had withdrawn or has any intention to withdraw the offer he made to the workman before Conciliation Officer . Accordingly . Lamot the view that the termination of the workman without conducting the proper and reasonable enquiry was illegal . The workman has not voluntarily surrendered his services but he was terminated from the services by the management As per the offer given by the management , workman is entitled for his absorption against any group D vacancy inMilitaryFarm .

ThisTribunal regrets to answer this reference after 19 years . This Tribunal received this reference in the year 1991 , but could not answer the reference in 19 years which is against the spirit of Industrial Disputes Act . The only occasion left for me as Presiding Officer of this Tribunał is to regret for denying timely justice .

Accordingly , the reference is answered that work man has not voluntarily surrendered his services His termination is illegal . He is entitled for absorption against any group ' D ' vacancy as purposed by the management . The management is accordingly directed to pass the suitable order regarding absorption of services and reinstate the workman into the services within one month from the date of publication of the award . On the basis of the facts and circumstances of the case , I am of the view that straight exchequer should not be burdened where any workman has not contributed toward his responsibility to work . There was an offer of the management to provide him the services against any group ' D ' vacancy to which the workman refused . Accordingly , the workman shall not be entitled for the back wages . Let Central Government be informed for publication of award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room .

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 129.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , कंन्द्रीय सरकार भारत संचार निगम लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं.- II , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी -2/38 आफ 2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जा कद्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/ 127/2004 आई. आर. ( डॉ..।। सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डम्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009 S.O. 129. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Centres Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ret No. CGIT - 2/38 of 2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial { भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Tribunal No. II , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009 .

[No. L-40012/127 /2004 - JK ( DU )]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 11 AT MUMBA Present : A.A. LAD , Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT - 2 /38 of 2005

Employers in relation to the management of M/ s Dhanr Sanchar Nigam Ltd.

The General Manager,

M. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd

G Telecom Distt .

C Sanchar Bhavan , EDC plot No I.

267

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

Book maintained by Ist Party . Besides said work , he was supposed to attend the work of Technicians e.g. Main Distribution Frame ( MDF ) and Generator Operation . He states that , since June , 2002 to September , 2003 he was allowed to sign the muster roll maintained in the Telephone Exchange by Cansaulim Telephone Exchange . He states that, due to change in officers , new officer did not permit him to report on duty and he was not allowed to sign the muster from October , 2003 to January , 2004 though he was attending complaints and doing work as usual . He states that, from February , 2004 he was not allowed to even report on duty . He states that , workman by name Lamani is engaged in his place . It is stated that , without following due process of law he was terminated. It is stated that . since he completed 240 days he became permanent employee of the Ist Party and l.t Party cannot terminate him without following due process of law . It is submitted that , the said act of the 1st Party in refusing him to report on duty from October , 2003 be treated as termination and direct 1st Party to reinstate him with benefits of back wages and continuity of service .

.... First

P. Panaji , Goa - 403 301 Pai

AND Their Workman

Shri Suwas B. Pednekar , House No. 105 , Takir Waddo , P.O. Cansaulim , Velsao , Goa

Second Party

APPEARANCES

Forthe Employer : Mr. R.A.S. Kharangate , Advocate For the Workman : Through Representative Mr. P. Gaonkar

Date of Reserving Award : 19-08-2009, Date of Passing of Award : 18-11-2009.

AWARD

The reference is sent to this Tribunal by the Under Secretary of the Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No.L - 40012 / 127 / 2004 - IR ( DU ) dated 22nd December , 2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause ( d ) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , have referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of BSNL , Goa in terminating the services of Sh . Suwas B. Pednekar , w.e.f. February , 2004 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 2. Claim Statement is filed by 2nd Party at Exhibit 6 making out the case that , he worked with 1st Party since January , 2002 in their Telephone Exchange at Cansaulim - Salcete Goa . He states that , his duty hours were between 9.00 a.m. to 5.00 p . m . daily and he worked for more than 240 days , He states that , his duties were allotted by JTO ( Junior Telecom Officer ) and in his absence by SDO ( Sub- Divisional Officer ) . He states that , his salary was paid every month by JTO and in his absence by SDO. His duty was to attend complaints of customers recorded in the Complaints 3. This is disputed by Ist Party by filing written statement at Exhibit 8 stating and contending that , the reference is not maintainable as there is no employer employee relationship between the 1st Party and the 2nd Party. It is stated that , 2nd Party was never appointed by 1st Party. It is stated that , no recruitment rules were followed in allowing 2nd Party to work in the establishment of the Ist Party . Since there is no empierre - en plejer relationships between the parties , question of termati does not arise . It is stated that , 2nd Party worked with 1st Party through Contractor who might have terminated ve services of the 2nd Party. Since 2nd Party was no appointed by Ist Party and since he is contract workers , he cannot seek any relief against Ist Party . It is denied that , he was attending work regularly . It is denied that , he worked for more than 240 days . It is denied that , he is entitled to reinstatement with benefit of back wages and continuity of service . It is denied that , he is employee of the 1st party . It is denied that , 1st party terminated his services . It is stated that , the contractor might have asked the concerned workman not to report on duty and for that 1st Party cannot be held answerable for alleged termination . It is stated that . since 2nd Party was neither appointed nor terminated by the 1st Party, the question of seeking any relief against 1st Party does not arise . So it is submitted that , Reference be rejected.

4. 2nd Party filed rejoinder at Exhibit 12 simply denying the contentions taken by Ist Party in written statement parawise and prayed to reinstate him with benelit of back wages and continuity of service .

5. In view of the above pleadings following Issues were framed at Exhibit 27 which I answer against them: ISSUES FINDINGS

1. Whether Second Party was Employed by First Party? Yes 2. Whether there was 1: mployer - Employee relationship between them ? Yes 3. Whether Second Party was terminated by First Party? Yes 268

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

No 4. If yes , whether said termination is just?

Yes 5. Is Second Party entitle for Relief, if any?

6. What order ?

Asper order Passed below.

REASONS :

ISSUES Nos . 1 & 2 :

6. Second Party claims that , he was terminated by 1st Party . Whereas case of the 1st party is that , 2nd Party is not employee of it and is a employee of the Contractor . It is case of the 1st Party that , he was neither appointed by 1st Party nor terminated by it . Whereas 2nd Party claims that , since he worked for 1st party and attended work of it he is employee of the Ist Party and he was removed by new officer without reason and without following due process oflaw.

7. To prove that , 2nd Party placed reliance on the affidavit filed at Exhibit 32 in lieu of his examination - in- chief where he makes out the same story as made out the Claim Statement . In the cross he admits that , no appointment order was given to him by the 1st party. He also admits that , he was not called for interview . He admits that , no recruitment rules were followed while selecting him . He admits that no officer was signing the muster roll . He claims that , JTO ( Junior Telephone Officer) has signed on page 14 of Exhibit 28 of muster roll . He denies that , he was reporting though Contractor and Contractor was regulating his activities . He denies that , he is contract worker and claims that , he is employee of the 1st Party . On that2nd party closed his evidence by filing closing purshis at Exhibit 36. Against that , 1st Party led evidence of its witness Raikar by filing his affidavit at Exhibit 39 in lieu of his examination- in- chief who denies the relationship of 1st Party with 2nd Party and states that , 2nd Party cannot seek any relief against 1st Party . In the cross he admits that he was not supposed to know working of the concerned workman working though contractor . He admits that , the concerned workman was working with Kasavali Exchange . He admits that , there is no Supervisor of Contractor to supervise the working of 2nd Party . Then Ist Party closed itsevidence filing closing purshis at Exhibit 41 .

8. Heard both and perused the proceedings .

9. Here 2nd Party claims that , he is workman of the Ist Party whereas Ist Party claims that , he is not and is a workman of contractor . As far as working of 2nd Party for Ist party is concerned , it is not seriously challenged . Even bunch of documents produced by 2nd Party with Exhibits 26 and 28 shows that , 2nd Party worked for 1st party for more than 240 days and did the work of the Ist Party. Even case of the 1st Party that , he is the contract worker . However , no evidence is led by the 1st Party to show that , 2nd Party was engaged by particular contractor and he worked with Ist Party through contractor . Even no attempt is made to call such contractor to support its case .

10. Here 2nd Party claims that , he is direct employee of the Ist Party and whereas 1st party claims that , he is

PART 11 SFC. 3 ( ii ) ] contract worker . When admittedly 2nd Party is working with 1st Party and for Ist Party and claims that , he is employee of the 1st Party, then burden shifts on the 1st Party to show that , he is contract worker and not its employee . As far as this aspect is concerned , no evidence ofany type is led by 1st Party to show that . 2nd Party was engaged by the contractor and was working with Ist Party through contractor . Even no evidence is shown by Ist Party that , 2nd Party was paid by the contractor or supervised by the Contractor and not by the 1st Party. In fact 1st Party is well established office and might have maintained record on its case regarding employment of the 2nd Party to show that , he was engaged through Contractor . But here unfortunately no evidence is led of any type by the Ist Party to show that , this workman was introduced by contractor and is contract employee . Besides it is not case of the 1st Party that . Central Government allowed contract workers in that area.

11. Here work done by thê 2nd Party is the work of attending complaints . Definitely said work is of 1st Party. Even work done by him of attending complaints is not disputed by 1st Party . When 2nd party attended the complaints for Ist Party and getting work from Ist Party and when no evidence is there of any type lead by Ist Party to show that , 2nd Party worked with Ist party through contractor , or as contract employee , definitely said relations required to treat as of direct relations with Ist Party as he is the employee of the Ist Party. When 2nd Party is under the control of 1st Party and when he worked for Ist Party as well as attended work of Ist Party and when there is no supervisor of the contractor as admitted by the 1st Party's witness once has to conclude that , he is employee of the 1stParty. Even number of documents are produced by 2nd Party reveals that , 2nd Party worked as the Complaints Attendant and attended said complaints for the Ist Party which in my considered view , lead to treat 2nd Party as workman of the 1st party and not the workman of the contractor .

12. Here Ist Party has claimed that , 2nd Party is contract employee but as stated above no evidence is led . Even no contractor is called for and produced to show that , this employee is contract employee of a particular contractor . Even no contract is produced on recordto show that, through particular contractor he was supplied to Ist Party. On all these counts Ist Party is silent . Against that , 2nd Party succeeds in showing that , he worked for Ist party as complaints attendant and worked in Kasavali Telephone Exchange lead us to conclude that , 2nd Party is employce of the 1st party and worked for Ist party directly under its control . When 2nd Party worked under control of Ist the Party and when his services were utilized by Ist Party though there is no direct appointment letter or interview was sought to fill in the post , in my considered view, the way in which services of the concerned workman were utilized by the 1st Party require to treat 2nd Party as employee of the 1st party and that relation does not show any other than the employer - employee relationship between the 1st Party and the 2nd Party . So I observe that . 2nd Party is the workman of Ist Party and there employer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

employee relations exists between them . Accordingly I answer these issues to that effect .

ISSUE No. 3:

13. 2nd Party claims that , he was prevented from reporting on duty from February , 2004. Even in the depositions he states that , when new officer came there , he was prevented by him from reporting on duty . As far as this aspect is concerned it is not seriously challenged by 1st Party. Witness of the Ist party says that , he does not know whether his contractor asked him not to report on duty . There is no specific contract brought on record and as to who was the contractor and under whom 2nd Party was working and who stopped 2nd Party, as such it does not permit Ist Party to say like that . Mere say of the 2nd Party that , new officer prevented him from reporting on duty is sufficient and when is not seriously challenged by Ist party, and not disputed by 1st party it lead me to conclude that , instructions given by new officer to 2nd Party, not to report on duty is nothing but " termination " as observed by Apex Court while deciding case of H.D. Singh vs. Reserve Bank of India and ors . published in I SCLJ 1984-93 page 601. Nothing is produced by 1st Party about the contractor and his action or his control over 2nd Party , then story made out by the 2nd Party require to believe in the eyes of law on facts of this case . So I conclude that , instructions of the officer of the 1st party not to report the 2nd Party on duty is nothing but termination . So I answer this issue to that effect .

ISSUE No. 4:

14. While instructing 2nd Party not to report on duty , no procedure is followed . It is to be noted that, 2nd Party worked for more than 240 days . Even number of citations produced by 2nd Party's Advocate published in I LLJ 2001 page 742 in the case of Deep Chandra vs. State of U.P. and anr . , Citation published in II CLR 2003 page 233 in the case of S.M. Nilajkar and ors vs Telecom , District Manager , Karnataka , Citation published in III LLJ 1993 page 714 in the case of Rattan Singh vs. Union of India and anr. , Citation published in Nov. CLR 2008 page 588 in the case of Divisional Manager , New Indian Assurance Co. Ltd. vs. A. Sankaralingam , Citation published in Jan. CLR 2009 page 146 in the case of K. Raj Arora vs State Bank of India and ors. , Citation published in Feb. CLR 2007 page 386 in the case of Municipal Corporation , Jabalpur vs Om Prakash Dubey, citation published in CLR 2009 , page 713 in the case of District Programme Co - ordinator Mahila Samkhija and anr . Vs. Abdul Kareem and anr . , Citation published in Feb CLR 2007 page 532 in the case of State of M.P. and ors . vs. Lalit Kumar Verma , citation published in June CLR 2008 page 265 in the case of Mahindra & Mahindra Ltd. , Nagpur vs. Avinash D Kamble and anr . reveals that , employee of this type is entitled for protection . Even it is observed that , part- time worker is a permanent employee of the establishment and as such a part - timer can be terminated without following due process of law. Since he is seeking protection under Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and when admittedly no notice is given by Competent Authority and admittedly when 2nd Party worked for more than 240 days with 1st Party , in my considered view , action taken by Ist

269

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931.

Party in stopping him not to report on duty is nothing but termination . Besides admittedly no notice is given nor any compensation is paid while asking him not to report on duty definitely said act is illegal . So I observe that it is illegal termination .

ISSUE No. 5 :

15. When 2nd Party succeeds in showing that , he worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year and was terminated without following due process of law in my considered view he is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service as claimed by 2nd Party since he worked with 1st party from January 2002 till January , 2004 as a Complaints Attendant . He worked for 1st Party . All this in my considered view does not permit Ist Party to terminate his employment as happened in this case . All this reveals that , he is entitled to be posted on his post and ought to have been permitted to work on the said post . Besides observations made by Apex Court while deciding case of S.M. Nilajkumar & ors vs Telecom , District Manager , Karnataka where it is observed that , if any section is closed and worker of this type are engaged in other section who are not considered also require to consider by the employer before recruiting new employee in that section . Here 2nd Party claims that , in his place new person namely Lamani is appointed . As far as that case is concerned it is not disputed by 1st Party and when 2nd Party has specifically claimed that , one person by name Lamani is engaged in his place , in my considered view preference require to given to 2nd Party . As far as that is concerned the observations made by Apex Court in the case referred above ( Supra ) I am observing that , the 2nd Party is entitled for absorption . So I answer this issue to that effect .

16. 2nd Party claims back wages and continuity of service . As far as back wages are concerned 2nd Party challenged this act of the 1st Party in 2004-05 about his alleged termination . However , it appears that , since the concerned workman did not work for Ist Party from that date i . e . February , 2004 , he is not in touch with 1st Party . Besides , Ist Party is Government undertaking and it is not desirable to ask Ist party to make the payment of back wages to the 2nd Party in his absence and when did not work from February , 2004 till this moment , which does not find it proper to ask 1st Party to pay for the 2nd Party the back wages .

17. In view of the discussions made herein above I passes the following order :

ORDER

(a) Reference is partly allowed:

(b) 1st Party is directed to take 2nd Party i.e. Suwas Pednekar on his post on which he was working and permithim to work:

(d) no order as to its costs ;

Bombay , 18th November , 2009

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer 270

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 130. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मलेरिया रिसर्च सेन्टर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी / एलसी / आर/ 151,152 एवम् 177/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 117,115 , 116/95 - आईआर ( डीयू) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009 S. O. 130. 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/ 151,152 & 177/96 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Malaria Research Centre and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009 .

