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. 15] No. 15]

नई दिल्ली, अप्रैल 4-अप्रैल 10 , 2010 , शनिवार/चैत्र 14- चैत्र20, 1932 NEW DELHI, APRIL 4 APRIL 10 , 2010 , SATURDAY/CHAITRA 14-CHAITRA 20, 1932

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)

(1) (2)

(3)

गृह मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च, 2010

केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल के सारे भूमि परिसर तथा परिसंपत्तियां ।

2. कमान्डेण्ट-202 कोबरा बटालियन

गांव-मोउजा-चोउलापुरी जिला-कोरापूट, उड़ीसा में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल के सारे भूमि परिसर तथा परिसंपत्तियां ।

का.आ. 896.-सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा नीचे सारणी के कालम ( 2 ) में वर्णित अधिकारियों को सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारियों के नाते कथित सारणी के कालम ( 3 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमा के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ सम्पदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है, जो कथित अधिनियम के अन्तर्गत अथवा उसके द्वारा सम्पदा अधिकारी को प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेगा तथा सौंपे गए कर्त्तव्यों का निर्वहन करेगा:-

कमान्डेण्ट-203 कोबरा बटालियन

सारणी

क्र.स. अधिकारी का

लोक परिसर तथा

गांव- बारही जिला-हजारीबाग , झारखण्ड में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल के सारे भूमि परिसर तथा परिसंपत्तियां । पदनाम

क्षेत्राधिकार की स्थानीय सीमाएं

( 1) (2)

कमान्डेण्ट 205 कोबरा बटालियन

(3)

गांव-बरवाधीह जिला-गया बिहार में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल के सारे भूमि परिसर तथा परिसंपत्तियां । कमान्डेण्ट-201 कोबरा बटालियन

गाँव-करनपूर , जिला- बस्तर (जगदलपुर ) , छत्तीसगढ़ में

1117 G1/ 10

(1763) [PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10, 2010/CHAITRA 20, 1932

1764

(3) .

(2)

(1)

(3)

(2)

(1)

Commandant- 206 COBRA Bn

कमान्डेण्ट-206 कोबरा बटालियन

All Lands and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Vill Chittapur , Distt- Bhandara , Maharashtra .

गांव-चितापूर जिला- भन्डारा महाराष्ट्र में केन्द्रीय रिजर्व पुलिस बल के सारे भूमि परिसर तथा परिसंपत्तियां ।

[F. No. A. II - 8 /2010 - DA.4 -Adm.1 / MHA - PF.III ]

H. KAM SUANTHANG , Under Secy .

[फा. सं. ए- 11-8/2010-डीए-4- प्रशा. 1 /गृह मंत्रालय- पी.एफ- III ] एच.काम सुआनथंग , अवर सचिव

कार्मिक, लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग ) MINISTRY OF HOME AFFAIRS New Delhi , the 30th March , 2010

नई दिल्ली , 30 मार्च , 2010

S.O. 896.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public premises (Eviction of unauthorized Occupants) Act , 1971 (40 of 1971 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column (2) of the Table below , being Gazetted Officers of the Government, to be estste officers for the proposes of the said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the estate officer by or under the said act within the local limits of the jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (3 ) of the table aforsaid , namely:-

TABLE

o. Designation of the Officer

Public premises and and local limits of jurisdiction

(3)

(2)

का.आ. 897. केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए असम राज्य सरकार , राजनीति (ए ) विभागू , दिसपुर की अधिसूचना सं. पीएलए 356/08/39 दिनांक 4 अप्रैल,2009 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से टियोक पोस्ट आफिस , जोरहाट जिला , शिवसागर पोस्टल डिवीजन , असम से जारी किए गए बोगस मनिआर्डरों के भुगतान के संबंध में टियोक ( असम ) पुलिस स्टेशन में दर्ज मामला सं. 03/99 जो भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 ( 1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45 ) की धारा 420 , 468 , 471 , 406 और 408 के अधीन दर्ज है , के अन्वेषण के लिए तथा उसी संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अपराध से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षडयंत्रों और अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्ही अन्य अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण असम राज्य के संबंध में करती है । Commandant-201 COBRA Bn

[सं. 228/20/2009 ए. वी. डी. ।। ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी, अवर सचिव All Lands and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Vill- Karanpur , Distt- Baster ( Jagdalpur) , Chhatisgarh.

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

2. Commandant - 202 COBRA Bn

(Department of Personnel and Training ) New Delhi , the 30th March , 2010 All Lands and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at VillMouza-Chulapari , Distt-Koraput

3. Commandant-203 COBRA Bn

All Lands and assets belonging to the Central Reserve Police Force at Vill- Barhi , Distt- Hazaribagh , Jharkhand.

4. Commandant-205 COBRA Bn

S.O. 897. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Assam , Political ( A) Department , Dispurvide Notification No. PLA 365/08/39 dated 4th April 2009 hereby extents the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Assam , for investigation of case No. 03/99 under sections 420, 468, 471 , 406 and 408 of the Indian Penal Code 1860 ( Act No. 45 of 1860 ) registered at Police Station , Teok (Assam ) relating to payment of bogus All Lands and assets belonging to the Central . Reserve Police Force at Vill- Barwadih , Distt- Gaya, Bihar.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1765

भारत का रात्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

money orders purported to have been issueed at Teok PostOffice , Jorhat District , Sivasagar Postal Division , Assam and attempts . Abetments , and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the above mentioned offences and any other offence/offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/20/2009 -AVD- II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 31 मार्च, 2010

का.आ. 898.- केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए हरियाणा राज्य सरकार , गृह विभाग की दिनांक 9 अप्रैल , 2009 की अधिसूचना सं. 20/8/2005-3 एच.जी. । द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से श्री ओम प्रकाश चौटाला , पूर्व मुख्यमंत्री हरियाणा के विरुद्व राज्य सतर्कता ब्यूरो में लम्बित भ्रष्टाचार निवारण अधिनियम (1988 का अधिनियम सं. 49 ) के अंतर्गत जांच जांच का अन्वेषण सं. 5 दिनांक 15-5-2006 चंडीगढ़ के संबंध में तथा उपर्युक्त उल्लिखित अपराधों के संबंध में या संदर्भ में प्रयास दुष्प्रेरण तथा षडयंत्र तथा अन्य अपराध जोकि उसी संव्यवहार के दौरान किए गए हों या उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत हुए हो , का अन्वेषण करने के संबंध में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों और क्षेत्राधिकार का विस्तार एतद्वारा सम्पूर्ण हरियाणा राज्य के संबंध में करती है ।

[सं. 228/5 /2006 - ए वी डी-11 ] मुकेश चतुर्वेदी, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 31st March , 2010

S.O. 898.-In exercise of the powers conferredby sub -section ( 1) of section 5 read with section 6 ofthe Delhi Special Police Establishment Act , 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of Haryana, Home Department , vide Notification No. 20 / 8 /2005-3HG - 1 dated 9th April , 2009 hereby extents the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of Haryana for conducting enquiries/ investigation of Enquiry No.5 dated 15-5-2006 Chandigarh under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No.49 of 1988 ) against Shri Om Prakash Chautala, former Chief Minister, Haryana pending with State Vigilance Bureau , Haryanaa and attempts , abetments , and conspiracies in relation to or in connection with the offences mentioned above and any other offence ( s ) committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts .

[No. 228/5/2006-AVD- 11 ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy.

वित्त मंत्रालय (आयकर विभाग )

मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त का कार्यालय , चेन्नै- II चेन्नई , 22 फरवरी , 2010

फा.आ. 899.-आम् सूचना के लिए या अधिसूचना जारी क्लीजाती है कि मैसर्स निस्सान अनेक लिलेण्ड टेक्नॉलोजीज लिमिटेड, खीवराज काम्प्लेक्स II , चौथी मंजिल , 477-482 अण्णा सालै, नन्दनम , चेन्नै-600 035 नामक कम्पनी क्रो ( जिनको भारत सरकार , विज्ञान और तकनीकी मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश संख्याः एक्क.टी.यू. IV/भार.डी.आई /2904/2009 दिनांक 28-8-2009 द्वारा आन्तरिक आर एण्ड डी ईकाइयों के लिए दिनांक 31-12-2012 तक पहले ही मान्यता प्रदान की गई है । ) वित्तीय वर्ष 2010-11 से 2012-13 तक वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान करने वाले अन्य संस्थाओं के वर्ग में आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 5 एफ के साथ पठित्त आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( क ) के प्रयोजन के लिए निम्नलिखित शर्तों के साथ मान्यता दी जाती है :

(क) उपरोक्त कम्पनी को संदत्त राशि को मैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के प्रयोजन के लिए खर्च किया जाएगा ;

(ख) उपरोक्त कम्पनी अपने निजी दर्मचारियों द्वारा अपनी आस्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान कार्य करेगी ;

(ग ) आयकर अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( IIक ) के अधीन अनुमोदन प्राप्त कम्पनी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के प्रयोजन के लिए प्राप्त निधि के सन्दर्भ में अनुसंधान में खर्च की गई रकम को दर्शाते हुए अलग लेखा-बही रखेगी , क्षधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2) के स्पष्टीकरण में विनिर्दिष्ट प्रकार लेखा- बहियों की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगी और उक्त लेखाकार द्वारा सत्यापित और हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट को संबंधित आयकर निदेशक या आयकर आयुक्त के पास अधिनियम की धारा । 39 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के आयकर विवरणी दाखिल करने के लिए उल्लिखित समय सीमा के अन्तर्गत दाखिल करेगी;

(घ) अनुमोदित कम्पनी वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के प्रयोजन के लिए प्राप्त दान और इस प्रयोजनार्थ खर्च का विवरण अलग से तैयार करके रखेगी । उक्त विवरण की एक प्रमाणित प्रति लेखाकार की लेखा रिपोर्ट के साथ उप नियम ( 3 ) के अनुसार प्रस्तुत करेगी ;

(ड. ) अनुमोदन दिए जाने के बाद उपरोक्त कम्पनी हर साल आयकर अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन आयकर विवरणी दाखिल करने के लिए विनिर्दिष्ट समय- सीमा के अन्दर संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त को निम्नलिखित विषयों पर प्रकाश डालते हुए एक विवरण प्रस्तुत करेगी ;

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii )] 1766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/CHAITRA 20 , 1932

(i) पूर्व वर्ष में किए गए अनुसंधान कार्य के बारे में एक विस्तृत टिप्पणी ।

(ii) राष्ट्रीय और अंतर- राष्ट्रीय पत्रिकाओं में संदर्भाधीन वर्ष में प्रकाशित अनुसंधान लेखों की संक्षिप्त जानकारी ।

(iii) संदर्भाधीन वर्ष में आवेदन किए गए या पंजीकृत किए गए पेटेन्ट या अन्य अधिकार का विवरण ।

Science & Technology, Government of India , New Delhi videtheir order dated 28-8-2009 in F.No. TU - IV / RDI/ 2904 / 2009 till 31-3-2012, has been approved for the purpose of Clause (iia) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 ofthe Income- tax Act, 1961 (said Act ) read with Rule 5F of the Income -tax Rules, 1962 (said Rules) , for the Assessment years 2010-11 to 2012-13 in the category of " other institution " engaged in research activities , subject to the following conditions , namely:--

(a) The sums paid to the above approved company shall be used for scientific research ;

(iv) अगले वर्षों के लिए उद्देशित अनुसंधान परियोजनाओं का कार्यक्रम और इन कार्यक्रमों के लिए वित्तीय- आबंटन का विवरण ।

( च ) यदि आयकर आयुक्त इस बात से संतुष्ट है कि उपरोक्त कम्पनी

(b) The applicant company shall carry on scientific research through its own employees using its own assets ;

(i) अपने वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान कार्यों के लिए अलग लेखा- बही नहीं रखती है

(ii) लेखा- रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत करने में चूक की है

(iii) अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त और उसमें लगे खर्च के संदर्भ में या उप, खण्ड (ड. ) में उल्लिखित प्रकार से विवरण प्रस्तुत नहींकी है,या

(iv) अनुसंधान कार्यों को समाप्त कर दिया हो या कार्यों में यथार्थता नहीं हो या

(v) जिन शर्तों के आधार पर अनुमोदन दिया गया हो , उन शर्तों का अनुपालन नहीं करती है

(c) The company approved under Clause (iia) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 shall maintain separate booksof accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research , reflect there in the amount used for carrying on research , get such books of account 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 ofincome under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act ;

तो ऐसे संदर्भ में उचित जाँच पड़ताल के बाद उपरोक्त ( i ) से (v) तक के संदर्भ में एक रिपोर्ट धारा 139 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन विवरणी दाखिल करने के लिए निर्दिष्ट दिन से छः महीने के अन्दर अपने मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त को प्रस्तुत करेंगे ।

(d) The approved company shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts used for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to in the sub-rule (3) .

यदि नियम 5 च में उल्लिखित ( i ) से (v ) तक के शर्तों में से किसी भी शर्त को पूरा नहीं किया गया या संबंधित आयकर आयुक्त से नियम 5 च ( 3 ) ( च ) के अंतर्गत प्राप्त रिपोर्ट के आधार पर उपरोक्त अनुमोदन को रद्द किया जा सकता है ।

(e) Subsequent to the approval , the company shall , every year , by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 139 , furnish a statement to the Commissioner of Income- tax, containing the following information namely: - [अधिसूचना सं. 1/2009-10 सं. सी सी-11 /35 ( 1 ) ( iia )/2009-10 ] जी. सी. जैन , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

(i) a detailed note on the research work undertaken by itduring the previous year;

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Income Tax Department )

(ii) a summary of research articles published in national or international journals during the year ;

(OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX , CHENNAI - II )

(iii) any patents or other similar rights applied for or registered during the year;

Chennai , 22nd February , 2010

(iv) programme of research projects to be undertaken during the forthcoming year and the financial allocation for such projects.

(f) If the Commissioner of Income- tax is satisfied that the company.

S.O. 899. It is hereby notified for general information that the company M/s . Nissan Ashok leyland Technologies Ltd. , Khivaraj Comples II , 4th Floor, 477-482 Anna Salai , Nandanam , Chennai - 600 035 ( already granted recognition for its in house R & D units by the Ministry of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(i) is not maintaining separate books of account for research activities , or

(ii) has failed to furnish its audit report , or ( iii) has not furnished the statement of the sums received and the sums used for research , or a statement referred to in sub - clause ( e) , or 1

(iv) has ceased to carry on its research activities . or its activities are not genuine , or

(v) is not fulfilling the conditions , subject to which the approval was granted to it,

He may after making appropriate enquiries , furnish a report on the circumstances referred to in sub - clauses ( i ) to(v) to the jurisdictional Cheif Commissioner of Income- taxwithin six months from the date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section ( 1) of Section 139.

The above approval may be withdrawn under Rule 5F (2) (j ), if any of the above conditions in (a) to ( e) ofRule 5f isnot satisfied or on receipt of the CIT's report as per Rule 5F(3 ) (f) .

[Notification No. 1 /2009-10 No. CC- 11 /35 (1 )( iia)/2009-10 ] G. C. JAIN , Chief Commissioner of Income-tax कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त जयपुर , 26 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 900.-आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एतद्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-2010 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " सेन्ट मीरा ब्रदरहुड सोसायटी , जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 के उपखण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 19/2009-10 क्रमांक:मुआआ/अआआ/( मु.)/ जय./ 10( 23सी ) ( vi )/09-10/5832 ] बी. एस. ढिल्लों, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX Jaipur, the 26th March , 2010

S.O. 900.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-clause ( vi ) of clause (23C ) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income -tax , Jaipur hereby approves " St Mira Brotherhood

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1767 Society, Jaipur " for the purpose of said section for the Α.Υ. 2009-2010 & onwards .

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

[Notification No. 19/2009-10 No. CCIT/ JPR/ Addl.CIT(Hqrs . ) 10( 23C )( vi )/2009-10/5832 ] B. S. DHILLION , ChiefCommissioner of Income-tax जयपुर, 31 मार्च, 2010

का. आ. 901.-आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( v ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एतद्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-2010 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " श्री श्याम मन्दिर कमेटी, खाटूश्यामजी , जिला-सीकर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2 सी के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 की धारा 10 के उपखण्ड (23 सी) की उपधारा ( v ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे । [अधिसूचना सं. 20/2009-10 क्रमांक:मुआआआआआ/ ( मु.)/ जय./10( 23सी ) ( v) /09-10/17 ] बी. एस. ढिल्लों, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त Jaipur , the 31st March , 2010

S.O. 901. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub -clause ( v) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2C of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Shree Shyam Mandir Committee, Khatushyamji , Distt . Sikar " for the purpose of said section for the A. Y. 2009-2010 & onwards .

Provided that the society conforms to and complics with the provisions of sub - clause ( v) of clause (23 C ) of section 10 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 read with rule 2C of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 .

[Notification No. 20/2009-10/No . CGIT/JPR/AddI . CIT( Hqrs .) 10(23C)(v)/2009-10/ 17] B. S. DHILLION , Chief Commissioner of Income-tax (वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 902.-भारतीय निर्यात- आयात बैंक अधिनियम , 1981 (1981 का 28 ) की धारा 5 की उपधारा ( 2 ) के साथ पठित धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) ( क ) तथा उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 1768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 10 , 2010/CHAITRA 20, 1932

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING

New Delhi , the 23rd March, 2010 प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करने के पश्चात्, एतद्द्वारा , श्री टी. सी. ए. रंगनाथन ( जन्म तिथि 19-11-1953 ) , वर्तमान में प्रबंध निदेशक , स्टेट बैंक आफ बीकानेर एंड जयपुर को उनके पदभार ग्रहण करने की तारीख से और 30-11-2013 ( जिस महीने वे अधिवर्षिता की आयु प्राप्त करेंगें , उसके अंतिम दिन ) तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , भारतीय निर्यात- आयात बैंक के निदेशक मण्डल में अध्यक्ष एवं प्रबंध निदेशक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/ 10/2005 - आईएफ-1 ( बीओ -1 ]

सुमिता डावरा , निदेशक

S.O. 903. In continuation of this Ministry's Notification of even number , dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferredby sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification ) Rules, 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint Smt . Alka Pandey , ' Devika ' Row House , Plot No. 74 , Opp . Adarsh Hotel , Koper Khairane , Sec- 1 , Navi Mumbai- 400 709 as a member of the Mumbai Advisory Panel ofthe Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever isearlier.

(Department of Financial Services ) New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

[F. No. 809/7/2009 - F ( C) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director ( Films ) नई दिल्ली, 25 मार्च, 2010

का.आ. 904. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 10-11-2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम, 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम 1952 (1952का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केंद्र सरकार निम्नलिखित व्यक्तियों को तत्काल प्रभाव से 2 वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है :

S.O. 902. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) ( a ) and sub -section (2 ) of Section 6 read with sub - section (2 ) of Section 5 of The Export - Import Bank of India Act, 1981 (28 of 1981 ) , the Central Government, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby appoints Shri . T.C.A. Ranganathan ( DoB: 19-11-1953) presently Managing Director , State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur as Chairman and Managing Director on the Board of Directors ofExport - Import Bank of India, with effect from the date of his taking over charge of the post and upto 30-11-2013 (the last day of month in which he would attain the age of superannuation ) or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

( 1 ) श्री मधु रावत, 501 , 5वां तल , मेघना शांति रेजिडेंसी, रोड़ नं. 6 , पश्चिमी मरीडपल्ली , सिक- बाद, आंध्र प्रदेश । [F. No. 9/ 10/2005 - IF - I (BO . I ) ] SUMITA DAWRA , Director

(2 ) मोहम्मद सादत अली खान , म.नं. 9-4-86/262/3 , सलार जंग कॉलोनी, नानाल नगर , मेहदीपटनम , हैदराबाद -500 008 सूचना एवं प्रसारण मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 23 मार्च , 2010

[फा. सं. 809/3/2009-- एफ ( सी ) । अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म )

New Delhi , the 25th March , 2010 का.आ. 903.इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 10-11-2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम 1952 (1952का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार श्रीमती अल्का पाण्डे , ' देवीका ' रो हाऊस, प्लॉट नं . 74 , आदर्श होटल के सामने , कोपर खैरने , सैक्टर -1 , नवी मुम्बई -400 709 को तत्काल प्रभाव से 2 वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मुम्बई सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है ।

S.O. 904. In continuation of Ministry's Notification of even number , dated 10-11-2009 and exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of theCinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952 ) , read with rules 7 and 8 ofthe Cinematograph ( Certification ) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint the following persons as members of the Hyderabad 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 :

[फा. सं. 809/7/2009- एफ ( सी ) ] अमिताभ कुमार, निदेशक (फिल्म)

(1) Smt. Madhu Rawat, 501 , 5th Floor , Meghna Shanati Residency, Road No.6 , West Marredpally, Sec -Bad, Andhra Pradesh .

" [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

(2) Mohd. Sadat Ali Khan, H. No. 9-4-86/262/3 , Salarjung Colony, Nanal Nagar , Mehdipatnam , Hyderabad-500 008 ,

[F. No. 809/3 /2009 -F (C)] AMITABH KUMAR, Director ( Films) नई दिल्ली , 25 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 905.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 10-11-2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियम , 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम 1952 (1952का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार श्री संडागल्ला सुरेश को तत्काल प्रभाव से 2 वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , केन्द्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/3/2009- एफ ( सी) ]

अमिताभ कुमार, निदेशक ( फिल्म) New Delhi , the 25th March, 2010

S.O. 905. In continuation of the 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 with Rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification) Rules, 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Sandagalla Suresh as a member of the Hyderabad 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 .

[F. No.809/3 /2009 -F (C) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films) नई दिल्ली, 30 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 906.-केंद्र सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) के नियम , 1976 के नियम, 10 के उपनियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में , दूरदर्शन महानिदेशालय ( सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय ) के निम्नलिखित अधीनस्थ केंद्रों/कार्यालयों, जिनके 80% से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है :-

1. दूरदर्शन केंद्र, डिब्रुगढ़

2. दूरदर्शन उच्च शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , नांदयाल

3. दूरदर्शन उच्च शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , बड़ौदा

4. दूरदर्शन उच्च्च शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , द्वारका

5. दूरदर्शन उच्च शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , फैजाबाद

6. दूरदर्शन अनुरक्षण केंद्र, फैजाबाद

1769 7. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , गौरी गंज ( अमेठी ) दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , सुल्तानपुर

9. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , राय बरेली

10. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , लाल गंज ( प्रतापगढ़ ) 11 . दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , रुदौली

12. दूरदर्शन अल्प शक्ति ट्रांसमीटर , जगदीशपुर ।

[फा. सं. ई -11017/6/2010- हिंदी] प्रियम्वदा , निदेशक ( रा.भा. ) NewDelhi , the 30th March , 2010

S.O. 906. In pursuance ofSub -Rule (4) ofRule 10 ofthe Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes ofthe Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices under Directorate General of Doordarshan (Ministry of Information and Broadcasting), more than 80% of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge ofHindi :-

1. Doordarshan Kendra, Dibrugarh

2. Doordarshan High Power Transmitter , Nandyal 3. Doordarshan High Power Transmitter , Baroda 4. Doordarshan High Power Transmitter , Dwarka 5. Doordarshan High Power Transmitter , Faizabad 6. Doordarshan Maintenance Centre , Faizabad 7. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Gauri Ganj (Amethi)

8. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Sultanpur 9. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , RaiBareilly

10. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter , Lal Ganj (Pratapgarh)

11 . Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Rudauli 12. Doordarshan Low Power Transmitter, Jagdishpur

[F. No. E - 11017/6/2010- Hindi ]

PRIYAMVADA , Director ( O. L. ) मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय

( उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग )

(राजभाषा प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 907. केंद्रीय सरकार, राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम , 10 के उपनियम [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 1770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 /CHAITRA 20 , 1932

(4) के अनुसरण में मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय के अन्तर्गत राष्ट्रियसंस्कृत संस्थान , मानित विश्वविद्यालय , नई दिल्ली मुख्यालय एवम् उनके अधीनस्थनिम्नलिखित 10 परिसरों को ऐसी संस्थाओं के रूप में जिनमें 80 % से अधिक कर्मचारीयों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , अधिसूचित करती है:-

Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan ( Deemed University) , New Delhi Headquarter under the Ministry of Human Resource Development, and it following 10 Campuses , as the Offices , whose more than 80 % members of the staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi :-

। मुख्यालय

I Headquarter

1 . राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत संस्थान , ( मानित विश्वविद्यालय ) 56-57 , इन्स्टीट्यूशनल एरिया , जनक पुरी , नई दिल्ली

1 . Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan ( Deemed University) , 56-57 , Institutional Area , Janakpuri , New Delhi-110058

॥ परिसर

II Campus

1. राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत संस्थान , गंगानाथ झा परिसर , चन्द्रशेखर आजाद पार्क , इलाहाबाद -211108 (उ.प्र. )

1 . Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan , Ganganath Jha Parisar , Chandershekhar Azed Park , Allahabad- 211108 (U.P. )

2. राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत संस्थान , श्री रणवीर परिसर , कोट- भलवल , जम्मू-181122

2. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan , Shri Ranvir Parisar , Kot-Bhalbal , Jammu - 181122 3. राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत संस्थान , श्री सदाशिव परिसर , पुरी , उड़ीसा-752001

3. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan , Shri Sadashiv Parisar , Puri , Orissa - 752001

4. राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत संस्थान , गुरूवायूर परिसर , पोस्ट- पुरानाटुक्करा , जिला- त्रिचूर , केरल-680551

5. राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत संस्थान , लखनऊ परिसर , विशाल खण्ड-4, गोमती नगर , लखनऊ -226010 (उ.प्र. )

4. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan , Guruvayur Parisar, Post- Puranatukkra , District Chittoor, Kerala-680551

6. राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत संस्थान , जयपुर परिसर , त्रिवेणी नगर , गोपालपुरा बाई पास , जयपुर -302018 ( राजस्थान )

5. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan , Lucknow Parisar , Vishal Khand - 4 , Gomti Nagar , Lucknow -226010 (U.P.)

7. राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत संस्थान , राजीव गांधी परिसर , पोस्ट- श्रृंगेरी , जिला- चिकमंगलूर , कर्नाटक-577139

6. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan , Jaipur Parisar , Triveni Nagar , Gopalpura Byepass , Jaipur-302018 (Rajasthan)

8. राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत संस्थान , गरली परिसर, ग्राम- गरली , पोस्ट- परागपुर जिला- कांगडा, हिमाचल प्रदेश -177108

9. राष्ट्रिय संस्कृत संस्थान , भोपाल परिसर , ई -7/62 , अरेरा कालोनी, नजदीक सैन बोर्ड , भोपाल-432016 ( म.प्र. )

7. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan , Rajiv Gandhi Parisar , Post - Shringeri , Distt -Chikmangloore , Karnataka

10. राष्ट्रिय संस्कृतं संस्थान , के. जे. सोमैया संस्कृत विद्यापीठ, मुम्बई परिसर , एस.आई.एम.एस. आर. बिल्डिंग , विद्या बिहार, मुम्बई-400077 ( महाराष्ट्र) ।

& Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan , Garli Parisar , Gram-Garli , Post-Paragpur , Distt - Kangra , Himachal Pradesh - 177108

[सं. 11011-1/2010 - रा.भा.ए. ]

डॉ. अनिता भटनागर जैन , संयुक्त सचिव

9. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan , Bhopal Parisar , E- 7/62 , Arera Colony , Near Sain Board , Bhopal 432016 (Μ.Ρ. )

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education )

(O. L. Division )

10. Rashtriya Sanskrit Sansthan , K.J. Somayya SanskritVidyapeeth Mumbai Parisar , S.J.M.S.R. Buliding , Vidya Vihar , Mumbai -400077 (Maharastra) .

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

[No.11011-1 /2010-O.L.U. ]

DR . ANITA BHATNAGAR JAIN , Jt . Secy.

S.O. 907. In pursuance of Sub - Rule (4) of Rule 10 ofthe Official Language ( Use for Official Purposes of the

" [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1771

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 25 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 908.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं और रद्द कर दिए गये हैं और वापस ले लिये गये है :

क्रम सं.

रद्द किये गये मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

(1)

(2)

अनुसूची

टिप्पणी

भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खंड 3 , उपखंड ( ii ) में का.आ. संख्या और तिथि प्रकाशित

(3)

(4)

का.आ. संख्या-4242

तिथि: 8-12-1984

आई एस 1667 :1981 टॉफी की विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) 2

आई एस 1008 : 2004 उबली हुई चीनी की कोनफेक्शनरी-विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) के द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. संख्या -1552

तिथि: 2-6-1990

आई एस 7464 : 1988 ब्रैड उद्योग में प्रयोग होने वाला गेंहु का आटा (मैदा) -विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण ) 3

आई एस 7463 : 2004 बेकरी उद्योग में प्रयोग होने वाला गेंहु का आटा विशिष्टि ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) के द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का. आ. संख्या -1743

तिथि: 5-9-1998

आई एस 7999: 1998/आई एस ओ 5494: 1978 संवेदी विश्लेषण-उपकरण द्रव उत्पाद चखने हेतु गिलास (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

आई एस ओ मानक रद्द हो गयाहै

का.आ. संख्या-2118

तिथि: 9-8-1980

आई एस 8574:1977 मक्के की सूजी और मक्के का रवा (सेमोलिना) की विशिष्टि

आई एस 9629 : 2004 मक्के का आटा , मक्के का मैदा और मक्के की सूजी - विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण) के द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. संख्या -2586

तिथि: 19-7-1986

आई एस 8806: 1978 पैन गुडस कोनफेक्शनरी (ड्रैगीज ) की विशिष्टि

आई एस 1008 : 2004 उबली हुई चीनी की कोनफेक्शनरी- विशिष्ि (दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) के द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.अ. संख्या 2322

तिथि: 3-7-1982

आई एस 9194: 1979 केक उद्योग में प्रयोग होने वाला गेंहु का आटा 7

आई एस 7463 : 2004 बेकरी उद्योग में प्रयोग जोने वाला गेंहु का आटा विशित ( दूसरा पुनरीक्षण ) के द्वारा अतिक्रमित

का.आ. संख्या -3668

तिथि: 28-10-1986

आई एस 10524: 1982/आई एस ओ 3983:1977 अनाज और अनाज उत्पादों में अल्फा- एमाईलस गतिविधि का क्लोरीमीटरिक ज्ञात करना

1117 GI/10-2

आई एस ओ मानक रद्द हो गया है [PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 /CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1772

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1 )

आई एस 9629 :2004 8

का.आ. संख्या -0135

तिथि: 17-1-1987

आई एस 10834: 1984 मक्के का मैदा की विशिष्टि

मक्के का आटा , मक्के का मैदा और मक्के की सूजी - विशिष्टि ( पहला पुनरीक्षण ) के द्वारा अतिक्रमित

[संदर्भ : एफएडीजी 128 ]

एस. सौ. खोमला , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख (खाद्य एवं कृषि) MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 25th March , 2010

S.O. 908.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, it is hereby notifies the Indian Standards , particulars of which are mentioned in the Schedule given hereafter , have been cancelled and stand withdrawn:

SCHEDULE

Remarks

Sl.No.

No. & Year of the Indian Standard Cancelled

S.No. & Date published in the Gazette of India Part II , Section 3, Sub-section (ii)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

S.O. No. 4242

Dated: 8-12-1984

IS 1667: 1981 Specification for toffees ( Second Revision )

Superseded by and amalgamated with IS 1008: 2004 Sugarboiled confectionery- Specification (Second Revision ) 2

S.O. No. 1552

Dated : 2-6-1990

IS 7464: 1988 Wheat flour ( maida for use in bread industry- Specification (FirstRevision)

Superseded by and amalgamated with IS 7463: 2004 Wheat flour for use in bakery industry Specification (Second Revision) 3

Adopted ISO standard has been withdrawn

S.O. No. 1743

Dated: 5-9-1990

IS 7999: 1988 /ISO 5494 : 1978 Sensory analysis-Apparatus Tasting glass for liquid products (First Revision)

S.O. No. 2118

Dated: 9-8-1980

IS 8574: 1988 Specification for maize suzi or rava ( Semolina )

Supersededby and amalgamated withIS 9629: 2004 Maize atta , maize maida , maize suzi- Specification ( First Revision) 5

S.O. No. 2586 Dated:19-7-1986

IS 8806 : 1988 Specification for pas goods confectionery (dragees)

Superseded by and amalgamated with IS 1008: 2004 Sugar boiled confectionery- Specification (Second Revision ) | भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20, 1932

1773 6

S.O. No. 2322

Dated 3-7-1982

IS 9194 : 1979 Specification for Wheat flour for use in cake industry

Superseded by and amalgamated with IS 7463:2004 ' Wheat flour use in bakery industry-Specification (Second Revision)

S.O. No. 3668 Dated: 25-10-1986

Adopted ISO standard has been withdrawn IS 10524: 1982 /ISO 3983 : 1977 Colorimetric determination of alpha- amylase activity in cereals and cereal products

IS 10834 : 1984 Specification for maize maida

S.O. No. 0135 Dated: 17-1-1987

Superseded by and amalgamated with IS 9629: 2004 Maize atta , maize maida , maize suzi- Specification ( First Revision)

[Ref : FAD/G - 128 ]

S. C. KHOSLA, Scientist F & Head ( Food & Agri )

नई दिल्ली , 5 अप्रैल, 2010

का.आ. 909.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम के उप दियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये मानक ( कों) में संशोधन किया गया/किये गये हैं:

अनुसूची

कम सं.

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

संशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

संशोधन लागू होने तिथि

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

। अप्रैल 2010

संशोधन नं. 2 ,

अगस्त 2009

आईएस 4246:2002 द्रवित पैट्रोलियम गैसों के साथ प्रयुक्त घरेलू गैस चूल्हे- विशिष्टि ( पांचवां पुनरीक्षण )

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

[संदर्भ : एम.ई.डी/जी-2: 1 ]

चि. दु. वेदा, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( विद्युत इंजीनियरिंग )

New Delhi , the 5th April , 2010

S.O. 909.-In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been issued:

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. and Year of the Indian Standards

No. and Year of the

amendment

Date from which the amendment shall have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

1April 2010

Amendment No. 2

August 2009

IS 4246 : 2002 Domestic gas stoves for use with liquefied petroleum gases Specification ( Fifth Revision) [PART 11---SEC. 3 ( ii) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10, 2010 /CHAITRA 20, 1932

1774

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: 1 ]

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

नई दिल्ली, 5 अप्रैल, 2010

का.आ. 910.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए है वे स्थापित हो गए हैं:-

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि क्रम सं.

स्थापित भारतीय मानक( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

1 अप्रैल , 2010 1

आईएस 278: 2009 फैंसिंग के लिए जस्तीकृत इस्पात की कॉटेदार तार

आईएस 278 : 1978 फेंसिंग के लिए जस्तीकृत इस्पात की कांटेदार तार विशिष्टि (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण )

विशिष्टि ( चौथा पुनरीक्षण )

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

[संदर्भ : एम.ई.डी/जी-2:1 ]

चि. दु. वेदा, वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( यांत्रिक इंजीनियरिंग )

New Delhi , the 5th April , 2010

S.O. 910. In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Date of Establishment SI . No.

No. and Year of the Indian Standards Established

No. and Year of Indian Standards , if any, Suber- seded by the New Indian Standard

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

1stApril , 2010 1

IS 278 : 1978 Specification for Galvanized steel barbed wire for fencing (Third Revision)

IS 278 : 2009 Specification for Galvanized steel barbed wire for fencing ( Fourth Revision )

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

[Ref: MED/G -2: 11

C. K. VIDA, Sc - F & Head (Mechanical Engineering) [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1775

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च, 2010

का.आ. 911.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 28-11-2009 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का. आ. संख्या 3219 , तारीख 23-11-2009 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची तालुका-मालुर , जिला- कोलार , राज्य- कर्नाटक में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मनाली की रिफैनरी से देवनगुट्टि टर्मिनल , बैंगलूर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चेन्नै द्वारा, पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां तारीख 29-12-2009 जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए;

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

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

अनुसूची

जिला-कोलार राज्य- कर्नाटक तालुका--मालुर

गांव का नाम सर्वेक्षण सं/

क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर

उप-खण्ड सं.

वर्ग मीटर

एयर

(1)

(2)

(4)

(3)

(5)

30/80

10 करडागुर्की

30/P

% 79

80 58/1

64 कारगुट्टा

16/P-17

50 (1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5) 38

निधरमंगला

04 155

155/P-37

155(233 )

56 155/ P-3

155/P- 58

155/P

72 155/P- 11

155/P-13

155/P- 15

155/P-14

12 155/P-64

155/P- 12

12 155/P-36

26 155/P- 88

155/P- 74

155/P-95

50 9

कडसनहल्लि

80 23

44 पुरमाकनहल्लि 15/11

00 चिक्कासिवारा 34

75 धाड्डाकडथुरु 51

158

28 85

नाचोहल्लि

84 20/1

90 69/P-15

54 69/P- 16

77/2

52/1

74 लिंगापुरा

40 103

104

60 हारोहल्लि

माडिवाला

50 152

154/2

00 157

00 170

80 166/1

01 [PART 11 ---SEC. 3 ( ii ) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10, 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1776

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

186

माडिवाला-जारी

180

Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vests from the date of publication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

192

State : Karnataka 155/2

District: Kolar

Taluka : Malur

156

Survey

65/1

Sq. Mtr.

Arca Are

Hectare

Name of

theVillage

62/2

62/1

No. Sub- Division No.

126/6

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

हनुमानायक 45

30/80

Karadagurki

हल्लि

30/P

81/6

योशवन्तपुरा

100/2

58/1

Karangutta

129

16/P -17

[फा. सं. आर-25011/8/2008- ओआर-1]

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

Nidaramangala 38

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

155

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

155/9-37

155(233)

155/P3

155/P- 58

155/P

155/P - 11

155/P- 13

155/P- 15

155 /P - 14

Nidaramangala

155/P-64

S.O. 911. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 3219 , dated 23-11-2009 under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule relating to Taluka: Malur , District : Kolar, State: Karnataka annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bengaluru, by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

155/P-12

155/P-36

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 29-12-2009 .

155P-88

155/P-74

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

155/P -95

Kadasonna-

halli

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired .

15/11

Puramakana-

halli

Chikkashivara 34

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

Doddaka- dathuru

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act . The Central [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1777

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

158

Nachohalli 85

20/1

उपाबद्ध अनुसूची तालुका- मुलबागल , जिला- कोलार, राज्य- कर्नाटक में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मनाली की रिफाईनरी से देवगुट्टिटर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चेन्नै द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

69/P-15

69/P- 16

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां तारीख 29-12-2009 की जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

77/2

52/1

Lingapura

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

103

104

Harohalli

Madivala

152

154/2

157

170

166/1

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

186

180

192

155/2

156

65/1

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

62/2

अनुसूची

62/1

राज्य-कर्नाटक

जिला-कोलार

तालुका- मुलबागल

126/6

क्षेत्रफल 00

गांव का नाम सर्वेक्षण सं/

Hanumanaya- 45 kanahalli

उप- खण्ड सं. हेक्टेयर एयर वर्गमीटर 81/6

( 1)

(2)

(5)

(3) (4) Yeshavan- thapura

17 100/2

कासाभुगन्हाल्लि

20/3C

129

माइलापुरा

00 [ F. No. R-25011 / 8 /2008 -OR- 1 ] B. K. DATTA , Under Secy . पुल्लोवारेड्डी- 43 हल्लि

नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च , 2010

60/P-40

सांगोडाहल्लि

पाडाकास्ति

कुरुबा

चन्दुमनाहल्लि

16 का.आ. 912.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 28-11-2009 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का.आ. संख्या 3220 तारीख 23-11-2009 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से [ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 /CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1778

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

117/2

चन्नापुरा

57/P

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

132

SCHEDULE

63/3

येदाहल्लि

State: Karnataka

District : Kolar

Taluka: Mulbagal

60/P-2

106

Survey

Area Are

Hectare

Sq. mtr.

Name of the Village

259/3

उराकुंटेमिटुरु

No. Sub- Division No.

34/9

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

मिनिजेनाहल्लि 128/4

20 /3C

Kasuvugana-

132/2P-2

halli

Mylapura

31/4

00 48/2

बन्डहल्लि

Puliobare-

ddyhalli

[फा. सं. आर-25011/8/2008 - ओआर -1 ]

60/P-40

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

Sangona- dahalli

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

Padakasti

Kurubaracha- 82 dumanahalli

117/2

Channapura

57 /P

132

63/3

Yadahalli

07 S.O. 912. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 3220 dated 23-11-2009 under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelinės (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule relating to Taluka Mulbagal , District Kolar , State : Karnataka annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanaguthi Terminal , Bengaluru , by the Indian OilCorporation Limited.

60/P- 2

106

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 29-12-2009.

259/3

Urukuntemitturu

34/9

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

128/4

Minijenahalli

132/2P-2

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the schedule appendedto this notification should be acquired.

31/4

48/2

[F. No. R -25011 / 8 /2008 - OR - I B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

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

" [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च , 2010

1779

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5) 57/2

मावाहल्लि

を

75/1

नयाकरहल्लि 56/2

66 26/8

00 131/पी-91

वाट्राकुंटे

131/पी-78

131/पी -71

54 25/1

बाभ्राहल्लि

अनिगानाहल्लि 100

अक्षेत्रगोल्ला- 62/2

हल्लि

का.आ. 913.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 28-11-2009 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का.आ. संख्या 3221 तारीख 23-11-2009 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची तालुका- बंगारपेट , जिला- कोलार , राज्य- कर्नाटक में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मनाली की रिफायनरी से देवगुट्टिटर्मिनल , बैंगलुरु तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, चेन्नै द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां तारीख 29-12-2009 को जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड चेन्नै में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्तहोकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

जिला-कोलार राज्य-कर्नाटक तालुका-बंगारपेट

गांव का नाम सर्वेक्षण सं/ उप-खण्ड सं. हेक्टेयर

वर्ग मीटर

क्षेत्रफल एयर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

वादंडाहल्लि

70 3

46 41/11

कामण्डाहल्लि

50 43

59/पी-2

1117 GI/10-3

72/पो -1

मुगालबेले

134/1

10 20

62 [फा. सं. आर-25011/8/2008- ओआर-1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

S.O. 913. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. S.O. 3221 dated 23-11-2009 under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule relating to Taluka Bangarpet , District : Kolar , State : Karnataka annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Refinery. of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bengaluru , by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 29-12-2009.

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

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired ,

Now therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred hy sub- suction ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act . The Central Governnient hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the schedule annexed to this notification ishereby acquired for laying the pipeline .

And further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 4) of Section 6 of the said Act. The Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Central Government . vests from the date of publication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( i ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10, 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1780

SCHEDULE

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां तारीख 29-12-2009 जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं;

State : Karnataka

Taluka: Bangarpet District : Kolar

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

Area Are Sq. mtr.

Hectare

Nameof the Village

Survey No./Sub- Division No.

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उनाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए;

Vadandahalli

41/11

Kamandahalli

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

59/P-2

57/2

Mavahalli

75/1

Nayakarahalli 56/2

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने के बजाय इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चेन्नै में सभी विल्लगमों से मुक्त होकर प्रकाशन की इस तारीख से निहित होगा । 26/8

अनुसूची

131/P-91

Vatrakunte

राज्य कर्नाटक

जिला-कोलार

131/P-78

तालुका-कोलार

131/P-71

गांव का नाम

25/1

वर्ग मीटर Bavarahalli

क्षेत्रफल एयर

हेक्टेयर

सर्वेक्षण सं/ उप- खण्ड सं.

100

Aniganahalli

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

159/2

Akshanthara- 62/2 Gollahalli

अग्राहरा

72/P- 1

सीमरसग्रहल्लि

Mugalabele

167/1

134/1

24 20

मीठामल्लाहल्ली 86/1

[F. No. R- 25011 / 8/2008 -OR - 1 ] B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

34/5

नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च, 2010

[फा. सं. आर-25011/8/2008- आर-1 | बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

S.O. 914.Whereas by the notification of the Government of india, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 3222 dated 23-11-2009 under sub - section ( 1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule relatingto Taluka: Kolar, District: Kolar , State : Karnataka annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from का.आ. 914.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 28-11-2009 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना का.आ. संख्या 3222 तारीख 23-11-2009 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची तालुका- कोलार, जिला- कोलार , राज्य- कर्नाटक में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मनाली की रिफैनरी से देवगुट्टि टर्मिनल, बैंगलुरु तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चेन्नै द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी:

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

178.

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20, 1932

Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali 10 Devanguthi Terminal , Bengaluru , by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited .

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 29-12-2009.

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

And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification should be acquired .

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

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

SCHEDULE

Taluka : Kolar District : Kolar State : Karnataka Name of

Area Survey

Are

Hectare

Sq. Mtr .

theVillage No./Sub- Division No.

(2)

(1)

(3) (4)

(5) 00 Agraharasomar- 159/2 asanahalli

167/1

00 Mittamalahalli 86/1

24 78

66 34/5

[F. No. R-25011/ 8/2008 -OR - I ] B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 915.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 28-11-2009 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूला का.आ. 3223 संख्या तारीख 23-11-2009 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची तालुका- होसकोटे , जिला-बेंगलुरु रुरल, राज्य- कर्नाटक में चेन्नै पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनरी से देवगुट्टि टर्मिनल , बैंगलुरु तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चेन्नै द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियां तारीख 29-12-2009 जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार बजे क पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार अर्जित किया जाए;

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

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

अनुसूची

जिला-कोलार राज्य-कर्नाटक तालुका-होसकोटे

गांव का नाम सर्वेक्षण सं/

क्षेत्रफल

वर्ग मीटर उप- खण्ड सं. हेक्टेयर एयर

(2)

(1)

(3)

(5)

(4)

बमनबांडे

14 84

56 38/2

10 79/1

60 56/4

44/5

40 44/3

30 38/1

18 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 10 , 2010 /CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1782

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

काजीहोसा

हल्लि

32/2

बनहल्लि

23/4

23/3

85/पी

परमनाहल्लि

तरवहल्लि 6/2

6/3

40/1

46 63

डेवरगोल्ल-

हल्लि

21/2

21/1

09 23

कटिगेनाहल्लि 134

58/पी-18

[फा. सं. आर-25011/8/2008- ओआर -1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010 S.O. 915. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India . Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas . S.O. 3223 dated 23-11-2009 under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the schedule relating to Taluka Hoskote , District: Bengaluru Rural , State: Karnataka annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bengaluru , by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette Notification were made available to the general public on 29-12-2009.