[ No. L -42012/ 117,115,116 / 95 - IR ( DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , JABALPUR

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan No. CGIT/ LC / R/ 151 / 96

Shri Shiv Kumar Dubey ,

... Workman S/ o Shri Teerat Prasad , Qr . No. 1928/21 , Lalmati , Sidhbaba Road , Jabalpur

Versus

The Director . Malaria Research Centre , 22. Samnath , Delhi

.Managements The Officer Incharge , Malaria Research Centre , Medical College Building, Jabalpur

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] No. CGIT /LC /R/ 152 /96

...Workman Shri Sushil Kumar Khanna , S/ o Shri R.N. Khanna , Ranjhi , Purani Basti , Gowshala ke peeche , Sethi Bhawan ke paas , Jabalpur

Versus

TheDirector, Malaria Research Centre , 22, Samnath , Delhi

Managements The Officer Incharge , Malaria Research Centre , Field Station , Medical College Building , Jabalpur

No. CGIT/LC / R/ 177 / 96

.Workman Shri Suresh Chandra Ratre , S / o Shri S.L. Ratre , Radhesam Temple ke samne , Galla Mandi , Sihore

Versus

TheDirector, Malaria Reserch Centre , 22 , Samnath , Delhi

The Officer Incharge , Malaria Reserch Centre , Field Station , Medical College Building , Jabalpur

Managements

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of December , 2009 1. ( a ) The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 42012/ 117/ 95 - IR ( DU ) dated 26th July 1995 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal : ----

"Whether the action of the management of Malaria Research Centre ( Indian Counsel of Medical Research ) Field Station , Medical College Building , Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Shiv Kumar Dubey . Chowkidar is justified ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled for ?"

( b) The Governement of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L - 42012/ 115 / 95 - IR ( DU ) dated 26th July 1996 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of Malaria Research Centre ( Indian Counsel of Medical Research ) [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Field Station , Medical College Building , Jabalpur in terninating the services of Shri Sushil Kumar Khanna is justified ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled for ? "

( c) The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 42012 / 116 / 95 - IR ( DU ) dated 30-8-96 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of Malaria Research Centre ( Indian Counsel of Medical Research ) Field station , Medical College Building , Jabalpur in terminating the services of Shri Suresh Chandra Ratre is justified ? If not , to what relief is the concerned workman entitled for ? "

2. In all the three references , common question of laws and facts are involed for adjudication . As such , all references are taken up together for a common award .

3. In all the three references , the case of the workman in short is that the workman Shri Suresh Chandra Ratre was appointed as a Lab Technician vide order dated 11-3-88 in I.D.V.C. Project , Malaria Research Centre , field station , Jabalpur with conditions that the appointment was purely temporary on adhoc basis and was co - terminable with the scheme / project or as long as the incumbents services were required in connection with this very scheme . The workman Shiv Kumar Dubey and Sushil Kumar Khanna were also appointed as Chowkidars in the same project vide order dated 31-1-89 and 27-8-82 respectively . While the workmen were in service , the non - applicant/ management issued order of termination separately to these workmen on the ground that their services were no longer required. It is stated that their services were terminated without showing reason , nor any notice was given nor any compensation was paid . It is stated that Malaria Research Centre, Jabalpur where the workmen were working comes under the definition of " Industry " and the termination was not on the grounds enacted under Section 2 ( 00 ) of the Industrial dispute Act , 1947 ( in short I.D.Act , 1947 ) . In the instant case , the workmen were not terminated after complying the provision of Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act . 1947 and therefore the order of terminations are bad in law , illegal and void - ab - inito . It is stated that the project is still continuing and the termination of the workmen during the continuation of the project is illegal and arbitrary . It is stated that the workmen are entitled to be reinstated with back wages . Accordingly the reference be answered in favour of the workmen .

4. The non - applicants / management appeared and filed Written Statement separately in each reference . The case of the non - applicants , interalia , is that admittedly the

271

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

workmen were appointed on adhoc temporary basis on the specific / conditions that they would have no claim to appointment to the post and their services would be terminated at any time without any notice . The appointment was co - terminus with the life of the Project . The several workmen were terminated . One Smt. Saxena . Lab Technician was also terminated who challenged the order of termination before the Hon'ble High Court of M.P .. At Jabalpur by filing Writ Petition No. 2489 of 1995. ( Smt . Kiran Saxena versus Union of India ) where the Hon'ble Court was pleased to hold that there is no applicability of the provision of Sec- 25 - F of the I.D.Act , 1947 and the termination of such employee does not fall within the term of " retrenchment " as defined under Section 2 ( oo ) of 1.D. Act and dismissed the writ application . Another employce Narendra Dutta Armo who was Chowkidar in the said project, was also terminated . He had also preferred Writ Petition 2539/95 before the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. At Jabalpur against the termination order . This writ is also dismissed vide order dated 7-4-1997 .

5. The further case of the non - applicants: management is that the activities in the project of Maleria Research Centre , field office , Jabalpur are neither commercial in nature nor business like and therefore it , not an Industry within the meaning of Section 2 (j ) of the I.D.Act , 1947. The workmen are not entitled to any retrenchment compensation under the provision of Section 25 - F of the I.D.Act , 1947. It is stated that the project was infact over in 1995 and it was in the process of winding up and skeleton staff is kept for the purpose of winding up of the field station . The termination of services did not come within the definition of " retrenchment " under Section 2( oo ) of the I. D. Act , 1947 and therefore Section 25 ( F ) of the I. D. Act is not applicable . It is denied that Junior employees were retained at the time of termination of other employees . It is submitted that references be answered accordingly .

6. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties . the following issues are framed for adjudication I. Whether Malaria Research Centre ( ICMR ) , field station , Medical College , Jabalpur is an Industry?

II . Whether the action of the management of Malaria Research Centre ( ICMR ) field station , Medical College , Jabalpur in terminating the services of the workmen is justified?

III . If not , to what relief the workmen are entitled to?

7. On the pleadings of both the parties , the following facts appear to have been admitted.

272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

1. The workman Shri Suresh Chandra Ratre was appointed as Lab - Technician and the workmen Shri Shiv Kumar Dubey and Shri Sushil Kumar Khanna were appointed as Chowkidar in the said project of Malaria Research Centre , Jabalpur.

2. Their services were purely temporary on adhoc basis and were co - terminal with the scheme / project or as long as their services were required in connection with this very scheme .

3. They were terminated from the services as their services were no longer required .

8. Issue No.1 ...

The important point for consideration is as to whether the Malaria Research Centre is Industry or not ? The Industry is defined in Section - 2 (j ) of the I.D.Act , 1947 . It is reproduced as under-..

" industry " means any business , trade , undertaking, manufacture or calling of employers and includes any calling service , employment , handicraft or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen;

The learned counsel for the workmen has referred a decision of the Apex Court reported in AIR 1978 - S.C - 548 Bangalore Water Supply Vers A.Rajappa and others wherein the Hon'ble Apex court- has laid down the test of Industry.

" Industry " as defined in Section 2 (j ) has a wide import where there is

( i ) Systematic activity ,

( ii ) Organised by co - operation between employer and employee.

( iii) for the production and / or distribution of goods and services calculated to satisfy human wants and wishes . Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is irrelevant , be the venture in the public , joint , private or other sector .

9. The learned counsel for the management has laso referred decision of the Hon'ble apex Court reported in 1997 ( 4 ) S.C.C. 257 ( Physical Research Laboratory versus K.G.sharma wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has also discussed Banglore Water supply case ( Supra ) . The Hon'ble Apex Court has further laid down the principles to detine " Industry " which are as follows-

"Para- 7:

141. Although Section 2 (j ) uses words of the widest amplitude in its two limbs , their meaning cannot be magnified to overreach itself.

PART 11 SEC 3 ( ii ) ]

(a) ' Undertaking must suller a contextual and associational shrinkage as explained in Banerji and in this judgment : so also , service , falling and the like . This yields the inference that all organized activity possessing the triple elements in I ( supra) , although not trade or business , may still be industry provided the nature of the activity , viz , the employer- employee basis , bears resemblance to what we find is trade or business . This takes into the fold of industry ' undertakings callings and services , adventures analogous to the carrying on the trade or business . All features . other than the methodology of carrying on the activity viz . in organizing the cooperation between employer and employee , may be dissimilar . It doesnot matter , if on the- employment terms there is analogy .

142. Application of these guidelines should not stop short of their logical reach by invocation of creeds . cults or inner sense of incongruity or outer sense of motivation for or resultant of the economic operations .. The ideology of the Act being industrial peace , regulation and resolution of industrial disputes between employer and workmen . the range of this statutory ideology must inform the reach of the statutory definition . Nothing less , nothing more .

( a) The consequences are ( i ) professions . ( ii ) clubs , ( iii ) educational institutions . ( iv) cooperatives , ( v ) research institutes . (vi) charitable projects and ( vii ) other kindred adventures , if they fulfil the triple test listed in I , cannot be exempted from the scope of Section 2 (j ) .

(b) A restricted category of professions . clubs . cooperatives and even gurukulas and little research labs , may qualify for exemption if, in simple ventures , substantially and going by the dominant nature , criterion , substantively . no employees are entertained but in minimum matters , marginal employees are hired without destroying the normal employee character of the unit.

(c) If, in a pious or altruistic mission many employ themselves , from or for small honoraria or like return , mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose or cause , such as lawyers volunteering to run a free legal services clinic or doctors sery ing in their spare hours in a free medical centre or ashramites working at the bidding of the holiness . divinity or like central personality. and the services are supplied free or at nominal [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

cost and those who serve are not engaged for remuneration or on the basis of master and servant relationship , then, the institution is not an industry even if stray servants , manual or technical , are hired . Such eleemosynary or like undertakings alone are exempt not other generosity , compassion , developmental passion or project.

143. The dominant nature test:

(a) Where a complex of activities , some of which qualify for exemption , others not, involves employees on the total undertaking, some of whom are not ' workmen' as in the University of Delhi case or some departments are not productive of goods and services if isolated, even then, the predominant nature of the services and the integrated nature of the departments as explained in the Corpn, of Nagpur, will be the true test. The whole undertaking will be ' industry' although those who are not ' workmen' by definition may not benefit by the status .

(b) Notwithstanding the previous clauses , sovereign functions , strictly understood, (alone) qualify for exemption not the welfare activities or economic adventures undertaken by Government or statutory bodies .

(c) Even in departments discharging sovereign functions , ifthere are units which are industries and they are substantially severable , then they can be considered to come within Section 2(j ).

(d) constitutional and competently enacted legislative provisions may well remove from the scope of the Act categories which otherwise may be covered thereby . " Para-8.

Therefore , the question whether PRL is an " industry " under the I.D. Act will have to be decided by applying the above principle ; but , at the same time it has to be kept in mind that these principles were formulated as this Court found the definition of the word " industry " vague and "rather clumsy, vaporous and tall - and - dwarf" . Therefore , while interpreting the words " undertaking " , " calling" and "service" which are of much wider import , the principle of "noscitur a sociis " was applied and it was held that they would be " industry " only ifthey are found to be analogous to trade or business . Further more , an activity undertaken by the Government cannot be regarded as " industry " if it isdone in discharge of its sovereign functions . One more 172962/09 16

273

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

aspect to be kept in mind is that the aforesaid principles are not ehaustive either as regards what can be said to be sovereign functions or as regards the other aspects dealt with by the court ."

Inthe above light, the evidence is to be examined on factual aspects as to whether the Malaria Research Centre isan Industry or not . All the workmen are examined in their references . In R/ 151 /96 , the workman Shiv Kumar Dubey who was chowkidar has simply stated in his evidence that Malaria Research Centre is an Industry as defined in the I.D. Act. He has not been cross - cxamined on the above point of Industry. In R/ 152/ 96 the workman Sushil is examined . He was also chowkidar in the said Malaria Research Centre ( in short MRC) . He has also stated that the non-applicant is an Industry as in I.D. Act . He has stated that the non- applicant did research work on the disease ofMalaria. In R/ 177 / 96 the workman Chandra Ratra has stated that he was appointed as Lab Technician . He has stated that in Malaria Research Centre, the research work is done and the workman collected blood sample and the public also came to the centre for giving blood sample . He is unable to say that the medicine was also being sold at the centre .

10. In support of the case of the workman that MRC is an Industry , the workmen has filed a copy of an award dated 10-4-2001 passed in Reference Case No. CGIT/LC / R/ 22/91 Shri Chandra Shekhar Tiwari by this Tribunal . In the saíd reference , one of the point for consideration was that MRC is an industry or not under Scc - 2 (j ) of the I.D.Act , 1947? Dr. Neeru Singh , Dy. Director and Incharge , malaria Research Centre , Jabalpur was examined. The same witness is also examined in instant references . The then Learned Tribunal has discussed the evidence of Dr.Singh adduced in R/22/91 in the award which is here under reproduced as follows-

" Taking the above said pronouncement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court , we have to look into the evidence of the parties in the instant case . The additional affidavit of Dr. Neeru Singh , Dy. Director and Incharge , Malaria Research Centre , Jabalpur is relevant for the decision of the issue as to whether the Malaria Research Centre is an industry or not? Her statement goes to show that the Research Centre is an industry or not ? Her statement goes to show thatthe Research work in Malaria Research Centre is being systematically carried out to control the Malaria and to discover the new formula to eradicate the same. For this purpose the samples of blood from different persons are taken by the Lab Assistants of the Centre and those samples are scientifically analysed in the laboratories to find out the cause of 2/4

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

malaria and to cure the same by introducing medicines in this respect after discovering new formula . The regular experiments are being done in the laboratories by the Lab Assistants and the scientists . After making the scientific analysis they introduce new medicines to control and eradicate the malaria . The reports in this connection are annually published to acquaint the Head Office regarding the research work done by the centre . Dr. Neeru Singh has clearly admitted in para - 8 ofher statement on 16-2-2001 that Pfizer Pharmaceutical company had made some payments to the Director Malaria Research Centre , Delhi on different dates . The said company manufactures medicine for Malaria and sells the same in the market . From the statement of Dr. Neeru Singh , it appears that the formula , discovered by the Malaria Research Centre , are sold to the pharmaceutical company to manufacture medicine to control and eradicate Malaria from the different parts of the country . For this purpose, the pharmaceutical company makes payment to the Malaria Research Centre as they are benefitted by the discoveries made known to them for manufacturing medicines to control malaria . This is nothing but activities like business and trade . This view is being supported by circular Exhibit W -10 . ine clause V of the circular is regarding the terms and conditions of the amount paid to the Malaria Research Centre reads as under-

"Receipts realized by the Project Officer and the sale proceeds if any , will be remitted to the counsel as miscellaneous receipts and should not be utilized for meeting expenditure in the scheme . This citation makes it abundantly clear that the Malaria Research Centre definitely sells the research formula to a respective pharmaceuticals company to manufacture the medicines of Malaria etc. It means this activity is being carried like business and trade by the operation of the employer and employees of the centre ."

then Learned Tribunal came to the finding that Maiana Research Centre is an Industry. The learned counsel for the workmen submitted that the non - applicant witness Dr. Neeru Singh is also examined in the case and her evidence adduced earlier on the same point which stablishes that MRC , Field Office , Jabalpur is an Industry where these workmen were employed and I.D.Act , 1947 is applicable.

11. On the other hand , the non - applicant / management has also adduced evidence . Dr. Neeru Singh, Dy.Director and Incharge Malaria Research Centre , at

[PART 11 -- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] Jabalpur is examined separately in all the three references. She has stated in R/ 177/ 96 that the establishment of the Malaria Research Centre does not carry out any business activity. It is only engaged in the research activity on malaria, filaria etc. The result of the research carried out are submitted to the Indian Council of Medical Research , New Delhi . She has stated that MRC is not an Industry . In cross examination , she has stated that the Drug Controller of India had obtained the usefulness of the medicine Ezothromicine from the Director , Malaria Research Centre which was given to him . The centre had taken actual cost incurred on it . The evidence adduced by this witness in R/ 22/91 further corroborates that the activities of the MRC are of an Industry .

12. The management has also filed incomplete annua . reports of the year 1993 and 1994 which are marked as ExhibitM/ l and M/ 4 . Incomplete documents appear to be inadmissible in law. Project minutes and its activities report are marked M /3 to M/ 8 . Budget estimate , terms and conditions of the Grant Revised Research Scheme and expost facto approval are marked as Exhibit M / 9 to 1/12. These documents do not indicate the entire activities of the MRC as few of the documents are incomplete . On the basis of the discussion made above and specially the evidence of Dr.Neeru Singh and her evidence adduced in R/22/ 91 show that the Malaria Research Centre is an Industry. Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of theworkmen .

13. Issue No. 2 & 3 : --

Another important question is that the action of the management in terminating the service of the workinen is justified and legal ? Before discussing the evidence , it is relevant to discuss the order dated 7-4-97 passed in Writ Petition No. 2489/1995 and 2539/95 by the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. ,at Jabalpur . The learned counsel for the management argued that it is identical cases of the Malaria Research Centre , Field Office , Jabalpur , the employee Srimati Kiran Saxena , Lab - Technician and Narendra Dutta Amro , Chowkidar were terminated of the same project where the same questions of law and facts arose for consideration The Hon'ble High Court of M.P , at Jabalpur has held which is reproduced as follows:

" I will take up the first point first . It is an admitted position that petitioners were appointed in DVC Project at Field Station , Jabalpur . Petitioner Kiran Saxena was appointed as Laboratory Technician whereas the other person was appointed as chowkidar . In the return the respondents have clearly stated that the project is at completion stage and n the winding up process and the project employees are progressively retrenched in stages particularly 275 भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Petitioners were appointed in a project . The contrac . of employment between them stated that their employment is for the duration of the project . As held earlier , the project has come to an end and in thatview of the matter the termination of services of the petitioners donot come with the definition of retrenchment so as to attract the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act . Accordingly respondents are not obliged to pay to the petitioners the retrenchment compensation and follow the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act . I do not find any illegality on the part of the respondents in not paying the petitioners retrenchment compensation of complying with the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act . "

It is clear that the Hon'ble Court had finally dismissed the writ . It also appears that the I.D.Act , 1947 is applicable and MRC is an Industry and the provision of Section 2( 00 ) (bb) of the 1.D.Act is applicable against the workmen . The termination was held legal and justified .

those employees whose services are no longer required . It has been further stated that the purpose for which the project was started had already been achieved and at present it is in the maintenance phase and shall be wound up shortly. Accordingly it is contended that the project employees whose services were required when the project activities were going on are not more than required and for maintenance phase very minimal staff are required . The aforesaid statement made by the respondcats in the return has not been controverted by the petitioners and accordingly I have no reasea to disbelieve their stand that the project is at completion stage and minimal staff is required for maintenance phase . Even after the completion of the proje , there are assets and liability left and for many of the same if certain staff are required and they are continued , it will not mean that the project has not come to an end . Petitioner Kiran Saxena was a Laboratory Technician and other person was the chowkidar and their services may not be required by the respondents for maintenance phase . Accordingly I am of the view that the project for the purpose of employment of the petitioners have come to an end and I negative the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the project is still continuing. "

TheHon'ble Court has further held at para 6 , page 7 which is reproduced as follows-

14. In the back ground , the evidence is to be examined of the parties . In R/ 151 /96 , the workman Shiv Kumar Dubey has stated that he was appointed on the post of chowkidar by the non - applicant . He has filed the appointment order which is marked as Exhibit W 1. The appointment order shows that this was the appotem of staff of IDVC project at MRC , F.S , Jabalpur . It appears that the workman Shri Dubey was appointed on purely temporary basis for the duration of the project w.e.f. the date ofjoining . The further conditions show that there will be no claim for regular appointment and the services can be terminated at any time without giving any notice and reason . This clearly shows that the condition of his service fully covers with the provision of Section - 2 ( oo ) ( bb ) of the 1.D.Act and his termination is not a retrenchment and the provision of Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act is not applicable .

15. This witness has further stated that his service was terminated vide order dated 28-3-1995 . The copy of the order is filed which is A/2 & A/ 3 . This is also an admitted document as the non - applicant has also filed the same documents . This shows that the service of the work was not required as such his service was terminated w.e.f. 31-3-1995 . He has also admitted that ether workmen of the project were also terminated . Thus his evidence proves the case of the non - applicant that this workman was terminated as no long his service was required for the project.

" It is well settled that all retrenchment is termination of service but all termination of service may not be retrenchment . For retrenchment , the termination of service has to fall within the ambit of definition of retrenchment under Section 2 (00 ) of the Act . A plain reading of Section 2 ( oo ) of the Act makes it clear that the termination of the service of the workman on expiry of the contract of employment is not included in the definition of retrenchment . It is relevant here to staffs that Section 2 ( 00 ) ( bb) which contemplates of contractual termination was inserted by Act No. 49/84 w.e.f. 18-8-1984 and the effect of the amendment is to exclude from the ambit of the retrenchment , ( i ) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non- removal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workmen concerned on its expiry and ( ii ) termination of contract of employment in terms of stipulation contained in the contract of the employment . As a result of the aforesaid amendment if the stipulation in the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned providing the mode and manner oftermination in service , such termination of service has been exempted from the ambit of the definition of retrenchment . In the background of the aforesaid legal position, I come to the facts of the present case .

16. Jn R/ 152 / 96 , the workman Sushil Khanna , who was chowkidar in the project , has also stated that he was appointed vide order dated 27-8-82 . He has also filed the copy of the order which is Exhibit A/ 1 . The saiddocument is admitted by the non - applicant . The appoinunent order clearly shows that he was appointed in the sand project on 276

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 /PAUSA 19 , 1931

the same condition . He has also admitted that his service was terminated as his service was not required. The said orders are A/ 3 & A/4 .

17. In Reference No. R/ 177 / 96 , the workman Suresh Chandra Ratre has also stated that he was appointed as Lab . Technician on the same ground as discussed above . He has filed the appointment letter and termination letter . The termination letter shows that he was terminated and his service was no more required. This witness has adduced evidence that he was victimized by the project incharge as he had demanded Vehicle Allowance. He has filed copy of the letters of his correspondence with the Incharge of the Project . He has stated that he was transferred to different places . He has stated that there is still work in the project and he has been terminated on the ground of misconduct but no show cause notice or proceeding was started against him . The termination letter does not show that he was terminated on the ground of misconduct rather his service was no longer required and as such , he was terminated. It appears that on the same ground , other workmen were also terminated . Two of the workmen preferred writ petition before the Hon'ble High Court and the Hon'ble High Court also held that the action of the management was justified . Thus the evidence of the workmen proves the case of the management.

18. On the other hand , the management has also examined witness in all the three references . Dr. Neeru Singh, Dy. Director of MRC , Jabalpur has stated that the appointment letter of the workmen itself shows that it was co-terminus with life of the project and the project work having reduced to the skeleton . She has stated that six- seven employees including Smt . Kiran Saxena along with these workmen were terminated as their services were no longer required. It is clear from the above discussion that Smt . Saxena preferred writ before the Hon'ble Court against the termination order and the Hon'ble Court had justified the action of the Deputy Director , MRC , Jabalpur . Thus it is clear that there is no need to interfere in the order of termination passed by the non - applicant against the workman. The workman is not entitled to any relief . Accordingly this issue is decided against the workmen and in favour of the management. Hence the above references are answered .

19. In the result , the award is passed without any order as to costs .

20. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 131. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा -1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों

[ PART II--SEC . 3 (ii) ] का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा । जनवरी , 2010 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय-5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77, 78. 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध उड़ीसा राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

" जिला कोरापुट की पोटांगी तहसील में ।. मानिया, 2. चरंगूली, 3. लुंगूरी , 4. अम्बागम , 5. अनलबाड़ी , 6. कन्धापुत्रघाटी, 7. कन्टागूडा, 8. मरीचामल , 9. चौगम, 10. अरिपुत्रघाटी, 11. डुमूरीगुड़ा, 12. सिन्धीपार , 13. बारंगापूट , 14. कुरूमूली, 15. दामनजोड़ी, 16. कारीडीगुड़ा, 17. काकारीगुड़ा क्षेत्र के राजस्व गांव । "

[सं. एस-38013/48//2009- एस.एस. 10

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 18th December . 2009 S. O. 131. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January, 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought in to force ) and Chapter Vand VI [except Sub- Section ( 1 ) ofSection 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Orissa namely :

"The areas comprising of the revenue villages of 1. Mania , 2. Charanguli , 3. Lunguri , 4. Ambagam , 5. Analabadi , 6. Kandhaputraghati , 7. Kantaguda . 8. Marichamal , 9. Chougam , 10. Ariputraghati . 11. Dumriguda, 12. Sindhipar , 13. Barangapurt , 14. Kurumuli , 15. Dhamanjodi , 16. Karidiguda, and 17. Kakariguda in Tehsil Potangi in the District of Koraput ."

[No. S-38013 /48/2009 - S.S. 1 ]

S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 21 दिसम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 132.कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा । जनवरी , 2010 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

"बांकूड़ा जिला में बरजोड़ा तथा गंगाजलघाटी क्षेत्र जिसमें देबजुरी , बरजोड़ा, साहेबडिही, बिरसिंहपुर , देउचा, सहरजोरा , कड़ासोल , [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

घुटगोड़िया तथा चौसाल के मौजा एवं घनश्यामपुर के मौजा भी शामिल है । "

[सं. एस-38013/51//2009 - एस.एस. 1 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st December , 2009 S. O. 132. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - seciton ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January , 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter- V and VI [ except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Secitons 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force ] ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of West Bengal namely : -

"Areas of Barjora and Gangajalghati comprising mouzas of Debjuri , Barjora , Sahebdihi , Birshinghapur , Deucha , Saharjora , Kadasole , Ghutgoria and Chausal and mouza of Ghanashyampur in the District of Bankura . "

[No. S - 38013 / 51 /2009 - S.S . 1 ] S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 21 दिसम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 133. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 जनवरी , 2010 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ] के उपबंध कर्नाटक राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्: -

जिला

होबली तालुक

क्र. राजस्व ग्राम का नाम सं. नगरपालिका सीमाएं

5 2

1 .

बेंगलूर बेलन्दूर

बेंगलूर पूर्व

वर्भूर

होसकोटे बेंगलूर ग्रामीण एकराजपुरा सुलीबेले

बेंगलूर

दासनापुरा बेंगलूर उत्तर

अउकामरना हल्ली

[सं. एस -38013/49/ 2009 - एस. एस. 1 ) ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st December , 2009 S. O. 133. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -seciton ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st January , 2010 as the date on which

277

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapters- V and VI [ except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Secitons 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Karnataka namely :

Taluk District

Hobli

Sl. Name of the

No. Revenue Village

or Municipal Limits

1 . Bellandur Varthur Bangalore Bangalore East

2. Ekarajapura Sulibele Hoskote Bangalore Rural 3. Adakamarana Dasanapura Bangalore Bangalore Halli North

[No. S - 38013 /49/ 2009 - S.S . 1 } S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 21 दिसम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 134. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा -1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा । जनवरी , 2010 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 [ धारा 76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध उड़ीसा राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्: - " जिला जगतसिंहपुर की कूजंग तहसील के अर्न्तगत मुसाड़िया एवं उदयबट के राजस्व गांव । "

[सं. एस -38013 /50// 2009 - एस. एस. । ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st December , 2009 S. O. 134. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - seciton ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist January , 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapters- V and VI [ except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Secitons 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Orissa namely :

"The Revenue Village of Musadia and Udayabata under the Tehsil Kujang in the District of Jagatsingpur . "

[No. S - 38013 / 50 / 2009 - S.S . 11 S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy .

278

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

( PART II-- SEC . 3 (ii)] नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

Kamagar Union Near Noorani Masjid , Bhiwapur , Ward No.3 Babupeth District- Chandrapur ( Party No.2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L- 22012 ( 11 ) / 90 IR (Coal II )dt . 11/6/90 under clause ( d) of sub - section (1 ) and sub- section ( 2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule:

का. आ. 135.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 1.7 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं डब्ल्यू. सी. एल . के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 99/04 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of W.C.L. Hindusthan Lalpeth Colliery in terminating the services of Sh . Bapu Gowrayya , Coal Dresser , w.e.f. 31-3-85 is legal andjustified ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

[सं. एल -22012/ 11/ 1990- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009

S. O. 135. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.99/ 04) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009 .

The petitioner approached with the contention that he was appointed as Coal Dresser in October , 1970 and was dismissed by an Order dt . 2-4-85 with effect from 31-3-85 for absenteeism . The same dismissal order has been challenged by him under the reference .According to him and he had submitted the medical certificate explaining his absence . Therefore , the Order of dismissal is illegal . It was not imposed after a proper enquiry as well as the punishment is also shockingly disproportionate in view of alleged misconduct . He is facing starvation . Finally he prayed to quash the illegal order of dismissal and allow him to join the duties directing the management to reinstate him . He has also claimed the full back wages from the date of his dismissal .

[No. L- 22012 / 11 / 1990 - IR ( C - II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT , NAGPUR

Date : 18/11/2009

Case No. CGIT / NGP / 99 / 04

The Sub Area Manager ,

Hindusthan Lalpeth Colliery ,

ofW.C.L. Post Lalpeth ,

-PartyNo. 1

Dist.: Chandrapur

Versus

The management appeared and filed its Written Statement resisting the claim of petitioner . Accordingto the management . the petitioner is habitual absentee having habit of remaining absent from the duties without getting the leave sanctioned or without any permission from the management . He used to remain absent even without submitting the applications and without any prior intimation . On many Occasions he was warned after issuing show - cause notices from time to time . IHe did not improve though sufficient chances were given to him . He attended the work only for 11 days in the year 1984 the management after holding a departmental enquiry awarded the punishment of dismissal . It being a Coal Mining Industry and the Petitioner was holding responsible post of Dresser his absence was causing inconvenience to the other workers also . They used to remain idle during his absence . Thus it was causing loss to the management. He was dismissed w.e.f. 31-3-85 and he raised the dispute before ALC after more than 4 years on 3-5-89 . They have supported their action of dismissal .

-Party No. 2

The General Secretary , Lal Bawata Koyala Kamagar Union , Near Noorani Masjid Bhiwapur , Ward No. 3 Babupeth , District- Chandrapur .

AWARD

29-5-2009

The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between the Sub Area Manager ofW.C.L. , Post Lalpeth , Dist . Chandrapur (Party No. 1 ) and the General Secretary , Lal Bawata Koyala

My Learned predecessor by an Order dt. 7-2-96 when the case was pending before CGIT , Jabalpur recorded the finding that the enquiry was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice . However , he gave opportunity to the management to prove the charges before the Court . Accordingly , I have recorded the evidence asking the managementto prove the charges before this Tribunal after transfer . Accordingly , in order to prove the case , the management examined its then Clerk of the office Shri Prakash Krushna Pochalwar who was Inquiry Officer and K.Radha Krishtayya . They are cross - examined on behalf of the petitioner . The petitioner has filed his affidavit but did not enter into witness box for the cross - examination .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Therefore his affidavit is without cross - examination consequently , it cannot be called as evidence .

The Petitioner's witness has stated in respect of the validity of enquiry only . His evidence is silent regarding the merit of the case . In fact , even the statement of claim of the petitioner , does not disclose any valid reason for his absence . It seems from the evidence of the management that earlier to the order of the dismissal petitioner , he was given the warning on many occasions . He was allowed to join the duties on several times excusing his misconduct as he demanded pardon . It seems that the witness who is examined by the management himself was working as a clerk at Hindusthan Lalpeth Colliery in personal section from 1976 to 1997 where the petitioner was working as a CoalDresser . The same Clerk was maintaining service record of the workers . He has given month - wise attendance for the year 1984 of the petitioner which discloses that the petitioner atended the work during the whole year from January to December 1984 for only 11 days while on an average there are 335 working days in every year . This indicates that attendance of the petitioner was totally abnormal and poor . It seems that in 1981 he attended the work for 149 days , in 1982 for 19 days , 1983 for 212 days and only 11 days in 1984. Similarly he did not attend the work for the whole year in 1995. It cannot be said that he had any interest in the work . It also indicates that he was not at all intending to work .