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

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ] And whereas , the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that right of user in the land specified in the schedule appended to this notification should be acquired.

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

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act . The Central Government hereby directs that the right of user in the said lands shall instead of vesting in the Central Government , vests from the date ofpublication of this declaration in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

Taluka :Hosakote District : Bangalore Rural , State : Karnataka

Area

Are Sq . mtr .

Hectare

Name of the Village

Survey No./Sub- Division No.

(4)

(5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

Bommanabonde 36

38/2

79/1

56/4

44/5

44/3

38/1

אן

Kajihosahali :

32/2

Banahalli

23/4

23/3

85 /P

Paramanahaili

6/2

Tarabahalli

6/3

40/1

80 63

Devaragollahalli 20

21/2

21/1 | भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1783

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3) (4)

(5)

(4)

(1) (2)

(3)

(5) (6) 23

(0 01 00

76. पेरुमुडिवक्कम 54

2बी2

01 00

74. आथंगिकावानूर 85

240

03 26

238

01 27

02 60

238

0 00

Kattigenahalli 134

0 00

221

74 58/P-18

80 [ F. No. R - 25011 / 8/2008 -OR -1 ]

0 01

2ए

73. पुन्नापक्कम 6

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

(0 03

50 नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च , 2010

71. मांबल्लम

() 01 00

108

70. कादरभेडु

208

0 05 68

24.मेयुर

657

0 00

।जी

657

()

। एफ

का.आ. 916.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नई पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मनालि की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुंदि टर्मिनल , बैंगलोर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए चेन्नई- बैंगलोर पाइपलाइन परियोजना के कार्यान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

()

20. कोराक्कांथा 15

05 23

डालाम

21. देवांडभक्कम 137

()

142

() 05 04

251

(0 22 68 और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

140

() 07 00

226

10 80

225

(0 09 72

225

(09 36

।ए

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

()

224

08 64

()

224

4ए

(0 08 28

224

235

0 00 80

234

()

250

02 63

19. ओडाप्पाइ

।बी

(0) 03 24

(0 00

0 01

5ए

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधिन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री जी. जयराज , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन आयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , ए.टि. एफ्. और चेन्नई बैंगलोर पाइपलाइन परियोजना , सं. 10 , तिरु - भि-का स्ट्रिट, राजाजिपुरम , तिरुवालुर , तमिलनाडु -602001 को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

5बी

00 40

4ची

()

01 58 अनुसूची

( ) 01 53 तालुका उत्थुकोटाइ जिला-तिरुवालुर राज्य तमिलनाडु

43 गांव का नाम सर्वेक्षण सं. उप

हेक्टर एयर वर्ग

00 84 खण्ड सं. खण्ड सं.

मीटर

230

0 00

।ए।

16. आटट्राम

वक्कम

207

94.आनंदकक

(0)

13. नामबक्कम

3ए

00 वक्कम

278

(0 01

3सी

136

() 00 98

142

() 00 3

40 95. माडाभिलागमभ 269

01 00

135

00 40 2

()

269

10ए [PART I SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1784

(5)

(4)

(6)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

40. नेडाम्बरम

12. नयाप्पक्कम 17

(X)

()

35. आरुम्बक्कम 207

0 00

250

।ए

33. आरुंगुलम

( )

244

()

244

189

(K)

()

13बी

256

25. थालावेडु

राज्य- तमिलनाडु

जिला- तिरुवालुर

256

तालुका-तिरुवालुर

256

वर्ग

एयर

हेक्टर

उप-

सर्वेक्षण सं.

गांव का नाम

256

मीटर

खण्ड सं.

19बी

256

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

257

40 7

425

257

31. वेंगल

0 00

48 8

425

उसी

159

425

112

161

26. पोनपाडि

425

274

425

184

2ए

14. आलामेलु मांगपुरम

426

2बी

184

()

(X)

7ए

428

2सी

270

()

237

270

2बी

2के

216

000

2जे

270

216

।ए

14 9

270

30. सेमबेडु

40 62

(1) ४ए

15. मुरुक्काम्पाट्टु 9

0 10

00 59

104

( )

201

12. क्रिप्णासमुदून

201

00 69

()

00 53

()

४सी

05 (1)

( )

राज्य तमिलनाडु

जिला-तिरुवालुर

तालुका-पाल्लिपट

(0 12

2ए

21. एराइयूर

एयर वर्ग

हेक्टर

सं. उप-

सर्वेक्षण

गांव का नाम

()

2सी

मीटर

खण्ड सं.

।बी

0 (00 40

(6)

(5)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

7. सेंड्रामपल्याम 457

()

3ए2

19. रामसमुद्रम

तालूका : तिरुतानि जिला तिरुवालुर राज्य तमिलनाडु

07 00

3ए3

वर्ग

एयर

हेक्टर

सर्वेक्षण सं. उप-

गांव का नाम

()

3029

मीटर

खण्ड सं.

() 08

334

()

3035

(5) (6)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

()

3ए36

0 10 24

43. कांचिपाडि

()

12सी

209

20. क्रिप्णा-

210

। ए

राजकुप्पम

41. पानापक्कम 39

03 17

[फा. सं. आर-25011 / 11.2009 ओआर 1 |

00 70

बी. के. दना, अवर सचिव 1785 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20, 1932

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(6)

(4) (5)

(3)

(2)

(1)

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

(0 01 (X)

71. Mamballam 2

0 05 64

70. Kadharvedu 108

208

0 05 68

24.Meyyur

000 60

657

001 94

657

S.O. 916. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of Petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali in the State ofTamil Nadu to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited, for implementing the Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project .

0 05 23

20. Korakkan-

thandalam

0 04 64

137

21. Devanda-

(0 05 04

142

vakkam

And Whereas , it appears that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessaryto acquire the Right of User in the Land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

251

() n 68

0 07 00

140

226

24 81

226

() 10 80

09 72

225

() 09 36

225

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 ;

(0 08

224

()

224

08 57

()

224

08 28

()

00 80

235

() 17 68

234

()

250

(02 63

() 06 80

19. Odappai

(0)

03 24

(0)

00 59

0 01 80 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 , or laying of pipeline under the land to Shri B.Baskaran , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, ATF & Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project, No. 10 , Thiru - vi - ka Street , Rajajipuram , Tiruvallur, Tamil Nadu - 602001 .

0 00 40

SCHEDULE

001

Taluka : Uthukottai District : Tiruvallur State : Tamil Nadu

(0 01 53

0 01 43

Nameof

Are Sq .

Hectare

Survey Sub-

00 81

345

No.

Division

imtr .

the Village

0 00

230

72 No.

16. Attram-

bakkam

(2)

(3)

(4) (5) (6)

( 1)

13. Nambakkam 84

136

0 04

(0 00 98 3A

94. Annadhana- 207

142

(0 00 40

0 01 00

Kakavakkam 278

135

10A

4() 3

95. Madavilagam 269

269

0 01

0 02

12. Nayapakkam 17

0 02 13 2

0 01 00

76.Perumudi-

0 00 88

vakkam

2132

74. Athangi-

189

0 03 17

kavanur 240

Taluka: Tiruvallur District : Tiruvallur State : Tamil Nadu 0 01 32

238

02 60

Name of

Hectare Are Sq .

Survey

221

mu .

No.

Division

0 00 55 theVillage

Sub- No.

0 01 70

(3)

(2)

(4) (5) ( 6)

(1)

73. Punnapakkam 6

0 03 50

425

(0 09 45

31. Vengal

0 01 06

0 00 77

425 SEC. 3 (ii) |

[PART 11 1786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 / CHAITRA 20 , 1932

(4) (5) (6)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(3)

(2)

(4) (5) (6)

(1 )

-48

13B

0 01 34

425

25. Thalavedu 256

31. Vengal

()

0 01 45

256

425

0 02 24

(0) 01

425

256

0 00 40

0 (02 10

256

426

0 00 40

()

428

19B

256

0 03

237

257

0 03 40

216

2K.

257

00 80

216

0 02 18

159

00 80

30. Sembedu

161

26. Ponpadi

0 01 14

0 01

274

14. Alamelu-

00 59

mangapuram 184

08 80

184

0 00 69

()

270

0 00

(X)

80 63

270

213

00 40

۱۸

270

00 40

25 78

270

00 40

0 02

15. Murukam- 9

() 04

pattu

0 12

21. Erraiyur

0 01

201

12. Krishna-

01 11

samudram 2001

0 01

00 40

457

7. Sendrayan- palayam

(0 00

Taluka: Tiruttani District: Tiruvallur State : Tamil Nadu

Taluka: Pallipattu District: Tiruvallur State : Tamil Nadu Hectare Are Sq .

Name of

Sub-

Survey

mtr.

Division

theVillage No.

Are

Hectare

Sub-

Survey

No.

Sq . mtr .

Division

No.

Name of theVillage

No.

(6)

(5)

(3)

(4)

(2)

(1)

10 24

(6) 11

(4) (5)

(2)

(3)

43. Kanchipadi 38

(1)

3A2

19. Rama-

41. Panapakkam 39

0 03

0 07 00

3A3

samudram 12

0 00

01 00

3A29

3A34

0 01

0 03

3A35

40. Nedum- 44 baram

04 40

3A36

0 00 40

207

35. Arum-

12C

20. Krishnama- 209

bakkam

rajakuppam 210

0 04 00

33. Arungulam 250

10 20

244

[F. No. R-25011 /11 / 2007 - OR - I

0 07

244

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1787

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20, 1932

नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च, 2010

का.आ. 917. केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि चैन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टर्मिनल , बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चैन्नै- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन" बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एम बाबय्या , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चैन्नै- बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन परियोजना , अपार्टमेंट सं. 104 , वत्सला टावर्स , नाएडु बिल्डिग्स , चित्तूर-517001 , आन्ध्र प्रदेश को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

मंडल : यादमरी

राज्य : आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला : चित्तूर

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

S.O. 917. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanguthi Terminal . Bangalore . a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited:

And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification:

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri M. Babaiait. Competent Authority. Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project. Apartment No. 104, Vatsala Towers . Naidu Buildings , Chittoor 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh .

SCHEDULE

Mandal : Yadamari District : Chittoor State : Andhra Pradesh

Area

Survey No.

Hectare Ares

Name of the

village

गांव का नाम

क्षेत्रफल सर्वेक्षण सं. खण्ड सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

( 1)

उप- खण्ड सं.

Sa Mr.

Sub- Division No.

(2)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(6)

28 34

62. Jangalapalle 312

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) ( 6) 62 , जंगालापल्लि 312

00 28 34 320

03 64 325

00 06 07 320

6-1 325

06 320

(01

IDI

64. Periyambadi 249

320

00 01

416

65 Yadamari

249

64, पेरियांबाडि

IDI

00 08 50 416

65, यादामारि

45 427

14 17 397

430

05 26 71

00 02 43 144

00 30 38 53

00 04 05

04 427

397

فراده

130

05 71

10.

144

00 30

66.Budithi-

reddipalle

66, बुडिटि- रेड्डिपल्ले

00 03 65 77

00 23 49

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007-ओआर-1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव 1117 Gl /10-4

65 77

19 [ F. No. R - 2501 1 /5/2007 -OR -1

B. K. DATTA . Under Secy .

[PART 11 SEC. 3 (ii ) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10, 2010/CHAITRA 20, 1932

1788

नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 918.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि चैन्ने पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टर्मिनल, बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चैन्ने - बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एम बाबय्या , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चैन्नै- बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन परियोजना , अपार्टमेंट सं. 104 , वत्सला टावर्स , नाएडु बिल्डिग्स, चित्तुर-517001 , आन्ध्र प्रदेश को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

राज्य आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला : चित्तुर

मंडल : चित्तूर

क्षेत्रफल सर्वेक्षण सं.

गांव का नाम

वर्ग

हेक्टेयर

खण्ड सं.

उप

एयर

मीटर

खण्ड

(3)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) (6) (2)

(1) 55, अनंतपुरम

142

115

(0)

01 165

33 20

111

01 39

115

25 00

115

13 82

177

165

214

()

214

108

()7

57 , तालांचेडु

(00

101

43 95

58, चिंतलगुंटा

212

(4) (5) (6)

(1)

04 04

55, अनंतपुरम

00 03 15

211

05 17

145

り

213

02 178

211

3.4

04 04

00 04 17

03 25

02 83

02 102

02 83

212

10 109

2B , 2C

117

218

13 54

06 37

59, पेरुमाल्ला कांडिगा

10B

08 90

24,

۱۸

05 17

(00

4A1

() [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1789

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

(1)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4) (5) (6) 251

60 , नारिगापल्लि

01 42 (2)

(3) (4) (5) ( 6) 173

02 43

61 , अनुप्पल्ले

256

02 83 256

00 08 50 256

12ए

43 256

00 60 256

145

2बी

41 269

00 03

200

2एफ

257

4बी

17 81 71

00 01

62 26

50 25

00 02 02 25

00 02

43 71

02 43 22

02 02 72

200

2सी

81 256

04 25 256

03 64

269

07 269

5बी

07 29 251

201

48 255

।बी

19 03

252

15 38 251

08 50

2ए

145

।ई

00 06 07 252

41 100

65 77

।बी

175

00 03

64 87

50 128

00 04 86 152

08 152

00 05 26 150

48 150

07 85

15 38 130

126

14 58

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007- आर -11

बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

S.O. 918. Whereas appears to the Central Goverara that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transporation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal, Bangalore, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

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

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of Indi.. are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri M.Babaiah , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited. Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No. 104. Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings . Chittoor -517001 , Andhra Pradesh .

SCHEDULE

Mandal: Chittoor District : Chittoor State : Andhra Pradesh

Area

Name of village

48 19

04 86 25

00 02 23 25

(1) 18

Survey

Sub- Hectare Ares Division

Sq. Mtr.

No.

(2)

(3) (4) (5) (6)

00 04 04

55. Anantapuram 19

29 80

36 61 , अनुप्पल्ले

173

57 15

00 03

44 211

12 96 23

81 [PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10, 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1790

(5) (6)

(2)

(3) (4)

(1)

(5) ( 6)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1 )

59. Perumalia-

02 43

55. Anantapuram 16

kandiga

114 86

145

00 03

10B

213

113

3.4

178

00 01

211

3-4

(19

4A1

60, Narigapalle 251

(12

256

142

12A

256

21.

115

00 60

(00

256

165

(10)

256

111

115

269

68 10

200

257

115

00 40

00 25

115

177

165

214

05 29

214

기

108

57. Thalambedu 63

200

(0)

256

269

101

269

58. Chintalagunta 95

251

(00

212

() ()

201

00 02

212

19 03

255

2B . 20

109

252

() 7

218

00 02 83

251

37 1791

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(3)

(5) (6 )

(1)

(2)

(4)

06 07

145

60. Narigapalle

252

100

अधीन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एम बाबय्या , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, चैन्नै- बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन परियोजना , अपार्टमेंट सं. 104 , वत्सला टावर्स , नाएडु बिल्डिग्स, चित्तूर-517001 , आन्ध्र प्रदेश को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । 76

अनुसूची

00 06

आन्ध्र प्रदेश

राज्य :

मंडल : गंगाधरनेल्लोर जिला चित्तूर

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

सर्वेक्षण सं.

खण्ड सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर 25

वर्ग मीटर 18

उप- खण्ड सं.

(2)

(1)

(3)

(5) ( 6 )

(4)

61. Anupalle

54. एल्लापल्ले

173

10 12

173

175

00 04

323

52. थुगुंद्रम

08 50

00 02

323

02 4

128

04 86

298

06 28 4

152

200

00 02 02 2

152

390

88 150

150

00 07 29

200

47 85

213

00 05

130

297

14 98

126

286

200

123

00 04 04

53. अम्बो-

[F. No. R- 25011 /5/2007 -OR - I ]

दरापल्ले

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

132

नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च , 2010

115

12 55

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/ 2007- ओआर -1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010 का.आ. 919,-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि चैन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मनाली की रिफैनरी से देवनगुट्टि टर्मिनल, बैंगलूर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चैन्नै- बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

S.O.919. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government thatit is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore . a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;

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

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii) | 1792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri M Babaiah , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project . Apartment No 104 , Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001. Andıra Pradesh .

SCHEDULE

Mandal : G.D. Nellore District : Chittoor State : Andhra Pradesh

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमिं में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एम बाबय्या, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चैन्नै-बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन परियोजना , अपार्टमेंट सं. 104 , वत्सला टावर्स , नाएडु बिल्डिग्स, चित्तूर -517001 , आन्ध्र प्रदेश को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकगा ।

Area

अनुसूची

Hectare Ares

Survey No.

Name ofthe village

राज्य : आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला : चित्तूर

Sq . Mtr .

मंडल : पालसमुद्रम

Sub- Division No.

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वेक्षण सं.

गांव का नाम

(5) (6)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

हेक्टेयर एयर

खण्ड स.

वर्ग मीटर 5

उप- खण्ड

54.Ellapalle

सं.

02 02

(3)

(2)

(4) (5) (6 )

(1)

52. Thugundram 323

19 03

00 02

323

46. कृष्णजम्मा 53

पुरम

00 06

298

00 02

141

48. पालसमुद्रम

200

141

390

145

200

213

297

286

49. वेंगलराजु-

00 07

05 26 10

200

कुप्पम

04 04

33 123

53. Ambo- darapalle

132

181

12 55

115

[F. No. R-25011 /5/2007 -OR - 1 ]

10A

181

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

182

264

नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च , 2010

50. अमुदला

262

251

19B , 19C

264

136

का.आ. 920.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि चैन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टर्मिनल , बैंगलूर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नै- बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

262

03 64

262

263

264

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

08 91

263

251

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1793

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(3)

(5) (6)

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4) (5) ( 6)

136

12B

50. अमुदला

00 05 26

49. Vengala- 51 rajukuppam 33

188

11 33 30

00 08

10 5B

00 06

181

80 8

106

00 08 10 51. अमिदुला पुत्तुर

181

10A

17 98

182

10 [फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007- ओआर -1 ]

264

50. Amudala

05 बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

262

00 04

05 New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

251

264

19B, 19C

136

00 06

262

24 S.O. 920. Whereas, it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore. a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited .

262

00 03 64

263

00 04 45

264

07 29 And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

263

08 91

251

136

12B

17 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (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;

188

10 12

00 30 77

06 88

51. Amudala 106

Puttur

[ F. No. R- 25011 / 5/2007- OR - 1 ]

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri M Babaiah, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project. Apartment No 104 , Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh .

नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च , 2010

SCHEDULE

Mandal: Palasmudram District : Chittoor State : Andhra Pradesh

Area

Name of Village Survey

No.

Ares

Hectare

Sq.

Mtr.

का.आ.. 921.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि चैन्ने पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टर्मिनल , बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नै बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन" बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

Sub- Division No.

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) (6)

46. Krishna- 53

19 03

jammapuram

141

48. Pala- samudram

141

145

12 55

26 92

19 64

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

[PART II - SEC . 3 (ii ) ] 1794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 10, 2010/CHAITRA 20 , 1932

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

S.O. 921. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore , a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited.

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इप्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एम बाबय्या, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चैन्नै- बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन परियोजना, अपार्टमेंट सं. 104 , वत्सला टावर्स , नाएडु बिल्डिग्स , चित्तुर -517001 , आन्ध्र प्रदेश को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

And whereas . it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right ofUser in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification :

अनुसूची

राज्य : आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: चित्तूर

मंडल : विजयपुरम

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वेक्षण सं.

गांव का नाम

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( I ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the rightof user therein;

हेक्टेयर एयर

खण्ड सं.

वर्ग मीटर

उप- खण्ड सं.

(5) (6)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

15A

29. महाराजा-

पुरम

00 04

16B

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri M Babaiah , Competent Authority . Indian Oil Corporation Limited , Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project . Apartment No 104. Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings . Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh .

00 13

SCHEDULE

00 08

Mandal : Vijayapuram District : Chittoor State : Andhra Pradesh

Area

Name of the Survey

00 06

Ares

Hectare

No.

Village

Sq Mtr .

Sub- Division No.

09 31

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

15A

2.Maharaja- Puram

00 09 71

00 01

16B

32. पाथअरकोड 155

154

233

09 31

232

00 07 69

250

04 05

247

(3)

00 02 83

00 233

1.1

01 62

155

250

32.Patha Arcod

00 02

250

154

00 08 50

28. श्रीहरिपुरम 152

00 05 67

154

(0.1

233

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007- ओआर-1 ]

232

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

( 1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) (6) (1) 250

00 07

1795 (2)

(3) (4) (5) (6 ) 150

70 गोल्लापल्ले

247

04 05

233

00 02 83 250

00 01

62 250

00 02 02 28 Srihari-

152

00 08 50 puram

[ F. No. R - 25011 /5/2007-OR -I ]

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 922.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि चैन्ने पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टर्मिनल , बैंगलुर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " चैन्ने- बैंगलुर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एम . बाबय्या , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चैन्नै- बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन परियोजना , अपार्टमेंट सं. 104 , वत्सला टावर्स , नाएडु बिल्डिंग्स, चित्तुर-517001 , आन्ध्र प्रदेश को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

मंडल : बंगारुपालेम

राज्य : आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला : चित्तुर

गांव का नाम सर्वेक्षण सं. उप-

क्षेत्रफल

खण्ड सं. खण्ड हेक्टेयर एयर

सं.

वर्ग पोटर (1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) ( 6) 58

67 कुर्माइपल्ले

01 62 58

00 02 43

02 43 68 कल्लुरुपल्ले 189

।सी

00 08 10 46

5सी

00 05

27 40

00 04

86 1117 GI /10-5

00 10 53 182

बी

96 147

00 05 27 18

7बी

15 39

71 पालेरु

319

65 319

00 03 65 319

00 01 62 319

08 319

67 314

04 46 314

72मोगिलि

05 144

18 148

00 04 05 148

84 154

02 03 83

13 167

24 167

00 01 22 172

14 18 249

2सी

14 99 249

00 81 2डी1

249

2डीबी

49 249

2ई

00 00 41 252

1सी4

05 282

10 282

1बी

08 10 290

290

10 53 49

00 04

(N) 05

in 51

00 23

52 52

12 96 12

52 16

47 17

29 97 [PART II--Sic. 3 (ii )| THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/CHAITRA 20.1932

1796

(5) (6)

(3) (4)

(5) (5)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

(30)

68 Kaflarumalie

00 30 38

101

72मोगिलि

144

00 04

149

25 92

171

ין

00 282

283

16)

284

71 Paleru

17 01

2ई

00 06

(01

314

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007- ओआर-1 ]

(17 29

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

72Mogil

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

(00

(1)

8-1

S.O. 922. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore. apipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited:

151

ΠΑ

2.4

167

And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right ofUser in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

167

172

249

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (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;

2D1

249

2DB

752

1C4

118

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri M Babaiah , Competent Authority. Indinu. OilCorporation Limited, Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project, Apartment No 104 , Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings, Chittoor 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh.

00 SCHEDULE

53 Mandal: Bangarupalem District : Chittoor State: Andhra Pradesh

Area

Sub-

Survey

67 Name of village

Se.

Ares

Hectare

No. Division

Alur .

No.

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

23 49

67 Kurmaipalle 58

25 52

" [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) (6) 52

00 12 96

1797

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

अनुसूची

मंडल : गंगावरम

00 25 52

राज्य : आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला: चित्तूर

गांव का नाम

47 17

00 29 97 101

00 30 33 144

00 28 70 149

00 04 86 सर्वेक्षण सं.

क्षेत्रफल खण्ड सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर

उप- खण्ड सं.

वर्ग मीटर (1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) ( 6) 61

3बी

80 कीलापल्लि

171

00 25 92 171

09 32 282

19 04 283

00 00

81 111

00 81

4ए

11 34 206

5सी

32 41 79पत्तियोंडा

284

00 19 85 49

12 96 83

00 17 42 84

17 86

00 06 08

00 14 18

00 59 13

[F. No. R-25011/5/2007 -OR - 1 ]

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च, 2010

का.आ. 923. केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि चैन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड, मनाली की रिफैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टर्मिनल , बैंगलूर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नै- बैंगलूर " पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

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

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

413

ए

413

सी

28 315

00 8 400

2ए

25 78 सामाडुसु

399

ए

525

ए

08 641

बी

44 525

बी

75 393

ए

640

ए2-3

04 05 513

00 10

1ए

13 638

4बी

94 640

ए5 -डी 00 08

10 638

00 07

70 736

76 दंडपल्ले

डी

04 05 734

00 02 84

ए

734

बी

00 01 22 714

बी

00 02 03 715

बी

00 04 05 804

1बी-ए

05 67 77 जीडिमा- 262

2बी

08 51 कुलापल्लि 246

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एम बाबय्या, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चैन्नै- बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन परियोजना , अपार्टमेंट सं. 104 , वत्सला टावर्स , नाएड्डु बिल्डिग्स , चित्तूर -517001 , आन्ध्र प्रदेश को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

2बी

00 01 22 249

2बी

00 03

24 249

3डी

00 04 46 128

1डी 00 02 43 [फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007-ओआर -1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव [PART 11-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 /CHAITRA 20, 1932

1798

(5) (6)

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

New Delhi , the 29th March, 2010

10 13

513

638

08 10

A5 -D

641)

638

S.O. 923. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited, Manali to Devanguthi Terminal, Bangalore, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

04 05

76 Dandapalle 736

00 02

734

00 01

734

714

715

B-A

804

00 08

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

77 Jeedimaku 262 lapalle

00 01

246

249

12 43

128

75 Maredu- palle

[F. No. R-25011/ 5-2007-OR - 1 ] Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty- one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 ofthe said Act , as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri M. Babaiah , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai -Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No 104, Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings, Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh .

B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

SCHEDULE

नई दिल्ली, 29 मार्च , 2010 Mandal : Gangavaram District : Chittoor State : Andhra Pradesh

Area

Ares

Hectare

Survey No.

Name ofthe village

Sq. Mtr.

Sub- Division No.

का.आ. 924.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि चैन्नै पेट्रोलियम कॉॉरेन लिमिटेड , मनाली की रिकैनेरी से देवनगुट्टि टर्मिनल , बैंगलूर तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादनों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा " वैन्ने बैंगलूर पाइपलाइन " बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

(6)

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

(1)

80 Keelapalle 61

111

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन शिला लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, उक्त पाइप बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और कहो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में बागेत है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

32 40

206

04 05

79 Pathikonda 413

413

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

315

400

78Mamadugu

399

00 06 08

525

641

525

12 56

393

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र से यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्किस दिन के भीतर उस भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाने के संबंध में श्री एम. वाबच्या , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , चेन्नै प्लूर पाइपलाइन परियोजना , अपार्टमेंट सं. 104 , वत्सला टावस , भाएडु बिल्डिग्स , चित्तूर -517001 , आन्ध्र प्रदेश को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

A2-3

640

11 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1799

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल10 , 2010/चैत्र 20, 1932

अनुसूची

नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल , 2010

राज्य : आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला : चित्तूर

मंडल : बैरेड्डिपल्ली

गांव का नाम

क्षेत्रफल

सर्वेक्षण सं. उप-

खण्ड सं.

हेक्टेयर

खण्ड सं.

एयर वर्ग मीटर

(1)

(2)

(3)

(5) ( 6)

(4)

00 01 62

84 आलापल्लि 29

255

00 02 03

का. आ. 925.-भारत सरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 2 के खण्ड ( क ) के अनुसरण में मैसर्स ब्रह्मपुत्र क्रेकर एण्ड पोलीमर लिमिटेड द्वारा नेफथा पाइप लाइन , नेफथा अनलोडिंग स्टेशन तिनसुकिया गांव से पैट्रोकेमिकल काम्पलैक्स लेपेटकाटा ( डिब्रूगढ़ खण्ड) तक बिछाने के लिए उक्त अधिनियम के अधीन संलग्न सूची के स्तम्भ ( 1 ) में वर्णित व्यक्ति को स्तम्भ ( 2 ) में वर्णित क्षेत्र में सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कृत्यों का पालन करने के लिए नियुक्त करती है । 250

00 03 65

00 20 25

अनुसूची

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2007- ओआर-1 ]

अधिकारिता का क्षेत्र बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव

व्यक्तिका नाम

और पता

New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

(1)

(2)

S.O. 924. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government thatit is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum product from Refinery of Chennai Petroleum Corporation Limited , Manali to Devanguthi Terminal , Bangalore, a pipeline should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

श्री अमिताभ राजखोवा , अतिरिक्त उप कमिश्नर , जिला डिब्रूगढ़ , आसाम

आसाम राज्य जिला डिब्रूगढ़ , नेफथा पाइप , लाइन , नेफथा अनलोडिंग स्टेशन तिनसुकिया गांव से पैट्रोकेमिकल काम्पलैक्स लेपेटकाय ( डिब्रूगढ़ खण्ड) बिछाने हेतु ।

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying such pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in the land described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

[फा. सं. एल-14014/24/ 2010- जीपी ] स्नेह पी. मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 7th April , 2010 Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( I ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipeline (Acquisition ofRight of User in land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the rightof user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty - one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public , object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein , or laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri M Babaiah , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited, Chennai - Bangalore Pipeline Project , Apartment No 104 , Vatsala Towers , Naidu Buildings , Chittoor - 517 001 , Andhra Pradesh .

S.O. 925. In pursuance of clause ( a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , Government of India hereby authorizes the person mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the schedule givenbelow to perform the functions of the Competent Authority under the said Act for laying of Naphtha pipeline from Naphtha Unloading Station at Tinsukia Gaon , Dibrugarh to Petrochemical Complex, Lapetkata by M/ s Brahmaputra Cracker and Polymer Limited ( BCPL) in the area mentioned in column (2 ) of the said schedule.

SCHEDULE

Mandal : Baireddipalle District : Chittoor State : Andhra

Pradesh

Area of Jurisdiction

Area

Name and Address oftheperson

Survey No.

Hectare Ares

Name of the village

(2)

(1)

Sub- Division No.

Sq. Mtr .

(2)

(1)

(5) (6)

(3) (4)

00 01 62

84Alapalli 29

255

02 03

Shri Amitabh Rajkhowa ACS ( Additional Deputy Commissioner) Dibrugarh (Assam)

250

1- State of Assam areas falling in Dibrugarh District for laying of Naphtha pipeline from Naphtha Unloading Station at Tinsukia Gaon, Dibrugarh to Petrochemical Complex Lapetkata.

1. 00 20 25

[F. No. R -25011 / 5/2007 -OR- I] B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

[F. No. L- 14014/24/2010 -GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.

1800

[Part II -Sec . 3 ( ii) |

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 10 , 2010 / CHAITRA 20 , 193.2

नई दिल्ली, 5 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 926.-- पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962का 50 ) के नियम 2 (क ) के अन्तर्गत, मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (आर.जी.टी.आई. एल. ) के द्वारा महाराष्ट्र राज्य में प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने हेतु सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कार्यो का निर्वहन करने के लिए भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की, भारत के राजपत्र दिनांक 22 जनवरी , 2005 को प्रकाशित. अधिसूचना का० आ० 259 दिनांक 18 जनवरी, 2005 द्वारा पदस्थापित, मैं, एस . भिसे , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियमावली, 1963 के नियम 4 के उपनंनगम (1 ) के नीचे दी गई व्याख्या (1 ) के अन्तर्गत अधिकारों के अनुपालन में, मैसर्स आ.जी.टी.आई.एल. , जिसमें यथाग्थिन, उस क्षेत्र में भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार निहित किया गया है और उस क्षेत्र में पाइपलाइन का स्वामित्व निहित है , के परामर्ग में. संलग्न अनुसूची के स्तंभ 4 में महाराष्ट्र राज्य के ठाणे जिले में यथा उल्लेखित प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने के प्रभालन की समाप्ति की तारीखों की घोपणा करता हूँ ।

तहसिल: कल्याण

क्र.

ग्राम कानाम

स .

1180 1

आपटी

574(31)

1180

मांजली

25% 3

1180

वाहाली

747(अ)

254

574( अ) 4

1180

गावली

574(अ)

1180 5

ग्वती

574(अ)

1180 6

अनखर

747(अ)

254

574(अ)

1180 7

टिटवाळा

254

574( अ)

तहसिल: तलासरी

1180

तलागरी

747(अ)

574(अ)

1180 2

574(अ)

1180 3

उपलाट

574(अ)

1 अनुसूची

जिला: हाणे

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीख

धारा 6 (1 ) की का. आ . संख्या एवं दिन्गंडा

29/3/2005

12/3/2010 4/2/2008

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

29/3/2005

दिसक

12/3/2010 4/2/2005

दिनांक

9/3/2010

29/3/2005

दिनांक

12/3/2010 8/5/2007

दिनांक

4/2/2008

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010 दिनांक

29/3/2005

दिनांक

9/3/2010

12/3/2010 29/3/2005

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

29/3/2005

दिनांक

12/3/2010 दिनांक

8/5/2007

4/2/2008

दिनांक

9/3/2010

29/3/2005

दिनांक

12/3/2010 दिनांक

4/2/2008

9/3/2010

दिनांक

जिला:ठाणे

राज्यः महाराष्ट्र 29/3/2005

दिनांक

12/3/2010 8/5/2007

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010 29/3/2005

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010 29/3/2005

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

तहसिल: अंबरनाथ

काराव

2416 341(अ)

574(अ) 2

दापिवली

2416

574(अ) तहसिल: भिवंडी

भादाणे

2416 574( अ) 2

दल्हेपाडा

2416 2486(अ) 574(अ) 3

खलिंग वुटुक

2416 2486(अ) 574( अ) 4

लापे बुद्रुक

2416 574( г) 5

किरवली

2416 721( अ)

574(अ) 6

जांभिवली

2416 574(अ) 7

खरिवली

2416 574(अ) 8

दलोंडे

2416

574( अ) 9

दिघाशी

2416 2486(3) 574(अ) तहसिल: वाडा

1792

घोनसई

574( अ) 2

मुसारणे

1792 1537 574(अ) 3

चिंचघर

1792 574(अ) 4

डोंगस्ते

1792

1537

574(अ) 5

1792

भिलवली

574(अ) 6

खानिवली

1792

574(अ) 7

1792

अम्विस्तेवु .

574(अ)

1792 8

खरिवली

2486(अ)

574(अ)

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1801 3

जिला:ठाणे

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

दिनांक

4/7/2005

दिनांक

9/3/2007

12/3/2010

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

4/7/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांक

9/3/2010

जिला:ठाणे

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

दिनांक

4/7/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

4/7/2005 14/10/2008 9/3/2010

दिनांक

4/7/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांक दिनांक

14/10/2008 9/3/2010

दिनांक

4/7/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

4/7/2005

दिनांक

7/4/2007

12/3/2010

दिनांक

9/3/2010

4/7/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांक दिनांक

9/3/2010

4/7/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांक दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

4/7/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांक

9/3/2010

4/7/2005

दिनांक

14/10/2008

दिनांक

12/3/2010

दिनांक

9/3/2010

जिला: ठाणे

राज्यः महाराष्ट्र

दिनांक

9/5/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

9/5/2005

दिनांक

21/5/2007

12/3/2010

9/3/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

9/5/2005

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

9/5/2005

21/5/2007

दिनांक

12/3/2010

9/3/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

दिनांक

9/5/2005

9/3/2010

दिनांक

9/5/2005

12/3/2010

9/3/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

9/5/2005

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

9/5/2005

दिनांक

14/10/2008

12/3/2010

दिनांक

9/3/2010 1802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

मांड

दिनांक दिनांक

1792 574(я) 10

कलमखांड

डिनाक दिनांक

1792 2486(3) 574( 3 ) 11

1792 2486 (अ) 574(अ) तहसिल: विक्रमगड

म्हमगली

1792 1537 2486(अ)

574(अ) 2

शिल

1792 574(अ) 3

काडगांव

1792 1537 574(अ) 4

वेलशत

1792 574(अ)

तहसिल: डहाणु

धनवरा

1181 574(अ) 2

चिंचले

1181 574(अ)

1181 3

पुंजावे

2486 (अ) 574(अ) 4

पारडी

1181 574(अ)

[ Part II- Sec . 3 ( ii ) |

12/3/2010

9/5/2005

9/3/2010

9/5/2005

12/3/2010

14/10/2008

9/3/2010

दिनांक

9/5/2005

दिनांक

12/3/2010

14/10/2008

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

जिला: ठाणे

राज्यः महाराष्ट्र

9/5/2005

दिनांक

12/3/2010

21/5/2007

दिनांक

14/10/2008

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

9/5/2005

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

9/5/2005

दिनांक

12/3/2010

21/5/2007

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

9/5/2005

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

राज्यः महाराष्ट्र

जिला: ठाणे

12/3/2010

29/3/2005

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

29/3/2005

9/3/2010

दिनांक दिनांक

29/3/2005

दिनांक

12/3/2010

14/10/2008

दिनांक

9/3/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

29/3/2005

9/3/2010

दिनांक दिनांक

[पट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 17 के अंर्तगत संरचित पट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम, 1963 के नियम * के अंर्तगत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र के प्रकाशनार्थ

[फा सं. एल. - 14014/22/2010 - जी.पी . ]

स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 5th April , 2010

S. O. 926. In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 in sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules , 1963 , I , S. D. Bhise , appointed by Government of India , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide Notification S.O. 259 dated 18th January , 2005 (published in the Gazette of India on 22nd January , 2005 ) under Section 2(a) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) to " [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1803

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

perform the functions of Competent Authority for laying natural gas pipelines by M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited ( RGTIL ) in the State of Maharashtra, in consultation with M/s RGTIL, to whom the Right of User in land in that area has been vested and in whom the ownership of pipeline in that area vests , hereby declare the dates , mentioned in Column 4 of the Schedule annexed herewith , as the dates of termination of RoU operation in District Thane in the State of Maharashtra .

Tahsil: Kalyan

Village

Sr. No.

Apti

1180 254 574( E) 2

Manjarli

1180 254 574(E) 3

Vaholi

1180 747(E) 254 574( E) 4

1180

Goveli

574(E) 5

Revati

1180 574(E) 6

Ankhar

1180

747(E)

254 574(E) 7

Titwala

1180 254 574( E) Tahsil : Talasari

Talasari

1180

747(E)

574( E) 2

Varavade

1180 574( E) 3

Uplat

1180 574( E) 1117 GI /10-6

Schedule

District: Thane

State: Maharashtra

Date of Termination of Operation

S.O. No. & Date of Notification Under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 6

Date

29/3/2005

12/3/2010

Date

4/2/2008

Date

9/3/2010

Date

29/3/2005

12/3/2010

4/2/2008

Date

9/3/2010

Date

29/3/2005

12/3/2010

Date

8/5/2007

4/2/2008

Date

9/3/2010

12/3/2010

Date

29/3/2005

9/3/2010

Date

12/3/2010

Date 29/3/2005

9/3/2010

Date

29/3/2005

8/5/2007

12/3/2010

Date

4/2/2008

Date

9/3/2010

Date

12/3/2010

Date 29/3/2005

Date 4/2/2008

Date

9/3/2010

District: Thane

State: Maharashtra Date 29/3/2005

12/3/2010

Date 8/5/2007

Date 9/3/2010

12/3/2010

Date 29/3/2005

Date

9/3/2010

29/3/2005

12/3/2010

Date

9/3/2010

Date APRIL 10, 2010 /CHAITRA 20 , 1932

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) | 1804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

State : Maharashtra

District Thane

Tahsil : Ambernath

4/7/2005

2416

Date

Karav

12/3/2010

9/3/2007

Date

341(E)

9/3/2010

Date

574(E)

12/3/2010

4/7/2005

Date

2416

Dapivali

9/3/2010

Da's

574(E)

State: Maharashtra

District: Thane

Tahsil : Bhiwandi

12/3/2010

4/7/2005

Date

Bhadane

Date

9/3/2010

2416 574( E)

Date

4/7/2005

2416

Dalhepada

12/3/2010

14/10/2008

Date

2486 (Ε)

9/3/2010

Date

574(E)

Date

4/7/2005

2416

Khaling Budruk

12/3/2010

14/10/2008

Date

2486()

9/3/2010

Date

574( E)

12/3/2010

2416

Date

4/7/2005

LapeBudruk

9/3/2010

Date

574( E)

4/7/2005

2416

Date

Kiravali

12/3/2010

Date

7/4/2007

721 (E)

9/3/2010

Date

574( E)

12/3/2010

4/7/2005

2416

Date

Jambivali

9/3/2010

Date

574(E )

12/3/2010

4/7/2005

Date

Kharivali

9/3/2010

Date

2416 574( E)

12/3/2010

4/7/2005

2416

Date

Dalonde

9/3/2010

Date

574(E)

4/7/2005

2416

Date

Dighashi

12/3/2010

14/10/2008

Date

2486(E)

9/3/2010

Data

574(E)

State: Maharashtra

District : Thane

Tahsil : Wada

12/3/2010

9/5/2005

1792

Date

Ghonsai

9/3/2010

Date

574( E)

Cate

9/5/2005

Musarne

12/3/2010

21/5/2007

Cate

1792 1537

9/3/2010

Date

574( E)

12/3/2010

Data

9/5/2005

1792

Chinchghar

9/3/2010

Date

574( E)

9/5/2005

Date

1792

Dongaste

12/3/2010

Date

21/5/2007

1537

9/3/2010

Date

574( Ε)

12/3/2010

9/5/2005

1792

Date

Bhilavali

Date

9/3/2010

574( E)

12/3/2010

9/5/2005

1792

Khanivali

Lars

9/3/2010

574(E) [ भाग II - खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

AmbisteBk

1792 574( E) 8

Kharavali

1792 2486(E)

574( E) 9

Mande

1792

574( E) 10

1792

Kalam Khand

2486(E)

574( E) 11

Suponde

1792 2486(E)

574(E) Tahsil : Vikramgad

Mhasaroli

1792 1537

2486 (E)

574( E) 2

Shil

1792

574( E ) 3

1792

Kondgaon

1537

574( E) 4

1792

Vilshet

574( E) Tahsil : Dahanu

1181

Dhanvara

574( E) 2

1181

Chinchale

574( E) 3

1181

Punajave

2486(E)

574( E) 4

Pardi

1181

574(E)

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1805 3

Date

12/3/2010

9/5/2005

Date

9/3/2010

Date

9/5/2005

Date

14/10/2008

12/3/2010.

Date

9/3/2010

Date

9/5/2005

12/3/2010

Date

9/3/2010

Date

9/5/2005

Date

14-10/2008

12/3/2010

Date

9/5/2005

Date

14/130008

12/3/2010

Date

9/3/2010

District: Thane

State: Maharashtra Date

9/6/2005

Date

12/3/2010

2102007

14/10/2008

Date

9/3/2010

Date

Dats

9/5/2005

12/3/2010

9/3/2010

Date

9/5/2005

Date

21/5/2007

12/3/2010

Date

9/3/2010

Date

9/5/2005

12/3/2010

Date

9/3/2010

District : Thane

State: Maharashtra Date

29/3/2005

12/3/2010

Date

9/3/2010

29/3/2005

Date

12/3/2010

9/3/2010

Date

29/3/2005

14/10/2008

Date

12/3/2010

9/3/2010

Date

29/3/2005

12/3/2010

Date

9/3/2010

To be published under Rule 4 of the P & MP ( ARUL)

Rules1963,framed under Section 17 of P & MP ( ARUL) Act ,1962 in official Gazette of India.

[ F. No. L -14014/22/ 2010 -GP ]

SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 /CHAITRA 20, 1932

1806

[Part 11-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 5 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 927.- पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962का 50 ) के नियम 2 (क) के अन्तर्गत , मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड ( आर.जी.टी. आई.एल. ) के द्वारा महाराष्ट्र राज्य में प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने हेतु सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कार्यो का निर्वहन करने के लिए , भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की, भारत के राजपत्र दिनांक 22 जनवरी , 2005 को प्रकाशित, अधिसूचना का 0 आ0 259 दिनांक18 जनवरी , 2005 द्वारा पदस्थापित , में, एस.डी. भिसे, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियमावली , 1963 के नियम 4 के उप- नियम (1 ) के नीचे दी गई व्याख्या ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत अधिकारों के अनुपालन में , मैसर्स आर.जी.टी.आई.एल. , जिसमें यथास्थित , उस क्षेत्र में भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार निहित किया गया है और उस क्षेत्र में पाइपलाइन का स्वामित्व निहित है, के परामर्श से, संलग्न अनुसूची के स्तंभ 4 में महाराष्ट्र राज्य के पुणे , अहमदनगर और रायगड जिले में यथा उल्लेखित प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन विछाए जाने के प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीखों की घोपणा करता हूँ ।

तहसिलः खेड

ग्राम का नाम

क्र. स.

1606 1 साबळेवाडी

1055

1333(अ)

2862(अ)

574(अ)

1606 2 बहूळ

1055

1333(अ)

2862(अ)

574(अ)

तहसिल: शिरूर

2322 1 इनामगाव

1056

1188(अ)

3070(अ)

574(अ)

2322 2 कोळेगाव डोळस

1056

1188(अ)

574(अ) अनुसूची

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

जिला: पुणे

प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीख

धारा 6 (1 ) की का . आ . संख्या एवं दिनांक

12/3/2010

27/04/2005

दिनांक

09/04/2007

दिनांक

22/05/2009

दिनांक

9/11/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

27/04/2005

दिनांक

09/04/2007

दिनांक

22/05/2009

दिनांक

9/11/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र जिला: पुणे

12/3/2010

27/06/2005

दिनांक

09/04/2007

दिनांक

06/05/2009

दिनांक

30/11/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

27/06/2005

दिनांक

09/04/2007

दिनांक

06/05/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक [ भाग H- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

तहसिलः कर्जत

1807 3

जिला: अहमदनगर

1 पिंपळवाडी

2236

1097

1186(अ)

2863(अ)

574(अ)

तहसिलः कर्जत

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

दिनांक 21/06/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांक 19/04/2007

दिनांक 05/05/2009

दिनांक 9/11/2009

दिनांक 09/03/2010

जिला: रायगड

2237 1 मंदावणे

4338

1187(अ)

2844(अ)

574(अ)

2237 2 भालिवडी

1187(अ)

2844(अ)

574(अ)

2237 3 कडाव

4338

1187(अ)

2844(अ)

574(अ)

2237 4 गणेगांव चिंचोली

4338

1187(अ)

2844(अ)

574(अ)

2237 5 सालवड

1187(अ)

2844(37)

574(अ)

2237 6 वाकस

1187(अ)

2844(अ)

574(अ)

2237 7 पिंपळोली बु

1187(अ)

2844(अ)

574(अ)

2237 8 तळवडे खुर्द

4338

1187(अ)

2844(अ)

574(अ)

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र

दिनांक

21/06/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांक 10/11/2006

दिनांक 06/05/2009

दिनांक 04/11/2009

09/03/2010

दिनांक

21/06/2005

दिनांक

12/3/2010

06/05/2009

दिनांक

दिनांक 04/11/2009

दिनांक 09/03/2010

}

दिनांक 21/06/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांक 10/11/2006

दिनांक 06/05/2009

दिनांक 04/11/2009

09/03/2010

दिनांक

21/06/2005

दिनांक

12/3/2010

दिनांक 10/11/2006

06/05/2009

दिनांक

04/11/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

दिनांक

06/05/2009

दिनांक

04/11/2009

दिनांक }

09/03/2010

दिनांक

21/06/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांका

06/05/2009

दिनांक

दिनांक 04/11/2009

09/03/2010

दिनांक

21/06/2005

12/3/2010

दिनांक

06/05/2009

दिनांक

04/11/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

दिनांक

10/11/2006

दिनांक

06/05/2009

दिनांक

04/11/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 / CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1808

22:37 9 दहिवली

1187(अ)

28441(अ)

574(अ)

2237 10विर्दोले

1187(31)

2844(अ)

574(अ)

2237 11 माहाला

1187(अ)

2844(अ)

574(अ)

2237 12निकोप

1187(अ)

2844(अ)

574(अ)

2237 13पापाने

4338

1187(31)

2844(अ)

574( )

[Part II Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

दिनांक

06/05/2009

दिनांक

04/11/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

दिनांक

06/05/2009

दिनांक

04/11/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

दिनांक

06/05/2009

दिनांक

04/11/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

दिनांक

06/05/2009

दिनांक

04/11/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

दिनांक

10/14/2006

दिनांक

06/06-2009

दिनांक

04/11/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

[ पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 17 के अंर्तगत संर्गचन पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अनंन ) नियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के अंर्तगत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में प्रकाशनार्थ

[फा सं. एल.-14014/ 23/2010 - जी.पी .)

स्नेह प्रभा मदान, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 5th April , 2010

S. O. 927. In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 in sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules , 1963 , I, S. D. Bhise , appointed by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide Notification S.O. 259 dated 18th January , 2005 (published in the Gazette of India on 22nd January, 2005 ) under Section 2( a ) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) to perform the functions of Competent Authority for laying natural gas pipelines by M/ s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited ( RGTIL) in the State of Maharashtra , in consultation with M/s RGTIL , to whom the Right of User in land in that area has been vested and in whom the ownership of pipeline in that area vests , hereby declare the dates , mentioned in Column 4 of the Schedule annexed herewith . as the dates of termination of RoU operation in Districts Pune , Ahmednagar and Raigad in the State of Maharashtra.

| भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1809 Schedule

Tahsil : Khed

Village

Sr. No.

1 Sabalewadi

1606

1055

1333(E)

2862( E)

574(E) 2Bahul

1606

1055

1333(E)

2862(E)

574(E)

Tahsil : Shirur

2322 1 Inamgaon

1056

1188(E)

3070(E)

574(E)

2322 2 Kolgaon Dolas

1056

1188(E)

3070( E)

574( E)

Tahsil : Karjat

District: Pune

State: Maharashtra

S.O. No. & Date of Notification Under sub - section (1 ) of Section 6

Date of Termination of Operation

Date

27/04/2005

12/3/2010

Date

09/04/2007

Date

22/05/2009

Date

9/11/2009

Date 09/03/2010

Date

27/04/2005

12/3/2010

Date

09/04/2007

Date

22/05/2009

Date

9/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

District: Pune

State: Maharashtra

Date

27/06/2005

12/3/2010

Date

09/04/2007

Date

06/05/2009

Date

30/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

Date 27/06/2005

12/3/2010

Date

09/04/2007

Date 06/05/2009

Date

30/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

District: Ahmednagar

2236 1 Pimpalwadi

1097

1186(E)

2863 (E)

574( E) Tahsil: Karjat

State : Maharashtra

Date

21/06/2005

12/3/2010

Date

19/04/2007

Date 05/05/2009

Date

9/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

District: Raigad

1 Mandavane

2237

4338

1187(E)

2844( E)

574(E)

State: Maharashtra

Date

21/06/2005

12/3/2010

Date 10/11/2006

Date 06/05/2009

Date

4/11/2009

}

Date 09/03/2010 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/CHAITRA 20, 1932

1810

2237 2 Bhailvadi

1187( E)

2844(E)

574( E)

2237 3 Kadav

4338

1187(E)

2844(E)

574(E)

2237 4 Ganegaon Chincholi

4338

1187(E)

2.844(E)

574( E)

2237 5 Salvad

1187(E)

2844(E)

574(E)

2237 6 Vakkas

1187(E)

2844(E)

574(E)

2237 7 Pimploli Budruk

1187(E)

2844( E)

574(E)

2237 8 Talavade Khurd

4338

1187(E)

2844(E)

574(E)

2237 9 Dahiwali

1187(E)

2844(E)

574(E)

2237 10 Birdoli

1187(E)

2844(E)

574( E)

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

Date

06/05/2009

Date

4/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

Date

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

Date

10/11/2006

06/05/2009

Date

4/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

Date

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

Date

10/11/2006

Date

06/05/2009

Date

4/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

Date

06/05/2009

Date

4/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

Date

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

Date

06/05/2009

Date

4/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

Date

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

Date

06/05/2009

Date

4/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

Date

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

Date

10/11/2006

Date

06/05/2009

Date

4/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

Date

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

Date

06/05/2009

Date

4/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

Date

12/3/2010

21/06/2005

Date

06/05/2009

Date

4/11/2009

Date

09/03/2010

Date

} 1811 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

2237

21/06/2005

11 Mohili

Date

12/3/2010

Date

06/05/2009

1187(E)

Date

4/11/2009

2844(E)

09/03/2010

Date

574( E)

2237

21/06/2005

12/3/2010

Date

12Nikop

Date

06/05/2009

1187(E)

4/11/2009

Date

2844(E)

}

09/03/2010

Date

574(E)

Date

13 Pashane

2237

21/06/2005

12/3/2010

Date

10/11/2006

4338

Date 06/05/2009

1187(E)

Date

4/11/2009

2844(E)

Date

09/03/2010

574( E)

To be published under Rulee P & MP (ARUL )

Rules1963,framed under Section 17 of P & MP (ARUL)

Act, 1962 in official Gazette of If India.

[F. No. L-14014/23/2010 -GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 928.- पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) के नियम 2 (क ) के अन्तर्गत, मैसर्स रिलायंस गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इंफ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (आर.जी.टी. आई.एल. ) के द्वारा महाराष्ट्र राज्य में प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने हेतु सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कार्यों का निर्वहन करने के लिए, भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की, भारत के राजपत्र दिनांक 22 जनवरी , 2005 को प्रकाशित, अधिसूचना का ० आ ० 259 दिनांक 18 जनवरी , 2005 द्वारा प्राधिकृत , मैं, डी. एस . धोत्रे, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियमावली, 1963 के नियम 4 के उप -नियम ( 1 ) के नीचे दी गई व्याख्या ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत अधिकारों के अनुपालन में, मैसर्स आरजी.टी.आई.एल. , जिसमें यथास्थित, उस क्षेत्र में भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार निहित किया गया है और उस क्षेत्र में पाइपलाइन का स्वामित्व निहित है, के परामर्श से, संलग्न अनुसूची के स्तंभ 4 में महाराष्ट्र राज्य के लातुर, उस्मानाबाद और सोलापूर जिले में यथा उल्लेखित प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीखों की घोषणा करता हूँ ।

1117 GI/10-7 1812

[Part II Sec . 3 (ii) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20, 1932

अनुसूची

तहसिलः निलंगा

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र जिला:लातुर

ग्राम का नाम

क्र . स.

1301 1

ममदापुर

2695

2904(अ)

573(अ) 2

1301

हतरगा (हलसी)

4828

2695

2904(अ)

573(अ) 3

1301

हंद्राळ

2695

2904(अ)

573(अ) तहसिल: उमरगा

प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीख

धारा 6( 1 ) की का . आ . संख्या एवं दिनांक

08/04/2005

दिनांक

12/03/2010

20/09/2007

दिनांक

06/12/2008

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

08/04/2005

12/03/2010

दिनांक

11/12/2006

दिनांक

20/09/2007

दिनांक

06/12/2008

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

08/04/2005

12/03/2010

20/09/2007

दिनांक

06/12/2008

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

जिला: उस्मानाबाद

1301

बोरी

2695

2904(अ)

573(अ) तहसिलः उस्मानाबाद

राज्यः महाराष्ट्र 08/04/2005

12/03/2010

दिनांक

20/09/2007

दिनांक

06/12/2008

दिनांक

09/03/2010

जिला: उस्मानाबाद

1301

विठ्ठलवाडी

2695

2904(अ)

573(अ) 2

1301 उस्मानावाद (ग्रामीण)

4828

2695

2904(अ)

573(अ) तहसिलः करमाळा

राज्यः महाराष्ट्र 08/04/2005

12/03/2010

दिनांक

20/09/2007

दिनांक

06/12/2008

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

12/03/2010

दिनांक

08/04/2005

11/12/2006

दिनांक

20/09/2007

दिनांक

06/12/2008

दिनांक

09/03/2010

राज्य: महाराष्ट्र जिला: सोलापूर

करंजे

1182

3167

3350 29/03/2005

12/03/2010

दिनांक

07/01/2008

दिनांक

22/10/2007

दिनांक

16/12/2008

दिनांक [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

करंजे (निरंतर) 2843(अ)

3240(अ)

573(अ) 2

1182

करमाळा

3167

3350

2843(अ)

3240(अ)

573(अ) 3

1182

मांगी

3167

3350

573(अ) 4

रावगांव

1182

3167

3350

2843(अ)

573(अ)

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1813 3

दिनांक

04/11/2009

12/03/2010 दिनांक

15/12/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

29/03/2005

12/03/2010 22/10/2007

दिनांक

16/12/2008

दिनांक

04/11/2009

दिनांक

15/12/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

29/03/2005

12/03/2010

दिनांक

22/10/2007

दिनांक

16/12/2008

दिनांक

09/03/2010

दिनांक

29/03/2005

12/03/2010

दिनांक

22/10/2007

दिनांक

16/12/2008

दिनांक

04/11/2009

दिनांक

09/03/2010

[पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962की धारा 17 के अंर्तगत संरचित पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के अंर्तगत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र के प्रकाशनार्थ

[फा सं. एल.- 14014/26/2010-जी.पी. ]

स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 9th April , 2010

S. O. 928. In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation 1 in sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Rules , 1963 , I, D.S. Dhotre , authorised by Government of India , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas vide Notification S.O. 259 dated 18th January, 2005 (published in the Gazette of India on 22nd January, 2005 ) under Section 2 ( a) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) to perform the functions of Competent Authority for laying natural gas pipelines by M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited (RGTIL) in the State of Maharashtra, in consultation with M/ s RGTIL , to whom the Right of User in land in that area has been vested and in whom the ownership of pipeline in that area vests , hereby declare the dates , mentioned in Column 4 of the Schedule annexed herewith , as the dates of termination of RoU operation in Districts Latur , Osmanabad and Solapur in the State of Maharashtra.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10, 2010 / CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1814

[Part II---Sec . 3 ( ii ) |

Schedule

State: Maharashtra

District: Latur

Tahsil: Nilanga

Village

Sr. No.

1301 1

Mamdapur

2695

2904(E)

573(E)

1301 2

Hatarga(Halsi)

4828

2695

2904(E)

573( E )

1301

Handral

2695

2904(E)

573(E) Dateof Termination of Operation

S.O. No. & Date of Notification Under sub-section (1 ) of Section 6

12/03/2010

08/04/2005

Date

20/09/2007

Date

06/12/2008

Date

09/03/2010

Date

12/03/2010

08/04/2005

Date

11/12/2006

Date

20/09/2007

Date

06/12/2008

Date

09/03/2010

Date

12/03/2010

08/04/2005

Date

20/09/2007

Date

06/12/2008

Date

09/03/2010

Date

State: Maharashtra

District : Osmanabad

Tahsil : Umarga

1301

Bori

2695

2904(E)

573( E)

12/03/2010

08/04/2005

Date

20/09/2007

Date

06/12/2008

Date

09/03/2010

Date

State: Maharashtra

District: Osmanabad

Tahsil: Osmanabad

1301

Vitthalwadi

2695

2904(E)

573(E)

1301 2 Osmanabad (Rural )

4828

2695

2904(E)

573(E)

12/03/2010

08/04/2005

Date

20/09/2007

Date

06/12/2008

Date

09/03/2010

Date

12/03/2010

08/04/2005

Date

11/12/2006

Date

20/09/2007

Date

06/12/2008

Date

09/03/2010

Date

State: Maharashtra

District: Solapur

Tahsil : Karmala

1182 1

Karanje

3167

3350

2843(E)

3240(E)

573(E)

12/03/2010

29/03/2005

Date

07/01/2008

Date

22/10/2007

Date

16/12/2008 04/11/2009

Date

15/12/2009

Date

09/03/2010

Date [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1815 2

1182

Karmala

Date

12/03/2010

29/03/2005

3167

22/10/2007

Date

3350

Date

16/12/2008

Date

04/11/2009

2843(E)

Date

15/12/2009

3240(E)

Date

09/03/2010

573(E)

1182

Date

29/03/2005

12/03/2010

Mangi

3167

Date

22/10/2007

3350

Date

16/12/2008

Date

09/03/2010

573( E)

1182

Date

29/03/2005

12/03/2010

Ravgaon

3167

Date

22/10/2007

3350

Date

16/12/2008

Date

04/11/2009

2843( E)

Date

09/03/2010

573(E)

[To be published under Rule 4 of the P& MP ( ARUL ) Rules1963 ,framed under Section 17 of P& MP ( ARUL) Act,1962in official Gazette of India.

[F. No. L-14014/26/2010-GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 9 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 929. - पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50) के नियम 2 (क) के अन्तर्गत, मैसर्स रिलायन्स गैस ट्रान्सपोर्टेशन इन्फास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड (आर.जी.टी.आइ.एल.) के द्वारा गुजरात राज्य में प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने हेतु सक्षम प्राधिकारी के कार्यों का निर्वहन करने के लिए , भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की, भारत के राजपत्र दिनांक 11 मार्च, 2006 को प्रकाशित, अधिसूचना का.आ. 960 दिनांक 07 मार्च, 2006, द्वारा पदस्थापित, मैं, वी.आइ.गोहिल , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियमावली , 1963 के नियम 4 के उप- नियम (1 ) के नीचे दी गई व्याख्या (1 ) के अन्तर्गत अधिकारों के अनुपालन में , मैसर्स आर.जी.टी.आइ.एल. जिसमें यथास्थित, उस क्षेत्र में भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार निहित किया गया है और उस क्षेत्र में पाइपलाइन का स्वामित्व निहित है, के परामर्श से , संलग्न अनुसूची के स्तम्भ 4 में गुजरात राज्य के सुरत जिले में यथा उल्लेखित प्राकृतिक गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीखों की घोषणा करता हूं । 1816

तहसील: ओलपाड

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/CHAITRA 20 , 1932

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] अनुसूची

राज्य: गुजरात जिला: सुरत

गाँव कानाम अ.नं.

उमरा 2

गोथाण

वसवारी 3

कनाद 5

संरोली

प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख

का.आ. नंबर और धारा 6 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना कीतारीख

4923 तारीख 18.12.2006

22.03.2010

575 (अ ) तारीख 09.03.2010

22.03.2010

1963 (अ) तारीख 19.11.2007 575 (अ) तारीख 09.03.2010

22.03.2010

1963(अ) तारीख 19.11.2007

22.03.2010

1963 (अ) तारीख 19.11.2007

575 (अ) तारीख 09.03.2010

22.03.2010

1963(अ) तारीख 19.11.2007

575 (अ) तारीख 09.03.2010

राज्य: गुजरात जिला: सुरत

तहसील: सुरत सीटी (पूर्ववत चोर्यासी तालुका)

गाँव कानाम अ.नं.

वरीयाव 1

तहसील: चोर्यासी

प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख

का . आ. नंबर और धारा 6 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना कीतारीख

22.03.2010

1963(अ) तारीख 19.11.2007

575(अ) तारीख 09.03.2010

राज्य: गुजरात जिला: सूरत

गाँव का नाम अ.नं.

प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख

का.आ. नंबर और धारा 6 (1) के अधीन अधिसूचना

कीतारीख

2 1

विहेल 2

वणकला 3

ओखा 4

भेसाण

मलगामा 5

आसरमा 7

इच्छापोर 8

दामका 3

22.03.2010

1963(अ) तारीख 19.11.2007

575 (अ) तारीख 09.03.2010

22.03.2010

1963 (अ) तारीख 19.11.2007

575 (अ) तारीख 09.03.2010

22.03.2010

1963 (अ) तारीख 19.11.2007

575 (अ) तारीख 09.03.2010

22.03.2010

1963 (अ) तारीख19.11.2007

575 (अ) तारीख 09.03.2010

22.03.2010

1963 (अ) तारीख 19.11.2007

575 (अ) तारीख 09.03.2010

22.03.2010

1963(अ) तारीख 19.11.2007

575 (अ) तारीख 09.03.2010

22.03.2010

1963 (अ) तारीख 19.11.2007

575 (अ) तारीख 09.03.2010

22.03.2010

1963 (अ ) तारीख 19.11.2007

575 (अ) तारीख 09.03.2010 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1817 तहसील: चोर्यासी

जिला: सूरत

राज्य: गुजरात अ.नं.

गाँव का नाम

प्रचालन समाप्ति की तारीख

कीतारीख का. आ. नंबर और धारा 6 (1 ) के अधीन अधिसूचना

मोरा

22.03.2010 1963 (अ) तारीख 19.11.2007 575 (अ) तारीख 09.03.2010

[पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 की धारा 17 के अतर्गत संस्थापित पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम, 1963 के नियम 4 के अंतर्गत भारत सरकार के राजपत्र में प्रकाशनार्थ]

[फा सं. एल.-14014/25/2010-जी.पी. ] स्नेह प्रभा मदान , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 9th April , 2010

S. O. 929. In pursuance of powers conferred by Explanation( I ) in sub rule( I) of Rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Rules , 1963 , I , V.I.Gohil appointed by Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Gas vide Notification S.O.960 dated 07th March , 2006 (Published in the Gazette of India on 11th March,2006) under Section 2(a) of the Petroleum & Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) to perform the functions of Competent Authority for laying natural gas pipelines by M/s Reliance Gas Transportation Infrastructure Limited (RGTIL) in the State of Gujarat, in consultation with M/S RGTIL, to whom the Right of User in the land in that area has been vested and in whom the ownership of the pipeline in that area vests, hereby declare the dates , mentioned in Column 4 of the Schedule annexed herewith , as the dates of termination of RoU operation in District Surat in the State of Gujarat.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10, 2010/CHAITRA 20, 1932

1818

District : Surat Tehsil : Olpad

Sr.No.

Village S.O.No. and Date of Notification under sub- section (1) of Section 6

3 1

4923 Date.18.12.2006 1 Umara

575 ( E) Date.09.03.2010 Gothan

1963 (E) Date.19.11.2007

575 (E) Date.09.03.2010 3 Vasvari

1963(E) Date.19.11.2007 Kanad

1963 (E) Date.19.11.2007

575 (E) Date.09.03.2010 Saroli

1963 (E) Date.19.11.2007

575 (E) Date.09.03.2010

District : Surat Tehsil : SuratCity (Earlier Tehsil Choryasi)

1963(E) Date.19.11.2007 1 Variyav

575(E) Date.09.03.2010

District : Surat Tehsil: Choryasi

1963(E) Date.19.11.2007 Vihal

575 (E) Date.09.03.2010 Vankala

1963 (E) Date.19.11.2007 2

575(E) Date.09.03.2010

1963( E) Date.19.11.2007 Okha

575 (E) Date.09.03.2010 Bhesan

1963 (E) Date.19.11.2007 4

575(E) Date.09.03.2010

1963 (E) Date.19.11.2007 5 Malgama

575(E) Date.09.03.2010 6

1963 (E) Date.19.11.2007 Asarma

575(E) Date.09.03.2010

1963 (E) Date.19.11.2007 7 Ichchhapor

575(E) Date.09.03.2010 Damka

1963 (E) Date.19.11.2007 8

575( E) Date.09.03.2010

1963 (E) Date.19.11.2007 Mora

575(E) Date.09.03.2010

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

Date ofTermination of Operation

22.03.2010

State: Gujarat

22.03.2010

State: Gujarat

22.03.2010

[To be published under Rule 4 of the P & MP ( ARUL) Rules 1963, framed under Section 17 of P&MP (ARUL ) Act , 1962 in official Gazette of India. ]

[ F. No. L - 14014/25/ 2010 -GP] SNEH P. MADAN , Under Secy.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1819 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 12 मार्च , 2010

Sri Rajeshwar Prasad as Loading Clerk is justified ? Ifnot, to what relief is the concerned workman entitled and from what date ? "

2. In this case a petition has been filed by the concerned workman praying therein to pass a No dispute Award on the ground that he is not willing to contest the case . No objection has been raised on behalf of the management in view of such prayer of the concerned workman.

का.आ. 930.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 2 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 130/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-4-10 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012/ 139/2000- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] स्नेहलता जवास , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

3. Since the concerned workman involved in the dispute is not willing to contest the case and has prayed to pass a 'No dispute' Award , I do not find any reason to drag on the case suo motu any more . Under such circumstances , a'No dispute ' Award is passed in this case presuming non- existence of any industrial dispute between the parties.

New Delhi , the 12th March , 2010

H.M.SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 12 मार्च , 2010

S. O. 930.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 130 / 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , No. 2, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s B.C.C.L. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-4-2010 .

का.आ. 931.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय-1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 223/ 2002) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[No. L-20012/ 139/2000 - IR (C - I ) ] SNEH LATA JAWAS, Desk Officer

[स. एल-12012/99/2002- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] यू.एस.पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 AT DHANBAD

New Delhi, the 12th March , 2010

FRESENT

Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10.( 1 ) (d) ofthe 1.D. Act , 1947

Reference No. 130 of 2000

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of NLOCP, C.V. Area of M/ s.BCCL and their workman .

APPEARANCES

S. O. 931. In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 223 / 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employyers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2010 .

No. L- 12012/99 /2002 - IR( B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY, Desk Officer Onbehalf ofthe workman: Mr.R.N.Ganguly, Advocate On behalfofthe employers: Mr. D.K. Verma , Advocate State: Jharkhand Industry : Coal Dated : Dhanbad, the 19th February,2010 .

ANNEXURE

AWARD

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

Case No. 1.D. No. 223/2002

1.The Government of India, Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10(1)( d) of the I.D.Act , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No.L. -20012/ 139/ 2000 - IR ( C - I ) , dated the 27th September , 2000.

SCHEDULE

Shri Gaurav Kumar S/ o Shri K.S. Malhotra , 107/2 , South Model Gram, Ludhiana - 141001

.....Applicant "Whether the action of the management of NLOCP , C.V. Area of M/s . BCCL in not regularising

1117 GI /10-8 1820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 /CHATRA 20 , 1932

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

The Regional Manager , Bank of Baroda, Regional Office Punjab , Bank Square , Sector - 17 - B , Chandigarh - 141001

Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Corporation Bank andtheir workman , which wasreceived by the Central Government on 10-3-10.

.... Respondent

APPEARANCES

[No. L- 12012/42/2008 - IR(B - II ) ] U.S.PANDEY, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

For the workman: Shri Raj Kaushik For the management: Shri B. B. Bagga

AWARD

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Passed on 22-2-2010

Present: Shri . P.L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Friday the 23rd day of February, 2010/4th Falguna , 1931)

1.Central Government vide notification No.L - 12012/ 99/2002-( IR( B - 11 )) ,dated 24-09-2002 , has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

I. D. 28/2008

Workman

: R. Chandra Babu , Ambalathuvilakom Puthen Veedu , Muthiyavila, Kattakada P.O.. Thiruvananthapuram . By Adv.Shri . Vijyachandra Babu .

"Whether the workman has completed 240 days service or not? If so , whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in terminating the services of Shri Gaurav Küsnar S/o Shri Prakash Chand , Peon w.e.f. 7-1-2002 just and legal ? Ifnot , what relief the workman is entled to and from which date?"

Management : The Managing Director , Corporation Bank , Mangaladevi Temple Road , P.B.No. 88 , Mangalore- 575001 . By Adv . Vivek Varghese .

This case coming up for hearing on 29-01-2010 , this Tribunal- cum- Labour Court on 23-02-2010 passed the following.:

2. Case taken up for recording the evidence of the workman . Shri Raj Kaushik legal representative of the workman stated that the workinan has not come despite the information given to him and appears to be not interested to pursue his reference . In view of the above, as the workman is not coming to pursue his case , the present claim in reference is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution.Central Government be informed.File be consigned.

AWARD

Chandigarh 22-02-2010

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

G.K.SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 12 मार्च, 2010

"Whether the action on part of management of Corporation Bank in discharging the service of the workman, Shri R. Chandra Babu, Peon w.e.f. 19-04-1997 is justified? What reliefthe workman is entitled to? "

का.आ. 932. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 , का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार कारपोरेशन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , एरनाकुलम पंचाट ( संदर्भ सं. 28 / 2008) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-10 ) को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/42/2008 - आईआर ( बी- II ) ] यू.एस.पाण्डे, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 12th March , 2010

2. The fects of the case in brief are as follows:- Sri R.Chandra Babu , the workman in this case was appointed as Peon in Trivandrum branch of Corporation Bank on 03-10-1985 . He worked as such till 19-04-1997 . In 1996 the bank initiated disciplinary action on the ground thathe had made false statement in an affidavit submitted to the bank regarding his caste and secured the job.A domestic enquiry was conducted and he was found guilty of the charge . The Disciplinary Authority discharged him from service on 19-04-1997 . The appeal filed by him was rejected . The workman then raised the dispute.

S.O. 932. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.28/2008) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court ,

3. According to the workman he filed an affidavit before the bank at the time of appoinment based on his school leaving certificate regarding caste . He was [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1821 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

appointment order . At that time no caste certificate was demanded . But by Ext . M6 dated 18-1-1986 the bank demanded caste certificate . The worker instead of producing a caste certificate , filed an affidavit stating that he belongs toMalapandaram community. The Government by Ext . M8 ( a) order dated 3-6-1995 informed the bank regarding the caste of the worker that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe and directed the bank to take action . It is then that the bank commenced disciplinary action against the workman by issuing a charge sheet . The charge sheet contains 2 allegations :

sponsered by the employment exchange . The government order that the workman does not belong to schedule tribe is based on report of KIRTADS ( Kerala Institute for Research, Training and Development Studies ) . It is not a statutory body and the workman was not heard before drawing a report against him. The workman was not given an opportunity to make representation regarding the findings of Enquiry Officer . The Appellate Authority did not afford personal hearing before disposal of appeal . The management has no complaint regarding his work and conduct in the office . The punishment imposed is highly excessive . The workman is unemployed after his discharge from service . He is entitled to be reinstated.

( 1 ) knowingly making false statement in any document pertaining to and in connection with his employment in the bank clause 19.5 ( m) of Bipartite Settlement .

(2) doing acts prejudicial to the interest of the bank Clause 19.5 (j ) .

4. According to the management the enquiry was conducted in compliance with the procedure and principles of natural justice . It is as per the order of the government that disciplinary action was taken against the workman . A copy ofthe enquiry report was given to the workman calling for his remarks and the workman had made submissions . The disciplinary authority had considered the submission of the workman and heard him before imposing the punishment . The Appellate Authority had heard the workman before deciding the appeal . It is the government that referred the caste issue of different persons to KIRTADS . There is long delay in raising the dispute . The workman has no right to remain in service after securing the job by misleading the bank.

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

1. Are the findings sustainable?

It ismentioned in the enquiry report that at the end of evidence of the management the workman was questioned by the Enquiry Officer regarding evidence appearing agaist him . The workman then admitted that he was aware that he did not belong to Malapandaram community. Based on the -personal inventory made by the workman and the affidavit filed before bank as well as the admission of the workman during questioning by the EnquiryOfficer that he was aware that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe and his community was only Pandaram which is not a Scheduled Tribe category, that the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of making a false statement in the documents for securing a job in the bank . Such act was held to be prejudicial to the interest of the bank.

2. Is the punishment proper ?

alone. 6. The evidence consist of Ext . Ml Enquiry File

7. Point No.1 : - It is an admitted fact that the name of the workman was sponsered by employment exchange . His caste in the list sentby Employment Exchange , Neyyattinkara is ' Malapandaram' . At the time of appointment the personal inventory of the workman was prepared and signed by the workman . His caste is shown as'Malapandaram' in the inventory ( Ext .M5 ) . It was written by workman himself. Ext.M1 in the Enquiry file is the list sentby employment exchange to the bank . Ext . M2 is a letter . ofthe bank calling the workman for interview and requiring him to produce 7 documents , one of which is his caste certificate. He did not produce the caste certificate. Ext.M 3 is the appointment order and he was asked to join duty and produce photographs , proof regarding age and educational qualification , testimonials from two respectable persons and relieving certificate from last employer , if any . Ext. M 4 isthe letter submitted by the workman to the bank reporting for duty and producing documents required in the

8. The main contention of the learned counsel for the workman is that the workman had not deliberately created any false document but had filed an affidavit based on school records like admission register and S.S.L.C.At the time of admission he was not aware of his community and the information to the school was furnished by his parents . So also the community was shown as Malapandaram in the list forwardedby the Employment Exchange to the bank . It may be true that in his young age he would not have been aware that his community was not Malapandaram . It has come out in evidence that his brother is employed in State Bank ofTravancore and disciplinary action was taken against him also on the basis of the same Government order . But the Labour Court , Kollam had reduced the punishment by ordering reinstatement as the junior most employee of his category. His sister who is facing the same disciplinary action is in the police department . But the workman did not produce a caste certificate at the time of interview or even subsequently . It has tobe presumed from the circumstances that he did so delibrately, knowing that he did not belong to Scheduled Tribe community .

[PART II C. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/CHAITRA , 1932

1822

service by the player on the ground that he has fabed Hence his asarmenis in the affidavit and entry in personat inventory are false. The findings of enquiry officer is therefore beyond reproach.

9. Regarding compliance with the principles ofnatural justice the enquiry report shows that the workman was defended by a defence representative . He had fully participated in the enquiry. He was given opportunity to adduced defence evidence . A copy of the report was given by the disciplinary authority calling for his remarks . He was heard regarding proposed punishment by the disciplinary authority. The Appellate Authority also heard him before appeal was decided . Thus ample opportunity was given and principles of natural justice were complied with and i am not able to find any lapse in the proccdure in enquiry

appointment on the basis of a false caste charn. in was observed by Bubay High Court that setting of his casts had to be done wahin a time frame that is , within , robation period of 2 years in order to avoid the plight of concerned employce . Noubt the medical department as given opportunity to consider once again the caste me of the employee after Leasing him. On the side ofthe management the learned codusel submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in (2008 ) 4SCC 612 and (2005 ) 7 SCC 69 ( decisions are not furnished by the learned counsel ) obrved that persons who secured employment on the basis of false certificates cannot be allowed to retain the beneat of the wrong committed by them and their service are able to be terminated. But it appears that in both cases themployee submitted false casts certificates to obtain joh Whereas in the instant case no caste certificate was produced by the workman sa the decisions referred by the learned counsel are not squarely applicable to the case a hand.

10. Point No. 2 - The punishment imposed is discharge from service . According to the workman the punishment is highly excessive tie is unemployed ever since he was discharged from service. He is the sole bread winner ofhis family. He has not done anything deliberately . The workman was appointed on 3-10-1985 and was discharged from service on 19-4-1997 almost after 12 years ' service . No doubt there is a long delay in raising the dispute. Though he was discharged from service in 1997 he raised the dispute only after 10 years . The reason for the delay is explained in para 12 ofhis claim statement . The reason is thathis brother who is working in State bank of Travancore faced the same disciplinary action . But the Labour Court interfered with the punishment of termination from service and ordered reinstatement as junior most employee of his category. The workman , it is said, waited for the verdict in respect of his brother before raising the dispute . That is how the delay occurred . The caste of the brother of the workman is not disputedby the management . But the management does not agree that both cases are similar . The workman has produced notification regarding publication of award passed by Labour Court , Kollam along with a copy of award . It shows that the misconduct is same and the award was published in Gazzette of India on 31-1-2006 . He was ordered to be reinstated as junior most in the cadre without back wages and attendant benefits .

12. However the workman had submitted an affidavit stating that he belonged to 'Malapandaram ' community, a scheduled tribe . The affidavit was filed on the basis ofhis school records . He worked for 12 years as Peon The bank after 6 months' probation confirmed him in service He was then aged 28 years . At the time of terminated front service he was aged 38 years . Now he is aged 5 1 years. He has wife and 2 children and he is the sole bread winner of his family. On the expectation that he would continue in service of bank he had settled down in life . The sap of his worth was tapped by the bank for 12 years .At this age of 5t it is difficult to get an alternate employment. But for the reservation he had the required qualification the post of Peon . Nobody has any complaint regarding his performance or conduct . The bank had not inaasted for a caste certificate either during probation period or even within a reasonable time . They slept over the matter for long and when they were roused by the government they pounced upon him for their pound of flesh , throwing the family on the street . Left to themselves the bank would not have verified the matter even now or taken any action . There was negligence on the part of the bank in verifying hiseligibility for the job . Whether the brother and sister of the workman continues in service despite disciplinary action, is altogether a different question. But here the question is whether the workman can take advantage of hisown wrong . The workman alone cannot be blamed for the situation. Had the bank done its duty properly , at the appropriate time the problem would not have arisen . The worker too would not have been put to an awkward situation . No doubt the misconduct proved is gross misconduct for which punishment should be commersurate . But for gross misconduct several punishment are provided in Clause 19.6 of the First Bipartite Settlernent as follows :-

11. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the workman on the basis of 3 decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in 1991 - II - LLJ 65 , 1997 SCC ( L & S ) 1505, 1998 SCC ( L & S ) 1116 as well as a decision of Bombay ligh Courtreported in 1999- III - LLJ ( Suppli ) 1392 that action taken after long delay has deprived him of the chance of alternate employment and the punishment is harsh . On facts the decisions ofHon'ble Supreme Court do not squarely apply to the case on nand . However dicision of Bombay High Court is relevant . There an employee of State of Maharashtra who was in the Medical and Health Service Department for 7 years , was terminated from [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

19.6 An employee found guilty of gross misconduct may:

(a) be dismissed without notice; or

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

(d) have his increment stopped; or

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

Anyone of the punishments can be imposed depending upon the gravity of the misconduct . Considering the long delay in taking disciplinary action , the number ofyears of service of the workman in the bank, hisperformance and conduct , his age and the poor family background , I don't think the maximum punishment is warranted in this case . Since the workman is otherwise qualified for the post , he shall be allowed to continue till superannuation but without back wages or attendant benefits or continuity of service or further increments or promotion.

In the result an award is passed finding that the action ofthe management in discharging the workman from service is not fair and just . The management is directed to reinstate him in service within a period of one month on publication ofthe award, but without back wages , attendant benefits , continuity of service , future increments and promotion..

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 23rd day ofFebruary, 2010 .

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer

Appendix

Nil Witness for the Workman

Nil Witness for the Management

Nil Exhibit for the Workman

Exhibit for the Management

EnquiryFile.

नई दिल्ली , 12 मार्च, 2010

का.आ. 933.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय एरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/

1823

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

2009) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 74/2008- आईआर ( बी -11 ) ] यू.एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th March , 2010

S. O. 933. In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2009 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the the employees in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2010.

[No. L- 12012/74/2008 - IR ( B - II ) ] U.S.PANDEY, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present : Shri.P.L.Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Monday the 1st day of March, 2010/ 10th Falgunam , 1931 )

I. D. 12/2009

Workman

: Shri C. Rajagopalachari , SreeKailas , Samrdhi Nagar -56 , Asramam , Quilon-691002. By Adv.Sri .Manoj R. Nair .

Management : The Regional Manager , Central Bank of India , P.B.No. 98 GopalBuilding , Thyvila Road , Thiruvananthapuram - 695001

By Adv . Sir Devan Ramachandran .

Thiscase coming up for hearing on 01-03-2010 , 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 challenging the disciplinary action against the workman .

2. Though both sides entered appearance and filed their pleadings when the matter was posted for examination ofEnquiry Officer repeatedly the management was not ready and the Enquiry Officer remained absent always. In the circumstances it is unnecessary to keep the case pending indefinitely. It is for the management to prove that a proper enquiry was conducted and the charges stand proved as per the evidence adduced in the enquiry . Since the 1824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

[ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii)]

BETWEEN

management has not attempted to prove the same the enquiry cannot stand.

Shri S.P.Kumar Petitioner/ l Party

The General Manager Respondent/ II Party In the result as award is passed finding that the action of the management in compulsorily retiring the workman , Sri Rajagopalachari from service is not legàl and justified and the workman is entitled to be reinstated with back wages and consequential benefits .

Vs. Indian Bank Head Office Rajaji Salai Chennai -600001

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

APPEARANCE

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . K.M.Ramesh

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 1st day ofMarch , 2010 .

For the Management : M /s . T.S.Gopalan & Co. AWARD

P.L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer Nil

Appendix

नई दिल्ली , 12 मार्च, 2010

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No.L - 12012 / 102/ 2007 - IR ( B - II ) dated 17-12-2007 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

"Whether the action of the Management of Indian Bank , Chennai in compulsorily retiring Shri S.P. Kumar, Sub - staff is fair and legal ? If not, what relief he is entitled to ?"

का.आ. 934.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 10-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 102/2007- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] यू.एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी

2. After the receipt of the Industrial Dispute , the referred ID was taken on file as ID 2/2008 . Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement as the case may be New Delhi , the 12th March , 2010

3. The averments in the Claim Statement briefly read as follows:

S. O. 934. In pursuance of section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.2/2008 ) . ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the the employees in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 10-3-2010.

[No. L-12012/102/2007 - IR(B - II ) ] U.S.PANDEY, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday , the 4th March , 2010

Present : A.N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 2/2008

The petitioner while was Sub - staff in Nanganallur branch of the Respondent / Bank was issued a Show Cause Notice dated 24-6-2002 for unauthorized transfer of Rs. 6,000 from SB A/ c No. 6029 of Mr. V.Bharati Raj at the instance of the petitioner to his SBA/ c 5086 on 24-1-2001 without the authority of the customer. The 2nd Charge Sheet dated 16-10-2002 was issued alleging the petitioner to have had fraudulently withdrawn from SB A/c No. 6029 of V. Bharati Raj . The disciplinary proceeding against him is against principles of natural justice . His suspension is malafide . The enquiry conducted on Ist Charge Sheet was not impartial . The Enquiry Officer was personally biased against him. The management witness has not given any adverse comments against the Ist party. The enquiry is not fair or proper but is vitiated . The enquiry on the 2nd Charge Sheet also was not fair or proper . There were two enquiry reports . Common Show Cause Notice dated 6-10-2003 proposing punishment of Compulsory Retirement with superannuation benefits was issued to him . The petitioner submitted reply denying guilt . On 10-4-2002 , the punishment was imposed . The appeal preferred was rejected on 10-6-2006. The punishment is illegal , unjustified and improper and is victimization in unfair (In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Indian Bank and their workman) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1825

noticed between 21-12-2000 and 15-4-2001 . The petitioner had been subjected to disciplinary action in 3 vigilance cases . The show cause notice dated 6-10-2003 related to the Vigilance Case No. 519. The petitioner was given every opportunity to vindicate his stand in the enquiry . The enquiry is not biased and is not liable to be interfered with . The benefits of money enjoyed by the petitioner from 24-1-2001 to November, 2002 amounts to misappropriation. There is no scope to interfere with the punishment .

labour practice . The petitioner did not indulge in any misappropriation . The petitioner was not given opportunity to properly defend the charges . He was not given opportunity to examine the documents . No sufficient opportunity was given to cross - examine the management witness . The findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse made without proper appreciation of the evidence . There is no proper application of mind by the Enquiry Officer , the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority. There is no necessity for two Charge Sheets or two enquiry proceedings . The Tribunal may re -appreciate the evidence under Section -11A of the ID Act . It is prayed that the punishment be held illegal and unjustified and the petitioner be reinstated into service with all attendant benefits .

5. The evidence consists of the oral evidence ofWWI and Ex . W1 to Ex. W3 on the petitioner's side . On the Respondent's side , no oral evidence was adduced and Ex . M1 to Ex , M20 were marked of which Ex . MI to Ex . M17 were on consent .

6. The points for consideration are:

4.Bereft ofunnecessary details , the contentions raised in the Counter Statement are as follows:

( i ) Whether the punishment of Compulsory Retirement on the petitioner/sub - staff is fair and legal ?

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

Points ( 1) and ( ii )

7.The learned counsel for the petitioner limited his arguments to the aspect that on Ex . M6 complaint dated 04-05-2002, the petitioner was proceeded against which complaint was withdrawn by the same complainant under Ex . M11 since the petitioner in the meantime remitted the amount in the debit balance being Rs . 6,000 . He continued to argue that there was no need to continue the proceedings against the petitioner and that there is no loss to the bank . According to him the complaint was only to get back the money. There is no misconduct warranting any disciplinary action culminating in any punishment .

8. The contra argument on behalf of the Respondent/ Management advanced by its learned counsel is that it is the propensity tobe dishonest which tempted the petitioner to commit the misconduct of illegally transferring Rs . 6,000 from the account of complainant , Bharati Raj viz. from SB A/ c . No. 6029 to the SB A/ c . No. 5086 in the name ofthe petitioner by debiting against the account of Bharati Raj and crediting to the account of the petitioner . The sum isof Rs . 6,000 with which the credit balance in the account of the petitioner showed Rs . 326 as against an overdrawn amount of Rs . 5,673 as shown in the ledger account of the petitioner at the relevant time. Both the credit and debit vouchers are signed by the petitioner . The same is a serious misconduct . Though there is no loss occasioned to the Bank, there is wrongful gain by the petitioner . The petitioner does not deserve any lenient treatment in the matter of punishment and therefore there is no scope for interference with the punishment as well .

On 24-1-2001 , the petitioner seemed to present a Bank Debit Voucher for debiting SB A/ c No. 6029 of one V. Bharati Raj for Rs . 6,000 with the petitioner's signature on the back side for transfer to his SB A/ c No. 5086 to the Ledger Clerk Shankar Subramanian stating that the account holder had promised to issue a confirmation cheque in his favour and the amount may be transferred to his account . Accordingly , the sum was transferred by entries in the Ledger made by the concerned clerk on passing of voucher byOfficer M. Chandrasekhar . By that transfer the account ofpetitioner with a debit balance of Rs . 5,673 resulted in a creditbalance of Rs . 326. There was no confirmation cheque from account holder of SB A/ c No. 6029. On 2-5-2002, the account holder came to know the petitioner having had unauthorizedly transferred Rs . 6,000 from his SB A/c 6029. On 3-5-2002 , the account holder Bharati Raj complained inwritting about the same and demanded credit ofthe sum with interest to his account . The petitioner was suspended on 30-5-2002 . Show Cause Notice was issued on 24-6-2002 pointing out the misconduct . No reply was furnished . Charge Sheet was issued on 8-10-2002 . An enquirywas conducted from 30-10-2002 to 27-1-2003 . On 27-11-2002 at the instance of the petitioner, Bharati Raj wrote a letter to the Branch Manager reporting the petitioner to have had remitted Rs . 6,000 with interest to his account simultaneously issuing a withdrawal slip for Rs . 6,000 . By the enquiry report dated 12-4-2003 , charge was found proved. Copy was furnished to the petitioner to which on 21-5-2003 , he gave reply. On 6-10-2003 , notice proposing punishment of Compulsory Retirement was issued. He replied on 19-11-2003 . On 25-11-2003 , he was heard personally . He prayed for punishment short of termination of employment . On 5-12-2003 , an order of Compulsory Retirement with superannuation benefits was passed . On 17-6-2003 for some other irregularities he was charge sheeted and an enquiry was held and order of punishment ofcompulsory retirement was passed on 8-9-2003 . Similar practices were being perpetrated by the petitioner as

9. On a consideration of the rival contentions , I am led to hold that there is nothing wrong with the enquiry or [PART 11--SFC . 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 10 , 2010/CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1826

04-05-2002

Ex. M6

Complaint letter addressed by the customer to the Respondent regarding the unauthorized transfer of money fromhis account (ME.2) .

the finding as well as the punishment imposed . The punishment imposed is Compulsory Retirement with superannuation benefit and the petitioner has already been in receipt of the benefits . The punishment is only to be kept intact warranting no interference by this Tribunal . The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

Ex. M7

10. The reference is answered accordingly .

Entry details in respect of A/c. No. 16029 pertaining to Mr. Bharathi Raj (ME.3 )

Ex .M8

(Dictated to the P.A. transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this daythe 4th March , 2010 )

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Statement of Account pertaining to the customer SB A/ c: No. 6029 (ΜΕ.4 ) .