Though the petitioner claims that he had submitted leave application along with the medical certificate but there is nothing to suport his contention . No doubt one certificate is brought by him but it also does not disclose the exact period and then number of days of his illness . There is no specific evidence though he claims to have developed a contiguous disease of T.B. due to the underground working. There is no specific evidence showing that he was suffering from T.B. In the result his absence cannot be justified. After all the workers are appointed for getting the work from them . He was on responsible post of Coal Dresser . It was not possible for the management to continue the working in his absence . There was no other go than to dismiss him. In my view , considering the habit of the petitioner of remaining absent is beyond improvement and the punishment awarded by the management cannot be said as disproportionate shocking . In my view , the punishment of dismissal awarded is proper and does not deserve any interference . Hence I pass this negative award that he is not entitled for any relief.

Date : 19-11-2009

A. N. YADAV , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 136. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. ई. सी.

279

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/487/1994- आईआर ( सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th December , 2009 S. O. 136. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 11/95 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009.

[No. L - 22012 /487 / 1994 - IR ( C - II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/ LC /R/ 11 /95

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan

Workman /Union General Secretary, KoylaMazdoor Sabha ( UTUC ) , Post Dhanpuri , Shahdol (MP )

Versus

Sub Area Manager , Amlai Colliery , SECL , PostAmlai Colliery , Distt . Shahdol ( MP )

.Management

AWARD

Pased on this 4th December , 2009

1. The Government of India , MInistry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 22012 (487 )/ 94 - IR C - II dated 4-1-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the Sub Area Manager , Amlai Sub Area of SECL in dismissing Shri Dauram , Loader , Amlai Colliery w.e.f. 12-2-92 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled to ? " 2. The case of the workman , in short , is that the workman Dauram . T. No. 1886 was loader in Amlai Colliery 280

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19, 1931

since 1973. He proceeded on two days casual leave i.e. on 19-4-90 and 20-4-90 but became ill and did not turn up on duty. He sent application for extension of leave by Registered posts . After becoming fit on 3-6-1991 for resuming duty, he came and submitted proof ofhis absence to the Manager but he was not allowed to resume his duty. It is stated that when he raised Industrial Dispute , he came to know during conciliation that he was terminated w.e.f. 13-2-92 . It is alleged that he was illegally terminated and he isentitled for reinstatement with back wages .

3. The non applicant appeared and filed Written Statement. The case of the non - applicant , inter alia , is that admittedly the workman was loader at Amlai Colliery . It is stated a chargesheet dated 25-5-91 was served on him for unauthorized absence w.e.f. May 1990 under the provisions of the Certified Standing Orders , His reply was not found satisfactory. As such a departmental enquiry was ordered to be initiated in respect of the charges leveled against him. Shri K.K. Sharma , Sr. Under Manager was appointed asEnquiry Officer who noticed to the workman. The said workman participated in the enquiry alongwith co-worker . The full opportunity was given to the workman to defend himself. After enquiry , The Enquiry Officer submitted his report with findings that charges against him were established beyond shadow ofdoubt . The Controlling Officer considering the finding of Enquiry Officer recommended to the competent authority for approval of histermination from service w.e.f. 13-2-92 . Accordingly the workman was terminated vide letter No. SECL/AAL- SAM/92/ 167 dated 8 /13-2-09 . It is submitted that the action of the management was justified and the reference be answered in favour of the non - applicant .

4. After filing statement of claim , the workman absented. The reference was pending for evidence of the workman since 9-12-04 but he did not file the evidence . As such the then Tribunal proceeded exparte against the workman on 28-3-06 .

5. To prove the case , the management has filed evidence of two witnesses. Management witness Shri J.K.A.Sunder is Deputy Personnel Manager , Amlai and Bangwar Sub Area . He has supported the case of the non- applicant . He has stated that the workman was absent unauthorisedly and a chargesheet was issued . He has further stated that department enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer and the workman Dauram alongwith co- worker participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer submitted the Enquiry report holding the workman guilty of the charges . Thereafter the Competent Authority approved for terminating him from service . The termination was accordingly issued . He has stated that the workman Dauram was absent for a considerable long period which was against the interest of the management . His evidence is unrebutted . There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

[PART II -SEC . 3( ii) ]

= 6. Another witness Shri Nand Kishore Verma is clerk in Amlai colliery . He has also supported the case of the management . He has stated the period of the absence of the workman . He has stated that he was habitual absentee and two warnings were earlier given to him and he had apologized with an assurance to improve his conduct . His evidence is also unrebutted . There is no reason to disbelieve hisevidence .

7. On persual of the statement of claim , it appears that the workman has not challenged the departmental enquiry that there is a violation of natural justice and he had not been given proper opportunity to defend himself. This shows that the departmental enquiry was valid and legal .

8. The evidence , as has been discussed above , clearly shows that the workman Dauram was habitual absentee . I , therefore , find that there is no need to interfere in the order of punishment . Hence the action of the management is proper and justified. Accordingly the reference is decided in favour of the non - applicant.

9. In the result, the award is passed exparte against the workman without any order to costs.

10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 दिसम्बर , 2009

का. आ. 137.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 235/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/ 11/2000- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 17th Deceember , 2009 S. O. 137. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.235 /2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of WCL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 17-12-2009 .

[No. L -22012/ 11 /2000 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT / NGP/235 /2000

281

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

Date : 9/11/2009

Petitioner/ Party No. 1

Sh. Lomesh Maroti Khartad , President , National Colliery Workers Congress, Ambedkar Ward , Ballarpur , Tah . & Distt . Chandrapur (MS) Ballarpur

Versus

Respondent/ PartyNo. 2

The Sub Area Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth Opencast Sub Area of WCL , PO ; Lalpeth , Distt . Chandrapur ( M.S. ) AWARD

Dated : 9th Novermber , 2009

The Central Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri . Lomesh Maroti Khartad, President , National Colliery Workers Congress , Ambedkar Ward , Ballarpur , Tah . & Distt . Chandrapur ( MS) Ballarpur (Party No.1) and the Sub Area Manager , Hindustan Lalpeth Opencast Sub Area of WCL, PO: Lalpeth , Distt . Chandrapur (M.S. ) ( Party No.2 ) referred the same for adjudication to thisTribunal vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 11 /2000- IR( CM - II ) dated 4-8-2000 under clause (d) of sub Section ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947 ) with the following schedule:

"Whether the action of the management namely Sub- Area Manager, Hindustan Lalpeth U /G Sub Area of WCL, PO: Lalpeth, Distt. Chandrapur in not providing compensatory employment to Smt . Radhabai Sodari w/ o late Bhanayya Sodari , Ex - Badli Workers , Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery is legal , Proper of Justified ? Ifnot , to what reliefthe workman is entitled and from what date ? What other directions are necessary in the matter ?"

3. The Petitioner Union is claiming that it is registered trade Union under Trade Union Act having its registration No. 35/19 dt . 1-12-1994 and affiliated to NFITU . It is also claimed to have operative in Coal Industries ancillary organization . It has contended that Bhannaiya Mahakali Sodari a deceased husband of Radhabai Sodari was appointed as a Badli worker in Cat. - I in WCL, on 1-9-1980 . He was illiterate . He was continued in the service till his death on 28-11-1989 and has put 190 days attendance in 12 months for several years . He was medically examined and was employed to work in underground mines . During the course ofemployment he became a T.B. patient . Since the treatment for T.B. is available only at Civil Hospital , Chandrapur, he was referred to get treatment in Civil Hospital , Chandrapur . Accordingly he was admited on 4729GI/ 09-17

18-11-1989 but unfortunately expired on 28-11-1989 . His wife , the present petitioner on 16-12-1989 informed the Manager about his death enclosing the copy of death certificate . She is approaching the management for the employment being dependent of the deceased Bhannaiya but neither her request was considered nor her representations were replied . National Coal Wage Agreement- IV was aplicable to the workman and as per the provisions of Chapter- I ofthe Agreement, Chapter- IX ( Para 9.4) and the memorandum of settlement under section 12 ( i ) ofthe Industrial Dispute Act. She is entitled for the service. Therefore , she has prayed to give employment w.e.f. 16-1-1990 with full back wages of Cat - 1 and continuity in the service with fringe and consequential benefits alongwith the cost .

4. The management appeared and resisted the claim. According to it, Smt . Radhabai Sodari is not the employee ofthe colliery and the relationship as an employer and the employee between them does not exist . Accordingly, she cannot be a member of any union and thus the union cannot spouse her claim . Even the deceased Bhannaiya was not a member of any union and the present petitioner union had not come even into existence at the time of his death . Therefore , it is not at all entitled to raise the dispute on behalf of the petitioner . The cause of action has arisen on 28-11-1989 and the industrial dispute has been raised by the union under its letter dated 6-5-1999 before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ), Chandrapur i.e. after 10 years . Thus, it is belated and not maintainable . Thus , he was a Badli Worker and he had resigned his job which was accepted on 1-8-1989 . It was conveyed to him after information about the death of her husband . The Petitioner on 24-2-1994 applied for payment of gratuity , payment of Provident Fund and other dues of her late husband and accordingly it was processed . She herself requested for the above benefit because her husband had resigned from the service . She has not made any claim for employment on compassionate ground because her husband did not die while in service . She did not apply because she had knowledge about the resignation of her husband. It has denied that the petitioner was referred by the management to Civil Hospital , Chandrapur . According to it, the management has its own hospital fully equipped to provide the treatment including for the disease of T.B. The Petitioner avoids to take the treatment from the hospital of the management because he had already resigned. According to the management , her claim is not covered under the NCWA - IV . Her submissions are vague and it has prayed to reject the claim of the Petitioner .

5.Heard the counsel for both the parties perused the evidence as well as written submission made by them . On the basis of these submission the following points arises formy consideration .:

(i) Whether the Petitioner union is not the union of the workers of Hindustan Lalpeth U/G Sub-Area ofWCL.

282

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 /PAUSA 19 , 1931

(ii) Whether the dependent who had resigned can be awarded the benefit of employment under the dependent employment scheme of JBCCI and NCWA - IV.

(iii) Whether the dependent of Badli worker is entitled for ecuring the employment under the provision ofNCWA - IV

(iv) Whether the claim of the petitioner is belated after a gap of about 10 years .

6 The dispute is raisedby the National Colliery Worker Congress . Undisputedly, it is a industrial union the question is whether it has acquired any representative characterat Lalpeth having at least 25% of the total workers of the establishment as its member . Undisputedly , the union is registered at Dhanbad . previously in Bihar now in Jharkhand . According to the management , this union has come into existence in the year 1999. The death ofworkman in whose place the dependent has claimed a right of employment she heing his wife is dated 28-11-89 . The cause of action has arisen on 28-11-89 and the union has come into existence m 1994-95 near about it. Thus the cause of action has arisen before the existence of union , it has no right to raise the dispute . Further , it is also submitted on behalf of the management that the union had no representative character . Still suo motu , it would not be competent to spouse the cause of the employees of the establishment unless there is a specific resolution . Entire evidence of the petitioner does not disclose that it has some representative character . Assuming it has some representative , it is below 25% of the total workers . There is no reply to this objection of the management from the union to show that it is competent to raise the dispute . Assuming for the sake of argument that it has acquired some representative character still it was necessary for it to produce the resolution for raising the claim of the Petitioner . Undisputedly , the deceased Bhannaiya was not a member ofthis union . His wife cannot be a member of the union because she was not a worker . She could have taken the help of union had she raised the dispute in the year 1989 immediately after the death of her husband. In my view, she cannot maintain the claim for the employment on thebasis of compassionate ground after this considerable delay.

7. The Union filed its constitution and the list of office bearers . Office bearers of the union about setting/ opening of its branch at Hindustan Lalpeth UG Sub Area , however, it discloses only names of the office bears of union. It does not disclose the particular specially working designation etc. It is insufficient to disclose the specific identity and as indicated above , there is no resolution taken by the union in any meeting for raising dispute in respect ofthe petitioner . Assuming for the sake of argument that it has a representation still non -production of any resulution will not entitled union to represent the petitioner . It has not

[PART HSFC. 3 ( ii ) ] filed any resolution authorizing the General Secretary to raise dispute .

8. Similarly, there is no authority issued either by the deceased or by the Radhabai in favour of the union authorizing it to take up her dispute . It is also undisputed factthat Radhabai being not worker cannot be a member of any union. In such circumstances , in my view , the union without any authority either from the petitioner or and without any resolution authorizing its representative to raise the disputes cannot validly to maintain the claim .

9.According to the management , the petitioner had already resigned from the service . The Petitioner is now denying that late Bhannaiya , her husband had resigned at all but still the question remain whether employment can be given to the dependent of the employee who had already resigned. The management has produced the letter of acceptance of the resignation of the petitioner. It is dated 19-7-89 . Resignation application is not filed by the management because the issue regarding resignation was not earlier disputed by the petitioner . The statements of claim as well as the other documents do not disclose any dispute regarding the resignation but still the petitioner at the time of evidence examined the witness , who is the co- worker and orally saying that Bhannaiya was never intending and had never subinitted his resignation . But here his Order which indicated regarding the acceptance ofhis resignation , this letter was issued during the life time of Bhannaiya and he has signed Peon Book under which this letter was served on him. Peon Book bears his signature in token of receipt of letter under which his resignation was accepted . Even the papers of the Conciliation Officer shows that the petitioner had resigned . Moreover , the Petitioner has collected all his dues of gratuity, Provident Fund and other terminal benefits . All the dues are paid not on the basis of his death during the service but they are paid because the petitioner had resigned from his post or from the service . Therefore , now her contention that he had not submitted the resignation cannot be accepted . There are no reasons for the management to prepare all these documents long back in the year 1989 when there wasno whisper or demand regarding job on compassionate ground . In such circumstances , oral evidence of the petitioner has no value . On the contrary , documents show that his resignation was accepted and his terminal benefits were given on the basis ofhis resignation . It is not possible to direct the management to employ the dependent of the resigned einployee .

10. Similar thing about the Badli worker the deceased Bhannaiya was undisputedly Bádli worker . No doubt . he worked as a Badli worker for considerable long time but there is no evidence on record regarding the actual working days of the deceased Bhannaiya . It was not an issue at all covered under the reference or scheduled . The petitioner isclaiming the deceased as regular employee because he 283 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

resignation letter proves that he before the death has resigned from the service . The wife of the resigned employee cannot seek employment as dependent i.e. compassionate ground.

has worked for more than 120 days in each year for so many years . But when it was not an issue and there is no specific evidence to show that he had really worked for 120 days or 240 days as the case may be in each year . Since the issue was not raised by the Petitioner claiming regularization on the basis of his continuous working for either 120 days or 240 days , no evidence is produced . In such circumstances , he will have to be treated as a Badli worker because there is no specific evidence that he has acquired status of permanent employee . The petitioner is presuming that the deceased was a permanent employee but there is nothing on record to show that he has ceased to be a Badli worker .

11. There are no disputes that the provision of NCWA - IV or at the time NCWA- II there were provisions to provide the employment to the dependent of the deceased worker but the question is whether the Petitioner Radhabai is entitled for the same . Since deceased Bhannaiya was a Badli worker , in my view she is not entitled even as per the provision of NCWA . It is contended on behalf of the Petitioner that standing orders is giving right of getting job being a dependent of the deceased worker . But how thiswill be applicable when the job was demanded after 10 years .

13: The petitioner union has filed the documents as per Exh . W- 2 , W - 4 , W - 5 , W-6 and W - 7 . Out of these the documents at W - 2 is having thumb impression of the petitioner and it was issued to the management on 16-12-89 . She has claimed that she had demanded employment as a dependent under this letter but on perusal of documents , it seems that she has never mentioned for providing the job . It is only giving of information about his death. Seconddocument is W - 4 . It is dated 22-2-94 having her thumb impression and this letter also does not disclose any demand for the job . The same thing is in respect of the letter W- 5dt . 2-10-97 . It is signed by the petitioner instead ofthumb impression . It shows that she is literate . However , throughout the case she is claiming that she is illiterate . These documents are not acknowledged and there is no reference of earlier letter or applications in it . Therefore , according to the management it is the fabricated one only to show that it has raised the demand repeatedly in the year 1997 also . The letter W-6 is also signed by the petitioner Smt . Sodari on 20-10-97 and addressed to the Director ( P) , Western Coalfield Ltd. , Nagpur . However , there is no acknowledgement of this communication and this letter has also no reference of earlier letters or name of the authorities to whom she has made request . The fact remains that this letter issued after 8 years from the death of her husband . Document No. W - 7 is dtd.31-12-97 which is signed by her and addressed to the Manager , Hindustan Lalpeth Colliery No.1 . According to the management , this letter has been written for the first time for providing the jobs . Had she applied for the job earlier , she would have mentioned references of earlier letters ? Thus the letter issued by her also indicates that she has requested after considerable delay . Whatever it may be , there is no specific limitation provided under the Industrial Dispute Act, but still these documents indicate that carlier she was silent and she has not demanded service as early as possible . Certified standing orders make it obligatory to give job to the dependent of the deceased employee while died during the service . Here the deceased employee had already resigned at the time of his death . He was not in service . There are no reasons to doubt about his resignation . Similarly, he was working as Badli worker throughout and had not acquired the status of regular employee. As he was not in service at the time of his death and as a regular employee , his dependent cannot claim for job. Thus in my view Smt . Radhabai Sordai , wife of deceased Bhannaiya is not entitled for the job or for the employment on compassionate ground. Her claim deserves to be rejected. Accordingly, I pass this negative award.

Dated : 09-11-2009

12. It appears that issue of resignation has been raised in the year 1999 by the union when he died in the year 1989. She has challenged the resignation as stated above . The management filed an Annexure - C of the employer's document of acceptance letter of the resignation on 1-8-89 . The record is having the signature of Bhannaiya. The management witness has proved it . It has filed another letter under which the present petitioner Radhabai Sodari has demanded refund of CMPF which was forwarded by the department . It was prepared in the year 1994. The reason for returning the CMPF was mentioned as resigned. This letter bears the thumb impression of Shri Radhabai and she has admitted that it is her thumb impression . No doubt the witness of the management Mr. Meshram who has proved this document in cross exam on behalf of the Petitioner . This cross-examination is regarding whether the contents of this document were explained to her ? It was , in fact, forwarded by the management or by this witness . Mr. Meshram was in the cross - examination stated that her thumb impression was voluntarily taken by him . This Form was filed by Shri B. M.Meshram i.e. witness but his evidence is challenged only on the ground whether its contents were explained to her or not . It is not the case of the Petitioner that her thump impression was obtained under pressure or by fraud . It is not the case at all and this form was prepared after the death of her husband for the purpose of paying of his dues after his resignation . Since it was prepared after the death of Bhannaiya , the thump impression of Radhabai was obtained . In fact , at that time there was no dispute regarding the resignation . Since the benefit are paid on the basis of his acceptance of

A. N. YADAV, Presiding Officer 284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 /PAUSA 19 , 1931

नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 138.-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 , पूणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-12012/ 221/95- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th December , 2009 S.O. 138. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.5 /2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 18-12-2009 .

[ No. L - 12012/ 221 / 95 - IR ( B - I ) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI B. C. CHANDRAKAPURE , INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MUMBAI , ( CAMP AT PUNE)

Reference ( IT ) No. 5 of 2005

BETWEEN

The Regional Manager

State Bank of India 2420 , East Street Pune -411001 .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] The dispute pertains the demand of reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages .

2. The facts of the present case in brief, are as follows .

FirstParty

AND

Tanaji Appa Mahapure Post Patan , Dist . Satara Chapoli Road , Patan .

The second party has filed Statement of Claim at Exh . U -4 and submitted that he is Ex - serviceman and retired from Military Services in 1976. He joined as a temporary SecurityGuard with the first party. He was confirmed in the services as Watchman - cum- Messenger w.e.f. 1-10-86 . He has about 20 years with the first party . The service record ofthe second party is clean and unblemished . No merno or warning was issued to him by the first party . The first party has issued charge - sheetdt . 12-7-97 and prior to that he was issued show cause notice by first partydt. 13-2-97 . The certain charges were levelled against him in the charge- sheet and main charge was that he was under influence of liquor and he abused some persons . No alcoholic test was taken and no police complaint was lodged agaist him . He was also not provided the copies of the complaints of Salunkhe, Karamblekar and Killedar . He was caused great prejudice . As he could not give his defence statement , he was issued show cause notice of dismissaldt . 11-4-98 . The enquiry was conducted behind his back. The second party submitted that the finding drawn by the enquiry officer is not based on evidence therefore , it is perverse . The charge- sheet was issued to him on 12-7-97 and finding was ready on 27-8-97 disclosed that the enquiry was conducted in hurriedly. The said enquiry was conducted only on one day on 8-8-97 . The enquiry officer deprived the second party of reasonable opportunity of putting his defence. It is submitted that his past service record was not considered by the first party . Accordingto the second party , the punishment of dismissal imposed by the first party was shockingly disproportionate as he has not committed any misconduct . The second party has submitted that he had tried for alternative employment but he could not get it and he is unemployed and has no source of income . The second party has sought the reliefto direct the first party to reinstate him in service with full back wages and continuity of service .

Second Party

In the matter of : Demand mentioned in the Sechedule to the order of Reference .

Appearances : Shri D.V.Kulkarni , Advocate for First Party: Shri G. S. Ogale . Advocate for Second Party

AWARD

(Delivered on date : 18-11-2009)

This reference has been referred by the Government of India U / s 10 clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , to adjudicate the dispute between the First Party Regional Manager , State Bank of India and Second Party - Shri Tanaji Appa Mahapure.

3. The first party has resisted the claim of the second party by filing written statement at Exh . C - 8 . According to the first party, the charge - sheetdt . 23-11-92 issued to the second party and thereafter enquiry was initiated in accordance with the provisions of Shastri Award . He was found guilty of misconduct . The misconduct was proved in enquiry and was warranting the punishment of dismissal . However , leniency was shown and the punishment of stoppage of one incremant awarded to him on 31-7-93 . It is submitted that the charge- sheetdt . 12-7-97 was issued to the second party. The bank has sought explanation of workman on 13-2-97 to which he had given on 17-2-97 admitting his guilt . On 8-1-97 at about 10.00 p.m.to 10.30 p.m.the second party entered the bank premises while working in Patan Branch and has scolded in abusive language under the intoxication to Mr. D. V. Salunkhe , the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

other Watchman and has statred uttering filthy language agaist Mr. Salunkhe , the then Watchman in a very loud manner . At that time the bank officers Mr. Karambelkar and Mr. Killedar tried to pacify the workman but he acted intotally defiance with their orders for keeping silence in the bank premises , because of which neighbours of the bank also gathered . Therefore , the charge - sheet was issued to him on 12-7-97 under Clauses 521 (4 ) ( c ) ( e ) and (j ) of Shastri Award . The second party had given reply to the charge-sheetdt . 17-2-97 and admitted the charges levelled against him . On two occasions he admitted the charges levelled against him . To give opportunity to the second party he was intimated regarding the enquiry which was scheduled on 8-8-97 alongwith representative of his choice to remain present in the enquiry . On 8-8-97 the enquiry was conducted and charges were explained to him. Once again he admitted the charges levelled against him in the enquiry and prayed for mercy . On 8-8-97 he also admitted that on 17-2-97 he tendered these things in writing and once again prayed for mercy on 8-8-97 . He admitted his guilt on thrice. According to the first party , no medical certificate is required because the second party admitted the charges levelled against him and there is also no necessity to lodge police complaint against him . After taking into consideration the finding of the enquiry officer and gravity of misconduct , the show cause notice of proposed dismissal was served on 11-4-98 . According to the first party , the finding drawn by the enquiry officer in not perverse . The enquiry was conducted after giving full opportunity to him and the second party himself has admitted the guilt on his part and therefore , no prejudice has been caused to him.

4. The first party has submitted that the punishment inflicted on the workman by order dt . 30-6-98 as per Clause 521 ( 5 ) ( a ) of Shastri Award is not shockingly disproportionate . The seriousness of proved misconduct was considered alongwith past service record . The said punishment is on the basis of charge- sheetdt . 12-7-97 which was proved in the enquiry therefore , the punishment is just and proper . The first party has submitted that the demands of the second party be rejected . The Second party is not entitled to reinstate with full back wages and continuity of service .

5. In this case , my predecessor has passed order on 21-6-2008 holding that the enquiry conducted against the second party by the first party , was just and proper and the findings drawn by the enquiry officer are not perverse . Two issues are already decided by me predecessor , hence now remaining issues with my findings , are as follows :

FINDINGS POINTS

....Yes .

3. Whether the dismissal of second party is legal and valid ?

4. Whether second party is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages ?

285

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

5. What order or award ?

.... As per

final order .

6. What second party examined himself in the Court at Exh . U - 14 and the first party has declined to lead oral evidence by filing purshis at Exh . C- 25 .

REASONS

7. ISSUE NO. 3 & 4 : The learned counsel for the second party has submitted that the punishment of dismissal imposed by the first party to the second party is shockingly disproportionate . Accordings to him , charges are not proved against him . Therefore , he is entitled for back wages and compensation . The learned counsel for the first party, on the other hand, has submitted that after taking into consideration the gravity of misconduct committed by the second party , the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the second party is not disproportionate . According to the first party , on the basis ofproved misconduct he was dismissed from the services . According to the learned counsel for the first party , the second party has admitted his guilt on three occasions . Hispast conduct was also taken into consideration while imposing the punishment of dismissal . Therefore , 'punishment is not disproportionate . The learned counsel for the second party has relied on the judgement reported in 2000 ( 84 ) FIR 580 in the case of Jeeva Transport Corporation Ltd. Vs. Labour Court & anr . ( Madras High Court) and submitted that this Court has jurisdiction U/s 11A of I.D. Act to give the relief to the second party wherein the Hon'ble Madras High Court held that " the Industrial Court and Labour Court have jurisdiction to Interfere the order passed by the employer . In that case the enquiry was conducted on the charge that the employee had assaulted Ram Sing employee when he was said to be in a drunken mood . There was a heated exchange of words between the second respondent and the Assistant Engineer , when the Asstt. Engineer refused to grant leave to the second respondent , who was, suffering from diarrhoea at the relevant point of time , which ultimatley provoked the second respondent to assault the watchman Ram Sing . " In view of this fact , the Hon'ble High Court has held that U/ s 11A of the 1. D. Act the Labour Court or Tribunal can set aside the order of dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workers . Reported in the case of Executive Officer , Sangli , Zilla Parishad Vs. P.S. Mogli ( Bombay High Court) . In that case , the employee was dismissed from service for misappropriation after dempartmental enquiry, no evidence was recorded where respondent was held guilty , on the basis of his statement admitting guilty . He was dismissed from the services . He filed complaint before the Labour Court . The Labour Court directed reinstatement with back wages which was confirmed by the Industrial Court . The writ petition was filed wherein Hon'ble High Court held that there is no error on the face of the orders passed by lower Court authority and the High Court cannot re - appreciate the evidence and come to its own conclusion .

286

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010 /PAUSA 19 , 1931

[ PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

In that case considering the fact compensation equal to average salary for a period of 2 years within 2 months was granted.

8. The learned counsel for the first party, on the other hand , has argued that the punishment of dismissal imposed upon the complainant is not shockingly disproportionate .

He has relied upon the judgment reported in 2003 LLR 436 in the case of Chairman and Managing Director , United Commercial Bank & Ors , Vs. P. C. Kakkar ( S.C. ) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that " when a court feels that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate , it must record reason for coming to such a conclusion . Mere expression that the punishment is shockingly disproportionate would not meet the requirement of law . "

In 2005-1 -CLR - Pg . 803 in the case Mahindra And Mahindra Ltd. , Vs. V.N.B. Narawade ( S.C. ) wherein it is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that " the discretion which can be exercised under S. 11 -A is available only on the existence of certain factors like punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct , so as to disturb the conscience of the court , or the existence of any mitigating circumstances which requires the reduction of the sentence , or the past conduct of the workmen which may persuade the Labour Court to reduce the punishment , in the absence of such factor existing , the Labour Court cannot by way of sympathy alongwith exercise of power u/ s 11 - A of the Act and reduce the punishment noticed herein above . The punishment of dismissal using of abusive language cannot be disproportionate punishment . The language used by the workman was filthy . "

In ( 2006 ) SCC Pg . 430 , in the case of Hombe Gowda Educational Trust And Another Vs. State of Karnataka & Others . Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Para 17 that while exercising the discretion u/ s 11 -A of the 1.D. Act , no doubt it is open to the Tribunal to substitute one punishnient by another but it is also trite that the Tribunal exercises a limited jurisdiction in this behalf . The jurisdiction to interfere with the quantum of punishment could be exercised only when , inter alia , it is found to be grossly disproportionate .

The learned counsel for the second party has also relied on the Judgment reported in 2009 - II - CLR Pg . 61 . Ashok Kumar Sharma Vs. Oberoi Flight Services ( Delhi High Court ) . In that case , the appellant loader dismissed from service for misconduct in view of his admission of guilt . No enquiry was held . The Labour Court had not granted any relief to the appellant hence writ petition was filed. The Hon'ble High Court has considered the facts and circumstances of the case and monetary compensation in lieu of reinstatement and back wages was granted .

In 2002 - IIICLR 297 in the case of Sher Bahadur Vs. Union of India & Ors . ( S.C.) , It is held by Hon'ble Court that" this is clearly a case of finding the appellant guilty of charge without having any evidence to link the appellant with the alleged misconduct and as such the orders of the courts below and of disciplinary authority under challenge cannot be sustained and are set aside . "

9. Now in the present case admittedly it appears that the second party was issued charge - sheet by the first party, that on 8-1-1997 the second party has committed misconduct . The second party has admitted the said misconduct . It appears that he was under influence of liquor and abused Shri Salunkhe who was on duty and Shri Karamblekar and Shri Killedar in the branch . It appears that he also came out the branch and also abused Branch officers and thereafter he remained absent from duty without prior permission . He admitted the misconduct on thrice and on the basis of that proved charges against him . the first party had issued the second show- cause notice and thereafter issued dismissal order vide Exh . C - 12 . In this case , the enquiry was held legal and proper and the findings of the enquiry was also not perverse . No doubt the second party was working with the first party since 1977 and during his service tenure he was issued charge- sheet on 23 November 1992 vide Exh . U- 10 . According to the first party , the past record of the second party workman was not good. The learned counsel for the second party has submitted that he has not committed any misconduct earlier . The charge - sheetdt . 23 November 1992 was issued to the second party but he was not imposed any punishment at that time . No doubt there is no document to show that after issuing charge- sheetdt . 23 November 1992 the first party had given any punishment to the second party . However , fact remains that the allegation was levelled against him in the charge- sheet that on 27-7-92 when he joined the second shift he was under influence of liquor and he was unable to control himself. He started abusing in the premises of the bank. Therefore , it cannot be said that his past service record was good because he was issued charge - sheet dated 23 November 1992 on the allegations that he was found under influence of liquor and this charge- sheet is admitted by the second party in his cross - examination . Therefore . the past service record of the second party cannot be said to be good . Now in the present case , the misconduct which is committed by the complainant , is of serious nature and the said misconduct cannot be said to be of minor nature . So gravity of misconduct which is committed by the second party, is of serious nature . As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above cases , no doubt Industrial Court has jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment imposed by the employer u/ s 11 - A of the I.D. Act . However , the punishment which is imposed upon the employee has to be seen whether it is harsh and shockingly disproportionate . In the present case , the nature of misconduct which is committed by the second party , can be said to be of serious nature which does not require to reduce the punishment imposed by the first party upon the second party . There is nothing on record to show that the punishment of dismissal given by the first party is 287 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

disproportionate , looking to the gravity of misconduct committed by the second party . On the contrary as observed by me above , the second party has abused in filthy language to the concerned watchman and the officials of the first party in the premises of the first party bank , in indiscipline manner , therefore does not call for giving lesser punishment . There is no needto take lenient view . The rulings filed by the learned counsel for the second party does not assist to him in view of finding of Apex Court relied on by the first party.