Witnesses Examined :

Ex. M9

For the I Party / Petitioner : WWI , Sri S. P. Kumar

Statement of Accoun pertaining to the petitioner in SB A/ c. No. 5086 (ME. 5 ) .

For the II Party/Management : None

24-01-2001

Ex.M10

Documents Marked :-

From the Petitioner's side

Challan details of ransfer remittance in respect et debit entry for a sum of Rs . 6,000 (ΜΕ.6) .

Date

Ex. No.

Description

04-12-2002

Ex. M11

12-03-2003

Ex. WI

Letter of the Respondent to the Circle Office enclosing the letter from the customer (DE.1 ) .

12-04-2003

Ex. M12

Findings ofthe Enquiry Officer Letter of the Defence Representative to the Enquiry Officer enclosing therewith the summing up of the defence on the enquiry proceeding held against the 1st Party.

16-04-2003

Ex . M613

17-01-2004

Ex.W2

Appeal submitted to the Appellate Authority by the Ist Party/Petitioner .

Letter of the Respondent to the petitioner enclosing the copy of the findings of the EnquiryOfficer 10-06-2006

Ex. W3

Ex. M14 21-05-2003 Reply by the petitioner .

06-10-2003

Ex. M15

Second Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner

19-11-2003

Ex. M16

Reply by the petitioner Letter from the Chief Manager (HRM) , HRM Department, HeadOffice ofthe Respondent Bank regarding disposal ofthe Appeal by the Appellate Authority.

05-12-2003

Ex. M17

On the Management's side

Punishment of compulsory retirement issued to the petitioner .

Date

Ex. No.

Description

17-06-2002

Ex. M18

Ex. MI 30-05-2002

Charge Memo issued to the petitioner.

Suspension letter issued to Petitioner .

07-02-2003

Ελ. Μ19

Ex.M2 24-06-2002 Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner initiation of disciplinary action .

08-10-2002

Ex. M3

Letter issued to the petitioner by the Respondent calling for explanation in respect of several irregurwities committed.

Charge memo issued to the petitioner

Ex.M20 01-09-2003

Ex.M4

Enquiny proceedings .

04-05-2002

Ex. M5

Letter by the Responiem to the General Manager/ Disciplinary Authority informing the findings of EnquiryOfficer in respect of Charge Sheetdated 17-06-2002 .

Letter from the Respondent to the AGM , Circle Office , Office regarding the complaint letter of customer (ME.1 ) .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1827 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 12 मार्च , 2010

का.. आ. 935.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42 ऑफ 2003 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/ 161/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू.एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 12th March , 2010

natural justice . He alleged that he was employed on 1-11-86 , as part time sweeper under the management Indian Bank Agra for the post of part time sweeper with basic pay of Rs . 450 per month and he remained in service till 21-08-95, on 22-8-95 he was suspended , he was served with a show cause notice on 14-3-98 . It has further been pleaded that the opposite party completed the inquiry in formal manner and terminated his services vide order dated 16-7-99 and he made an appeal which was also rejected . Onthe basis of above pleadings it has been prayed that the order of termination of his service be set aside and he be reinstated in the service with full pay and allowance together with continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

S. O. 935. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.42 of 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 12-3-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/ 161 /2003 - IR(B - II ) ] U.S. PANDEY , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 42 of 2003

In the matter of dispute between :

Sri Mahadeo Narain Dogre Son of Sh . Ram S Dagore House No. 23/158 , Jeewani Mandi , Agra. AND The Assistant General Manager , IndianBank , Circle Office , Habubbullah Estate, Hazaratganj , Lucknow.

4. Opposite party has filed the written statement alleging that the claimant was part time sweeper but he was unpunctual and not discharging his duties. Often he used to come in drunken state and picking up quarrel with the employees and customers of the bank causing serious damage to the image of the bank . He was issued a charge sheet on 14-12-94 . He was also issued another charge sheet on 24-4-95 for his alleged misconduct mentioned in paragraph 3 ofthe written statement . He was placed under suspension on 22-8-95 . He was also issued one more charge sheet on 06-09-95 for the charges mentioned in Para 4 of thewritten statement . Enquiry proceedings were adjourned on a number of times but the delinquent employee did not cooperate with the inquiry . The disciplinary authority after going through the findings of the enquiry officer concurred with the findings and imposed the punishment of dismissal without notice upon the claimant including other punishment of stoppage of next increment for a period of six months with cumulative effect as mentioned in Para 8 . Complainant made an appeal also but he did not appear before the appellate authority . On his request he was allowed to avail travelling allowance for appearing before the appellate authority and later on the claimant appeared before the appellate authority and he was heard thoroughly. Butthe appellate authority after going through the evidence and after giving hearing opportunity he rejected the appeal . Therefore , it is wrong to say that the workman was not given proper opportunity to defend his case .

AWARD

5. Claimant also filed the counter reply denying the aversion made by the opposite party in the written statement and reiterated his own averments .

6. I heard the case perused the record thoroughly .

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi , vide notification no. L - 12012 / 161 /2003 - IR ( B - II ) dated 27-11-2003 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal .

7. The claimant was given sufficient time and opportunities to produce evidence but no party produced any evidence either oral or documentary .

2. "Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank , Agra in terminating the services of Sri Mahadev Narain Dogre Part time Sweeper with effect from 16-07-99 was legal and justified ? If not whatrelief is the workman concerned entitled to ? "

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the claimant applicant has alleged that his services have been terminated unlawfully without following the principles of

8. The only point is to be decided in the present reference is whether the action of the opposite party in terminating the services of the claimant was legal and justified. It has been alleged by the claimant that he was a part time sweeper . Opposite party has alleged that the 1117 GI /10-9 1828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 /CHATRA 20 , 1932

claimant was unpunctual and nor discharging his duties properly. He used to come in drunker state and picking up quarrel with the employees and the customers of the bank . It was also alleged that the delinquent employces was issued three charge sheets and airy was conducted chtrein and he was given proper opportunity to defend himself and a thorough inquiry were conducted by the enquiry officers and the disciplinary authority after going through findings of the enquiry officers and after considering the same he also gave an opportunity of personal hearing to the delinquent employee in the matter and concurred with the findings of the enquiry officer and imposed punishment of dismissal .

9. In such circumstances I feel that the burden of proving allegations as mentioned in the claim statement prima facic in the first stage lies on the claimant , but he did not appear even before the tribunal and the court after giving so many opportunities to prove the pleadings. Sonse evidence is required, but the claimart did not take the care to prove the pleadings . lie did not appear to argue the case whereas opposite party wa present and they opposed the claim of the claimant .

10. Under these circumstances I find that the claimant has failed to prove his case, therefore , reference is decided against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party

RAM FARKAS4 , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 12 मार्च , 2010

का. आ. 936, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की भात 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 , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या एन.जी.पी. /5/08) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/112/2007- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू.एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th March , 2010

S. O. 936. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Centre! Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. NGP/5 / 08) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-3-2010 .

[No. L-12012/112/2007 - IR( B - II) ] U.S. PANDEY, Desk Officer

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI A. N. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No. CGIT /NGP/ 5 /08 Date 25-2-2010 .

Petitioner/ PartyNo. 1

: Shri Prakash Ramdas Gangapag . Jagjiwan Ram Nagar, At - Tapa Road , Akola (M.S.) Versus

Rspondent/ : Party No. 2

TheSr. Divisional Manager, Punjab National Bank , Divisional Office , Kingsway , S. V. Patel Marg , Nagpur-440001 . ( M.S.)

AWARD med 25th February , 2010

1 The Cestral Government after satisfying the existence of dispute between Shri Prakash Ramdas Gangapag , Akela ( Party No. 1 ) and the Sr. Divisional Manager, Punjab National Bank , Divisional Office . Kingsway, Nagpur (Party No. 2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No.1 . 12012/ 112/2007 - IR ( B - 11 ) dated 5-2-2008 under clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) with the following schedule .

2."Whether the action of the Disciplinary Authority (Sr. Regional Manager , P.N.B. Nagpur) in awarding a punishment of Discharging from service with superarmuarion benefits (Pension , Provident Fund & Gratuity) without disqualification from future employment is justified , legal and proper if not then what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

3. The reference came up for hearing on 10-4-2008 on which both the parties were present and filed their Vakalatname . Since then the petitioner and his counsel were absent for more than one year . The Counsel for Petitioner has not filed his Statement of Claim. On 24-2- 2010, the petitioner and his counsel were also absent . It seeems that the Petitioner is not interested in prosecuting the case . I do not think it proper to continue it on the same stage years together . In the circumstances , no purpose will be served in continuing the case , hence it dismissed for the default of the Petitioner and pass the negative award that he is not entitled for any relief. Hence this Award.

Dated: 25-2-2010 .

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

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1829 नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च, 2010

and compensation is legal , fair and justified ? If ne to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " का. आ. 937 , 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-1 , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ( 21/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/ 133/2005 - आई आर ( बी- I ) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th March, 2010

S. O. 937. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 21/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court - 1 , Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workman , received by the Central Government on 16-3-2010.

[No. L - 12012/ 133/2005 - IR( B - I ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. In his claim statement , Shri Subhash Kumar projects that he was appointed as Messenger - cum- CanteenBoy-cum-General Servant at Kesarganj Branch , State Bank of India , on 22-7-1994 . He worked regularly on the said post till 30-6-2004. He used to perform duties of Messenger- cum-General Servant- cum-Canteen Boyfrom 9 AM to 6 PM . Indoor and outdoor duties of a messenger were also performed by him various Vouchers , on the strength of which payments were released in his favour , would project that he performed outdoor duties of a messenger . Circular dated 25-5-1991 highlights that a Canteen Boy , whose services have been utilized for 30 days as a messenger in a calender year and paid conveyance bills for outdoor duties , shall be eligible for being considered for absorption in bank services . A large number of canteen boys were regularized in services of the bank , in terms of agreement dated 27-10-1988 and 9-1-1990 . He submitted several representations for regularization ofhis services . Instead of regularizing him , his services were dispensed with w.e.f. 1-7-2004 . He was not paid minimum wages as per circular dated 12-11-1997. Termination ofhis service is violative of the provisions of Section 25 - F of the I.D. Act . He seeks reinstatement of his services with continuity and full back wages , besides payment of minimum wages , in pursuance of Bipartite Settlement for the period he served the bank.

BEFORE DR . R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURT, COMPLEX, DELHI

Industrial Dispute No. 21/2006

Subhash Kumar , Village Lalsana , Office Rajnpura, Distt . Meerut ( U.P. ) , Meerut (U.P. )

...Claimant

Versus

The Assistant General Manager ,

State Bank of India, Regional- 1 , Zonal Office , GarhRoad , Meerut , Meerut (U.P.)

Management

AWARD

3 Context was given to the claimby the management pleading that Subhash Kumar was employed by the Committee as a Canteen Boy and as such no relationship of employer and employee existed between him and the management bank . There is no obligation on the part of the bank to provide canteen facilities to its employees . thereby creating relationship of employer and employce between the claimant and the bank . Bank was not involved in the management of the bank canteen run by the Committee. The claimant performed duties under guidance and supervision of the Committee . Whenever he performed duties for the bank due to exigency of work he was paid for that work. Casual work performed by him would not create any relationship of employer and employee between the parties . It has been claimed that since the claimant was not an employee of the bank, his claim is devoid of merits . Itmay be dismissed .

4.Onpleadings of the parties following issues were settled:

1. Whether there is no master and servant relationship between the claimant and the management ?

2. As in terms of reference ?

3. relief.

Local Implementation Committee, Kesarganj Branch , State Bank of India, Garh Road, Meerut ( hereinafter referred to as the Committee) , appointed Shri Subhash Kumar as a canteen boy . He served the Committee w.e.f. 22-7-1994 till 30-6-2004 . When his services were disengaged , he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . On receipt of the failure report the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L - 12012/ 133 /2005 - IR( B - 1 ), New Delhi dated 6-6-2006 , with the following terms :

5. Claimant has examined himself in support of his claim . Shri Brahma Nand Nigam was examinedby the management to support their defence . No other witness wasexaminedby either of the parties .

6.Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri J. N. Kapur . authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf "Whether the person Shri Subhash Kumar engaged in the State Bank of India , Kesarganj Branch , Meerut w.e.f. 22-7-1994 to 30-6-2004 was employed regularly on the work of messenger /peon ? If so , his disengagement/termination from the Kesarganj Branch , Meerut w.e.f. 1-7-2004 without any notice THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 / CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1830

of the claimant . Shri Pravin Sharma , authorised representative, raised his submissions on behalf of the management . I have given my careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows :-

Issue No. 1 .

7. Claimant unfolds that he joined service at Kesarganj Branch of the Bank on 22-7-1994 as canteen boy.He was paid Rs . 700 PM towards his wages . He used to go to other branches for clearing purposes , besides attending jobs at post office . He served the bank continuously upto 1st of July , 2004. His services were orally terminated . No notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to him . He was not paid any retrenchment compensation . He was paid conveyance charges by the bank for outside duties . His conveyance charges bills are Ex. WW1/ 1 to Ex . WW 1/90 . During the course of his cross examination he admits that he was kept on job for preparing tea for employees of the bank, as well as for outside jobs . He admits that he was paid by the bank for outside job . One Pramod Aggarwal was approached by him for the job .

8. Shri Brahma Nand Nigam detailed that Subhash Kumar was appointed to serve tea by the Secretary of the Committee . Subhash Kumar was never in the employment of the bank . He used to serve tea and water to the staff of the bank. When a permanent messenger used to be on leave in that eventuality work was taken from an employee employed by the Committee . Payment of wages of an employee , employed by the Committee , is being paid out of the account of the Committee . Bank was having no control over the functions of Subhash Kumar . His actions were supervised by the Secretary of the Committee . He admits that whenever a permanent messenger happens to be on leave work is taken from a Canteen Boy. Conveyance charges cannot be paid to a person who is not employee of the bank . Remunerations were being paid to Subhash Kumar through cheques .

9. Out of facts projected by Shri Brahma Nand Nigam and those conceded to by the claimant , it came to light that the claimant was appointed as Canteen Boyby the Committee. He served the Committee till Ist of July, 2004 . For that purpose remuneration was being paid to him by the Committee . Whenever a permanent messenger was on leave the claimant was sent to perform job of a messenger . He was paid for those casual jobs . Vouchers Ex . WW 1/1 to Ex . WW 1/90 project that fact . Therefore , out of facts projected by the parties it came to light that the claimant was engaged as Canteen Boy by the Committee . It is not disputed that the Committee runs a canteen and employs a Canteen Boy .

10. It is an admitted fact that the bank bears by way of subsidy to the extent of 95 % of the cost incurred by the canteens for payment of salary , provident fund contribution , gratuity, uniform etc. and also provides premises , furniture , utensils , electricity , water etc. to the

PART 11-- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Committee free of charge . The canteen so tun by the Committee is not a statutory canteen . The Committee is not under any legal obligation to run such a canteen. Bank does not exercise supervision and control on the work of Canteen Boy employed by the Committee . The bank has absolutely no right to take any disciplinary action or to direct any employee of the Committee to do a particular work . In the absence of any obligation , statutory or otherwise for running a canteen by the bank , an cinployee ofthe Committee cannot be termed as an employee ofthe bank . Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Reserve Bank ofIndia's case [ 1996 (3 ) S.C.C. 267 ] .

11. In State Bank of India's case ( AIR 2000 SC 1518 ) the Apex Court was seized of such a porposition. It was ruled therein that canteens run by the Committee for providing certain amenities in the branch are non statutory, non recognized canteens , because admittedly there is neither statutory provision nor any obligation arising out of award or contract between the bank and its employees to run such canteen. Employees of the canteens , which are being run at various branches by Local Implementation Committee would not become employee of the bank , as bank is not having any statutory or contractual obligation to run such canteens . Bank does not employ Canteen Boys . Bank does not supervise or control their work . For appointing a Canteen Boy there are no rules framed by the bank. The Bank has nothing to do with the running ofthe Canteen . The scheme framed by the bank for running of a Canteen by Local Implementation Committee only promotes welfare activities for benefit of its employees . Therefore , it cannot be said that Canteen Boys are employees of the Bank .

12. Ex.WW 1/1 to Ex.WW 1/90 project that the claimant was sent for casual jobs by the bank , for which he was paid . There are only 90 vouchers from December, 1994 till June , 2004 , on the strength ofwhich coolic charges were paid to him . Documents referred above simply project that the claimant was paid charges for casual job performed by him . Those casual jobs were taken from the claimant in the case of exigencies . Documents referred above show that claimant was asked to perform job for the bank at intervals , for which he was paid . These documents nowhere project that the claimant was engaged as an employee by the management bank. Consequently these documents nowhere create relationship of master and servant between the bank and the claimant . Applying the law laid above it is evident that the claimant who was working as Canteen Boy under the supervision of the Committee cannot be called to be an employce of the Bank . The issue is , therefore , answered in favour of the bank and against the claimant . Issue No. 2 .

13. Claimant places reliance on circular Ex.MWI /WI .. Perusal of this circular highlights that the bank invited application from casual employees for their absorption. Whenjobs of casual nature were taken from Canteen Boy , their cases were also considered for absorption . However , circular Ex.MWI / WI makes it clear that practice of asking [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Canteen Boys to perform jobs of casual nature for the bank was depricated . This circular was issued in 1991 , much prior to the date when claimant performed casual jobs for the bank . Contents of the circular make it clear thatthe bank never intended to absorb services of Canteen Boys , employed by the Local Implementation Committee, in future.

14. Whether claimant can seek application of the said circular to his case? For an answer, legal provisions are to be take not of. Equality before law and equal protection of laws are fundamental rights of every person, ordains Article 14 of the Constitution . The guiding principles laid in Article 14 are that persons who are similarly situated , shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liability imposed , which means that amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that like should be treated a like . Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunities for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State . What is guaranted is the equality of opportunity . Like all other employers , Government is also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large number of candidates offering themselves for employment. But the selection process must not be arbitrary. The guarantee given by clause (a) of Article 16 of the Constitution will cover (a ) initial appointments ( b ) promotions ( c ) termination of employment (d) and matters relating to salary, periodical increments , leaves , gratuity , pension , age of superannuation etc. Matters relating to employment or appointments include all matters in relations to employment both prior and subsequent to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment .

15. Fundamental rights guaranteedby article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of discretion . Classification is the recognition ofthe relations , and in making it the Government must be allowed a wide latitude of discretion and judgment . In a way, the consequences of such classification would undoubtedly be to differentiate persons belonging to that class from others . The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Classification may be made according to the nature of persons , nature of business , and may be based with reference to time.

16. Concept of equality guaranteed by article 16 of the constitution is something more than formal equality and enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share by having more than equal chance and enables the State to give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving real equality with reference to social needs . 'Protection discrimination ' enabled the State to adopt new strategy to bring underprivileged at par with the rest of the society, by providing all possible opportunities and

1831

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

incentives to them . Therefore a class may be allowed to have preferential treatment in the matter relating to employment or appointment . There cannot be rule of equality between members of separate and independent group of persons . Persons can be classified in different groups , based on in terms of nature of persons , nature of business and with reference to time . Therefore classification based on experience , in relation to time for which personal drives employed by the officers of the bank had served , has a reasonable differentia .

17. To claim equality with the aforesaid canteen boys , it was for the claimant to show that he stood on equal footing with them . Not even an iota of fact has been brought over the record by the claimant to show that he was at par with the aforesaid canteen boys . Circular was issued in 1991 , while claimant joined services of the Committee on 22-7-1994. Circular was applicable to those canteen boys who worked prior to its issuance and deprecated employment of canteen boys by the bank for casual jobs . Therefore lapose of time places the claimant in different clarification than those canteen boys , who worked prior to 1991. In such a situation it cannot be said that the claimant was discriminated when his services were not regularised by the bank .

18. Even otherwise regularisation of the services of the claimant cannot be ordered , since it would amount to back door entry in the services of the bank , which is State with the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution . Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Uma Devi [2006 (4) SCC 1 ] . In view ofthese facts it is evident that he is not entitled for regularization in the services of the bank. Issue is accordingly answered in favour ofthe bank.

Relief

19. Since there was no relationship of employer and employee between the parties the claimant cannot seek relief of reinstatement in the service of the management bank. No case of discrimination has been brought over the record . His case deserves dismissal . The same is accordingly dismissed . An award is passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated: 26-2-2010 .

DR. R. K. YADAV , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 16 मार्च , 2010

का. आ. 938.-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 -1 , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ( 5/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -12012/51/2006- आई आर( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी 1832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

New Delhi , the 16th March , 2010

S. O. 938. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 5/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- 1 , Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workman, received by the Central Government on 16-3-2010 .

[No. L - 12012/51 /2006 - IR ( B - 1 ) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR . R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURT, COMPLEX , DELHI

Industrial Dispute No. 5/2007

The General Secretary,

All India Bank Staff Association ( Regd. ), 33-34, Bank Enclave , Ring Road , Rajouri Garden , New Delhi - 110027.

Workman

Versus

The Asstt . General Manager ( Region - 1) , State Bank of India , Zonal Office , Garh Road , Meerut ( UP)

Meerut (U.P.)

[ PART 11 -SLC. 3 ( ii )] cum-Cashier, State Bank of India , Barout Branch , under suspension w.e.f. 29-4-2003 in violation of clause ( 3 ) of para 557 of Sastry Award modified by Bipartite Settlement is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and to what extent ?"

2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of the workman pleading therein that he was placed under suspension on 29-4-93 on some false allegations . A charge sheet was issued to him on 26th of October , 2004 , after a lapse of 12 years from the date of his suspension . Shri H.S.Sethi , Branch Manager , Kavi Nagar branch of the bank wasappointed as Enquiry Officer, in January , 2005.It has been claimed that the claimant is entitled for fulf wages as subsistence allowance in terms of provisions of Bipartite Settlement after expiry of one year from the date of his suspension , since enquiry proceedings were not concluded within one year from the date ofhis suspension . He made number of representations for release of full subsistence allowance , but to no avail . When management did not listen, he raised an industrial dispute through All India Bank Staff Association vide letter dated 31-3-2005 . Management has been harassing and victimizing him , by way payment of 50% of his wages as subsistence allowance . The said action of the management is illegal . A claim has been made that the management may be directed to pay him full wages as subsistence allowance w.e.f. 29-4-94.

.Management

AWARD

Ved Parkash was involved in a criminal case registered by the CBI , vide R.C.No.31 ( A)/ 1993 , for offences punishable under Section 419 , 420 , 467 , 468 and 471 read withSection 120 - B of the Penal Code . He was placed under suspension on 29-4-93 . Investigation was concluded by the C.B.1 . and a charge sheet was filed before a court of competent jurisdiction . Domestic enquiry proceedings were kept in abeyance by the management, in pursuance of the provisions of para 521 ( 3 ) of the Sastry Award . Subsequently, the domestic enquiry proceedings were initiated against the claimant, in view of law handed down by the Apex Court in that regard . Claimant requested the bank authorities to enhance his subsistence allowance , which request was declined . He approached All India Bank Staff Association for redressal of his grievances . A claim statement was filed before the Conciliation Officer . When conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L - 12012 /51 / 2006 -IR( D - I ) , New Delhi dated 15-1-2007 , with the following terms:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India in denying full subsistence allowance w.e. f. 29-9-94 to Ved Parkash , Clerk- 3. Claim was demurred by the management pleading that there has been no espousal by a substantial number of co -workers or a trade union of employees , hence the reference is liable to be rejected . It has not been disputed that Ved Parkash was placed under suspension on 29-4-93 and not from 29-4-2003 . The appropriate Government has given wrong date of suspensions in order of reference . It is evident that order of reference is not correct and is liable to be rejected on that count . It has beenpleaded that Ved Parkash was involved in the criminal case registered by the C.B.I. The said case still pends adjudication against him. He was placed under suspension as per provisions contained in para 521 ( 2 ) (A) of the Sastry Award. It has not been disputed that he is being paid 50 % of his wages as subsistence allowance . It is also not a matter of dispute that charge sheet was issued to him on 26-10-04 . It has been claimed that the enquiry proceedings were kept in abeyance , in accordance with the provisions of para 521 ( 3 ) of the Sastry Award . When the Apex Court handed down a decision to the effect that departmental enquiry can proceed alongwith the criminal prosecution , charge sheet was served on the workman . Ilis subsistence allowance is being paid in accordance with the provisions of 557 of the Sastry Award read with Bipartite Settlement dated 8-9-1983 . The management projects that subsistence allowance was paid to the workman in accordance with the provisions of Sastry Award and Bipartite Settlements .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1833 He isnot entitled to full wages as subsistence allowance. Hisclaim is liable to be dismissed.

step to the discharge of its function does not take it out of administrative function of the Government . The adequacy or sufficiency of material on which opinion was formed is beyond the pale ofjudicial scrutiny .

4. Circular No.ADM: 16800 dated 26th of May , 82 and D: A.K - 2/R -3 ./Staff/ FC/ 105 dated 11th of June , 2007 were tendered by the workman in his evidence . These circulars were not disputed on behalf of the management . Hence the same were exhibited as EX.WI and Ex . W2 respectively. Shri J. N. Kapur, authorised representative of the workman projected that no other evidence was to be adduced in the matter . He closed evidence of the workman. Shri Praveen Sharma , authorised representative of the management also opted not to adduce any evidence inthe matter.

5. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri J. N. Kapur, authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the workman . Shri Praveen Sharma , authorised representative , raised his submissions on behalf of the management . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows :

8. The scope of a reference is a matter of considerable importance. Although it is open to an industrial adjudicator to devise his own procedure , but he has to confine his adjudication to the points of dispute specified in the order of reference and to matters incidental thereto . Before embarking on adjudication, therefore , the adjudicator has to determine the scope of the order of reference . Hence , the question of the scope and construction of the order of reference becomes relevant . The construction of the order of reference will , in all probability, be easy or difficult , according as the document has been skillfully or carelessly drawn . In India Paper Pulp Company Limited ( 1949 ( 1 ) LLJ 258) the Federal Court was concerned with a proposition as to whether the order of reference can be construed by anadjudicator . Chief Justice Kania , speaking for the Court , said that not infrequently , the orders of reference are " farfrom satisfactory and are not carefully drafted" . It is , therefore , desirable that the appropriate Government should frame such orders carefully and the question which are intended to be tried by the adjudicator should be so worded as to leave no scope for ambiguity or controversy. Sameproposition of law was laid by Apex Court in Delhi Cloth and General Mills Limited ( 1967 ( 1 ) LLJ 423 ) . Inaccuracy of language employed in the order of reference , however, does not always make any difference to the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to proceed , with the reference and adjudicate upon it , as the Tribunal can interpret and find out the real meaning of the order of reference , as it stands. A duty is cast upon the Tribunal to make an attempt to construe order of reference to find out as to what was the real dispute which was referred to it and to decide it and not to throw it out on a mere technicality . Law to this effect was laid by the Apex court in Express Newspaper Lim ited [ 1962 ( II) LLJ 227 ] . Reference can also be made to the precedent in Management of Barpukhurie Tea Estate [ 1978 ( 1 ) LLJ 558 ] and Minimax Limited [ 1968 ( I ) LLJ 369 ] .

6. First and foremost contention advanced by the management is that reference order is incompetent . Shri Sharma argued that in the reference order it is mentioned that Ved Parkash was placed under suspension w.e.f. 29-4-2003 . He argued that Ved Parkash was suspended w.e.f. 29-4-93 and mentioning of incorrect date of his suspension in the terms of reference makes it incompetent . Hiscontention has been that this Tribunal cannot go beyond the scope of reference and when incorrect date of suspension has been detailed in the order of reference , thisTribunal is duty bound to reject the reference . Contra to it Shri J. N. Kapur argued that the terms of reference projects that full subsistence allowance has been denied to the workman w.e.f. 29-4-93 . He concedes that inadvertently date of suspension of workman has been detailed as 29-4-2003 , in the terms of reference . However, he highlights that in the claim statement as well as written statement filed by the management , it is not a matter of dispute that the workman was suspended on 29-4-93 . He agitates that these facts make it clear that out of pleadings ofthe parties , the real dispute has emerged over the record . He argued that contention advanced by the managementman are untenable on that count .

9. When phraseology of order of reference is inelegant , the Tribunal should look to the substance rather than to the form of the order of reference . In construing terms of the order of reference and determining the scope and nature of the points referred , the Tribunal has to look into the order of reference itself. Therefore , it is clear that where the order of reference is vague or cryptic , the tribunal may cull out the real question by construing its phraseology . In C. P. Sarathy [ 1953 ( 1 ) LLJ 174 ] the Apex Court ruled that when order of reference is not clear the Tribunal may crystalise the terms of reference from the statements of the respective cases of the parties . In Delhi Clothand General Mills Limited ( supra ) the Apex Court candidly laid that " the Tribunal must , in any event , look to the pleadings of the partes to find the exact nature of 7. For referring an industrial dispute to adjudication , the appropriate Government should satisfy itself, on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice , in its subjective opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended . The factual existence of a dispute or its apprehension and expediency of making a reference are matters entirely for the Government to decide . An order making a reference is an administrative act and the fact that the Government has to form an opinion as to the factual existence of an industrial dispute as a preliminary [PART 11 -SEC.3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1834

the dispute , because in most cases the order of reference is so cryptic that it is impossible to cull out there from the various points about which the parties were at variance , leading to the trouble " . From above proposition of law laid it is evident that the Tribunal is competent to construe the terms of reference , when it is vaguely worded and can ascertain the real dispute between the parties even from its pleadings .

12. Provisions of Section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) make it clear that the appropriate Government may refer an existing or apprehended dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for adjudication . Industrial dispute has been defined by clause (k) of Section 2 of the Act , Definition given in the said sub - section encompasses within its sweep any dispute or difference between the employer and employers . or between employer and workmen or between workmen and workmen , which is connected with the employment or non employment or terms of employment or with the conditions oflabour of any person . The Act is a legislation relatingto what is known as " collective bargaining " in the economic field. This policy of the legislature is also implicit in the definition of the industrial dispute .

10. In the claim statement it has been projected that the workman was placed under suspension on 29-4-93. The management does not dispute that fact in its written statement . A claim was put forward by the workman that he is being paid 50% of his wages as subsistence allowance , which is violative of the provisions of Sastry Award and Bipartite Settlement . He' projects that after expiry of one year from the date of his suspension he is entitled to payment of his full wages as subsistence allowance . On these aspects the management highlights that subsistence allowance is being paid to him in pursuance ofpara 557 of Sastry Award read with Bipartite Settlement dated 8-9-83 . The management agitates that he is not entitled to full wages as a subsistence allowance after expiry of one year from the date of his suspension . Therefore , out ofthe pleadings , put forward by the parties , it is evident that the dispute between them relates to denial of full wages as subsistence allowance w.e.f. 29-4-94 , one year after the date of his suspension. In the first limb of the reference order this dispute has been highlighted. However , in the subsequent sections of the reference order date of suspension has been mentioned as 29-4-2003 . It is evident that on account of typographical error a wrong date of suspension has been mentioned , while the term of award makes it clear that full subsistence allowance has beenclaimed by the workman w.e.f. 29-4-94 . Therefore, it is evident that the terms of reference makes it impliedly clear that the claimant was placed, under suspension on 29-4-93 and a wrong date was mentioned in it inadvertently. Consequently terms of reference has been construed and date of suspension of the claimant is taken as 29-4-93 instead of 29-4-2003 . Submissions raised by the management are brushed aside in that regard .

13. The Apex Court in Bombay Union of Journalist (1961 ( II ) LLJ 436 ) has observed that in each case in ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute , the test is whether at the date of reference , the dispute was taken up as submitted by the union of the workmen of the employer against whom , the dispute is raised by an individual workman or by an appreciable number of workmen . In order , therefore , to convert an individual dispute into an industrial dispute , it has to be established that it has been taken up by the union of employees of the establishment or by an appreciable number ofthe employees of the establishment . As far as union of the workmen of establishment itself is concerned, the problem of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty , since such workmen who are members of such unions generally have a continuity of interest with an individual employee who is one of their fellow workman . But difficulty arise when the cause of a workman , in a particular establishment is sponsored by a union which is not of the workmen of that establishment butis one of which membership is open to workmen of their establishment as well as in that industry . In such a case a union , which has only microscopic number of the workmen as its member , cannot sponsor any dispute arising between the workmen and the management . representative character of the union has to be gathered from the strength of the actual number of co workers sponsoring the dispute . The mere fact that a substantial number of workmen of the establishment in which the concerned workman was employee were also members of the union would not constitute sponsorship . It must be shown that they were connected together and arrived at an understanding by a resolution or by other means and collectively submitted the dispute .

14. The expression " Industrial disputes " has been construed by the Apex Court to include individual disputes , because of the scheme of the Act . In Raghu NathGopal Patvardhan ( 1957 ( 1 ) LLJ 27 ) the Apex Court ruled as to what dispute can be called as an industrial dispute. It was laid thereon that ( 1 ) a dispute between the 11. Next prong of attack was made by the management pleading that the claim was not espoused by substantial number of workmen or a trade union of the employees of the establishment of the management . On that counts Shri Kapur argued that All India Bank Staff Association has raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer . He contends that the said Association is a trade union of the employees off the establishment of the management . According to him Ved Prakash was the member of All India Bank Staff Association since October , 2001. He argued that the Association had espoused the claim and it does not lie in the mouth of the management to say that it is an individual dispute and not an industrial dispute.

1835 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co- workmen , if not a majority of them . Since this union was not registered or recognized , the workmen elected five representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed workmen. Thus cases of the dismissed workmen were espoused by the new union , yet unregistered and unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized union does not mean that they were not " industrial dispute".

employer and a single workman cannot be an industrial dispute, (2 ) it can not be per - se be an industrial dispute but may become if it is taken up by a trade union or a number of workmen . In Dharampal Prem Chand ( 1965 ( 1 ) LLJ 668 ) it was commanded by the Apex Court that a dispute raised by a single workman cannot become an industrial dispute unless it is supported either by his union or in the absence of a union by substantial number of workmen . Same law was laid in the case of Indian Express Newspaper (Pvt . ) Limited ( 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 132) . However in Western India Match Company ( 1970 ( II ) LLJ 256), the Apex Court referred the precedent in Drona Kuchi Tea Estate's case ( 1958 ( 1 ) LLJ 500 ) and ruled that a dispute relating to "any person becomes a dispute where the person in respect of whom it is raised is one in whose employment , non employment , terms of employment or conditions of labour , the parties ,dispute for a direct or substantial interest " .

17. It is not expedient that same union should remain incharge of that dispute till its adjudication . The dispute may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment , through a particular union for making such a dispute an " industrial dispute " , while the workman may be represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of Section 36 of the Act by a number of executive or office bearer of altogether another union . The crux of the matter is that the dispute should be a dispute between the employer and hisworkmen. It is not necessary that the dispute must be espoused or conducted only by a registered trade union . Even if a trade union ceases to be registered trade union during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings thatwould not affect the maintainability of the order of reference . Law to this effect was laid by the High Court of Orissa in Gammon India Limited ( 1974 ( II ) LLJ 34 ) . For ascertaining as to whether an individual dispute has acquired character of an individual dispute , the test is whether on the date of the reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the union of the workmen of the employer against whom the dispute is raised by the individual workman or by an appreciable number of the workman . In other words , the validity of the reference of an industrial dispute must be judged on the facts as they stood on the date of the reference and not necessarily on the date when the cause occurs . Reference can be made to a precedent in Western India Match Co. Ltd. (1970 ( II ) LLJ 256).

15. What a substantial or considerable number of workmen would be in a given case , depend on particular facts of the case . The fact that an " industrial dispute " , is supported by other workmen will have to be established " either in the form of a resolution of the union of which workman may be member or of the workmen themselves who support the dispute or in any other manner . From the mere fact that a general union , at whose instance an "industrial dispute" concerning an individual workman is referred for adjudication , has on its roll a few of the workmen of the establishment as its members , it cannot be inferred that the individual dispute has been converted into an " industrial dispute " . The Tribunal has therefore , to consider the question as to how many of the fellow workman actually expoused the cause of the concerned workman by participating in the particular resolution of the Union. In the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal , it cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute. Nevertheless , in order to make a dispute an industrial dispute, it is not necessary that there should always be a resolution of substantial or appreciable number of workmen. What is necessary is that there should be some express or collective will of a substantial or an appreciable member ofthe workmen treating the cause ofthe individual workman as their own cause . Law to this effect was laid in P.Somasundrameran ( 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 558 ) .

18. Here in the case a dispute was referred by All India Bank Staff Association . As emerge out of the rejoinder filed by the said association before the Conciliation Officer, Ved Parkash was member of the said association since October , 2001. It has not been projected by the Association that majority of employees of State Bank of India , Delhi Zone are its members . No evidence worth name was brought over the record that majority of the employees or considerable number of the employees of the management espoused the dispute under reference . No evidence has been brought to the light that the dispute of Ved Prakash was supportedby appreciable number of employees of the State Bank of India . A microscopic number of the employees of the State Bank of India can not espouse the claim of Shri Ved Prakash . The management could dispel the claim of the Association to the effect that it was competent to espouse cause of Shri 16. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is a registered trade union or a recognized trade union . Once it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored the workman's cause , it is sufficient to convert it into an industrial dispute . In Pardeep Lamp Works ( 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 507) complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were filed before the conciliation officer by the individual workmen themselves . But their case was subsequently

1117 GI /10-10 1836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/CHAITRA 20 , 1932

[PART 11-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] VedPrakash . Consequently submissions advanced by the management are to be accepted on that count . Cause of Ved Prakash was not espoused properly and it had not acquired the character of an industrial dispute .

19. Bed - rock of the case of the claimant is based on paragraph 557 of the Sastry Award . Therefore , it is expedient to consider the contents of the said paragraph . For sake of convenience contents of para 557 of Sastry Award are reproduced hereinunder as follows :

"557. Having considered the matter in all its aspects we think that subsistence allowance should be granted on the following scale :-

"( i) For the first three months one- third of the pay and allowances which the workman would have got but for the suspension:

up the investigation and filed a charge sheet against him before a court of competent jurisdiction . Trial of the said criminal case is under process . Therefore , it is not the case where the C.B.I. came to the conclusion that the claimant was not to be prosecuted for his acts of omission or commission . He is being prosecuted for offences punishable under Section 419, 420, 467 , 468 , 471 read with 120 B of the Penal Code . Contents of clause ( a) ( iii ) of the Bipartite Settlement contains two limbs. In first limb a suspended employee is to be paid full pay and allowances as subsistence allowance , after one year of his suspension if the enquiry is not delayed for reasons attributable to him or any of his representative . First limb deals with the enquirities which are being conducted by the banks . As is evident case of the workman does not fall in the first limb ofthe aforesaid clause .

(2) thereafter where the enquiry is departmental by the bank , one -half of the pay and allowance for the succeeding months . "Where the enquiry is by outside agency, one- third of the pay and allowances for the next three months and thereafter one- half for the succeeding months until the enquiry is over" .

20. The aforesaid provisions of Sastry Awards were modified by Bipartite Settlement dated 8-9-83 . The provisions of the Bipartite Settlement are reproduced hereinunder :

22. Second limb of the said clause projects that in *case investigation is done by the outside agency and the said agency came to a conclusion not to prosecute the employee then he shall get full pay and allowances after six months from the date of receipt of the report of such agency or after one year of his suspension , whichever is later and in the event that the enquiry was not detailed for reasons attributable to him or any of his representatives . Second limb creates a right in favour of the suspended employee to get full pay and allowances as subsistence allowance in the following three contingencies :

(i ) Outside agency gave a report not to prosecute, him.

"In partial modification of para 557 of the Sastry Award and paragraph 17.14 of the Desai Award, the following provisions shall apply in regard to payment of subsistence allowance to workman under suspension in respect of the banks listed in schedule 1 :

( ii) A period ofsix months has expired after receipt by the outside agency , or a period of one year has expired from the date of his suspension , which ever is later , and

(a) where the investigation is not entrusted to or . taken up by an outside agency ( i.e. Police/ C.B.I. ) , subsistence allowance will be payable at the following rates:

(iii) Delay in the enquiry by the outside agency is not attributable to him or any of his representative.

(i) For the first 3 months 1/3 ofthe pay and allowances which the workman would have got but for the suspension .

(ii ) Thereafter 1/2 of the pay & allowances .

( iii) After one year , full pay and allowances

23. As detailed above , the C.B.I. investigated and filed a charge sheet against the claimant . Therefore , case of the claimant does not fall either in second limb or first limb of the clause ( a ) ( iii) . His case falls within clause ( a) ( ii) of the aforesaid Bipartite Settlement wherein it has been provided that after three months of his suspension he will get 50% of his pay and allowances as subsistence allowance . Consequently it is evident that the claimant is not entitled for his full wages and allowances as subsistence allowance .

if the enquiry is not delayed for reasons attributable to the concerned workman or any of his representatives . Where investigation is done by an outside agency and the said agency has come to the conclusion not to prosecute the employee , full pay and allowances will be payable after 6 months from the date of the receipt of the report of such agency , or one year after suspension , whichever is latter and in the event the enquiry is not delayed for the reasons attributable to the workman or any of his representative " .

24. Claimant laid emphasis on circular Ex . WI and letter Ex . W2 . Ex . W1 projects that period of suspension of anemployee should be kept to the barest minimum . It lays down guidelines for the authorities to take steps to revoke suspension orders . An emphasis is laid on the authorities to have necessary consultation with C.B.I. C.I.D./Police or appropriate agencies for revoking suspension order 21. As projected by the parties a criminal case was registered against the workman by the C.B.1 . C.B.I. took [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1837 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20, 1932

and to allow a suspended employee to resume his duties. Guidelines laid therein are reproduced as under :

"(i) The disciplinary authority should decide about reinstatement of an official on its own where the decision to suspend was taken by the authority itself.

26. In view of the aforesaid discussion it is concluded that the reference is not complaint and the claimant is not entitled to fuil pay and allowances > subsistence allowance on being under suspension . Action of the management in denying full subsistence allowance to the claimant is legal and justified. The claimant is not entitled to any relief in that regard . However , management isduty bound to follow guidelines contained in Ex.W-1 scruplously. An award is accordingly passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: 26-2-20 10

( ii ) Where the suspension was resorted to in consultation with , or it was brought to the notice of the Central Office at any time , detailed recommendations for reinstatement should be submitted to.

DR. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2010

का. आ. 939.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एन. सी. रेलवे प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-। दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ( 27/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41012/ 118/2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th March , 2010

4. Inorder to ensure that the above instructions are scrupulously observed , all cases of suspension may please be reviewed regularly, at intervals of6 months , particularly those where officials are under suspension for more than six months , and wherever it is found that the official may be allowed to resume duties by transferring him from his post to another post and where necessary in consultation withCBI / CID/police or other appropriate agencies , orders shouldbe issued for revoking the suspension and allowing the official to resume duties with further direction as may be considered desirable in each individual case after obtaining administrative clearance from this Office . The review should not , however , be done in a haphazard way and it must be borne in mind that revocation of suspension does not prejudice the criminal or Departmental proceedings .

S. O. 939. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 27/2006 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- ILabour Court- 1 , Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Disputebetween the management of N. C. Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 16-3-2010 .

5. The above instructions will apply mutatis- mutandis in respect of disciplinary cases /suspensions involving the staff members covered by the Industrial Disputes Act , care being taken to ensure that no provisions ofthe Award ( s ), laws applicable in their case are violated .

[No. L-41012/ 118 /2005-1R ( B - 1 ) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO . 1 KARKARDOOMA COURTS , COMPLEX, DELHI

6. In their case the report wherever required should be made by the Disciplinary Authority to the next higher authority . The authority receiving information /report about the continued suspension of the staff member from the subordinate authority should carefully examine each case and see whether the continued suspension in that case is absolutely necessary or the suspension can be revoked by transferring the staff member to another office . "

Industrial Dispute No. 27/2006

Shri Ram Abhilash Singh S/ o Batuni , Village Selraha Paschim , Distt. Kaushambi ( U.P.) Kaushambi (U.P. ) .

...Workman

Versus

The Chief Medical Officer , N. C. Railway, Allahabad , Allahabad .

25. The claimant has also placed reliance on order Ex. W -2 on the strength of which suspension of Balvinder Singh Walia was revoked and he was allowed to resume hisduties subject to the conditions detailed therein . Thrust of contention advanced on behalf of the workman has beenthat his suspension should be revoked and he should be allowed to resume duties pending trial of the criminal case. In view of the guidelines laid in Ex . W - 1 and order passed in the case of Balvinder Singh Walia which are Ex . W2 it is emphasized on the management to scrupulously follow the guidelines laid in Ex . W - 1 andto review suspension order of the claimant , after consultation with the C.B.Ι.

...Management [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10, 2010 /CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1838

AWARD

submissions on behalf of the workman . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:-

Ram Abhilash Singh worked as summer waterman at Railway Hospital, Fatehpur, North Central Railway , Allahabad . His services were not continued after 15-8-87. Hemade a representation to Divisional Railway Manager , North Central Railway , Allahabad for reappointment and regularization of his services . When no response was received , he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No.L-41012 / 118/2005- IR (B - I ), New Delhi dated 1-8-2006, with the following terms :-

6. As emerge out of the claim statement filed by Shri Ram Abhilash , he worked at Railway Hospital , Fatehpur, North Central Railway , Allahabad as casual summer waterman . He served from 24-4-84 to 15-8-84 , 25-4-85 το 15-8-85 , 17-4-86 to 15-8-86 and 28-4-87 to 15-8-87 . Therefore , it is evident that he worked for 114 days in the year 1984 , for 105 days in the year 1985, for 106 daysin 1986 and for 105 days in 1987. He worked for 27 days during Khumb Mela (Vidhyanchal ) . Therefore , it is crystal clear that at no point of time he rendered 120 days service in a calander year.