Therefore , a lenient view cannot be taken in this matter . In such circumstances , the punishment of dismissal given by the first party is proportionate to the misconducet committed by the second party and therefore he is not entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and even for fuli back wages , he is also not entitled for any compensation as per argument advanced by the learned counsel for the second party . Issue No. 3 and 4 are answered accordingly and I proceed to pass the following order.

ORDER

1 . The reference is answered in negative .

2. No order as to costs .

3 Copy of Award be sent to the Government for its publication.

Pune

Date. 13-11-2009

B. C. CHANDRAKAPURE , Industrial Tribunal . नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 139.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल -12012/ 1 /2007- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 18th December , 2009

S.O. 139. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.20 /2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 18-12-2009 .

[No. L - 12012/ 1/2007 - IR ( B - I ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI Monday , the 14th December , 2009

Present : A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 20/2007

(Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A ) of 10. The learned counsel for the second party has argued that considering the fact that he has reached the age of superannuation therefore some monetary compensation and back wages be granted to the second party. The first party produced certain documents below Fist Exh . C -24 . C- 24 / A is the School Leaving Certificate of the second party, from which it appears that his date of birth is 1-6-1941 . As per bipartite settlement Exh. C- 24 /B, it is seen that the date of retirement of employee of the bank is 60 years . Admittedly he has reached for retirement from the services of the first party bank after completion of 60 years . The learned counsel for the second party has argued that , considering the fact that he has reached the age of retirement therefore , compensation and back wages may be granted. The learned counsel for the first party, on the other hand , has submitted that he is not entitled for the back wages . In support of his submission he has relied on 2006- LLR - Pg . 662 , in the case of Municipal Council Vs. Surinder Kumar ( S.C. ) wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that " the bruden is upon the workman to prove that he has completed 240 days service and the reinstatement with full back wages connot be granted automatically since it depends upon the nature of the appointment , the purpose for which such appointment had been made , the duration /tenure of work , the question whether the post was a sanctioned one , being relevant facts which must be taken into consideration . " He has also relied on 2006 - LLR - Pg . 214 , in the case of U.P. State Brassware Corpn . Ltd. & Anr . Vs. Udai Narain Pandey ( S.C. ) wherein it is held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that " the workman did not raise any plea in his defence statement that he was not gainfully employed during the period whereas it is now well settled by various decisions that although earlier the Apex Court insisted that it was for the employer but having regard to the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act or the provisions analogous thereto , such a plea should be raised by the workman . " There is no dispute about the preposition laid down in above referred cases . In the present case , it appears that considering the fact that he has committed misconduct of serious nature and the said misconduct is committed in the premises of the bank . Earlier also , he was issued charge- sheet when he was found under influence of liquor and therefore considering his gravity of misconduct and past record the punishment imposed by the first party is not disproportionate .

288

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1951

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii )] Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of State bank of India and their Workman) .

BETWEEN

Sri J. Rajagopalar

Petitionei ist Party

Vs.

The Dy. General Manager , State Bank of India, Tiruchirapalli .

Respondent/2nd Party

APPEARANCE

For the Petitioner : Sri S. Vaidyanathan .

For theManagement : Sri Gopalaratnam .

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 12012 / 1 / 2007 - IR ( B- I) dated 15-5-2007 referred the herein below scheduled Industrial Dispute to thisTribunal for adjudication:

The Schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the punishment of 'Dismissed without Notice from Service ' w.e.f. 28-06-2005 imposed on Sri J. Rajagopalan by the Management of State Bank of India, Trichy is legal and justified ? Ifnot , to what reliefthe workman is entitled ? "

2. The referred Industrial Dispute was taken on file as ID No. 20/2007 .

3. Pursuant to notice, both sides entered appearance through their Advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement as the case may be .

4. The precis of allegations in the Claim Statement is asfollows :--

The petitioner had been appointed as Clerk in the State Bank of India at Tiruvonam branch on 01-06-1992 whereafter he was transferred to Pudukkottai in July 1999 and then to Aranthangi branch on 04-01-2003 . On 24-02-2003 , he was suspended by the Disciplinary Authority, Region - I , Tiruchirapalli pending initiation/ completion ofdisciplinary proceedings against him for acts ofgross misconduct alleged to have been committedwhile he was working as Asstt . (Accounts) at Pudukkottai branch ofwhich acts of gross misconduct alleged against him he had not been made aware of while he was suspended or eventhereafter for more than a year . After one year , he was given a charge sheet on 05-03-2004 alleging him to have committed lapses and irregularities under gross misconduct in terms of Clause -5(j ) of the Memo of Settlement dated

10-04-2002 which he denied as per his explanation dated 25-03-2004 , the same having been not found satisfactory. Thereafter, the Asstt . General Manager, Region - II ordered enquiry on 20-04-2004 and Mr. N Muthukrishnan , Manager , Region- III , Tiruchirapalli was appointed as Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer filed an enquiry report on 17-03-2005 holding the charges ( i) and ( ii) against him to have been proved and the third charge as partly proved. The Asstt . General Manager concurred with the finding and proposed the punishment of dismissal without notice on02-06-2005 which was confirmed on 28-06-2005 after his personal hearing. The appeal preferred before the Appellate Authority on 17-02-2006 was rejected . Thereafter, the present Industrial Dispute was raised before the Asstt, Commissioner Labour ( C) , Madurai for a conciliation proceedings which ended in failure . It is thereafter that this dispute has been referred by the Govt . of India to this Tribunal . The proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer are not proper , fair and are against the principles of naturaljustice. The Presenting Officer produced three Xerox copies ofdocuments and one witness on his side examined as PW1 in the enquiry who was examined in chief only on 23-10-2004 . On that date , since some time was required for cross examination on account of a letter dated 10-06-2004 surprisingly introduced through PW I inspite of objections , the sitting was adjourned to 26-08-2004. On that date , since the PW1 did not turn up , the proceedings were adjourned on 27-10-2004 . On that date PWI appeared and while cross examination was going on at the lunch break , the proceedings were once again adjourned without specifying the date on the request of WW1 . On the next posting date 13-12-2004 , PWI did not turn up and , therefore , the enquiry was adjourned to 10-01-2005 on which day PWI did not turn up, reportedly stating that he was not willing to attend the enquiry for cross examination and left abruptly without subjecting himself for cross examination. Despite the request by the defence to the Enquiry Officer not to give credence to the deposition of PW1 , not subjected to cross examination , the Enquiry Officer recorded his finding also relying upon the deposition . The enquiry conducted by the bank is farce , stage - managed , not proper or fair . The objections of the defence were not considered by the Enquiry Officer . The prosecution documents and the deposition of PW1 were relied upon much against the principles of natural justice depriving the opportunity to defend the case . The punishment of dismissal imposed based upon the perverse findings of the Enquiry Officer is not only harsh but is also not commensurate with the gravity of act allegedly commited . Only a thorough , objective and impartial analysis of the entire proceedings will through light on the probe which has been shadowed by pre- conceived notions of the Enquiry Officer . Therefore it is prayed that the punishment of " dismissed without notice " from service w.e.f. 28-06-2005 be found not legal and notjustified and the bank may be directed to reinstate the petitioner with back wages and continuity of service .

| भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

5. In the Counter Statement filed by the Respondent , the following contentions he were raised:

289

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9. 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

examined on the side of the petitioner and Ex. WI to Ex . W7 were marked. Heard both sides and perused the records .

8. Points for determination are :

(0) Whether the punishment of " Dismissed without notice from service " is fair and proper?

(ii ) To what relief the concerned workman is entitled?

Points 1 & 2

The petitioner on 24-04-2002 while he was working as Asstt . ( Cash ) at Pudukkottai branch of the Respondent Bank took 5 covers containing SCs lodged on account of Sri A. Ayub meant for despatch to Services Branch , New Delhi from Sri R. Natarajan , Courier Representative and delivered the same to the officiating Manager , as the first charge framed against him by the Disciplinary Authority . The second charge is that the petitioner in March , 2002 demanded the said Natarajan to return to him the envelopes booked into Service Branch , Mumbai containing SCs lodged on various dates on account of Current Account No. 01090/012511 of Sri S. Ayub . He thus colluded with S. Ayub and defrauded the bank to the tune of Rs . 1,09,86.000 and caused loss to the bank to the tune of Rs . 1,08,07,599 approximately . The third charge is that on 18-05-2002 , the petitioner accepted a dinner hosted by S. Ayub , the fraudster as his guestat Hotel Royal Southern , Trichy . The above said acts amounted to an act prejudicial to the interest of the bank and gross misconduct in terms of Clause - 5 (j ) of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 10-04-2002 . Since the charges were denied and enquiry was conducted in which Mr. Natarajan was examined as PW1 on behalf of the Management . He did notturn up for cross examination . Therefore , the enquiry was concluded and report was filed upon which after obtaining the comments from the petitioner a punishment of dismissal without notice was proposed which was thereafter imposed after a personal hearing with the petitioner . The same was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. Thereafter the present Industrial Dispute has been referred . The Respondent prayed that in the event of the Tribunal reaching a conclusion that the enquiry is not fair and proper and is defective , it may be permitted to adduce further evidence to substantiate the charges and justify the punishment.

6. Initially the question as to the fairness of the enquirywas raised on behalf of the petitioner and , therefore, that question was heard as a Preliminary Issue . As per order dated 07-01-2009 , it was held that the enquiry conducted was not just and proper since the witness examined on behalf of the Respondent had only been examined in Chief and an opportunity for his cross- examination was not made available to the petitioner leaving the evidence of the said witness as no evidence at all in the eye of law which part of the evidence having not been tested by the touchstone of cross - examination . Upon such finding, an opportunity was afforded to Respondent/ Management to establish his contention by further enquiry.

7. In the de novo enquiry commenced at the instance ofthe Respondent , MWI was examined in cross following the filing of Proof Affidavit in lieu of Chief Examination and Ex. MI to Ex. M5 were marked whereafter WWI was 4729 G1 / 09-18

9. The charges against the petitioner are that he took 5 covers containing SCs lodged on account of one Ayub meant for despatch to Service Branch . New Delhi from one R. Natarajan , Courier Representative and delivered the same to Officiating Manager , he in March , 2002 demanded Natarajan to return envelopes booked into Service Branch , Mumbai on account of Current account No. 01090/012511 of Sri Ayub and colluding with him defrauded the bank to the tune of Rs . 109,86,000 and caused loss of Rs . 108.07.599 approximately and on 18-05-2002, the petitioner accepted a dinner hosted by Ayub . The above acts are prejudicial to the bank and amount to gross misconduct ,

10. MW 1 Muthukrishnan . Chief Manager of Pudukkottai branch testified that he heard about the huge fraud perpetrated by C.P. Radhakrishnan , Officiating Branch Manager of the branch and the petitioner Rajagopalan colluding with one Ayub . There was a loss to the tune of Rs . 1.08 crores to the bank . According to him as bank's usual practice cheque sent for collection and handed over to the Courier for transmission will not be taken back and if a Branch Manager has done so , it would only be with ulterior motive and such acts would be beyond the scope of his authority and will not be lawful. This fact is to the awareness of all bank employees . Further according to him . Courier Representative , Mr. Natarajan appeared during the domestic enquiry and was examined in Chief but he was not available again for cross - examination. In cross- examination , MWI admitted that he understood the charge only from the records . He was not working in the same branch while charge was issued. The petitioner who was examined as WW1 testified that he as per the instructions ofthe Officiating ChiefManager went to the courier office and requested the courier person to return the cheque. On the request of Courier Boy , he dropped him at the branch which was on the way to his residence . He denied having deliberately taken the envelopes containing SC schedules and to have handed over to Radhakrishnan , the Officiating Chief Manager . He denied knowledge of fraud or any collusion or cooperation with Chief Manager. Courier Agent Natarajan and Radhakrishnan are accused in CBI case . He disowned knowledge of the modus operandi of the actus - rea of the fraudulent transactions . He would further say that he came to know only by now that Ayub cheated 290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

PARI I1 S3( ii) | banks . The dinner party he attended was arranged by the Officiating Chief Manager Radhakrishnan . He denied the dinner party having been arranged by Ayub . According tò him , himself, Chief Manager Radhakrishnan and Raghunathan who is still in service of the bank attended the dinner party.

13. In the result, it is held, that the punishment of dismissal without notice from service w.e.f. 28-06-2005 imposed on the petitioner is not legal or justified . Therefore . the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into service forthwith with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits . But he is not entitled to backwages in the absence of proof that he is not beneficially employed during the interregnum.

14. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him . corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 14th December , 2009 )

A. N JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined : -

For the I Party/

: WW I , Sri J. Rajagopalan

Petitioner

Forthe II Party/ :MWI , Sri S. Muthukumaraswamy

Management

Documents Marked : -

From the Petitioner's side

Date

EX. No.

Description

Ex. WI 24-02-2003 Suspension Order

Ex. W2 30-12-2004 Reply to amended charge sheet

Ex. W3

Enquiry proceedings 27-10-200-4, 10-01-2005

Ex. W4 10-01-2005 Defence Representative letter

Ex. W5

Despatch Register ( Courier ) dated 12-03-2002.04-04-2002,17-04-2002. 24-04-2002,26-04-2002,30-04-2002 and 02-05-2002

Ex. W6

Attendance Register from 22-04-2002 to 27-04-2002

Ex. W7

Enquiry proceedings

From the Management side

Date

EX . No.

Description 11. Even in the enquiry at the instance of the Management held before this forum , the Respondent / Management has not been able to prove the Charges against the petitioner . The witness Natarajan who was examined only in part by way of Chief Examination in the domestic enquiry for want of whose presence for Cross- Examination, the enquiry was found not proper could not again been procured and cross - examined. The evidence available is only that of MW1 , the present Chief Manager who took charge of the branch at Pudukkottai only subsequent to the incident in this case . His knowledge relating to the incident is only from what he could gather from the records and not direct . He has made it clear that the act of the Officiating Manager cannot but be without ulterior motive. Though the petitioner is shown to be a man who did certain overt offending acts on being instructed by the Officiating Manager , there is nothing to show that for that part of his actus - rea the petitioner has had any mensrea . His case is that he was only obeying the instructions of the Officiating Chief Manager . He is not shown to have had any deliberate intention other than to act in accordance with the instructions of the Officiating Chief Manager , his official superior . Though accordingto MWI , all staff members of the bank could be aware as to the bank practice and rules , it is not known whether in spite ofany instruction from the Officiating Chief Manager to do a positive act the petitioner has had the knowledge to avoid compliance of the instructions emanated from the Officiating Chief Manager who is none other than his boss . It is not abundantly clear as to whether the petitioner was actually colluding or cooperating with his Official Boss with the very knowledge that he was doing is contrary to rule , bank practice or law . The involvement of the petitioner by way of participating in the dinner party cannot be a conclusive or reliable pointer of guilt against the petitioner for the reason that his colleague Raghunathan who is still in service of the bank had attended the same party. According to the petitioner, the party was arranged by the Officiating Chief Manager and not by Ayub .

25-02-2004

ΕΧ.ΜΙ

Charge Sheet

EX.M2

Reply to Charge Shect

EX.M3

Amendment to Charge Sheet

EX.M4 10-06-2004 Letter written by R. Natarajan. CourierAgent

EX.M5

Reply given to the show - cause notice.

12. On a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances , there is no evidence even of a preponderating nature to hold that the petitioner is actually guilty of the charges leveled against him . The circumstances discernibly cannot be found to be logically probative to a prudent mind to hold that at any cost the petitioner is also equally guilty with the Officiating Chief Manager or any other: Therefore , the petitioner is only to be found not guilty of the charges .