"Whether the action of the Divisional Railway Manager , North Central Railway , Allahabad in denying temporary status w.e.f. 15-8-87 to Shri Ram Abhilash S / o Batuni , Hot Wheather Waterman employed at Fatehpur under Medical Officer , Allahabad but terminating him from the service w.e.f. 16-8-1987 is justified ? If not to what relief the concerned applicant is entitled to and from what date?"

7. A" seasonal workman " is engaged in a job which lasts during a particular season only , while a temporary workman may be engaged either for a work of temporary or casual nature or temporarily for work of a permanent nature, but a permanent workman is one who is engaged in a work of permanent nature only . The distinction between permanent workman engaged on a work of permanent nature and a temporary workman engaged on a work of permanent nature is , in fact, that a temporary workman is engaged to fill in a temporary need of extra hands of permanent jobs . Thus when a workman is engaged on a work of permanent nature which lasts throughout the year , it is expected that he would continue there permanently unless he is engaged to fill in a temporary need . In other words a workman is entitled to expect permanency ofhis service . Law to this effect was laid by theApex Court in Jaswant Sugar Mills [ 1961 ( 1 ) LJ 649 ] .

2. Claim statement was filed by the workman pleading therein that he worked as casual summer waterman under North Central Railway, Allahabad from 24-4-84 to 15-9-89 and his name figures at Sl . No.24 of the list of casual employees . He served from 24-4-84 to 15-8-84 , 20-4-85 to 15-8-85 , 17-4-86 to 15-8-86 and 28-4-87 to 15-8-87. According to him, he worked for 430 days with the management during the period referred above . He worked in Khumb Mela (Vindhyanchal ) alsofrom 10-1-89 to 15-2-89 . His services were dispensed with on 16-8-87. He presents that letter dated 11-12-96 was issued by the Ministry of Labour for regularization ofall casual labours , who worked in railways for a number of years . According to him, he is entitled for reinstatement and regularisation of his services .

8. It has not been shown by the workman that he was appointed against a permanent vacancy or against a work ofpermanent nature . Consequently it is evident that theworkman was appointed against a work of casual nature only. A casual or temporary workman would not acquire permanency of tenure merely because he is employed in a permanent department or given some benefit ordinarily enjoyed by the permanent workman . Such proposition was laid in Rohtas industries Limited V s . Brijnandan Pandey [1956 (2) LLJ 4-44].

3. Contest was given to his claim by the management pleading that Ram Abhilash was engaged during summer seasons for supply of water . He worked for different speils but never worked continuously for 120 days for grants of a temporary status . His services were purely of casual in nature . Circular dated 11-12-96 is not applicable to him , since he was not in service on that date . His claim is liable to be dismissed .

4.During adjudication process , the workman opted to abandon the proceedings . None appeared on his behalf on 17-9-2009. The Tribunal proceeded with the matter under rule 22 of Industrial Disputes ( Central ) Rules 1957 . Shri Jatta Shankar Tiwari tendered his affidavit as evidence onbehalf ofthe management.

9. Some casual workmen employed in a Canteen , raised demand of permanency in service . The Tribunal directed that from particular date . they should be treated as probationer and appointed in permanent vacancy without going into the question as to whether more than permanent workmen were necessary to be appointed in the canteen , over and above the existing permanent strength to justify the making of the casual workman as permanent , where they were working . Neither there was any permanent vacancy in existence nor the Tribunal directed for creation of new posts . When the matter reached 5. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Neeraj Kumar, authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the management . None was there to raise 1839

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the Apex Court , it was announced that the Tribunal was not justified in making these directions . The workman may be made permanent only against permanent vacancies and not otherwise , announced the Apex Court in Hindustan Aeronautics Limited Vs. their workmen ( 1975 ( II ) LLJ 336) .

prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange , where eligible candidate get their names registered . Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Union without issuing advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under article. 16 of the Constitution" .

10. In Uma Devi [ 2006 (4 ) SCC I ] the Apex Court considered the proposition as to whether the persons who got employment , without following ofa regular procedure or even from the back door or on daily wages can be ordered to be made permanent in their posts , to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned . Catena of decisions over the subject were considered and the court declined the submissions of the workmen to be made permanent on the posts , which were held by them in temporary or adhoc capacity for a fairly long spell . The Court ruled thus :

12. In P.Chandra Shekhara Rao and Others [2006 ( 7 ) SCC488 ] the Apex Court referred Uma Devi's Case ( Supra ) with approval . It also relied itsdecision in a Uma Rani [2004 ( 7 ) SCC 112 ] and ruled that no regularization is permissible in exercise of statutory powers conferred in Article 162 of the Constitution , if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules . In Somveer Singh [ 2006 (5 ) SCC 493 ] the Apex Court ruled that appointment made without following due procedure cannot be regularized .

13. In view of the facts detailed above , Shri Ram Ahilash Singh , a casual employce , who was engaged in violation of the rules , cannot expect his reinstatement in the services . Under these circumstances it is clear that no evidence was brought over the record to direct the management for his reinstatement in service . Since he had never rendered continuous service of 120 days in a calandar year, temporary status was not accorded to him. Action of the management cannot be faulted on that count. Shri Ram Abhilash is not entitled to any relief.

14. The claimant was engaged for seasonal job for specific period . When his term of employment came to an end, his services were disengaged . He was never engaged against a work of permanent in nature and that too in consonance with recruitment rules . He cannot claim reinstatement in service of the management. His claim statement is devoid of merits . The same is , therefore , dismissed. An award is accordingly passed. DATED: 26-2-2010

"With respect , why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts ? This Court , in our view, is bound to insists on the State making regular and proper recruitments , and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistent transgression ofthe rules of regular recruitment . The direction to make permanent the distinction between regularization and making permanent , was not emphasized here - can only encourage the State , the modal employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on a few at the cost of many waitingto compete . With respect the directions made in Piara Singh [ 1992 ( 4 ) SCC 118 ] is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 of the said judgement therein. With great respect , it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision . Really , it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad- hoc , temporary or casual employees engaged without following a regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent. "

DR . R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 16 मार्च , 2010

11. Taking note of some of recent decisions , the Apex Court held that the State does not enjoy a power to make appointments in terms of article 162 of the Constitution . The Court quoted its decision in Girish Jyanti Lal Vaghela [ 2006 ( 2 ) SCC 482 ] with approval , wherein it was ruled thus .

का. आ. 940.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या ( 1/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 16-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12025/ 1/2010- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 16th March , 2010

S. O. 940. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central "The appointment to any post under the State can only be made after a proper advertisement has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and holding of a selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose members are fair and impartial through a written examination or interview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in response to the advertisement made . A regular appointment to the post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the 1840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 1/2005 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 16-3-2010 .

[No. L- 12025/ 1 /2010 - IR( B - II) ]

U. S. PANDEY, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 27th day of January, 2010 Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 1/2005

BETWEEN

... Petitioner Shri Kasaram Venkateswara Goud, S/ o Sriramulu , R/o 17-1-391 /S/423 , Singareni , Colony, Saidabad , Hyderabad.

AND

1. The Zonal Manager , Syndicate Bank , Somajiguda, Hyderabad .

2. The General Manager ,

Syndicate Bank ,

Head Office , Manipal , Karnataka .

...Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : M/s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy & B. V. Chandra Sekhar , Advocates For the Respondent : M/ s . Alluri Krishnam Raju , G. V. N. Babu , N.P. Rao . A. B. S. Reddy, N. V. Kumar, T. L. Narayana & R. J. Prakash , Advocates .

AWARD

This petition has been filed by Sri K. Venkateswara Goud for his reinstatement with full back wages under Sec. 2 A (2) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M / s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others and numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No. 1 / 2005 and notices were issued to the parties .

2. The case was contestedby the Respondent management . However, on 27th January , 2010 both parties called present and Petitioner Sri K. Venkateswara Goud filed memo stating therein that the Bank has agreed to appoint him as attender and he does not want to press this petition and want to withdraw his claim .

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 3. In light of this memo dated 27-1-2010 , the petition isdismissed as withdrawn and hence , the award. No order has been passed .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 27th day of January , 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

MWI : Sri S. Subba Rao WWI : Sri K. Venkateshwara

Goud

Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex.W1 Copy of appointment letterdt . 13-2-1982 ExW2 : Copy ofoffice Ir.dt . 2-12-1987 from Branch manager , Pathhergatti Branch

Ex. W3 : Copy of service certificate issued by the Res- pondent bank dt. 9-4-91

Ex . W4 Copy of service certificate issued by the Res- pondent bank dt . 15-12-97

Ex. W5 Copy of Ir . dt . 21-4-82 issued by Respondent Ex. W6 Copy of seniority list of temporary attendars in Respondent bank

Ex. W7 Copy of district- wise panel of candidates atta- chedto Hyderabad city division

Ex.W8 Copy of lr.dt . 17-1-2001 of regional office (CITY) , Hyderabad

Ex. W9 Copy of telegramdt. 20-4-1995

Ex.W10 : Copies of Service certificates issued by the to W34 Respondent bank WWI

Ex. W35 : Copy of officer Ir. dt . 31-1-1998 by Respondent bank

Ex.W36 : Copy of particulars of temporary employees of Respondent bank

Ex. W37 : Copies of Service certificates issued by the toW90 Respondent bank to WWI

Ex.W91 : Copy of letter disclosing the currency chest of Respondent bank

Ex. W92 : Copies of Service certificates issued by the to 102 Respondent bank WWI

Ex. W103: Copy of the cheque dated 29-6-2002 Ex. W104: Copies of Service certificates issued by the to W107 Respondent bank WWI

Ex. W108: Copy of index disclosing the details of service of the Petitioner in Respondent bank Documents marked for the Respondent NIL [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1841 नई दिल्ली , 17 मार्च , 2010

For the Respondent

Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri ,

: M/ s . P. A. V. V. S. Sarma & Advocates.

AWARD

का.आ. 941.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एस.सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( एल.सी. संख्या 74/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-03-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

The Petitioner has filed this petition under Sec . 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 in light of the judgement of the Hon'ble Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri.U. Chinnappa andM/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others .

[सं. एल-22012/1/2010-आई आर ( सी- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 17th March , 2010

S.O. 941. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Hyderabad (L.C.I.D. No. 74/2007) as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. and their workmen , which was received bythe Central Government on 17-03-2010.

2. It has been stated by the Petitioner that he was appointed on 4-2-88 and he discharged his duties to the full satisfaction of Respondent till the date of his removal in the year 2006. He has further stated that his services are governed by company's standing orders and he has put in 18 years of qualified service . The Respondent issued a charge sheet in the year 2004 for absenteeism under 25.25 ofthe standing orders of the company and dismissed the Petitioner from the services . The Petitioner was charged with the following allegations , that the Petitioner has put 154 musters in 2002 year and 118 musters in the year 2003 and 65 musters in the year 2005 and 41 musters upto 31-5-2005 .

[No. L-22012/ 1 /2010 - IR (C - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Present : - Shri Ved Prakash Gaur , Presiding Officer Dated the 28th day of January , 2010

Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 74/2007

BETWEEN

Sri Jaleel Khan , S/ o Ghafzar Khan

Flood Colony,

Naspoor CCC Post CCC Naspur,

District . Adilabad .

.Petitioner

AND

1 . The General Manager,

M/ s.Singareni Collicries Company Ltd. ,

Indaramkhani Chennur .

PostChennur . Dist . Adilabad .

2. The Managing Director ,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. ,

Kothagudem Post ,

Khammam District

Respondents

APPEARANCES

For the Petitioner : Sri S. Bhagawanth Rao , Advocate

3. He has further contended that his wife died in the year 2004 and his three children have become orphans due towhich he could not attend to his job properly in the year 2004. There was no elderly member in his family to take care of his children , the Petitioner submitted medical certificates before the competent authority but not consideredby them . He has further contended that due to death of his wife the health of the Petitioner started deteriorating day by day and he became ill and he took treatment in Sai Orthopadic Hospital . He also sustained an accident in course of employment and have taken treatment in Colliery Hospital from 12-2-2005 to 12-1-2006 . Thus , there was no fault in attending dutyby the Petitioner. The Petitioner has contended that he is illiterate man and he knows only to sign " Zallel Khan " in English . He was not given any opportunity to cross - examine management witness . His signature was obtained on English typed paper without explaining the contents . So he claimed to look into the validity ofthe domestic enquiry as well . He has further alleged that the removal of the Petitioner from the services is against law and facts and is highly arbitrary, illegal and violative ofthe principles of natural justice . The punishment ofthe dismissal from service is the last punishment under the standing order of the company, but Respondent has taken extreme steps of dismissal of the Petitioner from the services. The Respondent has issued final letter dated 30-3-2007 . Hence cause of action arose from that day. The Petitioner has got no job despite his best efforts and Petitioner as well as his children are suffering due to unemployment of the Petitioner . The Petitioner has prayed thatthe dismissal order be set aside and he be reinstated in the services of the Respondent with all service benefits with full back wages .

[PART II--Sic. 3 (ii ) | 1842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL , 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

5. So far as the question of legality and validity of the departmental enquiry is concerned, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner moved a memo dated 7-7-2009 conceding the legality and validity of the domestic enquiry, as such , the domestic enquiry was held to be legal and valid .

6. I have heard Learned Counsel for the Pentioner as well as that of the Respondent and I have gone through the documentary evidence produced by Petitioner as well as that of the Respondent management . Petitioner has filed his application dated 30-3-2007 for reconsideration of dismissal order . He has also filed dismissal order dated 29-3-2006 through which he informed that he has been dismissed from the services w.e.f. 1-4-2006 . He has tiled discharge card of Singareni Colliery Hospital dated 12-1-2006 wherein the date of admission and date of discharge has been over - written . Notice dated 17-8-2005 calling him to submit his representation if any against the finding of Enquiry Officer . He has also filed extract of enquiry proceeding and enquiry report , prescription of Sai Orthopaedic Hospital dated 19-10-2005 and 10-12-2005, copy of the certificate from Singareni Collieries Medical Department showing his date of unfit 4-2-2005 and date of fitness 10-3-2005 . Attendance certificate dated 17-2-2004 issued by superintendent of Mines showing that he has attended his duty in the year 2001 for 222 musters, in the year 2002 for 154 musters and in the year 2003 118 musters . Xerox copy of the certificate of the Area Hospital , Ramakrishnapur showing that Zallel Khan has suffered with later Malleolus Rt . Fracture . This injury is classified as serious . He has also filed xerox copy of death certificate of his wife Rukshana which shows that death of hiswife occurred on 12-9-2002 . Xerox copy of certificate dated 2-11-2005 , xerox copy of the accident report dated 11-10-2005 showing that Zallel Khan, Coal filler met with accident on 11-10-2005. He has also filed xerox copy of SSC Marksheet of his daughter , xerox copy of confidential letter of M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company 1.td... dated 21-1-2006 issued by Additional C.M.O. , to the Colliery Manager, informing him that Zallel Khan is a case of accident while on duty on 11-10-2005 and he was treated at Area Hospital , Ramakrishnapur . He is advices to go down the mine to work spot and come up for a period of 10 days . Xerox copy of out- patient ticket dated 10-12-2005 , office order dated 1-1-1990 for empanelment of his name as badli coal filler . Photo copy of death certificate of his wife Rukhshana and serious accident reports .

7. Respondent management has filed charge sheet dated 10-6-2005 , enquiry notice dated 13-6-2005 , enquiry proceeding running in five pages , enquiry report ranning in four pages notice dated 17-8-2005 and dismissal order dated 29-3-2006 intimating the Petitioner that his services were hereby dismissed w.e.f. 1-4-2006 . Proceeding and action taken thereon show that he was dismissed from 4. Respondent has filed counter statement and has contended that the Respondent company is a Central Government undertaking and it operates the mines . The proper procedure to entertain an industrial dispute is after failure ofconciliation proceedings which has not been done in this case . The Respondent has contended that the Petitioner of the instant case does not deserve any sympathy on account of his unauthorized absenteeism because he did not choose to offer explanation to the charge sheet issuedto him . During the course of enquiry, the Enquiry Officer explained the entire proceeding in Telugu , the language which is understood by the Petitioner . Further the Petitioner has to cross - examine the management witness during the course of enquiry. It is note worthy that the Petitioner remained unauthorisedly absent during the year 2003 and have put in only 180 days musters . The Petitioner did not choose to perform his job and in the year 2004 he attended only 65 days musters . He did not improve himself ever after issue of the charge sheet and in the year 2005 till 31-8-2005 he has attended only 83 days musters . This proves that the Petitioner has no intention to work . He has admitted his misconduct and his conduct shows that he do not want to reform himself, thus , no option was left with the Respondent except to dismiss the Petitioner from the services . It has further been contended by Respondent that on account of unauthorised absenteeism the Petitioner was issued charge sheet dated 10-6-2005 as he has worked for 65 days only during the year 2004 which amount to misconduct under company's standing order No. 25. 25 . After receipt of the charge sheet Petitioner did not submit any explanation for his inability to perform the duties, as such an enquiry was conducted by giving full and fair opportunity to Petitioner and after detailed enquiry, EnquiryOfficer held that the charges were proved against the Petitioner . During the course of enquiry Petitioner deposed that his wife expired in the year 2004 due to which he could not attend to his duties properly . But this problem was never brought to the notice of the management during the period of absenteeism . The contention of Petitioner that he met with the accident and remained hospitalized for a period w.e.f. 12-2-2005 to 12-1-2006 has not been proved by the Petitioner nor it was brought to the notice of the competent authority. Petitioner was afforded proper opportunity to cross - examine the management witness but he has refused to cross examine the witnesses . A show cause notice was issued to the Petitioner on the basis of the finding of the Enquiry Officer calling upon the Petitioner to submit his representation but the Petitioner did not submit any reply even after receipt of the notice as such , his services were terminated in the light of clause 25.25 of the standing orders and in the light of the case law reported in 1996 ( 1 ) SCC page 302 in the matter of State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh and another and the Hon'ble Supreme Court's latest judgment in (Ashappa's case) . The petition has got no force and deserves to be dismissed .

1843 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the services . The enquiry report and enquiry proceeding document show that the Petitioner has not submitted any document during the course of the enquiry . Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued before this court thatthe Petitioner was not given opportunity to cross examine the witnesses of the management nor the contention raised by the Petitioner was considered by Enquiry Officer . The Petitioner has informed the Enquiry Officerthat hiswife expired in the year 2004 and due to the death of his wife he could not attend to his duties because he had three young children and there was none to look after the children of the Petitioner .

He has admitted that it is the mistake on his part for not informing his superiors about his family condition and he has not given leave application. He has stated that he reported sick in company hospital from 15-11-2004 to 31- 12-2004 . But no evidence was produced by the Petitioner . Thus , the Enquiry Officer has held that the Petitioner was habitual absentee and had put in only 65 musters during the year 2004. He did not informed his superiors or Respondent company about his absenteeism nor he has applied for any type of leave . This shows the contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that Petitioner wasnot afforded opportunity to cross examine management witnesses is baseless and unacceptable . So far as the cause of absence is concerned , the Petitioner has contended and stated before the Enquiry Officer that due to death of his wife he remained absent . The Petitioner did not file or produce any evidence regarding the date of death of his wife before the Enquiry Officer , however, he has submitted xerox copy ofdeath certificate of his wife Rukhshana before this tribunal which otherwise proves thatthe wife of Petitionc, died on 12-9-2002 . If the cause of absence of the Petitioner was sudden death of his wife , his wife expired in September , 2002 wherein the Petitioner has put in 154 musters during the year 2002. However he has put in 118 musters during the year 2003, but remained absent in 2004 thus the contention of Petitioner that he remained absent due to death of his wife is not correct and against own evidence of Petitioner . Had the cause of absence been the death of Petitioner's wife , it was the year 2002 and 2003 which could have been justified for the absence of the Petitioner due to death of his wife . But the Petitioner has been issued charge sheet for his absence during the year 2004 which year he has put in only 65 musters which can not be said to be the cause of wife's death. Because , the Petitioner's wife expired about 12 years before starting the year 2004 , thus , what was the cause of the Petitioner's absence during the year 2004 has not been explainedby the Petitioner . The explanation given by Petitioner before this court through this petition is neither tenable nor based on factual matrix because the evidence prove that Petitioner's wife expired in the year 2002 itself. This court has every sympathy for the Petitioner and his children due to the sudden demise of his wife , but the absence of the Petitioner in the year 2004 is not the cause of demise of the wife of Petitioner.

9. During course of enquiry Petitioner stated that he did not informed his superiors regarding his absence nor he applied for any type of leave . However , he argued before this Court that he was met with a serious accident due to which he could not attend to his duties but evidence submitted by Petitioner itself proves that Petitioner met with accident in the month of November , 2005. This also can not substantiate the contention of the Petitioner that his absence during the year 2004 was cause of accident or fracture of his wrist .

10. From the above discussion and evidence available on record this tribunal has come to the conclusion 8. As against this contention of the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner the Learned Counsel for the Respondent has replied that Petitioner was issued with a charge sheet and he was asked to submit his explanation but Petitioner has not submitted any explanation to the said charge sheet . In proof of this contention he has craved the attention of this court towards the enquiry proceeding, the original proceeding book has been submitted by him . On the very first page of this enquiry proceeding the presence of Zallel Khan has been mentioned and he was put on a question regarding receipt of the charge sheet to which he has replied in affirmative . He has been asked whether he has given any reply to the charge sheet , to which he has replied in negative . There is signature of Zallel Khan on this proceeding sheet which has not been challenged by the Petitioner before this tribunal . Not only that it was asked to the Petitioner whether he is feeling guilty of the charges , to which he replied he is pleading guilty of the charges . He has declined to seek assistance from any other person , this shows that the charge sheet was given to the Petitioner which was not replied by him and during the course of the enquiry he has pleaded guilty . Specific statement was given by Respondent's witness, A. Murthy , Office Superintendent , who has stated that Zallel Khan has put in 65 musters , during 2004 he remained absentwithout obtaining leave and without prior intimation. No question was asked by Zallel Khan from Mr. N.Murthy though opportunity was given to Mr. Zallel Khan to cross examine the witnesses but he has not cross examined . The statement of Mr. N. Murthy has been substantiated by V.V. Appa Reddy, Paysheet Clerk who has stated during the course ofenquiry that during the year 2004 from January , 2004 to December , 2004 the Petitioner has remained absent for 247 days . He has submitted xerox copies of attendance register . The statement was recorded in the presence of Petitioner and he was asked to cross examine the witness , but has not cross examined . The proceeding book further shows that statement of Mr. Zallel Khan was also recorded bythe Enquiry Officer . He has stated that he received charge sheet No. CH . 2 / R.3/2005/ 1149 dated 10-6-2005 . He has further stated that he remained absent for 247 days unauthorisedly without sanctioned leave or without sufficient cause through out the year 2004. He has stated thatdue to sudden death of his wife his family condition has become disturbed , his three children have become orphans and he could not attend to his duties regularly .

1117GI /10-11 [PART II SHC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL, 10, 2010 /CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1844

नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 942.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 70/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-03-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/145/2007- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th March , 2010 that the Petitioner's absence during the year 2004 for a period of 247 days was without any sufficient reason and cause and without or intimation and prior leave from his superiors . This is grave misconduct within 25.25 of the standing orders to which Petitioner's services are governed . Learned Counsel for Petitioner has argued that provision ofclause 25.25 of Standing Orders of the company has got no statutory force but I am not convinced with this argument because the service condition of Petitioner is governed by standing order of company as such, it has statutory force and it regulate the condition of service of the Petitioner as stated by him in his claim petition, thus , the Respondent management has committed no mistake nor any illegality in dismissing the Petitioner from the services and penalty imposed by the management is neither excessive nor disproportionate to misconduct as ' heldby Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ashok Kumar Singh and another Vs. State of U.P. and others , Petitioner does not deserve any sympathy from this court , there is no merit in the petition.

S.O. 942. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 70/2007) ofthe 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 18-3-2010 .

[No. L - 12012/ 145/2007 - IR ( 3-1 ) | SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Wednesday, the 10th March , 2010

Present : A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No.70/2007

(In the metter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d) ofs - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (4 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , between the Management of State Bank of India and their Workman)

11. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has submitted before this tribunal to consider the petition on sympathetic ground because the Petitioner along with his three minor children are facing economical crisis due to the non- employment of the Petitioner . I have considered this argument . No doubt , the children of Petitioner are minor and Petitioner would be facing hardship and crisis due to the non - employment but for his non -employment and economical crises no other than the Petitioner is responsible and it is Petitioner who has forced himself and his children to face starvation and economical crisis , and this can not be a good ground for sympathetic and lenient attitude towards the person who being a young man is not interested to his duties by not performing to his job and remained absent without any reasonable or sufficient cause thereby losing his job and thus he can not be looked with any leniency or sympathy there is no merit in this argument as well . He does not deserve any sympathy from this tribunal . There is no merit in this petition and deserves to be dismissed and accordingly this petition isdismissed and hence , this Award .

Between

Award passed accordingly . Transmit.

Sri . A. Joseph

: I Party/Petitioner Vs. II Party/Managemen Dictated to Sint . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 28th day of January, 2010.

VED PRAKASII GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

The General Manager State Bank of India Circle Top House, 16, College Road Chennai- 600006

APPEARANCE

Witnesses examined for

: M/s . Balan Haridas Witnesses examined for the Respondent

thePetitioner

NIL

M/ s . K. S. Sundar

For the Ist Party / Petitioner For the 2nd Party/ Management

Documents marked for the Petitioner NIL

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. 1-12012 / 145 / 2007-1R ( B - 1 ) dated Documents marked for the Respondent NIL 1845

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

14-11-2007 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofIndia in discharging the services of Sri A. Joseph , islegal andjustified ? If not to what reliefthe workman concerned is entitled ? "

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 70/2007 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their Claim and Counter statement as the case may be.

3. The facts necessary for disposal ofthe ID averred in the Claim Statement are as follows :

The petitioner travelled in car with number TMT 4216 of Kasi with Driver I.S. Vadivel . They have supported petitioner's journey in the car . Kasi deposed that receipt was issued by him using the Letter Head of Ramya Travels as a usual practice . The petrol/diesel bill , parking ticket etc. could not be produced due to the delayed initiation ofthe Charge Sheet after 5 years putting the petitioner into great prejudice . Taking into account the earlier punishment of censure without notice , punishment of discharge is imposed in violation of natural justice and fair play. The Appellate Authority saddled in the same way as the DisciplinaryAuthority . The enquiry was conducted against the principles of natural justice and fair play. The punishment is illegal . It is also grossly disproportionate and the same is liable to be " interfered with under Section - 11A of the ID Act . The petitioner is without employment . It is prayed that the punishment be held illegal and same be set aside and the petitioner be reinstated into service with all benefits .

4.The allegations in the Counter Statement bereft of unnecessary details are as follows :

The petitioner had been dismissed once with effect from 1-9-1984 for the misconduct of claiming false bill of Rs. 3,810/ - . As per ID award dated 20-11-1995 , he was reinstated . The dispute is related to the present discharge . The petitioner had been subjected to three disciplinary proceedings . Delay in charge sheeting was on account verification purpose . The petitioner is not prejudiced thereby . The charges were proved in the enquiry . The vouchers were not genuine and the vehicle was not a taxi . The bank lost confidence in him . The punishment is commensurate with the gravity of the charges . The past record ofthe petitioner was not favourable . One disciplinary proceedings against him is kept in abeyance . The claim is only to be dismissed.

5. The evidence consists of the oral evidence ofWWI and Ex . WI to Ex . W9 marked on the petitioner's side . On the side of the management Ex.MI was marked and no oral evidence was adduced . The marking of the documents was on mutual consent .

6. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the discharge of the petitioner from service by the Respondent/Management is legal and justified?

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

Point Nos . ( i) & ( ii)

7. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the charge sheet issued is belated and is for collateral purposes after 5 years . The socalled investigation report on which the action was based was not given to the petitioner . The delay is not explained . That the journey was not conducted by the petitioner is not proved . The finding is perverse . The appeal was rejected arbitrarily.

The petitioner/cashier in MRL Manali branch of the Respondent/ Bank was suspended on 22-01-1997 for an alleged indecent and disorderly behavior on 21-01-1997 . On 19-03-1997 Charge Memo was issued levelling 5 charges towhich the petitioner submitted explanation on 20-03-1997 denying the allegations . He was Charge Sheeted on 27-05-1999 . The first charge is that the petitioner submitted false Leave Fare Concession bill for Rs . 5,520/ claiming to have commenced journey to various places from 04-05-1994 . The second charge is that he submitted false Leave Fare Concessions for Rs . 11,052/ - claiming to have commenced journey to various places from 11-07- 1995. He was Charge Sheeted after 5 years for collateral purposes with delay not explained. An enquiry was held in which charges were not proved. The petitioner disproved the charges by examining witnesses and marking RC Book ofthe Car with no . TMT 4215 which car is proved used by the bank and MRL . In spite of that the charges were held proved. The finding is perverse and contrary to evidence . On 04-04-2001 , Show- Cause Notice proposing punishment ofdismissal without notice was issued which was replied to . On 02-06-2001 , the punishment of discharge was imposed. Appeal preferred was rejected on 03-11-2001 arbitrarily . Chargewas 19-03-1997 suspending him on 22-01-1997 in a vindictive action . The first of 5 charges is that the petitioner on 08-11-1995 left the place of work for 30 minutes , second is that on 14-11-1996, the petitioner had heated argument with customer and the cashier V. Devendran , third charge is that he was in a drunken mood on 21-01-1997, fourth charge is that he demanded Identity Card from M. Karunanidhi who came to the bank for audit , fifth charge is that he shouted at armed guard on 21-01-1997 which are denied. In the domestic enquiry , no charges were proved. He had gone out to meet a relative on information to his superior . The cashier deposed that there was no heated discussion. Demand of Identity Card from M. Karunanidhi , then a stranger to him could not be a misconduct. Charge Sheet dated 27-05-1999 was issued finding no use of the earlier charge . The evidence of Ganapathy Raman without his Investigation Report cannot be accepted . He was giving evidence against the petitioner with a predetermined mind. He Sheeted on 1846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 10 , 2010 / CHAITRA 20 , 1932

8. The contra contentions on behalf of the Respondent are that from the materials placed before the domestic enquiry the finding could be found to be correct and there is no scope for interference . The petitioner has had recurring misconducts of the nature from time to time. The Respondent/Management lost confidence on him The enquiry and the findings are proper . There is no scope for interference with punishment . The petitioner as a bank employee dealing with public money is expected to be with honestly and integrity to his duty. He has been dismissed once w.e.f. 1-9-1984 for a similar misconduct . As per ID award dated 20-11-1995 , he was reinstated . The delay in chargesheeting was the need for account verification . The delay has not prejudiced the petitioner . He has not produced genuine voucher for the journey undertaken.

9. It is noi the case of the petitioner that he has produced vouchers which was not open to challenge at the hands of the Respondent /Management . Evidently and admittedly the bill produced does not relate to the owner ofthe vehicle in which the petitioner allegedly travelled. Though the case is that the voucher of a different owner of a vehicle was produced claiming as a usual practice the same has not been substantiated by the petitioner. Conversely , the said owner of the other vehicle has also disowned his vehicle having been made use of by the petitioner for undertaking his journey . When a proposition is introduced which is not so common but is asserted as having been a usual practice , it is for that person , herein the petitioner, who has to elucidate the same. In other words, it is for the petitioner to make it clear how when the journeywas undertaken in a vehicle to vouchsafe the same the vouchers pertaining to another vehicle could meet the purpose especially when it isdisownedby the owner of the other vehicle itself. That burden has not been discharged by the petitioner . The charge against the petitioner could . be found proved in the enquiry. The finding cannot be found as perverse . The delay has been explained . The enquiry and the findings are fair and proper . The punishment is also legal and justified and therefore it is only to be upheld. The petitioner is not entitled to any relief.

10. 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 daythe 10th March , 2010 ) .

A.N.JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

For the Ist Party/Petitioner: WWI , Sri A. Joseph For the 2nd Party /Management : None.

Documents marked:

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

Ex. WI

Charge Sheet

17-2-2009

[ PART II -SFC. 3 ( ii ) ] 22-2-2009 Defense Brief

Ex. W2

Prosecution Brief Ex . W3

19-2-2000

Ex . W4

Enquiry Report along with the documents marked in the enquiry

Ex. W4 ( a)

22 documents marked by the prosecution side

Ex. W4 (b)

6 documents marked by the petitioner in the Enquiry (i) Charges Voucher (ii) Charges Voucher (iii) Charges Voucher for Rs . 120 dated 06-04-1994

( iv) Receipt issued by R.Kasi Ex. W5 04-04-2001 Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority Ex. W6 30-04-2001 Explanation given by the petitioner to Disciplinary Authority

Ex. W7 02-06-200 ; Final order passed by me Disciplinary Authority Ex. W8 17-7-2001 Appeal filed by the petitioner Ex . W9 03-11-2001 Order of the Appellate Authority

On the Management's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

20-11-1990

Ex. MI

Order passed in ID No 457 1987.

नई दिल्ली, 18 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 943.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार र लक्ष्मी विलास बैंक लिमिटेड 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 357/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-03-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-12012/ 109/2004-आई आरबी 101 सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th March, 2010 S.O. 943. In pursuance of Section 1 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) . the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 357/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Triburnt - cum- Labour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexare in the Industrial Dispute between the management of the i akshmi [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1847 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

Vilas Bank Ltd. and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18-03-2010.

[No. L- 12012/ 109/2004- IR(B -I ) ]

SURENDRA SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Tuesday, the 23rd February , 2010

Present : A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 357/2004

[ In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. and theirworkman]

BETWEEN

Sri A. Selvakumar : 1st Party/Petitioner

And

:2nd Party/Management

The Chief Manager,

The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. ,

Karur

APPEARANCE

Forthe 1st Party/Petitioner : M/s . Arunachalam & Associates

For the 2nd Party/Management : M/ s . K. Jayaraman

AWARD

The Central Government Ministry ofLabour vide order No. L- 12012/ 109/2004 - IR ( B - I) dated 13-5-2004 has referred this Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :-

"Whether the action of the management of The Lakshmi Vilas Bank Ltd. in terminating the services of Shri A. Selvakumar w.e.f. 26-2-1994 without conducting any enquiry is justified? If not , to what relief he is entitled to ? "

2. After the receipt of the reference, it was taken on file as I. D. No. 357/2004 and notices were issued to both the parties and both the parties entered appearance through their advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter Statement respectively.

3. The allegation of the Petitioner in the Claim Statement are briefly as follows :-

Taluk . He was suffering from continuous illness and has sent leave applications for four spells from 01-12-1993 to 23-02-1994 alongwith medical certificates . On 28-01-2004, the Respondent/ Management sent a communication stating that his absence from 27-10-1993 is an unauthorized one and thereby calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days from the date of notice based on Section - 17 of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-04-1989 . After receiving the said notice on 01-02-1994 , the Petitioner reported for duty on 24-02-1994 in Kandhili Branch and handed over the joining letter but the Branch Manager bluntly refused to permit the Petitioner tojoin duty . Immediately , the Petitioner sent a telegram to Divisional Manager, Salem and Chairman atKarur stating that Branch Manager is not permitting him to join duty on 24-02-2004.On the next day , he sent a telegram notice to the Manager , Kandhili Branch stating that action of the Respondent in refusing to provide job is unlawful and unethical. He also sent registered representation to Assistant General Manager through Branch Manager on 24-02-1994 . Again on 25-02-1994, he again sent a registered letter to Divisional Manager and also met the Industrial Relations Manager of Personnel Department of Respondent / Bank and told him that he was not permitted by Branch Manager to join duty and the Industrial Relations Manager advised the petitioner to act according to the instructions of Assistant General Manager . On 26-02-1994, the Petitioner sent registered letter to AGM narrating all the above facts and requested him to provide a special letter to the Branch Manager . But , the AGM has abruptly sent a communication on 28-02-1994 stating that since the Petitioner has not reported for duty till 26-02-1994 his name was deleted from 26-02-1994 without considering the various efforts taken by the Petitioner , which is illegal and deletion ofhis name from roll is without considering his representation is arbitrary and against principles ofnatural justice . Even though the Respondent/ Management alleged that all the leave applied for by the petitioner are unauthorized one , they have neither rejected nor returned the leave applications . Further , deleting the name of Petitioner from rolls on 26-02-1994 without issuing any notice, framing charges and even without conducting any enquiry is unlawful . It is a clear case of victimization done against principles of natural justice and also provisions of Section - 25F of I. D. Act . The Petitioner then filed an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under Shops & Establishment Act in TSE No. 8/94 challenging order of termination and the appeal was allowed on 13-03-1997 . Against that order , Respondent/ Management preferred a Writ Petition before the High Court andHigh Court by an order dated 12-12-2003 without going into the merits of the case , allowed the same on the ground thatauthority has no jurisdiction to decide the matter . Hence , the Petitioner raised this dispute before Commissioner of Labour (Central) . Therefore , the Petitioner prays to pass an award to set aside the order of termination and to reinstate the Petitioner into service with full backwages , continuity of service and other attendant benefits .

The Petitioner was working as a Clerk under the Respondent/Management from 1980 onwards in various branches and finally in Kandhili Branch at Thiruppathur [PART 11 SH.3 ( ii) | THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 / CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1848

5. Again , in the rejoinder, the Petitioner alleged that notice dated 28-01-1994 of the Respondent/Bank was received by him on 01-02-1994 and therefore , he has got time till 03-03-1994 . Though the Respondent alleged that the time prescribed in the notice expired on 26-02-1994, he has approached the Respondent/Bank on 24-02-1994 and submitted his joining report. Only because he was not permitted to join duty, he sent a telegram on the same day i.e. 24-02-1994 regarding actual happenings to the Asstt. General Manager , Divisional Manager and Chairman of the Respondent Bank . Even the AGM received the representation given by the Petitioner on 26-02-1994 and without considering the above representation, the AGM issued a communication dated 28-02-1994 to the effect thatthe Petitioner's name has been removed from the rolls w.e.f. 26-02-1994. Even after that he has sent a detailed reply to Divisional Manager and it was received by him on 01-03-1994 . When there was a difference of opinion regarding issue of joining duty, the Respondent Bank ought to have conducted an enquiry to clarify the issue and the Petitioner should have given an opportunity to explain the genuineness of his case . Therefore , without conducting any enquiry the order passed by the Respondent / Management is illegal and against the principles of natural justice. Even the High Court in number of decisions held that " date of notice" has to be read as " date of receipt of notice" otherwise it will be liable to be struck down as violative of Article- 14 ofthe Constitution . Since the striking of his name from rolls of bank is a clear case of termination which amounts to retrenchment , the same is illegal and invalid in the absence of complying with mandatory provisions of Section - 25F of the 1. D. Act . Hence , he prays for an award in his favour.

6. Again, the Respondent/ Management filed an additional counter alleging that Petitioner had been charge sheeted on three prior occasions for his frequent unauthorized absence and appropriate punishment was also imposed on three occasions . In all these cases , the Pentioner reported for duty purposely and willfully before expiry of notice period and worked for few days and again remained absent from duty . He had been referred to medical board / DMO on several occasions for his continued absence on various days to find out his fitness to resume duty but the Petitioner did not appear before the medical board and prolonging the matter . Therefore , the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief and hence , the Respondent prays to dismiss the claim of the Petitioner with costs .

7. The 1. D. was once disposed off by my learned predecessor as per award dated 03-04-2006 as per which it was held that the action taken by the Respondent/Bank invoking provisions of Para - 17 of Bipartite Settlement is not legal with direction to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits however limiting the backwages to a half. It was further ordered that there is no prohibition in taking departmental 4. In the Counter Statement, the Respondent has contended that though the Petitioner was working as a Clerk hewas not really interested in the job . He was not available for employment continuously for long periods . In the year 1991 he reported for work only for 12 days , in 1992 for 25 days and in the year 1993 for 12 days . The Petitioner has exhausted all the leave entitled for an employee and even after exhausting his leave he continued to submit his leave application from time to time . The said leave applications were rejected by the Respondent/ Bank with an endorsement "unauthorized absence with consequent cut in salary " . Leave applications for the period from 30-10-1993 to 05-11-1993 , 06-11-1993 to 30-11-1993 , 01-12-1993 to 21-12-1993 , 22-12-1993 to 10-01-1994 and 11-01-1994 to 05-02-1994 was never sanctioned by the Respondent/ Bank . Therefore , his continuous absent for 90 days attracted provisions of Section - 17 of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-04-1989 . Since the Petitioner absented for duty unauthorizedly as per the terms of Para 17 of Settlement , notice dated 28-01-1994 was issued to the Petitioner calling upon him to show cause why Para - 17 of Bipartite Settlement should not be invoked and he was further called upon to report for duty within 30 days thereof and to give satisfactory explanation and in the absence of reply , his name will be deleted on the expiry of 30 days notice which expired on 26-02-1994. The Petitioner was not reported for duty on 24-02-1994 as alleged by him . Para 17 of the Bipartite Settlement does not speak of receipt of notice i.e. only the date of notice . It is false to allege that the Petitioner reported for duty on 24-02-1994 and he was prevented from joining duty . The Respondent/ Bank neither received any communication at its Kandhili Branch nor at its administrative office . Cessation of employment of Petitioner brought about in the said circumstances would not amount to a termination by the Respondent/Bank . Therefore , deletion of Petitioner's name from the rolls cannot be said as arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice . Previously , the Petitioner has abstained from duty unauthorisedly from 29-04-1993 and when his unauthorized absence crossed 90 days a notice dated 28-09-1993 was issued in terms of Para - 17 of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-04-1989 and immediately he reported for duty on 20-10-1993 with a view to avoid deletion of his name in terms of settlement dated 10-04-1989 , subsequent to that he had again indulged in unauthorized absence from 27-10-1993 and from 30-10-1993. Since the Petitioner having failed to get favourable orders under Tamil Nadu Shops & Establishment Act has come before this Tribunal with the same baseless allegations . But , the mere fact that the Petitioner from January , 1991 to 28-01-1994 has reported for duty only for 49 days shows how much interest he has got towards employment . The countenance of the claim of Petitioner would amount to gross abuse of process of law . Hence , for all these reasons , the Respondent prays that the claim may be dismissed with costs .

1849 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

absenteeism where leave has been granted it is just to set right record and that does not absolve the misconduct . The same is not a ratification of erring conduct on the part ofthe workman .

action after conducting domestic enquiry with regard to the unauthorized absence of the petitioner from 27-10-1993 . The Respondent /Bank filed WP ( MD ) 9076/ 2006 before the Hon'ble High Court of Madras challenging the award. As per order dated 15-02-2008 , the High Court ofMadras set aside the impugned award and remitted the matter back to this Tribunal with a direction to allow the bank to cite additional evidence justifying the act of the bank as well as to the workman to adduce further evidence .

8. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the action of the Respondent/ Management in terminating the services of the petitioner Sri A. Selva Kumar w.e.f. 26-02-1994 without conducting any enquiry is justified ?

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

9. On the side of the petitioner WWI was examined and Ex . WI to Ex . W 12 were marked and on the side of the Respondent MW1 was examined and Ex.MI to Ex.M48 were marked before remand. After remand on the side of the Respondent MW2 was examined and Ex.M49 to Ex.M65 were marked. WWI was recalled and further examined in Chief and Cross and Ex . W 13 to Ex . W18 were marked.

Points No. (i) & ( ii )

12. As per the direction of the remand order of the High Court what was required of the Respondent was to let in additional evidence to show why the petitioner was not allowed to join duty on 26-02-1994 . That isto say whether petitioner reported for duty or not is no. more a question to be decided . By adducing additional evidence , the Respondent has not been able to spell out any reason or justification why the petitioner was not allowed to join duty which was in response to a notice from the Respondent /Bank to report for duty within one month. The bank has yet been trying to give reason why he has to be terminated from service . The learned counsel for the Respondent relied on the decision of the Supreme Court reported in STATE OF UP AND OTHERS VS. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS ( 1996 - LAB - 1 C - 7 54 ) wherein it was held that " having noticed the Act that the 1st Respondent has absented himself from duty without leave on several occasions , we are unable to appreciate theHigh Court's observation that his absence from duty would not amount to such a grave charge ". In another decision of the Apex Court in DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION VS. SARDAR SINGH ( 2004 - LLR - 953 ) it was held that " merely because the absence of a workmen was treated as leave without pay for the purpose of maintaining correct record by the Management , it does not absolve the workman from the misconduct of his absence" .

When an employee habitually absents himself from duty even, without sanctioned leave for very long , it prima facieshows negligence and lack of interest in work and in departmental proceedings to trial it as misconduct was not unjustified view.

In another decision reported in UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS VS. BISHAMBER DASS DOGRA ( 2009-11- CLR- 723 ) it is settled legai proposition that " habitual absenteeism is gross violation of discipline" .

10. Heard both sides and perused the documents and records . The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that even with further evidence adduced by the Management following the direction of the High Court , the position does not stand improved as from the finding dated 03-04-2006 . The finding is that the workman reported for duty on 26-02-1994 before the expiry of 30 days and the Management was preventing him from joining . Additional evidence was to be limited to the point of reason why the petitioner was not allowed to join duty. But the Management has conducted full fledged enquiry which is not permitted in law . It is further pointed out that under Clause - 17 of the Bipartite Settlement (Ex . W13 ) is only for an absence for 90 or more days consecutively without hearing anything from the employee . The period of petitioner's absence for which leave has been sanctioned by the Management is also counted by the Management for reckoning 90 days . It is further argued that the termination would amount to retrenchment .

13. Instead of justifying why petitioner was not allowed to join duty Respondent has only tried to justify why he has to be terminated . Once a notice has been sent requiring the petitioner to report for duty that he was not allowed to join duty is not at all justified . The first and foremost thing for the banks to have done is to permit him to join duty . The Respondent / Management acted arbitrarily and in violation of the principles of natural justice . The termination is one brought about without holding an enquiry. This is against justice , equity and good conscience and law as well as the broader principles of natural justice . Therefore , the petitioner is to be reinstated into service with continuity of service and all attendant benefit with 50% of backwages . It is made clear that thereafter the Respondent /Management will be at liberty in taking departmental action against him after conducting a domestic enquiry if it feels it must or may avoid it and keep him on 11. The contra arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the Respondent are that the petitioner was terminated from service for long and habitual absence . He pointed out several instances of various spells during which the petitioner remained absent without leave in consequence of which he has had been imposed various punishments and the fact that the petitioner has had also undertaken not to repeat such conduct. But there was no improvement in his conduct . The herein challenged action isin relation to his absence for the period from 27-10-1993 to 24-02-1994 . It is not a period for which the leave has been sanctioned . It is further pointed out that in cases of 1850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 /CHAITRA 20. 1932

watch to see whether he makes any appreciable progress inhis conduct with regard to attendance in the bank for the performance of his duties in the futurity and also whether bank can repose confidence in him to continue him in service . So ordered .

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 23rd Feb , 2010 ) .

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

: WWI , Sri A.Selva Kumar For the I Party/Petitioner\

For the II Party/ Management : MWI , Sri N. Subrama-

nian MW1 , Sri R. Sivaraman

Documents marked

On the side of the Petitioner

Ex.No Date Description

Ex.W1 18-11-1980 Xerox copy of the appointment order issued to Petitioner Ex .W2 22-06-1981 Xerox copy of the confirmation order to Petitioner

Ex.W3 27-08-1987 Xerox copy of the promotion order ofPetitioner

Ex.W4 28-01-1994 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Nil

Ex.WS

Xerox copy of the telegram series sent to Respondent

Ex.W6 Nil

Xerox copy of the telegram sent by Petitioner's counsel to Respondent

24-02-1994

Fx.W7

Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent with A.D. Card

Ex.W8 25-02-1994 Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respon dent/Manag- ement

26-02-1994

Ex .W9

Xerox copy of the letter from Petitioner to Respondent with AD Card

28-02-1994

Ex.W10

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent/Bank to Petitioner Ex.W11 Nil

Xerox copy of the SB Account Opening Slip of N. A. Central Coop.Bank.

13-03-1997

Ex.W12

Xerox copy of the order in TSE No. 8/94

10-04-1989

Ex.W13

Extract ofBipartite Settlement Para-

22-12-1993

ExW14

Letter of Respondent treating leave as absence on 27-10-1993 22-12-1993

ExW15

Letter of Respondent treating leave as absence from 06-11-1993 to 30-11-1993

[PART 11--SFC . 3 (ii) ] 27-12-1993

ExW16

Letter of Respondent heating leave as absence from 30-10-1993 to30-11-1993

ExW17 13-03-2004 Letter of Respondent before Asstt Commissioner of Labour ( C) , Chennai

ExW18 17-03-2004 Letter of Respondent belore Asstt Commissioner of Labour , Chennai camp at Salem

On the side of the Management

Ex. No

Date Description

Ex.M1 17-08-1988 Xerox copy of the Charge Sheet issued to Petitioner

Ex.M2 07-09-1989 Xerox copy of the proposed order Ex.M3 03-11-1989 Xerox copy of the final order Ex.M4 30-11-1990 Xerox copy of the Charge Sheet issued to Petitioner

Ex.M5 21-11-1991 Xerox copy of the notice issued by Disciplinary Authority Ex.M6 27-12-1991 Xerox copy of the final order Ex.M7 10-11-1993 Xerox copy of the Charge Sheet issued to Petitioner

Ex.M8 03-07-1992 Xerox copy of the notice to Petitioner to report for duty Ex.M9 19-02-2003 Xerox copy of the netice to Petitioner to report for Duty Ex.M10 02-03-1993 Xerox copy of the reply given by Petitioner

Ex.M11 28-09-1993 Xerox copy of the notice Ex.M12 13-10-1993 Xerox copy of the reply given by Petitioner

Ex.M13 28-01-1994 Xerox copy of the notice issued to Petitioner

Ex.M14 25-02-1994 Xerox copy of the reply submitted by Petitioner

Ex.M15 28-02-1991 Xerox copy of the notice from Respondent to Petitioner Ex.M16 03-07-1992 Xerox copy of the notice from Respondent to Petitioner Ex.M17 30-01-1992 Xerox copy of the certificate of fitness to returnto Duty Ex.M18 12-10-1993 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Ex.M19 27-11-1993 Xerox copy of the Charge Sheet issued to Petitioner

09-07-1983

Ex.M20

Xerox copy ofthe circular issued by Personnel Department Ex.M21 16-05-1987 Xerox copy of the letter from

Respondent to Petitioner 24-06-1987

Ex.M22

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner | भाग II- खण्ड ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

Ex.M23 19-08-1987

1851

Ex.M46 20-01-1994

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Εχ.Μ24 29-08-1987 Xerox copy ofthe assurance letter from Petitioner

Ex.M25 19-06-1989

Xerox copy of the letter from Personnel Department to Kandhili branch regarding sanction of leave of Petitioner

Ex. M47 04-02-1994

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Ex.M26 09-11-1989 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondentto Petitioner Хегох соpy of the telegram sent by Personnel Department to Petitioner

Ex.M48 21-01-1994

Ex.M27 16-12-1989 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondentto Petitioner Ex.M28 27-12-1989 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Xerox copy of the letter from Divisional Office to Kandhili branch regarding sanction of leave of Petitioner

Ex.M49 22-01-1990

Ex.M29 23-04-1990

District Medical Officer Report

Ex.M50 19-10-1966

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Ex.M30 17-02-1993

Disciplinary action and procedures

Ex.M51 19-10-1969

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Ex.M31 28-05-1988 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Bipartite Settlement for Leave Rules

Ex.M52 25-11-1993

Ex.M32 25-08-1988 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to DMO

Letter sent by Second Party to FirstParty

Ex.M53 27-10-1993

Ex.M33 05-10-1989 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to DMO

Kandili branch letter to Head Office

Ex.M54 28-10-1993

30-05-1991

Ex.M34

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Ex.M35 04-06-1991 Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Ex.M36 20-06-1991

Kandili branch letter to Head Office

Ex.M55 02-12-1993 First Party letter to Second Party

Ex.M56 06-06-1994 Worksheet for Bonus payment

Ex.M57 23-11-1993

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner 14-12-1991

Ex.M37

Xerox copy of the letter froin Respondent to Petitioner Kandili branch letter enclosing leave application with M.C. submitted by Ist party

Ex.M58 22-12-1993

28-07-1993

Ex.M38

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondentto Joint Director of Medical Services

18/28-08-93

Ex.M39

Xerox copy of the notice sent by JointDirector of Medical Services , Vellore to Petitioner

Ex.M40 08-07-1991

Communicated that 25 days leave requested from 06-11-1993 was rejected because from 30-10-1993 onwards he was on unauthorized absence

Ex.M59 27-01-1994 Branch letter for 26 days Sick Leave applied by the petitioner from 11-01-1994

Ex.M60 04-02-1994

Xerox copy of the letter from Divisional Office to Respondent to Personnel Department , Karur Ex.M41 30-01-1992

Ex.M61

Xerox copy of the Certificate of fitness to return to Duty Ex.M42 19-03-1993

Ex M62

Xerox copy of the certificate of fitness to return to Duty Ex.M43 27-12-1993

Ex.M63

Xerox copy of the letter from Divisional Office to Kandhili branch regarding sanction of leave of Petitioner

Ex.M44 05-01-1994

Ex.M64

Xerox copy of the letter from Respondent to Petitioner Ex.M45 21-01-1994

2nd Party Telegramto 1st Party Xerox copy of Attendance Register Sheet for the month of January 1991

Xerox copy of Attendance Register Sheet for the month of February 1992

Xerox copy of Attendance Register Sheet for the month of February 1993

Xerox copy of Attendance Register Sheet for the month of January 1994

Ex.M65 20-01-1996

Xerox copy of the letter from Divisional Office to Kandhili branch regarding sanction of leave of Petitioner

1117 GI /10-12

Statement of Attendance of the Petitioner 1852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA APRIL 10 , 2010 / CHAITRA 20 , 1932

[PART 11 - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] नई दिल्ली , 18 मात्र . 2010

का.आ. 944.-औद्योगिक विषाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ पटियाला के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विराट में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण । चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट संदर्भ संख्या 129/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

2. Today the case was fixed for evidence of the workman. The workman is not present for his evidence . Learned counsel for the workman stated that workman has not come despite the information to him . The case is critically old as the same was referred to this Tribunal in the year 1999 Aiready Ilyears have been passed. It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference as he is not coming for his evidence . In view of the above , the claim in the present reference is returnedto the Central Government for want of prosecution. CentalGovernment be informed . File be consigned.

[ सं. एल-121012.62/99-आईआर( बी. 1 ) ] भरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

Chandigarh

NewDelhi , the 18th March, 2010

3-3-2010

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer . नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च , 2010 SO. 944. in purszane of Section 17 of the industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Govement hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 129/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Coin, No.1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Panala and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18-03-2010.

[No. L- 1712/62/ 99 - IR( B - 1) ) SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

का. आ. 945.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण न. । , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 304/2005 और 433/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं.एल-22012/147/ 1996- आईआर ( सी. II ) ] BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA. PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT- I . CHANDIGARH

[सं. एल -22012/ 186/1997- आईआर ( सी. II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी Case ID No. 129/99

New Delhi, the 18th March , 2010 Sh . R Bali, House No. 6-4 , Nangai Township , Distt . Ropar( FB ) -1-40124

Applicant.

Versus

The Asstt . General Manager (Op ) . State Bank of Patiala , Head Office , The Mall , Patiala - 147001 .

Respondent

APPEARANCES

S. O. 945.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 304/ 2005 & 433/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum - Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Food Corporation of india and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-3-2010 .

For the workman

Sh. Arun Batra

[No. L-22012/ 147 / 1996 - IR (C- II ) ] :

Sh . N.K. Zakhmi

For the management

AWARD

[No. L -22012/ 186/ 1997 - JR (C -II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer Passed on 1-3-2010

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT- 1 , CHANDIGARH Government of India vide Notification No. L - 12012/ 62/99 - IR ( B - 1 ) dated 12-05-1999 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , (the Act in short ) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : -

Case No. 1.D. No. 304/2005 & 433/2005 "Whether the action of the management ofState Bank ofPatiala in terminating the services of Shri R.K. Bali is legal and justified? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date ? "

1. Sh . Mohan Lal S/ o Shri Manga! Ram resident of Gandhi Nagar, Lodhi Gate , Gali No. 2 , House No. 236 , Patiala, 1853 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

2. Sh. Maan Pal & Sita Ram C /o The General Secretary Delhi Labour Union , Aggarwal Bhawan ,G.T. Road , Tis Hazari , Delhi - 110064 .

Applicants

Versus

1. District Manager , Food Corporation of India , District Office , Patiala.

2. District Manager , Food Corporation of India , District Office,Hissar .

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman :

the Management that there was no employer and employee relationship between the workmen and the Management of Food Corporation of India. The services of workmen were provided with to the Management by different contracting agencies and none of the workmen was appointed by the Management of Food Corporation of India . The payment of wages was made good to the workmenby the contractors and not by Food Corporatinon of India. It was further contended by the Management that there has been no administrative control of the Management ofFood Corporatinon of India on all the workmen , while they were serving and discharging their duties with the Management of Food Corporatinon of India. On the hasis of above facts mentioned in the pleadings of the parties . the main issues for adjudication before this Tribunai are asfollows: -

Shri Sarvjeet Singh , Advocate Shir J. P. Singh , Advocate

For the management :

1. Whether the workmen have been the employees of the FCI?

Shri N. K. Zakhmi , Advocate Shri P. K. Jain , Advocate

AWARD

Passed on : 9-3-10

2. Whether the servies of the workmen were provided with to the management of FCI througii the Contractor on out sourcing?

3. To what relief, if any they are entitled?

Government of India vide Notification No. L - 22012/ 147/ 96 / IR ( C - II ) Dated 20-05-1997 & L- 22012/ 186/97/ IR (C- II ) Dated 20-05-1998 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( hereinafter referred as the Act , referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal : -

"Whether the action of management of FCI , Patiala in terminating the services of Sh. Mohan Lal , casual workman , is legal and justified? If not , to what relief is the workman is entitled and from which date ?"

"Whether the action of management of FCI , Hissar interminating the services of Sh . Maan Pal and Sita Ram, Loaders w.e.f. 11-1-91 and 14-2-91 respectively isjust and legal ? If not, to what relief is the workmen entitled?"

Both of the parties were afforded the opportunity of being heard . Evidence was recorded . Parties also preferred to file the documentary evidence , which are on record . I have heard the parties at length and perused the entire materials on record. In both of the references management ofFood Corporatinon of india has fited the documentary evidence which were marked Exhibits. According to the procedure laid down in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (theAct in short) . I have gone through both of the files . The matter involved in both the files is also the similar and the grievances can be redressed by this single award . As stated earlier , parties and their learned counsel were heard at length . The main arguments of the learned counsel ofthe workmen are that all the workmen were engaged by the management of Food Corporation of India directly . If they have been shown tobe appointed through a contractor, it is illegal being against the provisions of Contact Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970. It has also been argued by the learned counsel of the workmen that all the workmen were directly under the administrative control ofthe management . They were paid wages by the Food Corporatinon of India and in fact, they were the employees of the Food Corporatinon of India and not of the contractors .

This award shall dispose off and answer two references namely ; ID No. 314/2005 & I.D. No. 433/2005 . Common questions of law and facts are involved in both of the references which afforded an opportunity to this Tribunal for adjudication of both the references by this single award . It is alleged by all the workmen , which are three in numbers in two references that they were engaged by the Management of Food Corporation of India on different dates as the employees of Food Corporation of India . Their services were terminated without a month notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and terminal dues . Or the basis of above contentions all the workmen have prayed for an order of this Tribunal setting aside the termination orders and consequently order of reinstatement of their services along with consequential benefits .

Onthe other hand learned cousel for the management argued that there exist no relationship of employer an employee between the workmen and the management of Food Corporation of India. The service of the work.met. were provided with to the management by different contractors . The consolidated contracted amount was paid tothe contractors by the management of Food Corporation of India and thereafter, the wages were paid to the workmen The Management of Food Corporation of India appeared and contested the claim petitions of the workmen by filing written statements . It has been the contention of [PART !!

3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHADRA 20,1932

1854

marioned ratio of GM , ON alcher's

case ( supturaphed in both of the referenc is clear by the contractors and not by the Food Corporation of India. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the management that there has been no violation of any provisions of Contract Labour (Kegulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970. It is further submittedby learned counsel for themanagment that if for the sake of arguments there is violation of the provisions of the Act , the workman shall not be treated the direct employee of the Food Corporation of India but it will resulted into the criminal action against the concerned authority under the penal provisions of the said Act.

that de workhem have falied to prove that they were appointed by the management of Ft. There is no iota of reace on record to prove that they were directly for the adminsitrative control of the te hagement of Food Coloration of India . No doubt , in workinen have fiieee photocopies of attendance erster to prove that attendance were marked by totüicers/ officials of tar management of Food Corpoint India but itwillnot be sufficient to prove the adminiatvncontrol over them it workmen were supposed nie/adduce some cogem evidence to prove the adminisu se control ofFood Ceipron of India over them. The photocopies of attendance beets seems to be verified by idefficers/ officials of Food Corporation of india and it has been the contention of the Food Corporation of India that record of the attendance prepared by the contractor wavfiedby the officers/ officials of the Food Corporationsof india to make the consolidated paynient to the todors for providing the contract labour The workmen engly, have failed to prove that they were under the adonmistrative control of the management of Food Corpora India.

So far as the relationship between the workmen and the management of Food Corporation of India is concerned , it is a matter of fact and willbe adjudicated on perusal of the pleadings filed and evidence adduced by the parties . The fact and evidence adduced by parties showed that in reference No. 1. D. No. 443/20005 Man Pal and Sita Ram Versus FCI there was one contracting Agency M/s . Lakshmi and party, Jakhal ( Hissar ) and in ID No. 304/2005 Shri Mohan Lal Versus FCI. M/ s . Associate Service Security & Detectives in picture . In none of the cases the workmen has pleaded that contract , if any , was shame and comouflage.

In both of the references it is admitted that no appointment letter was issued by the management . No doubt. it is denied by the workmen that payment of wages were made good by the contractor but the doucmentary evidence filed by the management proved that payment to the workmen were made good by the contractor and not by the management of Food Corporation of India . Hon'ble Supreme Court in 2008 LIR 801 ONGC Silcher Vs. ONGC contractual Workers Union , has laid down the criteria to establish the direct employee - employer relationship between the workmen and the management of any organization . If we apply the ratio of GM , ONGC Silcher case ( supra) the workman have to prove the following facts to establish the employee - employer relationship:-

servant; 1. That there existed a relationship of master and

2. That there was no contractor appointed by the management of Food Corporation of India ;

3. The management of Food Corporation of India used to supervise the alleged work assigned to individual workers .

4. That the management of Food Corporation of India took disciplinary action and called for explanations from the workers .

5. That the workers were paid wagesby the management of Food Corporation of India directly andno through the contractor .

6. At the cost of repetition , the wages were paid directly to the workers by the management of Food Corporation of India and the acquaintance role were prepared by the managment of Food Corporation of India to make the payment to the workers .

this On the pity ment of wages , the manager af of Food Corporation et india has preferredio fik the tailary evidence . This documentary evidence is pod be the oral version ofthe witnees , wito was examined Tribunal . Cu persual of this evidence , it is clear that consolidated amount on the basis ofnumber of da worked by each wadman were given to the costretter , and contractor on he hand used to pay the ages to the workmen. Inthese of Man Pal Singh and Stasom er us Food Corpatron of India, there are documeur ot record to prove that this amount was given to Mis schud and Party, Jakhal ( Hissar ) and in case of Mohan Lal Versus Food Corporation of India , the conseindated payment was made to Associate Security and Detectives . The management has also filed the attendance sheer contaming the name of the workmen, which is duly verified by the officers /officials of Food Corporation of a for the purposes of making the payment good It is true that the statement of contractor has not been recorded before this Tribunal , but it is not fatal becasue workman has not challenged the genuineness of the documents filed by the management of Food Corporation of India Morcover, in Mohan Lal Versus Food Corporation of india it is admitted by the workman that he was working under the contractor . Prior to raising the industrial dispute , the workman preferred a Writ Petition before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana . A copry of Writ Petition is on record, which proves that the workman has made the contractor as respondent no . 4. The workman in this reference has not disclosed it that he made the contractor as respondent no . 4inthe Writ Petition filed before the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It has only been narrated in one of the paragraphs of the statement of claim that he also preferred a writ in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana. It [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20, 1932

1855

of India nor paid the wages directly by the Food Corporation of India. The only issue raised before this Tribunal is the nature of contract . None of the workman has specifically contended the contact as shame and camouflage . But unless and until the terms and conditions as laid down in GM , Silcher's case ( supra) are not complied with , no workmen can be treated as the direct employee of the Food Corporation of India . Thus , I am of the view that such execution of contract shall not create a relationship of employer and employee between the workmen and the management of the Food Corporation of India .

shows that workman is also guilty of withholding and not disclosing this material fact before this Tribunal. Thus , in case of Mohan Lal it is also the admission of Mohan lal that he was working under a contractor and in case of another reference in the case of Man Pal and Sita Ram , it is proved by the management of Food Corporation of India namely; Man Pal and Sita Ram were working notdirectly with the management of Food Corporation of India but their services were provided by a contractor namely M/ s . Lachmi & Party Jakhal ( Hissar) . Thus in both of the references , the workmen are unable to prove that theywere appointed/ engaged by the management of Food Corporation of India , they were paid the wages by the management of Food Corporation of India and they were under the administrative control of the Food Corporation of India . Thus , none of the workmen can be said to be servant of Food Corporation of India and there existed no master - servant relationship between the management of Food Corporation of India and the workmen . Now the question arise what will be the effect if there is any violation of any provisions of Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970 ?

The next issue for the disposal before this Tribunal is whether the workmen will be deemed to be in the services of the management of Food Corporation of India on account of violation of any of the provisions of Con- tract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) , Act , 1970 ?It is issue of law and has limited concern with the facts . On the issue of facts , I have already given my , view that the work- men are not employee of the management of Food Corpo- ration of India but , their services were provided by the different contractors to the management . As this issue of law isalso raised by the parties , it is the duty of this Tribu- nal to decide it as well . On this issue there may be three circumstances :-

( 1) There may be a case where the practice of contract labour is prohibited by the appropriate Government under Section 10 ( 1 ) of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 .

(2) There may be an issue regarding the registration of-establishment of principal employer under Sec- tion 7 of the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970 .

(3) There may be an issue regarding the licenseby the contractor under Section 12 of Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970.

The issue to be decided whether in the case of viola- tion of any of the provisions mentioned under Section 10 ( 1 ) , Section 7 and Section 12 of The Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act , 1970 , the contract labour shall be deemed to be an employee of the principal em- ployer.

InGM, ONGC, Shilcher's case (supra) the conditions under which a contract can be treated a camouflage and shame are mentioned. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in this case has relied upon the law laid down in Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Others Vs. National Union Water workers & Other AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3527( 1 ) . The question before this Tribunal is under what circumstances a contract between the management of Food Corporation of India and the workmen can be held to be shame and camouflage ? In case the contract has been held to be shame or camouflage , the contract labour working in the management of the principal employment are held to be employees of principal employer himself. It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case whether the contract executed in between the managment and the contractor is camoflage and shame . It is also a issue of facts and has to be decided on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case . Whether there is a genuine contractor , and whether there is a proper master - servant relationship in between the management of Food Corporation of India and the workmen also depends on the facts and circumstances ofthe case . Likewise , whether they were directly under the administrative control of the Food Corporation of India and were paid wages directly by the management of Food Corporation of India also depends on the facts and circumstances of the case . The court has to look into whether these facts emerged in reality or there was some paper arrangement to make the payment good to the workmen through contractor .

In these references , it is not challenged by the workmen that contract is shame and camouflage . It is proved beyond doubt that the workmen were not appointed/ engaged directly by the management of Food Corporation of India as per its rules and regulations . They were not under the administrative control of the Food Corporation

This issue has been settled by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Ltd.'s case ( supra ) . More- over, Punjab and Haryana High Court in Food Corporation of India & others Vs. Presiding Officer , Central Govern- mentIndustrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - I , Chandigarh & others 2008 LLR 391 , has decided this issue after relying the ratio of Steel Authority of India Ltd., case(supra) . Without mentioned the relevant paras of Steel Authority, of India Ltd. , case ( supra ) and Food Corpora- tion of India & others Vs. Presiding Officer , CentralGov- ernment Industrial Tribunal cum - Labour Court case (supra ) , I am relying the ratio of both of the judgments , and the ratio of both of the judgment is that if there is any violation of Section 7 , Section 10 and Section 12 of the Contract labour ( Regulation and Abolition ) Act , then only penal 1856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 10 , 2010 /CHAITRA 20 , 1932

provisions of Section 23 and Section 25 of the said Act are attracted. Hence , it is nowhere provided that such employ- ees , employed through the contractor would become em- ployees of the principal employer . I have gone through the facts and circumstances of the case . Almost in all the refer- ences the , registration and the license have been produced by the management of Food Corporation of India . It may only resulted in penal action under Section 23 and Section 25 ofthe Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act , 1970 , if there is any violation of any provisions ofthe Con- tract labour (Regulation and Abolition )Act .

Accordingly, I am of the view that none of the work- men were the employees of the Food Corporation of India . There was no relationship of master and servant and em- ployer - employee between the workmen.and the manage- ment of Food Corporation of India . Thus , no question of termination of the services of the workmen by Food Cor- poration of India arises . Both of the references are accord- ingly answered . Workmen are not entitled to any relief. Let Central Govemment be approached for publication of Award, and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 18 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 946.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एचएलएल लाईफ केयर लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , अरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 9/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42011 /55/2009- आईआर ( डीयू) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th March , 2010

S. O. 946. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 9/2010) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relations to the management of HLL Life Care Limited and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 18-03-2010.

[No. L -42011 / 55 /2009 - IR( DU ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, ERNAKULAM Present : Shri.P.L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer (Monday the 8th day of March , 2010 / 17th Falguna 1931 )

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

I.D.9/2010

Unions :

1. The Secretary , Hindustan Latex Workmen'sCongress , C/ o.HLL Life Care Ltd. , P.B.No.2 , Peroorkada , Thiruvananthapuram - 695 005.

2. The General Secretary, Hindustan Latex Employee's Union ( CITU ) , C/ o . HLL Life Care Ltd. , P.B.No.2 , Peroorkada , Thiruvananthapuram- 695005.

3. The General Secretary , Hindustan Latex Labour Union (AITUC) , C/o.HLL Lifecare Ltd. , P.B.No.2 , Peroorkada , Thiruvananthapuram - 695 005.

Management : The Managing Director , HLL Life Care Limited , P.B.No.2, Peroorkada , Thiruvananthapuram 695005 .

By Adv. Sri . S. Ajith .

This case coming up for hearing on 08-03-2010 , 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. Thedispute relates to non pay- ment of overtime allowance to the employees .

2. When . the matter came up for hearing a memo was filed by the counsel for the management to the effect that the dispute is amicably settled out of court by the parties and hence no adjudication of dispute is required . A minutes of the settlement arrived at between management and the trade unions is also produced . As per the settlement the management has agreed to pay overtime allowance eligible workers .

In the result an award is passed holding that, in view of the settlement between the parties whereby the man- agement has agreed to pay overtime allowance to eligible workers , there is no existing dispute for adjudication and the reference is closed as settled .

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

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her corrected and passedby me on this the 8th day of March , 2010 .

P. L. NORBERT Presiding Officer 1857

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Date of reserving the Award I : 10-2-2010 .

नई दिल्ली , 22 मार्च , 2010

Dateofpassing the Award 1 : 18-2-2010.

AWARD- I

का. आ. 947.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार लाईफ इन्सोरेन्स कारपोरेशन आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण-2 मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या (2/41/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labour by its Order No.L - 12012 /25 /2004 - IR( B - 1 ) dated 29th 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 dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

[सं. एल -12012/25/2004- आई आर( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd March , 2010

"Whether the action of the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India, MDO - II , Mumbai byremoval from the services of Shri M.L. Manikade , HGA, w.e.f. 30-12-1997 is justified? If not, what relief Shri M.L.Manikade is entitled to ?"

S. O. 947. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 2/41 / 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court -2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India , and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 22-03-2010.

[No. L- 12012/25 /2004 - IR (B - 1 ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2 , MUMBAI

PRESENT

A.A.LAD , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT- 2/41 of 2005

Employers in relation to the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India .

The Senior Divisional Manager , Life Insurance Corporation of India DivisionalOffice- II , 112, Sion Koliwada Road , Sion , Mumbai-400022.

FirstParty

Versus

Their Workman The General Secretary, Insurance Employees ' Union , 88/112 , Sion Koliwada Road , Sion , Mumbai -400022 . Second Party

APPEARANCE

For the Employer: Ms.A.A.Sakpal & Ms.F.D.Lewis, Representatives

For the Workman: Shri C.S. Dalvi , Representative .

2. Claim Statement is filed by the General Secretary of the Insurance Employees Union , Sion ( renamed as Ayurvima Karamchari Sanghatana - Mumbai Division Office) atExhibit 5 making out the case that , the 2nd Party concerned workman Shri M.L.Manikade , was first appointed as an Assistant in class III Cadre at MDO - I on 2-5-1990 . It is stated that , subsequently he was promoted asHGA considering the seniority, merit , confidential reports and his performance in the interview. It is case of the Union that, on 10-4-1997 the said Manikade by his letter informed the Branch Office about his mother's sickness and requested the Branch Authority where he was serving to granthim privilege leave from 7-4-1997 . It is stated that, the said letter was claimed to have not been received by the Branch . It is stated that , by telegram dated 24th April , 1997 he informed the Branch Office about his inability to report on duty due to sickness of his mother and also informed BranchOffice that there was nobody to look after his ailing mother and requested Branch Office to grant him privilege leave from 7-4-1997 . It is case of the Union that , the Chembur Branch Office granted P.L. to the concerned workmen and hissalary for the said month was also drawn considering above request but the concerned workman unable to collect it due to sickness of his mother , whom he could not leave alone , as no body was there in the house to look after his sick mother which later on was cancelled by the Branch Office. It is stated that , he informed the Branch Office that, hewill report for his duties on 2-5-1997 . It is stated that , the concerned workman wrote a letters to the Senior Divisional Manager- MDO II on 21-11-2000 and requested the Competent Authority to send him all letters at his new address at 4/369/4369 , Tagore Nagar, Vikhroli ( East ) , Mumbai -400083 . It is the case of the Union that , said communication was received by the Divisional Office . It is further stated that, the concerned workman wrote letter dated 30-7-2001 to the Senior Divisional Manager, MDO II , Sion, and requested the Competent Authority to reinstate him in the services of the Corporation . It is case of the Union that , he also informed the Divisional Officer about hissickness andthe treatment taken by him from Dr. Sanjay 1858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10, 2010/ CHAITRA 20, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) |

ofabsenteeism . It is case of the Union that , the said enquiry was sham , bogus and was a farce or show made by the Enquiry Officer just to oblige her officers. It is case of the Union that, said workman was mentally disturbed person due to sickness of his mother and unable to attened the duty as well as office and said facts were well with the knowledge of the Management. It is case of the Union that, the Presenting Officer did not produce any evidence and document betove the Enquiry officer or he presentee his case for the purpose of enquiry. It is case of the Union that, there was no any proceeding as such held in terms of the rules of the enquiry and Presenting officer did aut examine any one during the enquiry and nothing was recorded by the Inquiry Officer . It is case of the Union that , the Enquiry officer did not bother to know as why documents the concerned workman has given to the office and on what basis she is going to give decision on the charges leveled against the concerned workman . It is cas of the Union that, there was no written or oral arguments submitted before the Enquiry officer by the Presenting Officer. It is case of the Union that. It is simply ex-parte decision. It is case of the Union that, the Enquiry Officer had given go bye to the rules of the enquiry . It is case of the Union that nothing was mentioned about his conduct and behaviour and even about leave record of the concerned workman It is case of the Union that , the said enquiry was sham show and which was nothing but atter face with a view to ultimately remove the concerned workman from the employment . It is case of the Unton that, show cause notice speaks about the abandonment of job attracting breach of Regulation 39 of the Regulations 1960 on which he was removedby penalizing him ander Regulation 39 ( 1 ) ( a ) to ( g ). According to Union no consideration was given to meaning of abandonment as per ruling given by the Apex Court by the Enquiry Officer or by the Competent Authority while punishing the concerned workman . It is the case of the Union that , since the concerned workman was mentally disturbed person and was not in apposition to coupe up with the charges leveled could not attened the enquiry and face it since he was not aware of the alleged inquiry going on . It is case of the Union that , action taken of removal was based on the order dated 30-12-1997 and is on the wrong basis mee finding given by the Enquiry officer is not on merits and by discussing evidence of any type which was not on word. It is case of the Union that , in this situation it is case of the Union that 2nd Party workman is required to be reinstated with back wages and continuity of service by que and setting aside the order of removal from the comployeev ofthe Ist Party. It is the case of the Union that , the enquiry regarding his absenteeism is not fair. Proper and was not aon by lolowing principles of natural justice . It is case of the Union that, such an enquiry be declared as not an enquiry and 1st party should not be permitted to act upon such a faulty enquiry with directions to it to reinstate the concerned werkman with benefit of back wages and Kumawat, Psychiatrist from 30-4-1997 to 14-11-2000 . It is case of the Union that , even he sent medical certificate to that effect with the said letter which was received by the Divisional Office.It is case of the Union that , he appealed on 28th September , 2001 to the Zonal Manager, Western Zone on conviction given on alleged finding of alleged enquiry where he was held guilty of the charge of absenteeism . It is case of the Union that, said was rejected . It is case of the Union that , the workman sent a Memorial to the Chairman of L.I.C of India , Central Office on 30-10- 2002 enclosing therewith medical certificates and treatment sheets. It is case of the Union that , however, it was not consideredby his office treating it as time barred . It is case ofthe Union that by registered AD letter dated 3-2-2003 he wrote to the chairman of Life Insurance Corporation of India requesting him to reconsider his Memorial dated 30- 10-2002 . It is case of the Union that , again he wrote a letter on 25-3-2003 to the Chairman for reconsideration of his Memorial dated 30-10-2002 . It is case of the Union that , the said workman received a letter dated 5-4-2003 sent by MDO- II by which it was informed that, the Memorial sent by the concerened workman was time barred and cannot be considered.It is case of the Union that , by the said correspondence MDO - II , Sion , informed that, 2nd Party need not make correspondence on the said subject and informed that , Memorial sent by him to the Chairman had beendisposed off since those were time barred. It is case ofthe Union that, in the charge sheet dated 2-7-1997 about absenteeism earlier charge sheet dated 26-4-1997 for his absenteeism from 17-2-1997 to 21-3-1997 was also referred . It is stated by the Union that , on6-12-1997 Disciplinary Authority served show cause notice on the concerned workman proposing his removal from the services of the Corporation and by final order dated 30-12-1997 he was removed from the services treating his absence from 7-4- 1997 to 30-12-1997 i.c. 286 days as ' dies non ' while taking action against the concerned workman of dismissal . It is case of the Union that , the correspondence referred above reveals that , the decision taken by Corporation is nothing but shows that , these actions are taken to victimize the workman and itis illegal as well as bad in law . It is further stated that , the demand set out and incorporated in the reference order itself and it is annulment of the action of removal and another action of treatment of his period of absence as diesnon are illegal . It is case of the Union that, afterjoining the Corporation concerned workman after due process of competitive selection achieved the promotion and reached upto the stage of Higher Grade Assistant . It is case of the Union that disciplinary action taken by the Disciplinary Authority was taken on enquiry conductedby Smt . S.H. Korke.It is case of the union that, the said enquiry was ex.. parte. It is case of the Union that , no opportunity was given to the concerned workman to participate in the enquiry . It is case of the Union that , there was no document before the Enquiry Officer and that even no evidence of any type was recorded by the Enquiry Officer to conclude the charge

continuity of service .

1859 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

not only not entitled to any leave salary but also renders himself liable for disciplinary action . It is case of the Ist Party that , sanction of leave may not be presumed and leave asked for should not be avail of unless it has been specifically sanction . It is case of the Ist Party that, an employee shall not absent himself from his duties without having obtained the permission as per Regulation 30 ( 1 ) of the staff Regulations and provided that , in case of unforeseen emergency an employee may be allowed to avail of one day's casual leave without prior sanction subject to the condition that , the competent authority is promptly intimated of the circumstances in which prior sanction could not be obtained . It is case of the Ist Party that, Chapter III of the staff Regulation deals with " Conduct , Discipline and Appeals " . It is case of the Ist Party that , Regulation 39deals with the conduct ofdisciplinary proceeding and Sub - regulation ( 1 ) deals with that penalties that may be imposed on an employee who among others , does anything conflicting with the instructions , or who commits a breach of the Staff Regulations or of discipline or isguilty of any other act prejudicial to good conduct . It is case of the 1st Party that , Sub - Regulation (2) ofRegulation 39 requires the Disciplinary Authorityto communicate the charges in writing to the accused and give him an opportunity of defending himself against such charge and of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken against him . It is case of the Ist Party that , Sub- Regulation (3 ) of Regulation 39 stipulates that , in respect of the charges which are not admitted by the concerned workman who is going to face the enquiry , the Enquiry Officer appointed to conduct an enquiry may conduct enquiry by issuing charge sheet . It is case of the Ist Party that Regualtion 39 is a self contained code for initiating and conducting disciplinary proceeding against the such an employee and for imposing one or more penalities given inClauses (a) to ( g) .

4. It is case of the Ist Party that, employee involved in the present case viz . Malikarjun Laxman Manikade was anHigher Grade Assistant which is Class III post and next to Class I post so invested with supervisory powers . It is case of the 1st Party that , the concerned workman Shri Manikade remained absent from his duties from 7-4-1997 continously and after waiting for more than 17 days it received a telegram informing about the alleged sickness ofhis mother . It is case ofthe 1st Party that , it also received a letter dated 25-4-1997 on 30-4-1997, in which he promised to join his duties on 2-5-1997 . It is case of the Ist Party that , though the concerned workman Manikade promised to report on duty on 2-5-1997 he neither reported for duty not sent any intimation regarding his further absence . It is case of the Ist Party that, after waiting for a month for the concerned workman Manikade to resume his duties as promised a registered letter dated 3-6-1997 was sent to him advising him to report for duty immediately which came back with postal endorsment " not claimed " . It is case of the Ist Party that , in view of the continuous absence of the concerned workman Manikade a charge sheet dated 3. This is disputed by the 1st Party by filing Written statement ofExhibit 6 stating and contending that, 1st Party Corporation is a Body Corporate establishment under Section 3 of Life Insurance Corporation Act , 1956 (which will be hereinafter called as the " Act " ) with perpetual recognition and a common seal , and can hold and dispose offproperty and can by its name sue and be sued . It is case ofthe Ist Party that , Section 7 of the Act provides for the transfer to and vesting in the Corporation of all the assets and liabilities of the controlled business (i.e. Life Insurance Business) of all the Insurers . It is case of the Ist Party that, Section 11 ( 1 ) of the Act provides for the transfer to the Corporation of the services of the whole time salaries employees of the insurance whose controlled business stood transferred and vested in the Corporation . It is case ofthe Ist Party that , Section 23 ( 1) ofthe LIC Act empowers the Corporation to employ such number of persons as it thinks fit to enable it to discharge its' function under the Act. It is case of the 1st Party that, the staff of the Corporation , therefore , consists of the transferred employees and those employed by it under Section 23 ( 1 ) oftheAct. It is case of the 1st party that , Section 48 of the Actempowers the Central Government to make rules to carry out the purposes of the Act . It is case of the Ist party that , Section 49 ( 1 ) of the Act, before its amendment in the year 1981 , empowers the Corporation to make the regulations , with the previous approval of the Central Govenment which require to make by notification in the Gazzete, providing for , among others , the terms and conditions of service of the employees of the corporation . It is case of the Corporation that, accordingly 1st Party made Regulations known as Life Insurance Corporation of India (Staff) Regulations , 1960 ( which will be hereinafter referred as the " Staff Regulations ") . It is contended by the Ist Party that , staff Regulations are statutory and bind the employees of the Corporation as any other law made by the legislature . It is case of the 1st Party that , the Regulations and other provisions relating to the terms and conditions of the service of the employees shall be deemed to be rules made by the Central Government under Section 48 of the Act. It is case of the 1st Party that , the said Rules shali have effect, notwithstanding , among others , the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. It is case of the ist Party that , the said staff Regulations shall prevail above the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. It is case of the 1st Party that, it has powers to make regulations to fix the terms and conditions of the employees serving with it. It is case of the 1st party that, Chapter V of the staff Regulations deals with"Holidays and Leave " of the employees . It is case of the 1st Party that, Regulation 61 in the said Chapter deals with the general conditions governing grant of leave and stipulates among other that leave can not be claimed as a matter ofright and that the competent authority may in the emergencies ofthe situations , either refuse leave or revoke the leave already granted . It is case of the Ist Party that, an employee who remains absent after the end of his leave is

117 GI /10-13 1860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 / CHAITRA 20 , 1932

commenced against the concerned workman and notices were issued to him by the Enquiry Officer on 8-10-1997, 7-11-1997 and 18-1-1987 on all the 3 addresses of the 2-7-1997 was issued to the concerned workrean which was also received back with postal remark as " Not claimed " . It is case of the 1st Party that , hence the charge sheet was displayed on the Notice Board of bort the Divisional and Branch Offices . It is case ofthe Is. Party that , enquiry was concerned weskman which were rurned by the postal authorizes with remarks " Left ", " Cot known " and "Not Warned It is also case of the ist party that , the said notices were also displayed on the notice Seard ofthe Divisional and Branch Mices . It is case of the Ist Party that , though the hearing were fixed on 22-10-1997 , 18-11-1997 and 28-11-1997the concerned workmon did not appear on those fits for the enquiry which Jeft meepoon for the Enquiry er but to proceed ex- parte it in case of the Ist Party 10а , од 6-12-1997 show- cause notice was issued, to the concerned workman , based on the finding given by the inquiry orlicer proposing imposition ofthe penalty of his removal from the services . It case the 1st party that . ine said notice which was sent by Registered A.D was also returned undelivered by the postal des It is case of the ist Party that, the said show - cause notice was displayed onthe Notice Board of both the Divisional and Branch office. It is cost of the inc Partysoce the concemed workanan jalked to reply to the show- cause notice within the stipulated period of 15 days the ciplinary Authority passed the final order imposing the penalty of removal from services and treaung bis absence as " Dies Non' on 30-12-1997 of which copy was sent to the concerned employees on all his 3 addresses Airoli Nerual ind Akkalkot which were also returned to postal authorities with remarks " Not known " ,"Lee" and Nut claimed" respectively it is case of the is : Pasy that, nearly aller 4 years after the concerned workinen was reinoved from services he appealed on 28-9-2001 which was rejected on 29-12-2001 . Even his second appeal made on 30-10-2002 was also rejected on account of delay,

5. It is case of the Ist Party that , even his previous record was not satisfactory . Initiain charge sheet dated 26-4-1997 for his unauthorized absence from 17-12-1997 to 21-3-1997 was served upon the concerned workman . It is case of the Ist party that , on that , neither replied the charge sheet nor attended enquiry and the enquiry proceedings were conducted ex- parte and the penaky of reduction in basic pay by three stages was imposed upon the concerned workman , It is case of the Ist Party that , the concerned workman was Censured vide order dated 21-3- 1994 for his unauthorized absenteeism from 31-12-1993 10 9-2-1994 and his absence for the said period was treated as "dies non". It is case of the Ist Party that, he was warned about his absenteeism by letters dated 7-6-1991 , 12-6-1991 , 9-8-1991,25-11-1991 and 15-3-1991 . It is case ofthe 1st Party that, since past record of the concerned workman was not

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] satisfactory as it reveals that he has habit of remaining absent unauthorisedly, the punishment of termination was imposed upon the concerned workman and it is just , proper and does not require any interference. Further it is the case ofthe Ist Party tha , the present dispute is highly belated which is time barreand does not require to be considered .

Itis case of the st Party that , the order imposing the penalty of removal is challenged after about 4 years which cannot be considered. It is case of the 1st party that, since the dispute is raised a belated stage does not require to be considered . So it's prayed that , prayer prayed by the Union for 2nd Party concerned workman does not require to consider and deserves to be rejected .

was not conducted by following principles of natural justice . Itiscase of the Union that the concerned workman did not get opportunity to make out his case . It is denied that, the 6.Rejoinder is filed by the representative of the Union atExhibit 7maki put the case that , the Written Statement tiled by the Ist her is not admitted to it. It is stated that, the contentinas taken by the Ist Party in the Written Statement are not admitted and denied by the Union, it is stated that , the wegolation 39 is not a self-contained Code as claimed by the 1st Party. It is stated that, the principles ofnatural justice were not followed while holding inquiry and imposing pushiment of removal on the concerned workman , it is cale of the Union that , concerned workman remained absent because of sickness of his mother . It is case of the Union that , he intimated that fact to the LIC, even said is aimed ted by the LIC which reveals that, he made knows the wason behind his absenteeisn. and it cannot be calea that, he remained absent without intimation. It is denied that , the concerned workman remained absent for 17 days without intimation and unauthourisedly as he sent a telegram . It is stated by the Union that , afer userding his sick mother he fell sick and went into depress after he lost her and then he lost his mental balance . Even it is case of the Union that , he lost his mental balance and lost rest for life and became unattentive during that period . It is case of the Union that , he was treatedby Dr Sanjay Kumawat and was under his treatment from 30-4-1997114-11-2000 . It is case ofthe Union that , due to his indifferent health and incessant medicamen , the concerned wers was unable to contact ist party and unable to know alt was going on about his absenteeism after the death As mother and even he did not receive any communic from his office about alleged developmeme which took place during absence . it is stated by The Union that , the enquiry proceeding is faulty and concerned workman is at fault and deserves punishment ofremoval .

7.Inview ofthe above pleadings Issues were framed atExhibit 10. Out of those , Issues No. I to 4 were treated as preliminary issues which were decided by passing Award I on one occasion on 27-9-2007 and again on second occasion on 6-3-2009 .

Rot

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

12. It will not be out of placeto mention that , theat two parties referred to their written submission which tary have filed i.e. by 2nd party at Exhibit 19 and by 1st Party al Exhibit 20 respectively on 7th June, 2007. By filing purshisat exhibits 29 and 45 1st Party gave clear indication that, itdo not want to argue fresh and ask to rely on arguments submitted at Exhibit 20. Same is followed by 2nd party by filing purshis at Exhibit44.

8. Part 1 Award was challenged by 1st Party before Hon'ble Bombay High Court where this Tribunal observed enquiry not fair and proper and finding perverse on which our Hon'ble High Court while disposing off Writ Petition No. 1239 of2008 by order dated 16th June , 2008 remanded back the Issue of fairness of enquiry and perversity of the finding for fresh trial directing this Tribunal to consider Staff Regulation of the Life Insurance Corporation of India and decide issue of fairness of enquiry and perversity of it . On that this Tribunal passed Part - I Award again on 6-3-2009 observing enquiry not fair and proper and finding perverse which was again remanded back by order in Writ Petition No.1843 of 2009 observing that , this Tribunal reserved the Reference on 1-9-2008 and actually decided it nearly after 6 months i.e. on 6-3-2009 and by the said order directed this Tribunal to give due regard to the directions contained in paragraphs 22 to 25 of the judgment passed by Ld . Single Judge of our Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 1239 of 2007 and insisted dispose offthe said Reference by all means within three months from the receipt ofthe order .