T [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 140.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 99/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[संः एल -41012/153/98 - आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]

291

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010 /पौष 19 , 1931

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 18th December , 2009 S.O. 140. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No.99 / 99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Railway and their workman , received by the Central Government on 18-12-2009.

[No. L -41012 / 153 / 98 - IR ( B - I ) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO . CGIT /LC/R/99/99

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN Shri Shitla Prasad , S/ o Laxman Prasad ,

Near Railway Station , Chandni ,

Tehsil Nepanagar ,

card No. 323445 on 19-6-82 . The same was verified by P. W.I (C) vide his letter No. NSPT/ PNUL/ JA SAI dated 26-5-88 . Oncompletion of the construction work at Thal , his service was transferred to Bhusawal Division , Central Railway , Bhusawal where he worked as a porter under Station Master , Mandwa on monthly rated muster roll casual labour . Thereafter he worked as Relieving Pointsman . It is stated thathe worked from 19-6-82 to 7-4-86 on Muster roll for a total period of 1334 days . He was medically examined for absorbing permanent post of Class JVth of Poter or Pointsman and was found fit as per certificate No. 114668 dated 29-6-84 . He was granted all facilities of Railway as per rules . It is stated that the management issued a notice No. BSL / P / T / 19 / 11 dated 7-3-86 of his termination from service without giving any show cause though there was nothing adverse against him . It is stated that the co- workers are still working under the management . It is stated that the non - applicant / management has not complied the provision of Sec.25 - F of Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 before terminating his service and he worked more than 240 days in a calendar year before terminating his service . Under the circumstances , the reference be answered in favour of the workman with costs .

Workman / Union

Distt . Khandwa ( MP)

Versus

General Manager ,

Central Railway , Mumbai C.S.T. , Mumbai

The Divisional Railway Manager ,

Bhusawal

.Management

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of December , 2009 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L -41012/ 153 / 98 - IR (B - I ) dated 25-2--99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of General Manager , Central Railway , Mumbai in terminating the services of Shri Shitla Prasad S / o Laxman Prasad w.e.f. 7-4-86 is justified? If not to what relief the workman is entitled for ? "

2. The case of the workman in short is that the workman was engaged by the non - applicant on service 3. The non - applicant appeared in the reference and filed Written Statement . The case of the non - applicant , interalia , is that the workman / applicant worked as muster roll casual labour in Bhusawal Division from 4-5-83 to 13-8-83 and further from 25-8-83 to 7-4-86 but he worked as a substitute Pointsman . It is stated that for regularization of service of the applicant/ workman and other employees a Screening Committee was constituted and he was qualified in Medical examination . It is stated that a notification for absorption of casual labour / substitutes for filling the post of Asstt . Pointsman vide letter No. BSL/ P / T/ 14 / Panel dated 4-9-84 was issued . One of the condition in the said notification was that those , who were engaged as casual labour / substitute pointsman prior to 18-12-80 and holding casual working card issued prior to 18-12-80 were eligible for regularization . The Screening Committee did not find the applicant fit for regularization as he was appointed after 18-12-80 as casual labour . It is stated that his service was terminated after due compliance of the provision of Sec - 25 ( F ) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 . It is admitted that the non - applicant filed a detail reply dated 22-6-98 before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Bhopal at the time of conciliation proceeding . It is admitted that Rs.80 is pending of the applicant toward Provident Fund and the same is to be paid in due course . It is stated that the dispute is raised at very belated stage with latches . On these ground , the reference be answered in favour of the management .

4. Now the only issue for decision is as to whether the action of the management in terminating the service of the applicant Shitla Prasad , S / o Laxman Prasad w.e.f. 7-4-86 is justified ?

292

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9, 2010/ PAUSA 19 , 1931

5. Before discussing the evidence , now let us enumerate the admitted facts which are as follows:

(1 ) The applicant was engaged and worked from 4-5-83 to 13-8-83 and further from 25-8-83 to 7-4-86 as muster Roll casual Labour ( in short MRCL ) in Bhusawal Division .

(2) He had also worked during the said period as substitute pointsman .

(3 ) The Service Card No. 323445 was issued to him on his engagement as MRCL and the same was verifiedby P.W.I. (C) vide his letter No. NSPT/PNUL/ JASAI dated 26-5-1988 .

(4) The applicant was also medically examined for absorbing in permanent post and was found medically fit.

(5) The management issued notice vide BSL/P/T/ 19/ 11 dated 7-3-86 for terminating him from service.

(6) The provident Fund amount of Rs.80 of the applicant is yet to be paid.

6.Now let us examine the evidence adduced by the applicant/workman in the case . The workman , Shri Shitla Prasad is himself examined in the case . He has stated that heworked from 19-6-82 to 7-4-86 on the basis of service card.He has stated in his cross - examination at para 10 that no amount was paid on his termination after giving notice . There is nothing in his evidence to disbelieve him rather it appears that it is an admitted fact that he was engaged by the management for more than 240 days in a calendar year before termination . His evidence shows that he had not beenpaid in accordance with Section 25 - F of the Industrial Dispute Act. (in short I.D. Act, 1947 )

7.The workman has also filed document in the case . ExhibitW/ 1 is the copy of reference order of the present case. The workman has also filed carbon copy of the reply dated 22-6-98 of the management which was filed before theAsstt. Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Bhopal ( Paper No. 12/6) . It is admitted in the written statement of the non- applicant that the non - applicant had filed detail reply dated 22-6-98 before the ALC( C) , Bhopal . This shows that it is an admitted document. The said reply shows that the non- applicant had admitted that the applicant was engaged since 19-6-82 to 7-4-86 for 1303 days as has been claimed by the applicant . Thus it is evident that he was engaged for 1303 days from 19-6-82 . He has also filed original service card . The said service card also shows that he worked from 19-6-82 to 7-4-86 for 1303 days . Thus it is clear that the applicant was a workman under Section 2( s) of the I.D. Act 1947 and before retrenchment the provision of Sec- 25F of the I.D. Act is to be complied.

8. The burden is on the non- applicant to establish that the applicant was terminated after compliance of the provision of Sec - 25 - F ofthe I.D. Act. To prove the case the

[PART II- SPC. 3 ( ii) | non - applicant has also adduced evidence . Shri J. L. Pandey isAsstt . Personnel Officer, Central Railway , Bhusawal . He has simply stated that the applicant was terminated after complying the provision of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. 1947. There is nothing on the record to show that compensation was paid or not and if paid then what was the amount . The non - applicant has not even filed the notice of termination . The applicant has filed the photocopy of the notice of termination which is Paper No. 2/27 This shows that retrenchment compensation was not paid as dueunder Section 25( F) of the I.D. Act , 1947. Section 25 (F ) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 runs as follows:

" 25 - F Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen- No workmen employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a) The workman has been given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period of notice has expired , or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice , wages for the period of the notice:

(b) The workman has been paid , at the time of retrenchment , compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen day's average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months ; and

(c) Notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government or such authority as may be specified by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette . "

Thus it is clear from the evidence on the record that the notice was given one month before but there is no evidence to show that the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment , compensation which shall be equivalent to 15 days average pay. It is evident that the non -applicant has violated the provision of Section 25( F) (b) of the I.D. Act , 1947 and notice was not given in accordance to the Rule 76 of the Industrial Dispute (Central ) Rules 1957. Accordingly the notice for retrenchment to the applicant issued on 7-3-86 is quashed . The non -applicant is directed to reinstate the applicant workmanfrom the date of termination . Hence the issue is decided in favour of the applicant and against the non- applicant.

9. The learned counsel for the non- applicant has urged that there was delay of about 14 years in raising the dispute before the authority . The applicant has stated in his evidence that he had protested several times orally as well as in writing and when there was no response of the authority , he raised dispute . In support of his contention the applicant has filed copies of the applications which [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

were given to the authority , There is no cross - examination on this point . However the learned courisel for the applicant has referred a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P. , AtJabalpur passed in W.P. No. 6832 of 2000 Ganseh Prasad Versus Union of India and others on 3-12-2003 . In this particular case , the non - applicant has not shown that any prejudiced is caused to the management . Thus the above decision appears to be applicable in the case and the applicant has also explained the cause of delay in his evidence .

10. Now the point is as to whether the applicant is entitled to any further relief.

11. The learned counsel for the workman urged that the applicant is entitled to full back wages from the Fate of termination with costs . The learned counsel has fled a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of M.P , At Jabalpur passed in W.P. No. 380/2000 Union of India Versus Presiding Officer and others on 11-2-03 wherein the Hon'ble Court has directed to pay 50 % back wages for the period in between termination to reinstatement . i also find that it is just and proper to direct the non - applicant to pay 50 % back wages from the date of termination to the date of reinstatement . Accordingly it is answered .

12. On the basis of the direction made above , the award is passed without any order as to costs .

13. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 141.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल -12012/ 253/ 95- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th December , 2009 S.O. 141. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.32 / 97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court , Jabalpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 18-12-2009 .

[No. L - 12012 /253 / 95 - IR ( B - I ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

293

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

ANNEXURE

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

NO . CGIT /LC / R/32/ 97

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN The Asstt. Secretary ,

State Bank of India subsidiary Bank ,

Employees Union ,

C/ o State Bank of India ,

..Workman / Union Chhindwara ( MP)

Versus

Regional Manager ,

.Management State Bank of India , Region No. IV, Bhopal

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of December , 2009 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L - 12012/253 / 95 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 29-1--97 / 7-2-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal : --

"Whether the action of the Regional Manager , State Bank of India , Region - IV , Bhopal in not making revision / fixation of wages as per the " Fitment Formula " of Shri M. S. Verma , Cashier - Cum- clerk of State Bank of India , Chhindwara Branch ( MP) is justified or not ? If not to what relief are the said workman entitled to ? "

2. The case of the Union , in short , is that the workman Shri M.S. Verma is member of the Union who was appointed as a messenger at ADB , Branch , Chhindwara of State Bank of India w.e. f 1-1-72 . He appeared in NIBM Test conducted by Regional recruitment Board for appointment of clerk/ cashier in the Bank and was successful . As such , he was appointed on the post of clerk / cashier vide order GAV/390 dated 24-7-78 and was transferred to Jabalpur Main Branch of the State Bank of India . It is stated that the workman was entitled for the wage fitment formula as applicable to the subordinate staff promoted to clerical cadre and payment of advance increments vide Para III ( i ) to ( vi ) of chapter 14 of the handbook of staff matters . The management is said to have refused to revise the salary as per fitment formula on the ground of new entrant . It is submitted that the management be directed to revise his pay in view of the fitment formula .

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement in the case . The case of the management , inter alia, is that the workman was admittedly engaged in subordinate cadre as Messenger at ADB Chhindwara Branch on 1-1-72 . He was eligible for promotion list but did not succeed . Later the Regional Recruitment Board 294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19, 1931

advertised for the appointment of fresh appointment of clerk/ cashier/ typist . The employees of the Bank who were eligible were given opportunity to appear in the test/ interview . Shri M. S. Verma also applied and appeared and- was selected by the Board . The workman Shri Verma was not promoted on the basis of any departmental test and as such , he was not entitled for the benefit of the wages of Fitment formula . It is submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. The Union/ workman became absent . Thereafter the then Tribunal proceeded exparte against the workman on 5-11-2008 .

5. The only issue is as to whether the action of the management for not revising the wages of the workman as perfitment formula was justified?

6. To prove the case , the management has adduced evidence . Shri D. G. Badwelkar is Asstt . General Manager (Adm.) in the State Bank of India , Bhopal . He has supported the case ofthe management . He has stated that the workman Shri M. S. Verma was not promoted alongwith other messengers . He appliedto the Recruitment Board for appointment on advertisement . He was selected on the basis of recruitment procedure and appointment order dated 24-7-78 ( Exhibit M/2) was issued with terms and conditions of the appointment . He accepted the said terms and condition and joined as new entrant . He has stated that Shri Verma was not entitled to the benefit of fitment formula as he was new entrant as a clerk on open selection . Hisevidence is unrebutted. His evidence clearly shows that the appointment of Shri Verma was new appointment to the post and this fitment formula is not applicable to the new appointment . This shows that the management was justified for not giving the benefit of fitment formula to the workman . This reference is decided in favour of the management .

7. In the result , the award is passed exparte against the workman without costs .

8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 142.-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 , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 159/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/321/97- आईआर( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

[ PART II-SEC. 3 (ii )]

New Delhi , the 18th December , 2009 S.O. 142. In Pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 159/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 18-12-2009.

[No. L - 12012/321 /97 - IR ( B - I) ] SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

NO . CGIT/LC/R/ 159/98

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN

Workman /Union Shri Komal Singh , S/ o Shri Amar Singh , Vill& P.O. Salon " B " , Tehsil Bhander , Distt. Gwalior (MP)

Versus

The ChiefGeneral Manager , State Bank of India , LHO , Hoshangabad, Bhopal

Management

AWARD

Passed on this 7th day of December, 2009 The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 12012/321 / 97 - IR ( B - I ) dated 22-7-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal: -

"Whether the action of the management of Chief General Manager , State Bank of India, in terminating the services of Shri Komal Singh S/ o Shri Amar Singh w.e.f. 31-5-1997 is justified ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled for ?"

2. The case of the workman , in short , is that the workman was appointed as a temporary sweeper since December 1983 but he was illegally terminated from the service vide order No. 9 dated 31-5-97 . He was in continuous service for 14 years and had completed 240 days in each calendar year under the provision of Section 25 ( B ) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( in short I.D. Act 1947 ) . It is stated that he was terminated without any notice and without complying the provision of Section 25 - F ofthe I.D. Act, 1947. It is submitted that the reference be answered in hisfavour .

3. The non- applicants appeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the non - applicants inter afia , is that [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the applicant/ workman was employed on daily wages as a temporary messenger at Salon " B " , Pargana Bhander , Distt . Gwalior , MP in the branch of SBI . He had worked 45 days in the year 1989 and 29 days in the year 1990 only . It is stated that before engagement on daily wages , he was also engaged as temporary part time sweeper on consolidated wages from Dec , 1983 to July , 1988 on contractual basis . He was never engaged 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date of reference . The provision of Sec - 25 - B and 25 - F of the I.D. Act is not applicable in the case rather the provision of Section 2 ( oo ) (bb ) of the I.D. Act is applicable . Accordingly it is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the management .

4. The applicant / workman subsequently did not appear in the case and therefore the then Tribunal proceeded exparte against the workman on 7-8-06 .

5. Now the only issue is as to whether the action of the non - applicants in terminating the service of the workman was justified?

6. To prove the case , the non - applicants has examined witness in the case . Shri J. P. Soni was Chief Manager (Administration) , S.B.I. , Region - IV , Zonal Office , Gwalior . He has supported the case of the management . He has stated that the workman worked for 45 days in the year 1989 and 29 days in the year 1990. He has stated that a copy till 21-5-97 for how many days . He has stated that a copy of statement of the period of his engagement is filed which is Exhibit M/ 1 . The said statement corroborates the evidence of this witness . He has also stated that he never worked for 240 days in a calendar year particularly preceding the date of his non - engagement . This clearly shows that the provision of Sec - 25- F of the I.D. Act is not applicable and the action of the non - applicant was justified. Accordingly the reference is answered in favour of the management .

7. In the result , the award is passed exparte against the workman without any order to costs .

8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .

MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 18 दिसम्बर , 2009

का.आ. 143.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. एफ. रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण असम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-12-2009 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -41011 / 28 /2002- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

295

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

New Delhi , the 18th December , 2009 S.O. 143. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.2 / 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court, Assam as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of N. F. Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 18-12-2009 .

[No. L -41011 /28 /2002 - IR ( B - I ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : GUWAHATI ASSAM

REFERENCE CASE NO. 2 ( C ) OF 2003

Present : Md . S. Hussain , LLB . , A.J.S. , Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal , Guwahati . In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between : The Management of N. F. Railway , Guwahati .