9. As a result of that , this Reference is in this Tribunal again on the point of fairness of the enquiry and perversity ofthe findings.

10. So now Issue of fairness of enquiry and perversity of the finding are taken up for consideration which were issue No. 3 and 4 in Exhibit 10 which are as follows and I answer those as follows :

FINDING

ISSUE

3. Is enquiry fair and proper ? No

Yes

4. Is finding perverse ?

REASONS:

ISSUES NOS . 3 & 4 :

13. The case made out by the 2nd Party is that , he was initially posted as an Assistant in class IIi cadre at MDO- I on 12-5-1990 and subssequently promoted as Higher Grade Assistant . It is his case that , by letter dated 10-4-1997 he informed Branch office , where he was working, about sickness of his mother and requested Branch Authority to grant him Privilege Leave frome 7-4-1997. It is his case that , that said letter was served on Ist Party. He further alleges that , he sent telegram on 24-4-1997 and informed Branch office that , he cannot attend the office dueto his mother's illness and also informed Branch office that, there was nobody to look after his mother except he himsilf and requested Branch office to grant him privileg leave from 7-4-1997 . According to him Chembur Branch granted his privilege leave by considering his request. however , he could not collect the salary of April , 1997 which later on was cancelled by the Branch office it is the case of the Union that , thereafter 2nd Party Workman became sick and mentally disturbed . He was taking treratment of Psychiatrist and more Particularly from Dr. Sanjay Kumawat and was under his treatment frome 30th April , 1997 to 14-11-2010 . Even he alleges that, he scat medical certificate to the Divisional office . According to Union he was not aware of the enquiry nor aware of the decision taken of the Ist party about his removal from the employent . It is case of the Union that , no opportunity was given to 2nd Party workman to participate in the enquiry and to place his case and explain about his absenteeism. According to Union enquiry was not fair and proper and finding is perverse . Whhereas case of the Ist Party is that the 2nd Party concerned workman remained to unauthorisedly absent . He did not bother to take note of correspondence sent by 1st Party on number of occasions . It is case of the Ist party that , even correspondence was returned unserved though it was send on 3 different addresses i.e. at two addresses of Mumbai and one address ofAkkalkot, Dist . Sholapur which was available with it . It is case of Management that , said were displayed on the Notice Board as per Staff Regulations and enquiry was proceeded and concluded noting that , 2nd Party has not participated in the enquiry . Accordingto Ist party, full opportunity was given to the 2nd Partyto participate in the enquiry still he did not turn up and paricipate in the enquiry and help the Enquiry Officer to give finding Accordingto 1st Party , charge levelled against the concerned workman was proved and as per the St regulations , convicition of removal from services a

suggested and was implemented which is just and proper .

14. Now, at present we are on the point of fairness enquiry and perversity of the finding .

11. 1 am deciding fairness of enquiry and perversity of finding third time . Initially I observed enquiry not fair and proper and finding perverse by passing Part I Award on 27-9-2007 which was challenged by Ist Party by filing WritPetition No. 1239 of 2008 while disposing off the said WritPetition Hon'ble High Court Bombay remanded the said issue to decide afresh and on that I again decided those issues on 6-3-2009. Again said was challenged by Ist Party by filing Writ Petition No. 1843 of2009 in which same issues are again sent back for fresh decision directing this Tribunal to dispose off those 2 issues and observed that, in any event if this Tribunal comes to the conclusion that, the enquiry is fair and proper and finding not perverse it shall give an apportunity to 1st Party to lead evidence . However, as far as evidence on this issue is concerned, High Court did not disturb the directions given by the Single Bench of Hon'ble High Court , Bombay while disposing off the Writ Petition No. 1239 of 2008 where it wasdirected to Tribunal to proceed on the basis of available material and both sides would have no opportunity now to lead any evidence . So the evidence before this Tribunal on these issues is lead by the concerned .

1862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

[PART SAC. 3 (ii)]

So this absccrm of 86 days technically speckrag does

not qualify a ist partyto treat , that he abandoned the 15 According to 2nd Party enquiry is not fair, proper and finding perverse Whereas case of the Ist Party is that, enquiry is fair and proper and finding not perverse ..

job or does not permit the management to level charge of abandonment ofjob . Besides in para- 3 and 4 of the charge

sheet produced a page 80 with Exhibit 11 where Manaement

admit that , it cived telegram from the concerned worjman

on 24-4-1997 and letter on 30-4-1997 dated 25-4-1997

informing that ins mother is sick and he is in the house , nobous there to look after her and he will resume onduty on 2-5-1497. Even said correspondence is produced by the Management with list at Exhibit il at pages 68 , 69 and 70. Even perusal of these pages reveal that , 2nd Party is absent from7-4-1997 mentioning reasion of kness of his mother . Eveo on the said page which is Xerox copy of the telegram , there is remark of the 1st party regarding receipt of the office for necessary action . When ist party admit that, there was an intimation from the concerned workman and when correspondence to the effect is produced even by ist Party at pages 68 and 69 of Exhibit 11, in my considered view charge of abseniceism without prior intimation to the office does not stand ans that it did not apply, when particularly he request to sanction leave. Onthe contra y perusal ofthe said correspondence reveals that, he intimated reason of absenteeism and requested for sanction of leave from 7-4-1997 . When that is there in my considered view charge of " absenteeism " without prior intimation does not stand . Moreover charge of abandonment ofjob which require absenteeism of 90 days as per Explanation 1 of Rule 39 of Staff Regulation Rules does not send against the concerned workman since he remained absent for 86 days till Charge Sheet was issued i.e. till 2-7-1997 from 7-4-1997 . For abandonment of job 90 days absenteeism is required and this absenteeism technicalily speaking cannot be treated as absenteeism of 90days to qualify said absenteeism as abandonment ofjob.

16. Now, let us see what are the charges leveled against the concerned workman? We find the documents produced by both i.e. by 2nd Party with list at exhibit 8 andi by 1st partywith list at Exhibit 11. At page 80 of Exhibit 11 documents produced by the Manageinent we find there is a charge sheet . In the said charge sheet Disciplinary Authority, Senior Divisional Manager , in writing informed the concerned workman, by the said charge shcet , that, he remained absent from duty from 7-4-1997 onwards in unauthorized manner without prior intimation to the office or without getting leave sanctioned prior to proceeding on leave and has committed breach of disicipline and acted in a manner highly prejudicial to good conduct and violative ofthe provisions ofRegulations 21 , 30( 1 ) , 61 r/w Regulation 39(1) oflife Insurance Corporation of India Staff Regulation , 1960 for which penalty spelt out in Regulation 9 ( 1 ) ( b ) to(g) could be imposed. As far as these allegations are concerned regarding committing an offence under Rule 39 ( 1 ) ofLIC Staff Regulations and punishment available under Staff rule 39( 1) ( a) to (g ) is that , an employee who commits breach of the Regulatuon/ Rules of the Corporation shall be punished by awarding punishment of (a) Consure , (b ) withholding of one or more inncrement , (c) recovery from pay ..... , ( d) reduction to lower service or post (e) compulsory retirement , (f) removal from service and (g) dismissal . The copy of Staff rules are produced at page 1 to 65 ofExhibit 11. In Rule 39 (2 ) of Staff Regulation , it is mentioned that , no order of imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in Clauses (b) to (g) of sub- regulation ( 1 ) shall be passed by Disciplinary Authority without charge or charges being communicated to him in writing and without his having been given reasonable opportunity to defend himself against such a charge or charges and of showing show cause notice against the action proposed to taken against him . That means punishment under Regulation 39 ( 1 ) ( b) to ( g) cannot be given unless charge sheet is served and reasonable opportunity of defending himself against such a charge is given. Besides in the Explanation ( 1 ) to Regulation 39 it is mentioned that , for the purpose of this Regulation , an employee shall be deemad to have abandoned his post if he absent himself from duty withouuut leave or over stsys his leave for a continuous period of more than 90 days without any intimation there of in writing . It means that , if he give intimation and if he did not absent for more than 90 days, then charge of abandonment cannot be leveled against such an employee as per the Explanation-1 of Staff Regulations 1960. Here as stated above in the charge heet in para-2 of the charge sheet it is mentioned that, the concerned workman remained absent from duty from 7-4-1997 onwards . It is to be noted that , this charge sheet was issued to the concerned workman on 2-7-1997. That means at the most absentee for the purpose of this charge sheet must be read absence from 7-4-1997 to 2-7-1997 . If we calculate the absenteeism of the concerned workman between 7-4-1997 to 2-7-1997 i.e. the date of issue of the charge sheet,from 7-4-1997 i.e. date from where he was absent we find his absenteeism is at the most of 86 days .

17. Even in the finding we find it is wrong one about absenteeism . Copy of the finding ofthe Enquiry Committee isfiled at page 96 of Exhibit 11. In the said finding Enquiry Officer referred notices sent to the concerned workman of enquiry and in last paragraph concluded that , concerened workman is guilty of remaining absent continously for more than 90 days at a stretch without any intimation in writing and observed that , he has abondoned his job as per explanation of Staff Regulation 39. However, as stated above explanation No. 1 ofRule 39 expect absenteeism of 90 days to treat said absenteeism as abondonment ofjob . However , actually till giving notice dated 2-7-1997 absenteeism from 7-4-1997 we find , concerned workman technically remained absent for 86 days and not for 90 days to attract the charge of abandonment of job as per Explanation ( 1 ) ofRegulation 39(4)( iii ) of Staff Regulation . Besicies the Enquiry Officer observed concerned workman continously absent for more than 90 days whereas actual cnarges which is referred above , is of absenteeism from 7-4-1997 to 2-7-1997 , since charge sheet was given on 2-7-1997 . So in my considered view Enquiry officer cannot travel about absenteeism of the concerned workman beyond 2-7-1997 as on that date charge sheet was given . By said chage sheet charge of absenteeism is framed of absenteeism between 7-4-1997 to 2-7-1997 and not beyond that. However, finding of the Enquiry Officer reveals that, [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

1863 he travelled beyond the date of charge and beyond the jurisdiction which was given to the Enquiry Officer by said charge sheet to conduct an enquiry about absenteeism which was between 7-4-1997 to 2-7-1997 .

18. Moreover, Disciplinary Authority punished the concerned workman by awarding punishment of removal accepting the finding given by the Enquiry Officer that , the concerned workman remained absent continously from 7-4-1997 . Actually Enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry Officer as per charge sheet dated 2-7-1997 leveling charge of absenteeism from 7-4-1997 to 2-7-1997 . So even Competent Authority cannot punish the concerned workman treating that he is continous absent and for his continous absenteeism from 7-4-1997 . There is copy ofthe order filed at page 171 ofExhibit 11. Page 172 is the Second page of the said order where it is observed by the Divisional Manager who is the Disciplinary Authority that , the concerned workman remained absent from 7-4-1997 for 268 days . That means firstly Enquiry Officer conducted enquiry about absenteeism of the concerned workman from 7-4-1997 till the date of the order i.e. till 28-11-1997 which does not permit Enquiry Officer to travel regarding absenteeism of the concerned workman beyond 2-7-1997 because on that date , charge sheet was given . However, Sr. Divisional Manager who is the Disciplinary Authority punished the concerned workman regarding his absenteeism of 268 days treating his absence from 7-4-1997 continuously and treated it as a " Dies - non ". So the punishment given regarding 268 days of absenteeism is not as per charge sheet or as per charges levelled and alleged inquiry conducted. Besides finding given by the Enquiry Officer is also not as per charge sheet as per charges levelled against the concerned workman regarding hisabsenteeism from 7-4-1997 to 2-7-1997 .

service or post .... ( e) compulsory retirement , (f) removal from service and (g) dismissal . Besides as per Rule 39(2 ) of Staff Regulation , it is mentioned that , no order of imposing on an employee any of the penalties specified in Clauses (b) to( g) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Regulation 39 shall be passed by Disciplinary Authority specified in Schedule , without charge or charges being communicated to him in writing andwithout his having been given reasonable opportunity to defend himself against such charge or charges and of showing show cause against the action proposed to taken against him Beside as per Rule 39 (3 ) Disciplinary Authority empowered to imposed any of the penalties given from (b)to (g ) of Rule 39 ( 1 ) of Staff Regulation rules , for which it shall itself enquire into such of the charges as are not admitted or it it considers necessary so to do , appoint a board of enquiry or an enquiry officer for the purpose. As per rule 39 (4 ) ( i )where a penalty is imposed on an employee on the grounds of conduct which had led to a conviction on a criminal charge; or (ii) where the authority concerned issatisfied for reasons to be recorded in writing , if it is not necessary or practicable to follow the procedure prescribed inthis regulation; or ( iii ) where an employee has abandoned hispost , the Disciplinary Authority may consider the circumstances of the case and pass such orders thereon as itdeems fit . Then there is an Explanation to Rule 39 in the form of Explanation ( 1 ) and ( 2) which content as per Explanation ( 1 ) for the purpose of this Regulation , an employee shall be deemed to have abandoned his post if he absent himself from duty without leave or over stays hisleave for a continuous period of more than 90 days without any intimation there of in writing . Explanation 2 of Rule39 says that , all communications under this regulation and copies of the orders passed there under may be delivered personally to the employee if he is attending office; otherwise they shall be sent by registered post to the address noted in the service record . Said Explanation further states that , where such communication or copies of orders cannot be served on him personally or by registered post, copies there of shall be affixed on the notice board of the office in which the employee is employed and on such affixing, such communications and orders shall be deemed to have been properly served on him .

19. Much capital is made of the Staff Regulations . Onecopy ofthe Staff Regulations 1960 is produced by the Management at pages 1 to 65 with Exhibit 11 and the relevant portion by the concerned workman , with list at Exhibit 8 at pages 3D and 3E. As per said Staff Regulations (actually most of the portion is not readable and Ist Party has not taken care to produce readable copy of the Staff Regulations . However , since Staff Regulations rules are referred at many places and much capital of it is made by the 1st Party at all levels , at this juncture I have no option but to try to read Staff Regulation rules as producedby the 1st Party) . Said staff rules , as far as , this case is concerned , Rule 21 is referred which expect from the employee ofthe Corporation to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to duty. ThenRule 39 of Staff Regulation is refer to the present case which is regarding penalties . As per said rule 1 of Rule 39 is concerned it is regarding penalities as mentioned from 39 ( 1 ) (a) to (g) said penalities can be imposed on the erred employee for good and sufficient reasons . Here as perRule 39 ( 1 ) penalty is mentioned under Rule 39 ( 1 ) (a) to (g) if decided to give , as per said rule , Management must have good and sufficient reasons . Said punishment are in the form of ( a) Censure , ( b ) withholding of one or more increment, (c) recovery from pay......( d) reduction to lower

20. So ifwe consider Explanation 1 and 2 of Rule 39 it expect that, communication must be served personally on the erred employee and if not it be sent by registered post . Here 1st Party try to say that , it sent communication by registered post but it returned with remarks ' unclaimed' , 'not found' and ' not known' . As observed on number of occassions no witness is examined on this pointby the Management to show that , actually all these exercise were followed while serving the communication on the concerned workman as expected . No evidence of any type isproduced except xerox copies of the envelopes and Xerox copies of remarks of the postal authorities on it nothing is stated . Whether that is sufficient to conclude that all exercise were followed by Management before proceeding and convicting him ? Enquiry Officer has not recorded evidence of any of the witnesses who tried to serve such correspondence personally on the concerned workman as [PART 11--SEC . 3 (ii )] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: APRIL 10 , 2010/CHAITRA 20, 1932

1864

expected under Explanation 2 of Rule 39 or who displayed such notices on the Notice Board or examined any witness from the postal authorities who passed remarks on the envelops of " not claimed " , " not found " or ' not known' . No any type of evidence is recorded by the Enquiry Officer as expected regarding service of communication on the concerned workman as per Explanation 1 and 2 of Staff Regulation . Besides as stated above charge of abandonment require 90 days continuous absensee . Here expressly word is used 90 days continuous absensee that too without intimation thereof. Here admittedly intimation was given . He send letters and telegram and it is admitted serve on Management . Besides from 7-4-1997 to 2-7-1997 the date of issuing charge shect he is not absent for 90 days continuously as it comes to 86 days . It means admittedly concerned workman was not absent continuously for 90 days when charge sheet was served . Asreferred on number of occasions concerned workman remained absent from 7-4-1997 and charge sheet was given on 2-7-1997.So the period from7-4-1997 to 2-7-1997 does not come to 90 days to attract the charge of abandonment of job of 90 days continuously . Besides as referred on number of occasions Enquiry Officer in her finding hold him guilty of remaining absent continuously for more than 90 days at a stretch without any intimation which is also wrong one. As intimation was given by him of absenteeism referring sickness of his mother . Besides competent authority who punished the concerned workman held him guilty of the charge of absenteeism of abandonment of post from 7-4-1997 to the date of this order . That means Competent Authority punished concerened workman counting his absenteeism from 7-4-1997 to 30-12-1997 as onthat, date Sr. Divisional Manager who was Disciplinary Authority and who passed the order of removal . Against that charge was levelled against the concerned workman of absenteeism by charge sheet referred above from 7-4- 1997 till 2-7-1997 i.e. date of issuing charge sheet .

New Mumbai address . As far as said letter is concerned , no any postal receipt/ correspondence is produced to show that , it was sent to concerned workman and refused by the concerned workman . Even original of the envelope is not produced of that correspondence to read original handwriting and remarks on it. Even there is correspondence letter dated 14-5-1997 at page 74 which is also alleged written to the concerned workman at Airoli , New Mumbai address about which also nothing is produced by the Management including original envelope returned by Postal authorities showing that it was sent to him but was not accepted as alleged by the 1st Party . Then there is correspondence dated 29-5-1997/3-6-1997 at page 75 of Exhibit 11 about which also no original of any type including postal receipt is produced to presume that , it was sent and received by the concerned workman . Same thing can be observed about copy of charge sheet produced at pages 77-78 which was allegedly addressed to the concerned workinen at his Chembur office address . Even copy of the charge sheet produced at page 80, copy of communication letter dated 17-7-1997 at page 82 , copy ofdisciplinary proceeding dated 30-9-1997 is produced at page 83 of Exhibit 11. copy of order dated 30-9-1997 at page 84 of Exhibit 11 , all this reveals that, no supporting evidence is produced by the Management that , this correspondence was sent to the concerned workman at the adressees shown and were returnedby the postal authorities with remarks of' refusal' , 'unclaimed' or ' left' . Then we find copy of correspondence at page 85 of Exhibit 11 alongwith copy of envelope returned bythe postal authorities filed from pages 87 to 95 reveals that , said were sent but returned back with remarks as " unclaimed " or ' left' or 'not known ' . Besides nothing is shown by the Management regarding correspondence sent tothe concerned workman about finding of enquiry officer produced at pages 96-97 showing that , these were sent but not claimed by the concerned workman on the given address . It is stated that, the said was written by the Enquiry Officer to the Divisional Manager who sent to the concerned workman but it was not shown and proved by examining any witness on that point that it was sent on particular address and was returned back by the postal authorities . Copies of the correspondence from pages 96 to 160 if perused we find that , all these are shown returned by the postal authorities with remarks ' not claimed ' , ' not found' and 'not known' .

22. Much Capital is made of the Staff Regulation regarding service of such correspondence on the concerned workman saying that when it was not claimed by the concerned workman through postal authorities the management then displayed it on the Notice Board . It is also case of the Management that , all this correspondence was returned by the postal authorities and those were displayed by the authority on the notice boards at the relevant time . However , on correspondence from pages 94 to 160 we find such a remark particularly on pages 128 , 129 21. Also much capital is made of serving correspondence on the concerned workman to show that fair opportunity was given but it was not utilized by him. As observed by me on all occasions that, no any corresopondence was served on the concerned workman . Even it is an admitted position and that is not disputedby the Ist Party .Even it is not case of the 1st Party that, in view of the correspondence served upon the concerned workman , concerned workman remained absent . On the contrary case of the 1st Party is that it try to serve correspondence and tried to justify the service of correspondence on the concerned workman by producing number of copies of envelopes with the remarks of the postal authorities and number of copies of the said correspondence by producing those with list at Exhibit 11. Outofthat ifwe peruse page 73 of Exhibit 11 , we find it is a letter written by Manager (Personnel & IR ) dated 9-5-1997 addressed to the concerned workman at Airoli, 1866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 / CHAITRA 20 , 1932-

[PART II--SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] certificate of the concerned Doctor on has to consider it .

Even correspondence regarding his medical health is at from page 44 to 49 of Exhibit 8 is not seriously disputed. So it cannot be said that, 2nd party has made out false case or it was concocted story made out by him about his absence. No doubt on that no evidence is lead by him in support of said medical certificates and case made out by him . But I feel here we are on the point of fairness of inquiry and on pointof finding . On that finding punishment of removal is given. So we can test that while hearing both on the punishment , since punishment alone cannot be decided till gravity of alleged charge is considered.

25. Moreover , one has to see the reason given by the concerned workman about absenteeism . He says that , his mother was sick and he was alone in the house . He states that , he was staying with his uncle who left for native place . That means , his mother was in the house who was sick and he was alone . As there was nobody to look after her he has no option but to attend her . As stated above said position is not disputed by the ist Party at any stage .

we do not find that much attachment towards parents But one has to note that it was period of 1997 and that concerned workman cannot be blamed for the reason given by him that his mother is sick so he unable to report on duty from 7-4-1997 . According to me he has given more priority to sickness of his mother than attending inquiry as that time he may be feeling that mother is above all . That belief of some persons one cannot ignore . The eason given by the concerned workman that , his mother is sick , ought to have been considered by the Management since affection towards mother appears his passion and the management ought to have taken more care while proceeding against him when he was passionate about his mother. When it is his case that , he remained abesnt and he was sick and was treated by Psychiatrist Dr. Sanjay Kumawat for which he was under his treatment from 30-4-1997 to 14-11-2000, that means , he was under treatment for more than three years. He has produced copy of those certificates at Exhibit 40 and 41 of Exhibit 8. All are served on 1st Party.All those shows that , 1st Party was aware of the intimation given by the concerned workman and the reason behind his absenteeism . Reason is that , intially his mother was sick so he remained absent and then he himself fallen sick and when his mother was sick and he was sick and none of the correspondence of the 1st Party was served, how Ist party expect that, he should attend enquiry ? Besides in this situation how Ist Party is happy in saying thatit followed rules and regulations of LIC by displaying notices on Notice Board and satisfied legally treated those as served on the concerned workman ? Besides when actually notice was not served on the concerned workman about the enquiry and its stages , in my considered view, what is the use of correspondence displaying the notices on the Notice Board when concerned workman is not reporting on duty and is not known about the enquiry proceeding going on against him?

26. Here reason given by the concerned workman is that, his mother is sick require to be considered , in my considered view, in different angle . It is to be noted that , he claim that his mother was sick . One has to see when one is claiming his mother was sick, one has to give anxious thought and regard and respect to the word "mother" as 'mother ' means God for such a person and is all to him. Even in the Factory " mother machine " plays an important roll , said machine is called " Mother machine " which provide work for all other machinery and hands working in the factory. Mother is in the personality who take care of house , who look after all , who bothers regarding all as well as go on taking care of and that too all the time . When employee of this type who is illitrate and who belong to Schedule Caste category says when his mother was sick , definitely for him mother may be the only important thing in his life and mother will be all for him and beyond that he may not be having world . When mother is his world , for such a person and when he claims that , his mother was sick which is not disputed at any level , in my considered view, one has to give regard and thought to that reason . It is not that , he did not inform about the sickness of his mother . On the contrary Ist Party admit that, by telegram dated 24-4-1997 and letter dated 25-4-1997 he informed about sickness of hismother and even he explained the situation in which he was in the house saying that , he was staying with his uncle who left for native place and he was alone there to look after his ill mother . When he states that , his mother is sick and require treatment , and when pray for sanction of leave from 7-4-1997 and when that reason is given which admittedly is served on 1st party in my considered view, one has to give anxious thought to the reason given by the concerned workman . According to me one cannot take it lightly or casually as in my opinion , reason given , is regarding sickness of his mother . When person of this type is not attending job for the reason to give treatement to his mother , require to consider sincerely . Now - a-days

27. Apart from that much capital is made about displaying notices on the Notice Board taking base that procedure given in Staff rules is adopted and so 1st Party is right in doing all that . Actually Staff Regulation rules expect such a displaying on the office where the concerned workman is working . All the correspondence referred above does not reveal that , the notices were displayed at the place where concerned workman worked lastly and even there is no evidence before the Enquiry Officer to conclude that, such notices were displayed on the Notice Board of the office where the concerned workman lastly worked . EnquiryOfficer does not disclose the name of any witness who displayed such notices on the Notice Board of the Office where 2nd Party lastly worked. It is not discussed by the Enquiry Officer or brought on record by her a ywhere...co displayed those notices on the notice board ofthe office where 2nd Party concerned workman lastiv worked and for how many days notices were there on the Notice Board . Even no such type of evidence is there before the Enquiry Officer . On the contrary not a single statement is recorded of any wanessby Enquiry Officer to conclude 1867 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20, 1932

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

that , notices were displayed on the Notice Board as per StaffRegulation rules since copies of those were not served onthe concerned workman . Besides Enquiry Officer is not examined in this proceedings to show that , her act of conducting inquiry was just and proper .

the 1st party admit that , the correspondence referred above was not served on the concerned workman . Ile admits that , the enquiry report which was sent to the concerned workman was not displayed on the Notice Board. So that is important admission given by the witness of the Ist Party . He admits that, extention of leave can be granted by Ist Party upto one year. It is to be noted that, Enquiry Officer is not examined at anytime before this tribunal , though matter came up before thisTribunal on 3 occasions ,to show enquiry conducted by her was just and proper and finding given by her does not require any interference . It is not explained by the Ist Party that as to why it was unable to lead any evidence before this Tribunal of Enquiry Officer to show that enquiry conducted by her was conductedby following due process of law and even by following principles of natural justice. In the absence of it and in view of the discussion made above I conclude that, the enquiry is not fair and proper . So when this is the evidence and when principles of natural justice were not followedby the Ist Party while holding an enquiry andwhen concerned workman did not attend the enquiry to explain about his absenteeism in my considered view, we have to observe that , enquiry is not fair and proper and finding perverse .

28. When concerned workman was absent on account of sickness of his mother , during the enquiry admittedly and when he was not attending the work where notices were allegedly displayed on the notice board , whether display of notices on notice board is sufficient ? whether can it be treated that , Ist Party has given all opportunities as expected? Whether it can be treated that principles of natural justice were followed ? According to me answer to all those will be " No ". Besided principles of natural justice means , the principles which require to be followed which are not reduced in writing and which can be offered in possible manner . Even it is not the case of the 1st Party that, it displayed its intention of conducting an inquiry by displaying it in any of the newspaper as is done in Civil cases . No any type of such action is shown to have been taken by the 1st Party that it displayed its intention in any new paper of holding enquiry against the concerned workman about his absenteeism . No doubt Staff Regulations does not incorporate that . But "Natural justice" has wider meaning than what is corporated in the rules . When it is not case of the Ist Party that and when such a notice was not displayed about the intention of the 1st Party that it wanted to hold an enquiry and or conducted the enquiry and when none of the notices were served on the concerned workman by which 1st party, in my considered view such an enquiry cannot be treated as fair and proper and cannot be observed that it was conducted by following principles of natural justice.

30. While remanding the matter back Hon'ble High Courtobserved that , this Tribunal has to see whether 2nd Party led evidence to justify absenteeism which in my considered view will comeup in the next stage where I have to give opportunity to the Ist Party to justify the action of removal . It is to be noted that , here Ist Party has removed the concerned workman relying on such an enquiry and finding given by the Enquiry Officer on such an enquiry. WhenEnquiry Officer gave finding on such an enquiry and when Disciplinary Authority acted on it in my considered view, opportunity will have to be given to the 2nd Party to explain about his absenteeism and about further delay which appears to have caused in making Appeals and reference after a delay of 3-4 years . Apparently itappears that, there is delay of about 4 years which in my considered view cannot be considered at this stage and will be considered in second round by giving opportunity to both.

31. Taking into consideration all this , coupled with the discussions made above of the case of both parties and the evidence on record, I conclude that , enquiry is not fair and proper and I also conclude that , findings perverse . So I answer these Issues to that effect and passes the following order:

ORDER

(i ) Enquiry is not fair and proper ,

(ii) finding perverse ,

( iii) 1 direct both to attened this Court on 5-3-2010 on the action taken by Ist Party.

Bombay,

18th February, 2010

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer 29. Apart from that, what is evidence with the 1st party. 2nd Party examined himself at Exhibit 12 where he claims that principles of natural justice were not followed and injustice is caused to him . He states that , lastly he worked at Chembur Branch . He states that , he has intimated 1st Party about his absenteeism. He states that , he did not remain absent without intimation . He states that , he unable to attend duty and intimated by letter dated 25-4-1997 and telegram dated 24-4-1997 . Against that, 1 st party examined Mr. Tara intially at Exhibit 16 and then for second time at Exhibit 27 repeating the same story. In the cross this witness of the 1st Party admit that Authority can sanction leave upto one year as per Rule 60. Even Staff Regulation give that much advantage to erred employee . He admits that , the medical certificate submittedby the concerned workman ofDr. Umawat from 7-4-1997 to 30-4-1997 were received. He admits that , entire correspondence of the Ist party addressed to 2nd Party was not actually served on 2nd Party and were returned with postal remarks "unclaimed" , 'not found ' . He admits that, Ist Party did not follow method, of serving such correspondence on the concerned workman personally . He admits that , no oral evidence was recorded by the Enquiry Officer of any type while giving finding . Even on 2nd occasion this witness of

1117 GI /10-14 1868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 22 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 948.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ मैसर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- गुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/15/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/161/2005- आईआर ( बी-1) ]

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii ) ] 1. The Government of India , Ministry of Labourby its Order No.L- 12012 / 161 /2005 - IR ( B -1) dated 22nd February, 2006 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 disputetothis Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofMysore, Hubli in discharing Shri Sanjay N. Morajkar. Daftry from service w.e.f. 1-12-2002 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled for? "

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 22nd March, 2010 S.O. 948. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Dispute Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 2/ 15/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -2 , Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of Mysore and their workmon, received by the Central Government on 22-03-2010.

[No. L-12017751 /2005 - IR( B - 1) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.2, MUMBAI , PRESENT:- A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT - 2 / 15 of2006

Employers in relation to the Management of State Bank of Mysore

The Assistant General Manager, II , State Bank ofMysore , Region II , Hubli Zone, Hubli ,

Hubli Karnataka .

First Party

V/ s .

Their Wormen

Sh . Sanjay N. Morajkar, S/o. Nakul Morajkar, H. No. 245,

Sumitra Niwas , Aquem , Malbhat , Margao , Goa-403681 .

Second Party

APPE RANCE

Mr. L.F. Vieges , Advocate

Forthe Employer

For the Workmen

Mr. S.V. Nabar , Advocate .

: Date of reserving the Award: 19-1-2009 Date of passing the Award : 09-2-2010 .

AWARD PART - I

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

To support the subject matter involved in the reference concerned workman 2nd Party filed Statement of Claim at Exhibit 6 stating and contending that , the concerned Workman joined the services of the Management/ ist Party during 1985 and worked as a Temporary Peon at Margao and Panaji Branches during 1992 to 22-3-1994 bonestly and sincerely . It is case of the 2nd Party that , ist Party considering work he was it regularised as a Daftari from 23-3-1994 and worked at Panaji Branch . It is commended by the concerned workman 2nd Party that , on 21-2-2000 Mr. Somanna , Branch Manager of the Management/ ist Party visited the Branch at Panaji and asked to copy the prepared letter and directed to handed over to the same to the said Branch Manager Mr. Somanna . ! " is contended by the concerned workman that, the 1st Party being Disciplinary Authority on the basis ofthe said letter dated 21-6-2000 placed the Petitioner under suspension from 22-6-2000 . It is contended by the concernedworkman that , a charge sheet dated 29-12-2000 was served on him alleging that, on 12-11-1999 the concerned workman had withdrawn Rs . 600 directly from the S. B. Savings in operative account 114 of Prakash S. Usgaonkar by forging the signature of account holder on S. B. withdrawal form and using the services of Sri Satish N. Jadar and also withdrawn amounts from the said S. B. Account holder Prakash NM . Usgaonkar by forging his signatures on cheque leaves on different dates byusing services of Sri R. P. Rawarde or Sri Shamsuddin and that, to facilitate the said withdrawals the concerned workman got the inoperative account 114 transferredto operative account on 18-11-1999 by forging the signatures oftheAccount Holder on the Application Form. It is case of the 2nd Party concerned workman that it was alleged that, the concerned workman collected the cheque book bearing No. 498631 to 498640 on 10-11-1999 by forging signature of S.S Account , 114 Holder Sri Prakash N. Usgaonkar and using service of Shashikanth N. Jadhar and thereby committed misconduct as per Bipartite Settlement Para 19.5 published for a major penalty as per Bipartite Settlement para 19.6 and called the reply from the concerned workman.

(3) It is contended by the concerned workman that , the Disciplinary Authority appointed Sri 1. Charles Ravikumar , Manager ( Accounts ) Margao Branch as Enquiry Officerto enquire into the charges levelled against the concerned workınan and the said Enquiry Officer issued a Notice fixing the date of enquiry on 12-6-2001 . it is his case that by a subsequent letter dated 26-9-2001 the Disciplinary Authority changed the Enquiry Officer by 1869

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

appointing one Shri N.V. Chandar, Chief Manager , Margao and also appointed Sri K. Udayachandra Joshi , D. M. HeadOffice as Presenting Officer indicating the procedure to be followed in conducting the enquiry . It is contended bythe concerned workman that , he was allowed to take the assistance, to defend the charges in the enquiry ' of one Sri V. Manjunath , President, S & M Employees Union. It is contended by the concerned workman that, during the course ofthe enquiry , the Presenting Officer examined Bank witness and from his side he examined himself. It is his case that, he submitted the written statement at the end of the enquiry on 28-11-2001 . It is contended by the concerned workman that , the Enquiry Officer appears to have submitted findings of the Enquiry to the Disciplinary Authority on 27-2-2002 holding that , all the charges made against the Petitioner are proved. It is further contended by the concerned workman that, on 25-2-2002 the Disciplinary Authority/ 1st Party called the explanation , if any, from the concerned workman , enclosing copy of the findings of the Enquiry Officer . It is contended by the concerned workman that , on 17th June , 2002 he submitted his explanation to the Disciplinary Authority stating that , the findings of the Enquiry officer is baseless , imaginary and there is no application of mind of the Enquiry Officer on the records of evidence and therefore the whole findings are in gross violation of principles of natural . It is further contended by the concerned workman that , the Disciplinary Authority after receipt of his explanation issued a Show Cause notice dated 23-7-2002 to the concerned workman stating therein that , he has come to the conclusion that all the charges levelled against the concerned workman are proved. It is further contended by the concerned workman that, he submitted his detailed explanation on 3-8-2002 to the Disciplinary Authority highlighting many facts , evidence and circumstances as to how the charges levelled against him are baseless , illegal and the perversity ofthe findings of the Enquiry Officer and prayed therein to consider all that and defer the proposed punishment . It is further contended by the concerned workman that , the Disciplinary Authority by its letter dated 27-8-2002 provided him an opportunity of personal hearing on 17-9-2002 when the concerned workman appeared before the Disciplinary Authority alongwith his representative and submitted his written statement . It is further contended bythe concerned workman that, however , the Disciplinary Authority still passed an order dated 30-11-2002 discharging the concerned workman from its services .

concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and order passed by the Disciplinary Authority without proper and independent application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case without considering the various grounds urged by the concerned workman in his appeal . It is further contended by the concerned workman that the order of the Appellate Authority also suffers from very many illegality and infirmities which have vitiated the proceedings . It is further contended by the concerned workman that, he also exhausted his remedy once again before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) and Conciliation Officer at Vasco-d- Gama , Goa by moving an application under Section 2 (A) read with Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. It is further contended by the concerned workman that, the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central ) tried his level best to convince the Management/ 1st Party that , the concerned workman's case be viewed on humanitarian ground and considering the downtrodden poverty line of the concerned workman may arrive at an amicable settlement . It is further contended by the concerned workman that , despite of the best efforts , the matter could not be resolved in conciliation proceedings and matter ended in failure of Conciliation on 3-8-2005 . It is further contended by the concerned workman that, therefore , being aggrieved by the order dated 30-11-2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the order dated 30-4-2003 passed by the Appellate Authority of the Management/ 1st Party he is preferring this Appeal contending that , the charges 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 are not clear and are vague . It is further contended by the concerned workman that , it is well established that , if the charges are vague , it deprives a reasonable opportunity for the CSE to put up appropriate defence and consequently tantamounts violation of Principles of natural justice and hence the charges 1 , 2, 3 and 4 become invalid , requires to be quashed . It is further contended by the concerned workman that , the charges are null and void as the same are not issued by a notified Disciplinary Authority as the Disciplinary Authority has not been notified hence the charge sheet becomes null and void , not maintainable , requires to be quashed along with the entire proceedings and show cause notice and final order ofpunishment . It is further contended bythe concerned workman that , the charges 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 contain the allegations of forgery and has not been charged under a specific clause of the Bipartite but has been under 19.5 without mentioning sub - clause , and there are 20 sub - clauses and does not spell out under which sub- clause the charges are levelled and hence prima facic the entire charge sheet becomes invalid , vague amd does not survive . It is further contended by the concerned workman that, the charges 1 , 2, 3 and 4 contains allegations of forgery . However, in the entire proceedings none of the witness have come forward and given evidence that the instrument in question narrated in Charge 1 , 2 , 3 and 4 are all forged and no one has said who has forged and the BWI who has passed all the instruments admitted , accepted ar i acknowledged that , he has passed the instruments never says atleast in the evidence that these instruments are forged . It is further contended by the concerned workman that, inspite of such vital true facts available learned Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that , he has no (4) It is further contended by the concerned workman that , being aggrieved by the said order of discharge dated 30-11-2002 the concerned workman submitted an appeal to theDeputy General Manager and Appellate Authority, State Bank ofMysore , Hubli , on 23-12-2002 explaining how the orders of the Disciplinary Authority are illegal and baseless . It is further contended by the concerned workman that , the Appellate Authority offered him an opportunity to appear in person and heard him personally on 13-2-2003 and also took into account his Memorandum submitted through his Defence Representative . It is further contended by the concerned workman that , however , the Appellate Authority by its order dated 30-4-2003 rejected theappeal, preferred by the concerned workman, mechanically 1.3(ii)]

[PART THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010 / CHATTK, 20, 1932

1870

opportunityablish

has boun depr.ed of a reasonable the defect. itis his vase that , Disciplinary Authornywrongly based upon auch void findings which requires to be quashed and set aside . It is, further contended by the concerned workman that , no definite charge existed at the time of investiration made by Sri Somanina and that , neither theManager nor Sri Somanna are Disciplinary, hence the question of contession does not arise as they are not competent authorities empowered with jurisdiction to accept any such confession , hence the findings of the Enquiry Officer with regard to alleged confession is illegal and is without jurisdiction and therefore also fine findings equire to be set aside to meet the ends of jice. It is further contended by the concerned workman , the act of the Enquiry Officer coolly coming to the conclusion without apply ing his mind based on the alleged confession is erroneous , contrary to the principles of natural justice hence the findings and proposed punishment required to be quashed and set aside . It is further contended by the concerned workman that , there is no complainter claim from any party and there is no evidence broughs on record to the effect that . the Bank has suffered loss and therefore also the findings become perverse contrary to the principles of natural justice and punishment inflicted is invatid and requires to be set aside . It is further contended by the concerned workman that , the Appellate Authority is not justified in passing the order dated 30-4-2003 rejecting the Appeal preferred by the concerned workman mechanically concurring with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and order of passed by the Disciplinary Authority without proper and independent application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case . It is his case that , he ought to have considered on the various grounds urged by him in his appeal . Fie alleges that , the order of the Appellate Authority also suffers from very many illegality and infirmties which have vitiated the proceedings . So he prayed -that the impugned orders dated 30-11-2002 passed by the Disciplinary Authority and impugned order dated 30-4-2003 passed by the Appellate Authority be quashed and set aside and the concerned workman be reinstated withbenefit offull back wages with consequential reliefs .

given the findings mechanically without applying his mind and the disciplinary authority also erred in accepting the findings mechanically without applying its mind gave the punishment which is contrary to the principles of naturai justice hence the same is liable to be quashed and set aisde. It is further contended by the concerned workman that, the relevant material witnesses have not been examined. It is further contended by the concerned workman that , the Star Officer Witness Shri Somanna who came for investigation and alleged to have taken a letter has not been examined to establish whether the Petitioner voluntarily gave the letter of confession or not , especially when it is disputed in the course of the cross - examinaton and when defence evidence is produced to the effect that this Petitioner was promised and under threat of police , compelled to copy a letter Written by Sri Somanna in English despite the true facts that, the concerned workman is not fully versed with English Lanuage. It is further contended by the concerned workman that, non - examination of Sri Somanna and Officer from the Regional office is failure on the part of the Management/ Ist Party to establish the truth and therefore , the findings of the Enquiry Officer is biased on without application of mind and hence the act of the Disciplinary Authority mechanically considering the findings without application of his mind demonstrates a biased and contrary to the principles of natural justice and requires to be set aside . It is further contended by the concerned workman that , the conclusion of the Enquiry Officer that , the concerned workman has admitted , by confessing voluntarily do not hold any water in the light of the answers given by the Branch Manager and the evidence on record. It is further contended by the concerned workman that, the fact that the letter was copies by the concerned workman in an empty cash cabin in the presence of Sri Somanna and there is no evidence established on record through any of the witness that the concerned workman voluntarily gave the copied letter or copied the letter voluntarily and handed over it to the Manager. It is further contended by the concerned workman that , that from the relevant material evidence, the findings based upon the BEC II presuming that, it is voluntarily confessed letter is perverse , contrary to evidence on record and evidence , the findings becomes illegal , invalid and the Disciplinary authority also erred in accepting the findings mechanically and therefore also the punishment inflicted is unjust , unwarranted and opposed to principles of natural justice and requires to be set aside in the ends of justice by reinstating the concerned workman . It is further contended by the concerned workman that , the allegations levelled in the charge are all concocted one and without evidence and of therefore the findings and the punishment inflicted are contrary to the principles of natural justice.

(6) This is disputed by the Management Ist Party by filing Written Statement at Exhibit 11 stating and contending that , the concerned workman was working as a Peon in its branches at Margao and Panaji but denied that, he had worked diligently and faithfully in the Bank . Management/ 1st Party denied that , on 21-6-2000 while the concerned workman was discharging his duties one Mr. Somanna , Branch Manager of the Respondent visited the Branch at Panaji where the concerned workman was working induced the concerned workman to copy a letter written in English language and that the said Mr. Somanna took the concerned workman to an empty cash cabin along with him and asked him to copy the said prepared letter and hand over to the said Branch Manager . It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that , the concerned workman / 2nd Party has written a letter and handed it over to the Branch Manager and the Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the said letter dated 21-6-2000 placed the concerned workman ander suspension from 21-6-2000 . It is case of (5) It is further contended by the concerned workman that, even though it has been brought on record that , Shri Somanna from Regional office came for investigation and he has submitted the report to the Management , his request for the report has been denied and opportunity to establish that letter was obtained by him enclosed to the report now brought on record through courier and produced in the inquiry proceedings is lost and the concerned workman 1871

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रेल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20, 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

the Management/ Ist Party that, the Petitioner knows English language and had written the said letter voluntarily in good English and signed under it .

ing in the Bank. Management/ 1st Party denies that , the copy of the Notification was never found till today in the Notice Board of the Bank and that , there is no signature of the concerned workman having obtained the circular, ifany, noting the Disciplinary Authority and hence the charge sheet becomes null and void and not maintainable and hence the order to be quashed . It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that , the Disciplinary Authority has been notified to all the staff members through the circulars and all the staff members are supposed to notice these circulars and said are open to all as well as available at Branches/offices . It is case of the Manage- ment/ 1st Party that , there are only 12 clauses to para 19.5 of Bipartite Settlement , no prejudice is caused to the concerned workman by not citing the sub- clauses as the concerned workman clearly understood the charges and the acts committed by the concerned workman by him and pleaded not guilty to the charges .

9. Management/ Ist Party denied that , the allega- tions of forgery have not been proved by the Manage- ment/ 1st Party against the concerned workman and that the Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority have not applied the mind while delivering the orders . It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that, the learned Enquiry Officer and Disciplinary Authority have considered the facts , documents , circumstances and evidence how Rs.36, 100 has been withdrawn from the Account No. 114 of bythe concerned workman to defraud the Bank by putting the withdrawals forms / cheques through counter for encashment through his friends . It is case of the Manage- ment/ 1st Party that, on 17-6-2000 customer Prakash S. Usgaonkar presented a withdrawal form and Pass book which , he was told that , the balance in the account is only Rs . 1077 and the Pass Book showing the balance of Rs.36,620 and upon the enquiry with the staff members the concerned workman himself voluntarily admitted to the Branch Manager , that he has withdrawn the money from the said accuount and deposited a sum of Rs.36 , 100 on 20- 6-2000 and thereafter submitted a letter admitting that , he has withdrawn the money. It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that , the concerned workman's friend and Bank customers also admitted that , they acted on behalf of the concerned workman , in their letters dated 21-6-2000 and 22-6-2000 . It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that , the concerned workman never denied the contents of the forg- ery or the contents of the letter dated 21-6-2006 or the deposit ofthe amount and the contents of the letters made by his friends .

7. It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that , initially Shri Charles Ravikumar was appointed as Enquiry Officer and subsequently on his request to relief him on health grounds Shri N.V. , Chander was appointed in his place . It is case of the Management / 1st Party that, the change ofDisciplipnary Authority had been duly informed to the concerned workman . It is a case of the Management / Ist Party that , even though the concerned workman had admitted his guilt in withdrawing amount from the customer account brought his letter and made good the withdrawn amount by depositing it in the Bank, a domestic enquiry was initiated by the Bank by issuing a charge sheet and the concerned workman was represented by Sri Mankjunath , President of SBM Employees Union , Bangalore. It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that, the concerned workman had admitted that all the procedure of domestic enquiry proceedings were- complied with by the management as evident from the Appeal where the concerned workman stated all the steps taken by the Management/ 1st Party culminated in his discharge . It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that, since he had totally failed to discharge the guilt the Disciplinary Authority had no other alternative but to discharge the Petitioner from the service of the Bank for gross misconduct since the charges are proved . Management/ 1st Party denied that , the Enquiry officer's report is baseless , imaginary and in fact the concerned workman had availed all opportunities to defend himself and he cannot now make such frivolous contention and it is contended by the Management/ Ist party that , the Disciplinary Authority applied its mind and decided to punish the concerned workman . It is case ofthe Management/ 1st Party that, the Appellate Authority. after hearing the concerned workman and perusal of the memo ofappeal delivered the order dated 30-4-2003 rejecting the appeal preferred by the concerned workman by giving sound reasons and the said order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity which have vitiated the proceedings . It is case ofthe Management/ 1st Party that , the conciliation proceedings failed before the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) because there was nothing new brought to the notice of the Management and there was no change of circumstances inviting reopening of the matter from the part of the Management and since the concerned workman's acts are serious criminal nature reopening such matters very much difficult.

8. It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that, the charges are very clear and are not vague as alleged by the concerned workman . The concerned workman was served with the charge sheet mentioning four charges in detail which itself is crystal clear and the concerned workman has clearly understood the charges and pleaged guilty . Management / 1st Party denied that, the charges itself are null and void as the same have not been issued by a notified Disciplinary Authority as the Disciplinary Authority has not been notified in the Branch to all the staffmembers including the concerned workman while work-

10. It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that , no prejudice has been caused to the concerned workman for non-examination of Shri Somanna and denied that , the con- cerned workman wrote the said letter under duress or un- der the threats of the Police . It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that , the findings are based upon the evidence and documents . Management/ 1st Party denies that , the letter was copies by the concerned workman in an empty cash cabin in the presence of Shri Somanna . It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that, the concerned workman has himself shown the said letter dated 21-6-2000 tothe Secretary ofthe Union , Panaji Branch before tendering 1872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii) ] the said letter to the Branch Manager , the said letter volun- tarily written by the concerned workman in order to elicit a lenient view from the higher authority , and the enquiry proceedings are totally silent regarding the issue of coercion or assurances , not even the suggestion that has been put to the witness /Branch Manager . It is case of the Management/ 1st party that , the findings in this Case are not solely based on Exh.11 but are based on oral evi- dence and also the documents including the letter dated 21-6-2006 and that the Exhibit BEXII cannot be read in isolation since the said exhibits have to be read along with other exhibits and oral evidence before the Enquiry officer .Management/ Ist Party denied that , the allegations levelled in the charges are concocted one and without evi- dence. It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that , non- production of Investigation Report and the Management/ Ist Party has not relied upon the Inquiry report before the EnquiryOfficer.

11. Management/ 1st Party denied that it obtained the confession from the concerned workman under dress . It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that , the concerned workman admitted his acts of forgery to the Branch Man- ager, deposited the withdrawn amount and submit a letter describing his acts of forgery and presented to the Branch Manager voluntarily and the said letter is the part of the evidence in the enquiry proceedings . It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that , the concerned workman himself made the admission before the charge sheet so the facts and circumstances of this case is not similar to the case decided by the Hon'ble Karnataka High Court . It is case of the Management/ 1st Party that , by the acts committed by the concerned workman Bank suffered disrepute in the eyes of the customer and the public in general regarding the reputation of the Bank . It is denied by the Management/ l st party that , the Appellate Author- ity is not justified in passing the order dated 30-4-2003 rejecting the appeal preferred by the concerned workman and submit that , the Appellate order is legal and justified. It is submitted by the Management/ 1st Party that , the concerned workman has not made out any case and the reference deserves to be rejected in limine with costs and the concerned workman is not entitled to any reliefs .

12. In view ofthe above pleadings Issues were framed atExhibit15. Out of those Issues at ( i) and (ii) are treated as preliminary issues which I answer as follows :

ISSUES

FINDINGS

No

1. Whether inquiry fair and proper?

Yes

2. Whether finding perverse?

REASONS:

ISSUES NOS . 1 & 2 :

14. It is his case that , while he was discharging duties Mr. Somanna who was the Branch Manager visited Panaji Branch where 2nd Party/ concerned workman was working . At the time of visit ofMr. Somanna he called the 2nd Party/concerned workman in cash cabin and handed over a copy ofwriting and asked him to reproduce it in his hand writing and hand over to him . It is his case that , he was educated upto Std . IX and was not that much conver- sant with English language . ' It is his case that , on the basis of the said writing given by the 2nd Party/ concerned workman , Disciplinary Authority suspended him from 22-6-2000. The charges levelled against the concerned work- man were that, he withdrawn Rs . 600 on 12-11-99 from S /B Account which was inoperative Account No. 114 standing in the name of Prakash S. Usgaonkar . It is also alleged that , by forging signature he withdrawn amount from the ac- countofUsgaonkar . It is also alleged that , while withdraw- ing said amount he took help of other hands working in the Bank . It is also alleged that , by forging signature of Usgaonkar he obtained cheque leaves and used those on different dates with the help of R. P. Rawarde or Shamsuddin and ' withdrawn amount from inoperative Account No. 114 standing in the name of Prakash Usgaonkar . It is case of the 2nd Party/ concerned workman that , the domestic enquiry was conducted on 30-6-2001 , 6-9-2001 , 7-9-2001 and 28-11-2001 and the witness were examined . According to 2nd Party/ concerned workman material witnesses were not examined before Inquiry Officer nor produced by the 1st party . Even Investigating Officer was not examined on whose basis charges were levelled of withdrawing the amount from the account of Mr. Usgaonkar with the help of above referred persons working with the Bank. It is his case that, no fair opportu- nity was given , no documents were produced with the Enquiry Officer to hold him guilty of the charges levelled against him . It is his case that , the very account holder Usgaonkar was not examined , nor original complaint was produced allegedly given by Usgaonkar claiming that, amount was withdrawn by unknown person and he has not withdrawn the said amount and no evidence was led by the Presenting Officer by examining said alleged witnesses viz . Jadar , Rawarde as well as Usgaonkar . It is his case that, when the person who initially held the inves- tigation Mr. Somanna is not examined and copy of the said investigation report is not placed on record vis - a - vis copy of complaint of Mr. Usgaonkar , the account holder and other witnesses where the alleged persons whose services have been allegedly utilized by the concerned workman for withdrawing the amount from Usgaonkar's account . He claims that , enquiry was not fair and proper . He also claims that, there was no evidence before the Enquiry Officer of withdrawing the amount by him and forging signature of the account holder Mr. Usgaonkar. So he claims that , find- ing isperverse. He also prays that , enquiry be declared not just and proper and finding perverse .

13. 2nd Party concerned workman claims that , he joined 1st Party initially as temporary Peon at Margao Panaji Branch and worked there between 1992-94 . He worked hon- estly and sincerely and considering his work he was posted as Daftri from 23-3-1994 on which he worked at Panaji Branch .

15. Thisis disputed by the management/ Ist Partyby making out the case that , there was enquiry and charge sheet was served on the concerned workman . It is case of the 1st Party that , enquiry was conducted by the Enquiry officer in which the representative of the concerned work- man represented him . It is case of the 1st Party that , he has 1873 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

18. Persued the proceedings , written arguments filed atExhibits 38 and 39 as well as the documents producedby the 2nd Party/concerned workman at Exhibit 8 and the Ist Party/Management at Exhibit 12.

submitted reply to the charges sheet and full opportunity was given to the concerned workman . It is case of the Ist Party that, very serious allegations were levelled against the concerned workman and sufficient evidence was there before the Disciplinary Authority to conclude finding not perverse .

19. Documents produced with Exhibit 8 including copy of the enquiry report and copy of enquiry proceed- ings . From the said documents we find that , witness viz . alleged account holder Usgaonkar is not examined before the EnquiryOfficer . In the enquiry we find that, the com- plaint alleged to have been filed by Usgaonkar is also not produced. In the enquiry we find original investigation report is not submitted . Even question was put to the witness of the Management on which Enquiry Officer ob- jected and passed an order that, Investigation report is not necessary. It is case of the 2nd Party /concerned workman that, on the basis of the said Investigation Report charge sheet was served and enquiry was conducted . Besides it is a matter of record that , Investigating Officer Mr. Somanna who allegedly submitted his report is not examined before the Enquiry Officer . Besides the services of the alleged persons allegedly used by the concerned workman for with- drawing the amount are also not examined in the enquiry . Besides Somanna is not examined against whom , it is alleged that the concerned workman admitted the guilt before him bywriting letter voluntarily . It is the case of the 2nd Party that, said writing was taken from him by using force and coercion by the Manager . It is his case that , he has not given it voluntarily and on that basis Ist Party/ Management cannot rely and prosecuprosecute him . When that stand is taken by the 2nd Party/concerned workman , natu- rally burden shifts on the 1st party to prove that , the writ- ing of confession was voluntarily and said action was taken on voluntary statement or on guilt admitted by the con- cerned workman . However , said burden is not properly discharged by 1st Party by examining Mr. Somanna or by examining witness on whom 1st Party / Management want to rely. Besides charge of forging signature of Usgaonkar isalso alleged and it is not proved by examining Usgaonkar or by taking hand writing expert's report on signature on which it is alleged that amount was withdrawn showing that, it was not signature of Usgaonkar but it was signa- tureofthe 2nd Party./workman . Moreover , as far as legal- ity of withdrawing the amount is concerned involved in the reference or involved in the charge sheet of the con- cerned workman, it is case of the 1st Party/ Management that , there was no any illegality in withdrawing the amount . Even Deputy Manager deposed before the Enquiry Officer that , the amount was withdrawn legally allegedly involved in the charge sheet . Even case is made out to that effect by 2nd Party by putting suggestion to the sole witness of the Management Mr. Lobo who as Branch Manager at Panaji Branch during 1999-2002 .

16. To support that, 2nd Party/ concerned workman placed reliance on his affidavit filed at Exhibit 16 in lieu of his examination - in - chief where he narrated all above story and claims that , enquiry is not fair and proper and finding perverse . In the cross he admits that , he knows Branch Manager Mr. Lobo . He denies that, he has withdrawn the amount from the account of Usgaonkar on number of oc- casions as alleged by the Bank . He also denies that, he admits the signature forged by him of account holder Usgaonkar. It is to be noted that, in the cross no admis- sions were obtained by the Advocate of the 1st Party from them to conclude that , he is at fault or he is guilty of the charges . On that , he filed closing purshis at Exhibit 30 . Against that Bank examined Jerald Lobo , the Branch Man- ager ofPanaji by filing his affidavit - in - lieu of examination- in- chief at Exhibit 32 who claims that , enquiry is fair and proper and finding not perverse . He also claims that, 2nd Party fabricated the signature of the account holder Usgaonkar and withdrawn the amount on a number of occasions with the help of staff. He also states that cheques were obtained by the concerned workman and by using those he withdrawn the amount and by signing forged signature of account holder Usgaonkar committed miscon- duct for which punishment of dismissal is just and proper . In the cross he states that , the letter produced at page 15 of Exhibit12does not bear the name of the concerned work- man . He also admits that , the said letter does not bear the allegation against the concerned workman . This witness states that , he does not know whether Prakash Usgaonakr wasexamined before the Enquiry Officer , acocount holder against which it was alleged that , the concerned workman withdrew the amount from the account . He also admits that , he has no knowledge about examination of Sunil Naik in the enquiry . He also admits that , no Police complaint was filed against the concerned workman of forgery . He also admits that , he had not mentioned the name of the concerned workman when he complained to the Regional office about the alleged act of the 2nd Party/ concerned workman . He also states that , he does not know whether concerned workman has admitted the guilt by writing letter in front of Mr. Somanna. It was suggested that, the said letter was obtained by Somanna by using force and by using influence and playing fraud on the concerned workmantempting him that , if he admits the charges , no action will be taken on which he relied and gave undertak- ing . He also does not know, whether , Rawale was the wit- ness in the enquiry . He also admits that, he does not know whether Dy . Manager reported that, amount withdrawn was legally withdrawn by issuing cheques and there was no illegality in withdrawing the amount from the account of Usgaonkar . On that Ist party closed evidence and filed closing purshis at Exhibit 37.

20. When the concerned account holder Usgaonkar isnot examined vis-a- vis his complaint is not brought on record where allegations are made by the 1st party/ Management thai , the concerned account holder Usgaonkar claims that , there was no amount in his ac- count, in my considered view one cannot presume that . there was complaint of Usertonkar and he was blaming that , there was no amon in his account. Besides in the 17. Written arguments are submitted by the 2nd Party/concerned workman at Exhibit 38 and by the 1st Party/ Management at Exhibit 39 with some citations .

PART 11- SEC. 3 (ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10, 2010 /CHAITRA 20 , 1932

1874 ..

from the account of Prakash Usgaonkar from time to time and as far as said charge is concerned , no evidence is lead before the Enquiry Officer and even Presenting Officerdid not examine any of the witnesses related to the alleged act ofthe concerned workman /2nd Party in withdrawing the amount from the account of Usgaonkar . When all these things are absent and only because the concerned work- man wrote the confession at the insistence of Sommana and only because he deposited the amount in the Sundary Account it cannot be presumed that, he is guilty of the charges levelled against him. Besides finding given by the Enquiry Officer is merely base on writing of concerned workman allegedly given to Sominana . Finding of the Enquiry Officer is at page 60 of Exhibit 8. Said finding is of 2-1 /4 pages . No evidence is discussed by the Enquiry Officer in the said finding, he did not say when he is concluding as concluded . Even there is no evidencebe- fore him . Just he referred Bank Documents and conten- tions taken by the ist Party/ Management and contentions taken by the 2nd Party/concerned workman . There was no discussion about the evidence and evidence of alleged account holder Usgaonkar or evidence of Investigting Officer or discussion about statement made by Rawarde , Jadhav , Shamshuddin and Jadar against whom it was alleged that , 2nd Party took help of those in withdrawing the amount . Besides as stated above , there is no hand writing expert's report showing that , documents referred by the Enquiry Officer were signed by the concerned work- man and those are signed by only concerned workman and notby account holder Usgaonkar it cannot concharle that, concerned workman is resposible for it .

23. When all that is there and when there is no evidence before the Enquiry Officer and when investiga- tion officer is not examined nor his report is brought on record itdoes not permit concerned workman 2nd Partyto cross examine 1st Party/ Management's witnesses . In my considered view, I have no option but to conclude Inquiry is not fair and proper and finding perverse.

absence of examintion of Usgaonkar the account holder, and in the absence of complaint allegedly filed by him one cannot presume that, he complained with the Bank saying that , amount was withdrawn by somebody or by third per- son , in my view no importance require to give to it. More- over, no Police case was filed against the concerned work- man since it was a charge of forgery . We know charge of forgery require technical proof. It also require hand writing expert's opinion to sort out the allegations of forgery . The documents produced in the form of copies of cheques and copies of other documents bears signatures of Usgaonkar . It is not shownby 1st Party/ Management that, those are signed by the concerned workman and the concerned work- man took advantage of these signatures for withdrawing the amount from the account of Usgaonkar. Besides it was allegation of the 1st party/Management that, the concerned workman/ 2nd Party had utilized the services of Jadhav and Shamshuddin and Jadhar . Even none of them are examined before the Enquiry Officer to show that, they helped the concerned workman and with their help the concerned work- man withdrew the amount from the account of Usgaonkar . Besides it is not shown by the 1st Party/ Management that , Account No. 114 of Usgaonkar was operated by the concerned workman and therefore he took disadvantage of it . The case made out by the concerned workman that, relying on the confession made by the concerned workman which he allegedly handed over to Somanna , he was charge sheeted and Enquiry Officer observed him guilty of the charges . However , when said Sommana is not examined to depose before Enquiry Officer that , the concerned workman gave that writing voluntarily or without any fear or without any influence it has no meaning . Against that case of the 2nd Party/ concerned workman is that , by using force and coercion and pressuring him his signature was taken on that confes- sion. Besides that , the said confession is not produced on record by the 1st Party to establish that , it was writing ofthe concerned workman which volunteer and it is in his own handwriting without fear and force . Unless and until it is there one cannot go through it and can point out and distin- guish the free handwriting which is written without fear or without any influence and the hand writing which is written under force or under fear and under coercion .

24. Number of citations are referred by Ist Party/ Management' s Advocate on the point of domestic en- quiry. In fact there is no quarrel about the Procedure of the domestic enquiry and on relying on the finding given by the EnquiryOfficer . However , in the present case enquiry itself is not fair and proper and finding pervers , in my considered view. Ist party/Management cannot exilize it to punish concerned workman /2nd Party. So i observe that , enquiry is not fair and proper and finding perverse . Hence, the order:

ORDER

21. Besides the witnesses examined by Ist Party are not speaking about the act of the concerned workman /2nd Party to show that , he was responsible for the said act . Besides alleged persons viz . Rawarde , Jadar and Shamshuddin are not examined by ist party/Management . Only because 2nd Party admitted the guilt before Mr. Somanna by writing alleged confession and by showing willingness to deposit the amount and that , actually he deposited the amount , cannot be said that , he was guilty of the charges levelled against him.

(1) Enasic not fair and proper. (2) Lobserve finding perverse , (3) 1st Party Management to justify its action : (4) No order as to its costs . Bombay, A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer

9thFebruary , 2010 .

22. Here charge levelled against the concerned work- manis of forging the signature and withdrawing the amount 1875 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 25 मार्च , 2010

Court of Delhi , wherein it was commanded that she may implead the Committee and raise the dispute again . She again raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer . When conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the dispurt to this tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L - 12012 / 157/ 2008 - IR ( B - 1 ) , New Delhi dated 07-07-2009 , with the following terms :-

का.आ. 949.-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 , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 33/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 157/2008- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the Chairman , Local Implementation Committee, State Bank of India, Tigri Branch, Khanpur , New Delhi in terminating services ofSmt . Raj Kumari W/ o Shri Girish Babu w.e.f. 2-6-95 , is just and legal ? If not to what relief the applicant is entitled to ? " New Delhi , the 25th March , 2010

S.O. 949.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.33/ 2009) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 25-3-2010.

[No. L- 12012/ 157/2008 - IR (B - 1 ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

2. Claim statemet was filed by Smt. Raj Kumari pleading therein that she was working as a peon since 1989 in the Committee , Tigri Branch , State Bank of India, New Delhi . She was paid @ Rs . 1500 PM. She was not given annual increment , transport allowance , house rent allowance, bouns , leaves , appointment letter, attendance card, identity card , E.S.I. and P. F. facilities . When she raised demand for these facilities , the management felt annoyed . her services were dispensed with on 2-6-95 , without paying her wages for the month of May and Ist of June , 95. Act of the management in terminating her service is illegal . She claimed reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages .

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

1. D. No. 33/2009

Smt . Raj Kumari W/ o Girish Babu , Through All India General Mazdoor Union , 170 , Bal Mukund Khand , Giri Nagar , Kalkaji , New Delhi - 19

...Claimant

Versus

Contest was given to her claim by the management pleading that the Committee has no statutory existence . It has no nexus or relation with the bank . Committee can engage one person to run canteen to serve tea and snacks to members of the Committee. The employee of the Committee is paid for the eatables consumed by the members from welfare fund of the employees . Claimant was engaged by the Committee . When there was no need to continue her services , she was disengaged . Earlier industrial dispute, raised by the claimant , was answered against her and it operates as res -judicata. She is not entitled to any relief. Her claim is liable to be dismissed .

The Chairman,

Local Implementation Committee, State Bank of India , Tigri Branch , Khanpur , New Delhi - 62

4. Claimant has examined herself in support of her claim . Shri Pahal Singh , Chairman of the Committee was examined on behalf of the management . No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

Management

AWARD

5. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri Anil Rajput , authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant. Ms. Kittu Bajaj , authorised representative , raised her submissions on behalf of the management . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously persued the record . My findings on issues , involved in the controversy are as follows :

6. Smt . Raj Kumari swears in her affidavit that she was engaged by the Committee , Tigri Branch , State Bank of India in the year 1989 as a peon . Her monthly wages was Rs . 1500 PM . She worked with the Committee till Ist of Local Implementation Committee , Tigri Branch , State Bank of India, Khanpur , New Delhi (herein after referred to as the Committee ) , engaged Smt . Raj Kumari to serve tea and snacks to members of the committee . She served the said commmittee from 1989 till Ist of June , 95. When her services were dispensed with, she raised an industrial dispute against the bank. Dispute raised by Smt . Raj Kumari was adjudicated by this Tribunal and answered in favour ofthe management . She filed a writ petition before High

1117 GI /10-15 1876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

June, 1995. Legal facilities such as annual increments , transport allowance , house rent allowance , leaves , identity card, appointment letter , attendance card , bonus , E.S.I. and P.F. facilities were not given to her. When she raised a demand, her services were terminated on 2-6-95 without paying her wages for the month of May, 95 and 1-6-95. She used to work in the bank in place of Ram Babu and Rambachan. She used to perform four hours over time per day. During her cross examination she presents that she had filed a claim against State Bank of India , which was rejected. She admits that she was being paid by the Committee. She denies that cheques Ex . MW I /W1 to Ex. MWI /W3 were paid to her for purchase of biscuits etc. According to her those cheques were paid towards her wages.

7. Shri Pahal Singh , unfolds that the Committee was constitutedby the employees of Tigri Branch , State Bank of India for their welfare . It has no statutory or legal existance . There was no obligation on the bank or the Committeeto run a canteen in Tigri Branch of the bank . The Committee has no nexus or relation with the bank . Smt . Raj Kumari was engaged by tu Committee to serve tea and snacks to the members of the Committee . She was paid for eatables consumed , directly by the members ofthe Committee. During the course of his cross examination , he admits that cheques Ex . MWI / W ! to Ex . MWI /W3 were issued to Smt . Raj Kumari out of Staff Welfare Fund. Whatever amount was paid to her it was out of Welfare Fund of the staff.

8. Out of facts projected by the parties it came to light that the Committee , Tigri Branch , State Bank of india was constituted as a welfare measure . There was no legal obligation on the bank to run a canteen . The said Committee employed Smt . Raj Kumari to serve tea and snacks to its members . Smt . Raj Kumari was paid for snacks and tea out of the staff welfare fund , allotted to the Committee . The said Committee was not a statutory body, to have its nexus with the State Bank of India. Consequently it cannot be said that the Committee was constituted as a limb of Tigri Branch of State Bank of India . Activities of the Committee cannot be treated as a branch of State Bank of India .

9. No evidence worth name has come over the record that the bank used to supervise work and conduct of Smt . Raj Kumari , when she performed duties of serving tea and snacks to members of the Committee . She was not under the supervision and control of the bank. Bank was not having any right to take any disciplinary action her . Claimant cannot be equated with an employee employed in statutory canteens . It is not her case that there was a sanctioned post of peon in the Committee , against which she worked from 1989 till June , 1995. Her engagement was on need basis .

10. It is an admitted fact that the ban bears by way of subsidy to the extent of 95 % of the cost incurred by the

[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii) ] canteens for payment of salary , provident fund contribution , gratuity , uniform etc , and also provides premises , furniture , utensils , electricity, water etc. tothe Committee free of charge. The canteen so run by the Committee is not a statutory canteen . The Committee is not under any legal obligation to run such a canteen . Bank does not exercise supervision and control on the work of Canteen Boy employed by the Committee . The bank has absolutely no right to take any disciplinary action or to direct any employee of the Committee to do a particular work. In the absence of any obligation , statutory or otherwise for running a canteen by the bank , an employee ofthe Committee cannot be termed as an employee of the bank . Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Reserve Bank of India's case [ 1996 ( 3 ) S.C.C. 2267 ] .

11. In State Bank India's case ( AIR 2000 SC 1518 ) the Apex Court was seized of such a proposition . It was ruled therein that canteens run by the Committee for providing certain amenities in the branch are non statutory, non recognized canteens , because admittedly there is neither statutory provision nor any obligation arising out of award or contract between the bank and its employees to run such canteen . Employees of the canteen , which are being run at various branches by Local Implementation Committee would not become employee of the bank , as bank is not having any statutory or contractual obligation to run such canteens . Bank does not employ Canteen Boys . Bank does not supervise or control their work . For appointing a Canteen Boy there are no rules framed by the bank. The Bank has nothing to do with the running ofthe Canteen. The scheme framed by the bank for running of a Canteen by Local Implementation Committee only promotes welfare activities for benefit of its employees . Therefore , it cannot be said that canteen Boys are employees of the Bank.

12. As is evident that claimant was working with the Committee which has no connection with the bank . The claimant cannot seek reinstatement of her job with the bank . Since she is not an employee of the management bank , her case is also not covered within the ambit of the circular issued by the bank on 25-8-91 . The circular dated 25-8-91 highlights that the bank invited application from casual employees for their absorption . Bank had also invited applications from Canteen Boys , from whom jobs of casual nature were taken by the bank, for the purposes ofabsorption of their services . Circular referred above is not applicable to the case of the claimant . It is not her case that she ever performed jobs of casual nature with the bank . Even otherwise , the said circular is not applicable to her . On the strength of the said circular, referred above , employees have worked in temporary capacity with the bank between 1-7-75 to 31-7-88 were considered for the purpose of absorption in bank's services . Smt . Raj Kumari claims to have served the Committee from 1989 to 2-6-1995 . The said circular does not come to her rescue , 1877 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

since she stands on different and distinct footings than those employees whose cases were considered for absorption in the services of the bank .

Therefore a class may be allowed to have preferential treatment in the matter relating to employment or appointment . There cannot be rule of equality between members of separate and independent group of persons . Persons can be classified in different groups , based on in terms of nature of persons , nature of business and with reference to time . Therefore classification based on experience or in relation to time for which canteen boys employed by the Committee had served , has a reasonable differentia.

16. To claim equality with the aforesaid canteen boys, it was for the claimant to show that she stood on equal footing with them. Not even an iota of fact has been brought over the record by the claimant to show that she was at par with the aforesaid canteen boys . Circular was issued in 1991 to consider the case of the canteen boys , who served the bank for casual jobs also between 1-7-75 to 31-7-88 . The claimant claims to have served the Committee from 1989 to 1st June , 1995. Claimant fell in a different class than those canteen boys , who were considered for absorption in the services of the bank , on the strength of the above circular . In such a situation it cannot be said that the claimant was discriminated when her services were not regularised by the bank .

13. Whether claimant can seek application of the said circular to her case ? For an answer , legal provisions are to be take note of. Equality before law and equal protection of laws are fundamental rights of every person , ordains Article 14 of the Constitution . The guiding principles laid in Article 14 are that persons , who are similarly situated, shall be treated a like both in privileges conferred and liability imposed , which means that amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that like should be treated a like . Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunities for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State . What is guaranteed is the equality of opportunity. Like all other employers , Government is also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large number of candidates , offering themselves for employment . But the selection process must not be arbitrary . The guarantee given by clause (a) ofArticle 16 of the Constitution will cover (a) initial appointments , (b) promotions , (c) termination of employment (d) and matters relating to salary, periodical increments , leaves , gratuity, pension , age of superannuation etc. Matters relating to employment or appointments include all matters in relations to employment both prior and subsequent to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment.

14. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 forbids class legislation , but does not forbid classification or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of discretion . Classification is the recognition of the relations , and in making it the Government must be allowed a wide latitude of discretion and judgment . In a way , the consequences of such classification would undoubtedly be to differentiate persons belonging to that class from others . The classification must be founded on an intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved. Classification may be made accordingto the nature of persons , nature of business , and may be based with reference to time .

17. The Committee is not part and parcel of the bank . As detailed above it works for welfare of its employees . It is not an extension or branch of the bank . Consequently activities of the Committee cannot be considered as activities of the bank . Whether activities of the Committee can be termed as an industry ? Answer lies in negative . The Committee arranges tea and snacks for its members and for that purpose engages a canteen boy . Except the canteen boy no other employee is engaged by the Committee. The image of industry or even quasi- industry is one of a plurality of workmen , not an isolated or single little assistant or attendant . The later category is more or lesslike personal avocation for livelihood taking some paid or part -time from another . To fall within the ambit ofanindustry the activity should be predominantly carried onby employment of organized labour force for production or distribution of goods , or for rendering material services to the community at large or part of such community. Activities run by the Committee does not answer the ingredients of an " industry " . Hence activities run by the Committee can not be termed as an " Industry " within the meaning ofclause (j ) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes act, 1947. Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board ( 1978 Lab . 1.C. 778) .

18. In view of the reasons detailed above , Smt . Raj Kumari cannot raise her eye - brows on the action of the Committee when her services were disengaged on 2-6-95 . This Tribunal dies not enjoy any jurisdiction to entertain adjudication ofthe dispute . She is not entitled to any relief.

15. Concept of equality guaranteed by Article 16 ofthe Constitution is some thing more than formal equality and enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share by having more than equal chance and enables the State to give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving real equality with reference to social needs . ' Protection discrimination ' enabled the State to adopt new strategy to bring underprivileged at par with the rest of the society, by providing all possible opportunities and incentives tothem.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 10 , 1932

1878

An Award is , accordingly , passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for its publication.

DR. R. K.YADAV , Presiding Officer Dated: 26-2-2010

नई दिल्ली , 25 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 950.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ' द' बैंक ऑफ राजस्थान के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-12012/96/2005 - आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th March , 2010 S.O. 950.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 18/2006) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. and their workmen , received by the Central Government on25-3-2010.

[No. L- 12012/96/2005 - IR ( B - 1 ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - COURT , JAIPUR Case No. CGIT 18/06

Reference No. L - 12012/96/2005-1R ( B - I )

Dated: 15-12-2005

The President

Rajasthan ( State ) Bank Workers Orgnisation 162, Gharwala jaon , Near Chima Bai sancheti School Pali Marwar (Rajasthan)

V/s

1. The Managing Director

the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Central Office, C- 3 , Sardar Patel Marg, Jaipur ( Rajasthan ) .

2. The Asstt . General Manager The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Regional Office , Bombay Motors Chowk , Chaupasni Road, Jodhpur ( Rajasthan) .

[PART II- S , (ii)]

PRESENT

:Dr.Manju Nigam

PresidingOfficer

:Shri Ramavatar Agrawal For the applicent

For the non - applicat :Shri Alok Fatehpuria Date of Award

:12-3-2010

AWARD

The Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred under clause ' D ' of sub section 2A of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) has retened the following Industrial Disputes for adjudication to this Tribunal which runs as under "Whether the action of the Assistant General Manager of The Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. Regional Office Jodhpur in terminating the services of its employee Shri Ram Avatar Agrawal , Pradhan Rokadia , the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd. by its penal order dated 20-6-2003 , is legal andjustified ?"

On the receipt of the reference, notices to ish the parties were issued . The applicant appeared on 21-3-2006 and take short time to file claim. On 6-6-2006 claim was filed. The facts stated in claim is that applicant organization is a representative organization of the bank einployees and theapplicant/workman Shri Ramavatar Agrawal is a member ofthis aforesaid organization . Applicant was employed as a head cashier in the Ajmer branch of the Bank of non- applicant . Ignoring all the rules and regulations, The applicant was served by a chargesheet by non -applicant no. 2 on 6-6-2001 and before serving the chargesheet , non- applicant no . 2 vide order dated 1-6-2001 suspended the applicant w.e.f. 2-6-2001 . Reply was filed by applicant on 10-8-2001 , but without considering the reply, an enquiry was instituted and enquiry officer was appointed viae order dated 7-9-2001 . Without giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the applicant and without giving notice of termination, the applicant was penalised with forfeiting the salary and other financial benefits . Against this penal order appeal was filed which too was dismissed vide order dated 28-10-2003 . It was further averred that the order dated 26-6-2003 and 28-10-2003 was illegal and contrary to law. Thewhole proceeding was infact initiated to save the actual real culprit. Non - applicant no . 2 Shri Uttam Chand Jain had a personal rivalry with applicant's brother in law late Shri Ramkishan Garg who was employed as a special Assistant in the Bank of Rajasthan Ltd , Byawar Branch . Shri Uttam Chand Jain was then the Branch Manager . Many civil & criminal cases filed by Shri R.K. Garg , brother in law of the applicant for irregularities committed by Sh . Jain as branch Manager are still pending . The applicant is an important witness in those cases . Shri Uttam Chand Jain on many times tried to influence and pressurises the applicant to give an evidence in his favour to which he refused . Therefore , in order to take revenge and absolute false and baseless chargesheet was concocted in connivance with actual guilty employee Shri Shyambihari Mathur .

1879 भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10, 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) |

I.D. 8/2008

Union : The General Secretary , Catholic Syrian Bank StaffAssociation , AIBEA House , Kalliath Royale Square , Palace Road , Thrissur ( Kerala) -680 020 By Adv . Sri . Ranjith Thampan.

Management: The Chairman ,

Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. , Head Office, Thrissur (Kerala ) .

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

In fact the whole equiry was conducted in a illegal manner and contrary to principal natural justice . Therefore , the punishment order dated 26-6-2008 and the order dated 28-10-2003 deserves to be set - aside as being unfair and illegal and he be entitled for all the financial and other benefits . An application was filed by both the parties to the effect that the matter has been compromised between the parties vide settlement dated 7-6-2008 . That all disputes of the applicant has been settled . No demand is pending against the non - applicant . Therefore , he does not want to pursue with this reference and as such no dispute award may kindly be passed on the basis of the settlement , the settlement deed is also attached with the application .

This case coming up for hearing on 10-03-2010 , this Tribunal - cum- Labour Court on the same day passed the following:

AWARD

In view ofthe settlement arrived between the parties , the award is passed in terms of settlement dated 7-6-2008 which will be the part of this Award .

This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) (d ) of Industrial Disputes Act challenging the settlement between management and unions .

Let a copy of the Award be sent to the Central Government for publication under Section 17 ( 1 ) of the Act.

DR . MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 25 मार्च , 2010

2. Though the parties entered appearance and filed their pleadings when the case was posted for evidence the union and the counsel remained absent continuously. There is no representation also for the union . In the circumstances it has to be presumed that there is no existing dispute for adjudication.

In the result an award is passed finding that the settlement arrived at between the management and Catholic Syrian Bank Staff Federation under Section 12 (3 ) of I.D. Act is legal and justified and the union is not entitled for any relief.

का.आ. 951.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार केथोलीक सीरियन बैंक लिमिटिड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , इरनाकुलम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 8/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

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

[ फा. सं. एल-12011/5/2008- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th March, 2010

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 10th day ofMarch , 2010.

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer Appendix - Nil.

नई दिल्ली, 25 मार्च , 2010

S.O. 951. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.8/ 2008 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Ernakulam as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd. and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 25-3-2010 .

[F. No. L- 12011 /5/2008 - IR ( B - 1 ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

का.आ. 952.-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 , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 35/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-3-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था। ANNEXURE

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

[फा. सं. एल-12012/ 136/2003- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th March , 2010 Present : Shri P.LL. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding Officer

(Wednesday the 10th day of March , 2010/ 19th Falguna, 1931)

S.O. 952. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.35/ 2003 ) 1880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 25-3-2010 .

[F. No. L- 12012/ 136 /2003 - IR (B - 1 ) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 35 of 2003

Industrial Dispute between -

Sri Sanjai Saini , Son of Sri khuti Ram Saini , Resident of Mahavan , District Mathura

And

The Asssitant General Manager , State Bank of India , Zone no . 3, ZonalOffice, Sanjai Place , Agra.

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL, vide notification No. L-12012/ 136/ 2003 - IR( B - 1 ) dated 30-9-03 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal- 2. KYA SAHAYAK MAHA PRANABDHAK , BHARTIYA STATE BANK , AGRA DWARA KARMKAR SRI SANJAI SAINI ATMAJ SRI KUTI RAM SAINIKI MESSENGER KE PAD SE DINANK 18-6-2001 SE SEWA SAMAPTKIYA JANANYAYOCHIT HAI YADI NAHI TO SAMBANDHIT KARMKAR KIS ANUTOSH ΚΑ HAQDAR HAI ?

3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the claimant Sri Sanjai Saini has filed his claim statement , alleging that he was appointed on 2-5-94, on the post of messenger at the rate of Rs . 500 as salary by the opposite party department at Sri Krishna Janmsthan Mathura . During posting every type of work including messenger stitching ofnote packets, pasting of stickers , preparation of vouchers and giving and taking of ledger and books from one place to other and such other type of works were being taken from him. He was being asked to write day book etc. The work which was being taken from him has been shown in the chat filed along with the claim statement besides messenger post . Therefore , he continued to work for more than 240- days in a year but he was not given the post of messenger and the salary accordingly . Finding no

[ PART 11- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] alternative he moved an application before ALC Mathura on 30-3-2000 where the opposite party challenges the authority of the ALC Mathura regarding jurisdiction. Getting annoyed opposite party did not allow him to work with effect from 18-6-01 , though the day book on that day was written by him . Therefore , the action of the opposite party in removing him from service with effect from 18-6- 2001 is unjust , unlawful and mala - fide and against the unfair labour practice.

4. Opposite party has filed written statement and the Opposite party has emphatically denied the claim of the claimant . It is stated that the claimant was never appointed on 2-5-94 by AGM or any other officer as messenger at banks Sri Krishna Janmsthan at Mathura and he wasnever paid Rs.500 per month as salary . No such type of work as alleged by the claimant like preparing note bundles or putting up levels or stickers or vouchers or carrying book or ledgers or biding or filing vouchers etc or carrying of cash box were used to be taken from him either orally or othervise . It is wrong to say that he was asked to write day books to prepare statements etc. He had never worked for 240 days or more , he had never been an employee in any capacity in the branch . Applicant is a hardened sort of litigant . He has been involving the bank in similar litigation earlier. It is stated that a canteen is run by Local implementation Committee ( in short to be referred LIC) at Sri Krishna Janmbhumi Mathura Branch at State Bank of India, Mathura (referred to be janmsthan ) . The said canteen which is run for providing certain amenities in the branch have staff strength of less than 100 employee is non- statutory, non - recognized canteen because there is no statutory provision . The employees of such canteen are not under the control of bank and their appointments are not governed by any rules framed by SBI . Bank enjoys have no control over the canteen boys . In such capacity no question arises for making the payment from the bank. The canteen boy works only in canteen . Therefore , there is no legal force in the allegations of the claimant and he is unnecessarily harassing the bank and the claim petition is liable to be rejected with cost .

5. Claimant has filed certain papers along with his statement of claim , paper no . 5/21 is a letter dated 30-3-2000 written by claimant to Labour Minister , paper no . 5/23 of 2000 is a letter issued by ALC to the claimant , paper no.5/ 24 another letter written by claimant to ALC Mathura, paper no.5/25 another letter written by claimant to ALC Mathura , dated 19-6-01 . Oposite party has filed annexure A photocopy of letter issued by ALC Mathura to the Branch Manager SBI dated 25-5-2000 and reply by branch Manager SBI to ALC Mathura dated 29-5-2000 which is annexure D, another annexure D is also filed by the opposite party writtenby AGM SBI before ALC ( C) Kanpur .

6. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence. Claimant has adduced himself as a witness W.W.I Sanjai Saini .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7. Opposite party has adduced two witnesses M.W.1 Sri A. K. Jain Branch Manager , SBI Mathura and MW. 2 Sri G. C. Tandon retired Branch Manager , SBI Agra.

8. I perused the record and the evidence , heard the parties at length and considered the circumstances . My findings are given below :---

9. The only short question to be decided according to reference and the claim petition is whether the claimant had ever been appointed or engaged by the opposite party on the post of messenger on 2-5-94 or he had worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year preceding the date of termination.

10. M.W. I Sri Jain and M.W. 2 Sri Tandon have specifically stated that the claimant had never been engaged or employed in the SBI Branch at Janmsthan Mathura on the post of messenger on 2-5-94 . There is no relationship of employer and employee and no work was ever taken from him by the bank as messenger or in any other capacity like carrying out bank records , ledger books , preparing of bundles of note and writing day book etc. They stated on oath that he was engages by the canteen staff as a canteen boy , but there is no control of the bank over the canteen . He was never paid either salary or otherwise from the exchequer of the bank .

11. I have examined the evidence of W.W. 1. He admitted in the cross that whatever the amount he was being paid that was paid in the name of the canteen : He stated that he was appointed in the branch of the bank and he does not know whether there was any canteen running at the branch , but his statement on this point does not appear to be true . Calmant himself has filed certain papers . Paper no . 5/21 dated 30-3-2000 is a letter written by the claimant to the labour Minister wherein he has specifically admitted that he was appointed in SBI Janamsthan branch as a canteen boy and he used to get Rs.500 . This is a fact that there is no post of canteen boy in the branch . Now he is claiming that he was appointed at the post ofmessenger . There is another letter written by him paper no . 5/24 to ALC Mathura wherein he stated that all the canteen boys had been made permanent . It shows that he was engaged in the canteen and not in the bank . He admitted that no appointment letter was issued to him . He admitted that he knows that if there is any vacancy of messenger then there is a publication in the news paper but he did not see any such publication . He never gave any application to the bank. He was never paid regularly in the bank . He also knows that there is a board for the appointment in the bank and the branch manager does not have any power to recruit any person in subordinate cadre .

12. Much emphasis has been given by the learned authorized representative for the workman thai there had been a joint inspection and both the parties have submitted their reports ofjoint inspection separately. Paper 16 / 1-16/4

1881

भारत का राजपत्र : अप्रैल 10 , 2010/चैत्र 20 , 1932

is the inspection report submitted by the claimant. He stated that there were certain papers in the bank like day book dated 19-7-99 which is written by the clainant . He also stated that there are certain entries on page no . 165 , 166 and 167 respectively are in the hand writing of the claimant . Whereas , opposite party has denied it . If claimant was sure that these papers were written by the claimant then during evidence it was incumbent upon the claimant to call for the records in the court and gave evidence in this regard but no such record was produced in the court and the court cannot take any cognizance in the absence of the specific record.

13. It is contended by the A.R. of the opposite party that the claimant has claimed that he has been appointed by the branch manager , whereas in the reference order he has shown that he has been terminated by the AGM SBI .

14. From the evidence it has been found and established that there is no relationship of employer and employee and the claimant has never been appointed by the opposite party branch on 2-5-94 , whereas this fact . appears to be true that the claimant has been engaged in a canteen as a canteen boy .

15. Opposite party has alleged that there is no control direct or otherwise of the bank over the canteen . They have placed reliance upon a decision 2000 LAB I.C. 1481 Supreme Court in between SBI and other versus State Bank of India Canteen Employes Union and others .

16. In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court specifically held- that the employees of canteen runby Local Implementation Committee cannot claim to be absorbed as employees of bank as the canteen run by LIC are non statutory canteens . I respectfully agree with the law propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court ( supra ) .

17. I have also considered the point whether the claimant has worked for 240 days or more . Though there is no necessity of considering this point as it has already been found above that he had never been employed by the bank . But it is also the contention of the opposite party thatthe claimant has never stated in his statement that he hadworked for 240 days continuously in a year preceding the date of termination . Therefore , this contention of the claimant also does not carry any force.

18. Burden of proof lies on the claimant . He has not been able to discharge this burden.

19. Therefore , considering all the facts and circumstances and record of the case , I am of the view that the action of the opposite part is held to be legal and justified. Consequently the claimant is not entitled for any relief and accordingly reference is decided against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party .

Dated : 12-03-10

PAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer 1882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : APRIL 10 , 2010/ CHAITRA 20 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 953.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा । की उप धारा (3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा । अप्रैल , 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 पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

जिला क्रमांक राजस्व ग्राम

तहसीलं

का नाम

हदबस्त संख्या

महराज पटटी कर्मचंद 193 रामपुराफूल भटिण्डा 2 लैहरा मोहब्बत

196 भटिण्डा भटिण्डा

| सं. एस-38013/ 12/2010- एस. एस.- 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

S.O. 953. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section I of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st April , 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 ( i) of Section 76 and Sections 77 , 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely: - SI.No. Name of

District

HadBast Tehsil

No.

the Village

193

Rampura Bhatinda Phool

Mehraj Patti Karamchand

Bhatinda Bhatinda Lehra Mohabat 196

[No. S - 38013 / 12/2010 - S. S. I } S .. D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली, 29 मार्च, 2010

का.आ. 954, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का34 ) की धारा की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा । अप्रैल , 2010 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय -4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो गहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है । अध्याय -5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77, 78 . 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृ को जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध त्रिपुरा राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात् :

" अगरतला के अंतर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र अगरतला में मोहनपुर राजस्व वाले क्षेत्र के अंतर्गत बोधजंगनगर"

[सं. एस-38013/ 13/2010 -एस. एस.- 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव

[ PAR 11 SEC . 3 ( ii ) | New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

S.C. 954. 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 dhe 1st April , 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 (i) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Tripura namely:

Areas under Agartala falls within Bodhjungnagar under Mohanpur revenue circle in Agartala " .

[No. S -38013 /13/2010 - S. S. 11 S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 29 मार्च , 2010

का.आ. 955. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, बोन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा । अप्रैल, 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 हा चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और भास 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:

" मेजिया क्षेत्र के विस्तारित क्षेत्र में बांकूड़ा जिला में लोटियाबानी , मचबन्धा, बेनागारी दुर्लवपूर, निधिरामपूर , नन्दनपुर , रामकृष्णापूर और तारापूर के मौजा सम्मिलित है"

[सं. एस -38013/14/2010-एम. एस. - 1 ] एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th March , 2010

S.O. 955. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the Ist April , 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into forec ) and Chapter V and VI ( except sub -section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sectious 77, 78, 19 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 West Bengal namely:

Fxtended Area of Mezia Area comprising Mouzas of Lotiabani Machbandha , Benagari, Duriavpur , Nidhiramper. Nandanpur , Ramkrishnapur and Farapur District Bankura "

[No. S- 38013 /14/2010 - S. S. I S. D. XAVIER , Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press , Ring Road . Mavapuri , New Delhi- 110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.