Versus

Their workmen Shri Siba Prasad Bhattacharjee , Shri Dharmeswar Pathak and Shri Ashok Dey represented by the General Secy . , Railway Mazdoor Union , 27 / B , Rest Camp . Pandu

APPEARANCE

Shri Kailash Kr . Sarma , Advocate : For the Management Ld . Advocate Mr. Asish Dasgupta: For the Union Date ofAward : 17-11-2009

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi by notification No. L - 41011 /28 / 2002 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 29-11-2002 referred an industrial dispute between theManagement of the General Manager ( P ) N.F. Railway, Guwahati and their workmen Sri Siba Prasad Bhattacharjee , Sri Dharmeswar Pathak and Sri Ashok Dey on the following issue to be determined by this tribunal : - "Whether the action of the Management of N. R. Railway , Maligaon , Guwahati by not absorbing Sri Siba Prasad Bhattacharjee , Sri Dharmeswar Pathak and Ashok Dey in Group ' D ' post in the year , 1991- 92 is justified ? If not , what relief S / Shri Siba Prasad Bhattacharjee , Dharmeswar Pathak and Ashok Dey are entitled ? "

2. In this reference case , the management side filed their written statement and the workmen side also filed their written statement as well as addl . written statement in response to the written statement submitted by the management . The management examined only one witness 296

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

[PART II St-C 3 ( ii ) | in support of their case but the workmen side examined three witnesses in support of their case . Both sides also adduced their documentary evidences so as to support their respective case .

3. After closing the evidence , my predecessor Presiding OfficerMr. Badanch Bora, on 30-8-05 heard the argument of both sides ' learned advocates and passed an award on 25-4-2005 . Being dissatisfied with that award, the workmen Sri Siba Prasad Bhattacharjee and Sri Dharmeswar Pathak filedwrit petition before the Hon'ble Gauhati High Court which was registered as W.P. (C) No. 2601/2006 . Hon'ble High court disposed of that writ petition by delivering judgment on 18-2-09. By the said judgment, Hon'ble High Court set aside the award passed by this tribunal on 25-4-05 and remanded the matter to this tribunal for decision on the entitlement of the petitioners for absorption in the light of stipulated conditions of eligibility spelt out by the policy document of Railway Deptt. Dated 30-5-2000 .In that judgment Hon'ble High Court held that a document dated 10-9-2001 , issuedby Divisional Manager ( P) APDJ ( Ext.Z/ 1 ) , provides that staff employees ofrailway co - operative societies would be covered bythe policydecision dated 30-5-2000 and said policy decision also contemplates absorption subject to fulfillment of prescribed educational qualification and certain other requirement with regard to the age etc. but the materials on record do not permit that court to reach any firm conclusion as to whether the workmen concern does or does not fulfill the aforesaid requirement spelt out by the policy decision dated 30-5-2000 and that point is to be determined from the material to be produced by the parties . Thus , from the said observation ofthe Hon'ble High Court it is crystal clear Hon'ble HighCourtdeclares that the workmen of this case is coverable under policy decision of N.F. Railway dated 30-5-2000 and the workmen are entitled to be absorbed in grade ' D ' post provided they fulfill requisite qualification and age.

4. After receiving the case on remand from the Hon'ble High Court, I direct both the parties to give evidence on the matter of qualification and age of the workmen, and accordingly W.W.1 Dharmeswar Pathak and W.W.2 Siba Prasad Bhattacharjee gave addl . Evidence on the matter of their educational qualification and age and they were cross - examine by the management side . The management side also gave evidence of one Sri Monoj Basumtary on the same matter . After hearing of addl . evidence of the parties on the matter of age and qualification ofthe workmen, I on 11-11-09 , heard the argument of learned advocate Mr. K. K. Sarma for the management and the learned advocate Mr. A. Dasgupta for the workmen . Today I pass the award as follows .

' D' post of N. F. Railway from 1991-92 till date the management violates the policy decision made by General Manager(P) N.F. Railway and also caused infringement of the Fundamental Right of the workmen . The Management of N. F. Railway failed to response the series of representation filed by the workmen in the matter of their claim to be observed in Group ' D ' post of N.F.Railway . The workmen were employee of Rangia Railway Consumer Co- operative Society Rangia being appointed on 30-11-82 by the management of the Co - operative society on depositing a sum of Rs . 200 as secuirty money by each enployees . Owing to some railway necessities for innovation the building where the Co - operative Society was housed was dismantled w.e.f. 1-11-95 . After giving assurance ofgiving alternative accommodation for running the said society on dismantling the building the said workmen of the society were given leave without pay with the condition that the moment the building is installed their services would be called back by the management and that is why security money was not released and share of the members of the society was also not refunded . The management has not fulfill their assurance of installation of the building, for running the society nor dissolved the society; and practically the said co - operative societies remains defunct till to date . The management also has not taken any step for running the co-operative societies ' as were in the force before 1-11-95 . In the year 1991-92 N.F. Railway considered for absorption of number of employees working in the co - operative societies managed by the railway and absorbed them in different categories of Group ' D ' services of the railway establishment ; but since seniority of the above named did not permit for consideration of their absorption as per requirement of N.F. Railway Administration they remain unabsorbed till today. In the year 1999-2000 when new quota was fixed by the railway for absorption of employees of co - operative society their case was not considered even having clear merits and requisite qualifications . The employees of Railway's Consumer Co - operative Society of Badarpur which also was under active consideration of N. F. Railway for their absorption in their respective categories in railway establishment ; but the claim of these workmen remain unconsidered although they have been forced to go on leave w.e.f. 1-11-95 by the management of the co - operative society . This conduct of N. F. Railway administration amounts to infringe the provision of Article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India . These workmen have to face economic hardship for long year for that attitude of railway adminstration . Both workmen and the Secy. of N.R. Railway Mazdoor Union presented the matter to the Divisional Manager . Alipurduar on 17-7-01 and negotiated for and amicable settlement but the result is negative . Rangia Railway Consuner Co - operative Society is under control ofGeneral Manager ( P ) N. F. Railway , Maligaon and its immediate supervisor is DRM / Alipurduar . The society has 5. By filing written statement , the union side states that by not absorbing Sri Siba Prasad Bhattacharjee , Sri Dharmeswar Pathak and Sri Ashok Dey , who belong to Rangia Railway Consumer Co - operative Society , in Group not been dissolved till today, the consumer goods remain 297

भारत का राजपत्र : जनवरी 9 , 2010/पौष 19 , 1931

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

of laid down by the aforesaid letter and so they are not entitled to absorption in the railway service .

in stock without disposing the same which make them quite unfit for human consumption . The railway administration is bound to absorb these workmen at per with employees of other co - operative societies managed by railway administration but they did not take step to absorb the three workmen . According to principle of natural justice these workmen are coverable under the absorption policy 1999-2000 and they are entitled to be absorbed under that policy.

7. By filing addl . written statement , the workmen sidé states further that the railway administration supervises the management of all co - operative societies situated within the ambit of railway premises , and the railway administration can not shrug of its responsibility for the service and welfare of the employees of the co - operative societies . The management has not divulged the actual factual position in respect of absorption of employees of co - operative societies under its control . It is a liability of railway administration to keep the name of the staff of co - operative society under its control . Rangia Consumer Co - operative Society is not a defunct society . The management has not furnished the policy decision as they had formulated to comply with the guideline of railway Board's letter in respect of absorption of employees of the co - operative societies under its control . The railway administration discriminated these workmen in the matter of absorbing the workmen of the co - operative society in railway service . The management having been guided by extraneous considerations , malafidely exercised the power and that is why their action is hit by Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution .

8. The observation of Hon'ble High Court in the judgment dated 18-2-09 passed in W.P. ( C ) No. 2601/06 is very important in disposing the present dispute . In the said judgment Hon'ble High Court observes that as the said co - operative society , in question , had not been dissolved in accordance with law , the learned tribunal arrived at the finding that the workmen continued to be employees of said co - operative society though they were forced to remain on leave without pay , and the said co- operative society was in existence at least upto Feb.2002 and that finding have not been assailed by the respondent (by the railway) either before the court or in any other forum and in such circumstances the aforesaid finding have to be understood by the court to have attained finality in law . This observation by Hon'ble High Court must be understood as direct that the decision of the Industrial Tribunal in the Award dated 25-4-2005 that the co - operative society , in question was in existence atleast upto Feb. 2002 and these three workmen continued to be employee of the said co - operative society though they were forced to go on leave without pay attains finality in law . In view of that direction of Hon'bel High Court I must concede to the decision of my predecessor Presiding Officer in the Award dated 25-4-05 on those points and hold that the Rangia consumer Co - operative Society was in existence atleast upto Feb , 2002 and those three workmen are employees of the said society although they are on forced leave .

6. By filing written statement , the management of N.F Railway states that the suit is not maintainable in the present from in law as well as in fact . The Asstt . Labour Commissioner held a conciliation proceeding in connection with the grievances of the workmen and the management , vide letter No. E/ 170 / Legal cell / RLC/21 /2001 dated 7-2-2002, informed the Asstt . Labour commissioner that the said consumer's co - operative society is not functioning after demolition of the building since 1-1-95 . The Rangia Railway Consumer Co- operative Society is established as per provision of Co - operative Societies Act 1912 and Societies Registration Act 1860 and the workmen were employed by the managing committee of the co - operative society after receving Rs . 200 as security money from each of them . Dissolution of the co- operative returning the money of the share holders granting leave to the workers , cancellation of registration and refund the security money to its staff etc are the responsibility of the managing committee and not of the railway administration . Managing committee of the society is responsible for functioning or non- functioning of the society . The railway administration is not the managing committee of the above name co- operative society . The managing committee is constituted as per procedure of the Co - operative Society Act and Society Registration Act and railway administration has only to play the role in the way of encouraging the promotion and development of co - operative activities in the railway , and with that view railway administration provides the societies accommodations , electricity and other facilities in normal rate . It is not true that in the year 1991-92 railway authority considered for absorption of number of employees of co - operative society in the railway establishment; in fact their is no such scheme as mentioned by the workmen and no such employees were absorbed in railway service by N.F. Railway administration . The Railway Board vide their letter No.E ( NG ) II / 99 / RR - 1 / 15 dated 30-5-2000 decided that railway may consider absorption only those staff of Quasi - administrative offices / organizations who were on roll continuously a period of atleast three years as on 10-6-97 and are still on roll subject to fulfillment of prescribed educational qualification required for recruitment of Grade ' D ' post , but aforesaid three workmen were not on roll on 10-6-97 as the society remain defunct since 1995. The case of absorption of employees of Quasi - administrative offices are being dealt as per condition laid down in railway Board's letter dated

In the quoted judgment of the Hon'ble High Court ; Hon'ble High Court further holds that the employees of Rangia Consumer Co - operative Society are coverable, under 30-5-2000 . The workmen do not fulfil requisite conditions 298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 9 , 2010/PAUSA 19 , 1931

the policy decision dated 30-5-2000 and they are entitled to absorption in Grade ' D' post of the railway service provided they fulfil prescribed educational qualification and certain otherrequirement with regard to age etc. It is already seen thatHon'ble High Court also observes that it has failed to reach any final conclusion as to whether the workmen concerned door do not fulfil the requirement spelt out by thepolicy decision dated 30-5-2000 for want of materials on these points . From this observation of the Hon'ble High Court it is crystal clear that if the workmen fulfil the prescribed educational qualification and age , then they will be entitled to absorption in Group ' D ' post of railway service . So in view of that observation , this tribunal has no alternative but held that the workmen of the instant case are coverable under the policy decision of the railway dated 30-5-2000 . Now the only question remains to be determined by this tribunal is whether the workmen fulfil the prescribed educational qualification and age spelt by said policydecision.

9. I have perused exhibit A ( the notification dated 30-5-2000 ) issued by Railway Board and it is found that the Board directs that railway may consider absorption of only those staff of quasi - administration offices / organization who were on roll continuously for a period of atleast three years as on 10-6-97 and are still on roll subject to fulfillment prescribed educational qualification required for recruitment in Group ' D ' posts as well as prescribed age limit . Thus it is clear that if the workmen, in question , had the educational qualification and age limit for absorption in Group D ' post on the date of first engagement in the said co - operative society , they will entitled to be absorbed in the Group ' D' post of the railway services . Both sides admit that the requisite qualification of Group ' D ' post is reading upto class VIII and maximum age limit for recruitment in the said post is 30 years .

From exhibit6 it is seen that the managing authority of employees Consumer Society, Rangia issuing certificate on 6-9-01 certifying that Siba Prasad Bhattacharjee , Dharmeswar Pathak and Ashok Dey were first appointed in the said co- operative society on 1-12-82 . All three workmen by giving evidence , state that they were first appointed in the said co- operative society on 1-12-82 and all of them are appointed as salesman. Now the next question to be determined is that what was the academic qualification as well as the age of these workmen as on 1-11-82 .

Workman Dharmeswar Pathak giving, addl . evidence states that he passed H.S.L.C. examination from Rangia Boys Higher Secondary School in the year 1978 and Exhibit32 is the said certificate . He further states that he was born on 1-12-62 and his age was 15 years 5 months 1 day on 1-3-78 and Ext . 33 is the admit card and Exhibit 34 is the H.S.L.C. examination passed mark sheet . All these three documents are exhibited and un- objected and proved by originals . So I hold that these three documents are proof of

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

educational qualification and the age of Dharmeswar Pathak . These documents proves that Dharmeswar Pathak passed H.S.L.C. examination in the year 1978 and his age was 15 years 5 months 1 day on 1st March 1978 and his date ofbirth is 30-10-1962 and his age as on 1-1-1982 was 20 years 1 month 1 day .

Secondly Siba Prasad Bhattacharyee giving additional evidence states that he was born on 6-3-1956- and he passed H.S.L.C. examination from West Bengal Board of Secondary Education and Exhibit 35 is the admit card and Exhibits 36 is the mark sheet of the H.S.L.C. examination . These two documents are also exhibited unopposed. So they are proof of his qualification and age. I have perused Exhibit 35 and 36 and it appears to me that Siba Prasad Bhattacharyee passed II.S.L..C . examination from A.J.Y. Bidya Mandir under West Bengal Board of Secondary Education in the year 1974 and his date ofbirth is6-3-1956 . So it is proved that the educational qualification ofSri Siba Prasad Bhattacharjee is H.S.L.C. passed and his age on 1st December , 1982 is 26 years 8 months 7 days . Thus it is clearly established that on 1-12-1982 , while these two workmen were first engaged by the Rangia Consumer Co- operative Society as salesman , they had requisite qualification and age to be absorbed in Group 'D ' railway service . Be it mentioned that the third workman Ashok Dey has not turned up to contest the case after remand and therefore his age and qualification could bot be determine bythis tribunal and award can not be passed on hisclaim .

Because of what has been discussed and analysed . I hold thatworkmen Dharmenswar Pathak and Siba Prasad Bhattacharyee are entitled to absorption in Group D ' post ofN. F. Railway as per Policy Decision of the Railway Board dated 30-5-2000 .

10. Summing up my discussion as above . I hold that the action of the management of N. F. Railway . Guwahati by not absorbing Sri Dharmeswar Pathak and Sri Siba Prasad Bhattacharyee in Group 'D ' posts in N. F. Railway is not justified and that both of them are entitled to absorption in the Group ' D' post of N. F. Railway as per Policy Decision of the Railway Board dated 30-5-2000 . The dispute between management and Ashok Dey dropped undecided having Ashok Dey found not interested in this reference case . Accordingly Idirect General Manager ( P ) of N. F. Railway . Maligaon , Guwahati to absorb Shri Dharmeswar Pathak and Shri Siba Prasad Bhattacharjee inGroup 'D' posts in N. F. Railway within reasonable period required for processing the matter .

Copy of Award be sent to the Government of India. Ministry of Labour for publication.

Given under my hand and seal on this the 17th day ofNov , 2009 .

S. HUSSAIN, Presiding Officer

Prmtedby the Manager. Govt . of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapurı , New Delhi - 110061 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.