This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

सत्यमेव जयते

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

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 18]

No. 18 ]

नई दिल्ली, अप्रैल 25 मई 1 , 2010 , शनिवार/वैशाख 5 - वैशाख 11 , 1932 NEW DELHI , APRIL 25- MAY 1 , 2010 , SATURDAY /VAISAKHA 5- VAISAKHA 11 , 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)

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 16 अप्रैल , 2010 का.आ. 1095.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध ) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खंड 9 के उप - खण्ड ( 1 ) और ( 2 ) के साथ पठित, बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) के खण्ड ( च ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करके एतद्वारा , श्री कौशिक घोष ( जन्म तिथि : 5-7-1955 ) , प्रबंधक, कारपोरेशन बैंक को अधिसूचना की तिथि : से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा जब तक वे कारपोरेशन बैंक के अधिकारी के रूप में अपना पद नहीं छोड़ देते अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , कारपोरेशन बैंक के निदेशक मंडल में अधिकारी कर्मचारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है ।

[फा. सं. 9/19/2009- बीओ -1 ] सुमिता डावरा , निदेशक 1426G1/2010

(2191)

MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department of Financial Services) New Delhi , the 16th April , 2010

S.O. 1095. In exercise of the powers conferredby clause (f) of sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies(Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings) Act , 1970/1980 read with sub -clause ( 1 ) & (2 ) of clause 9 of the Nationalised Banks ( Management & Miscellaneous Provisions) Scheme , 1970/1980 , the Central Government , after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India, hereby nominates Shri Kaushik Ghosh (DoB : 5-7-1955 ) , Manager , Corporation Bank , as Officer Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Corporation Bank for a period of three years from the date of notification or until he ceases to be an officer of the Corporation Bank or until further orders , whichever is the earliest .

[F. No. 9/19 /2009 -BO- I ] SUMITA DAWRA , Director 2192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 16 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1096.- राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक ( प्रबंध एवं प्रकीर्ण उपबंध) स्कीम , 1970/1980 के खंड 9 ( 2 ) के उप - खण्ड ( ख ) के साथ पठित , बैंककारी कंपनी ( उपक्रमों का अर्जन एवं अंतरण ) अधिनियम, 1970/1980 की धारा 9 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) ( छ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय रिजर्व बैंक से परामर्श करके एतद्द्वारा , श्री बी. एम. शर्मा ( जन्म तिथि : 15-7-1956) को सनदी लेखाकार श्रेणी के अंतर्गत अधिसूचना की तिथि से तीन वर्षों की अवधि के लिए और/ अथवा अगले आदेशों तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के निदेशक मंडल में अंशकालिक गैर- सरकारी निदेशक के रूप में नामित करती है।

[फा. सं. 9/41/2009- बीओ -1 ] सुमिता डावरा , निदेशक New Delhi , the 16th April, 2010 S.O. 1096. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section 3 ( g ) of Section 9 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings ) Act , 1970/1980 read with sub - clause (b ) of clause 9 (2) of the Nationalised Banks (Management & Miscellaneous Provisions ) Scheme, 1970/1980 , the Central Government , after consultation with Reserve Bank of India , hereby nominate Shri B.M. Sharma (DoB : 15-7-1956) , as part - time non- official Director under Chartered Accountant category, on the Board of Directors ofUnion Bank of India for a period of three years from the date of notification and/or until further orders , whichever is earlier.

[F. No. 9/41 /2009 -BO- I ]

SUMITA DAWRA, Director

(राजस्व विभाग )

(केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1097.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5ड़ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष, 2009-2010 के आगे से संगठन इन्स्टीट्यूट ऑफ बायोइन्फोर्मेटिक्स, बंगलौर को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्:-

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

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

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] (iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा अनुसधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि उसमें दर्शाई गई हो , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथापरिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता बही की लेखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा ।

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

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

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

(घ ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा ; अथवा

(ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5ग और 5ड़ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( iii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[अधिसूचना सं. 28/2010/फा. सं. 203/85/2009-आ.क.नि. - 11 ] अजय गोयल , निदेशक (Department ofRevenue)

(CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES ) New Delhi , the 22nd April , 2010 S.O. 1097. It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Institute of Bioinformatics , Bangalore has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income - tax Act , 1961 ( said Act) , read with rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules , 1962( said Rules) from Assessment year 2009-20.10 onwards in the category of ' other Institution' partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions, namely:-

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Notification No. 28 /2010 /F . No. 203 / 85 /2009 / ITA - II ]

2193

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष , 2009-2010 के आगे से संगठन पंजाब स्टेट काउंसिल फार साइंस एंड टैक्नोलाजी , चण्डीगढ़ को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था ' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है, अर्थात्: -

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

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

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

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

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

(ख ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

( ग ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित सामाजिक विज्ञान में अनुसंधान अथवा सांख्यिकीय अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा , अथवा

( घ ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा , अथवा

AJAY GOYAL , Director

नई दिल्ली, 22 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1098.- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5 ड़ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा (ङ ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5 ड़ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( iii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 27/ 2010/फा. सं. 203/ 151/2009- आ.क.नि. - 11 ]

अजय गोयल , निदेशक THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010/ VAISAKHA 11. 1932

New Deihi , the 22nd April, 2010

S.0 1098.-It is hereby notified for general nformation that the organization Punjab State Council for Sciri na Technology Chandigarh has been approved by the Control Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sar - section (1 of section 35 of the Income - tax Act , 1961 (saidAct ), read with rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 ( said Rules) from Assessment year 2009-2010 onwards in the category of other Institution ' partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ PART 1 S 3ring ( e) ceases to conform to and comply with the provisions of clause ( iii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) ol section 35 of the said Act , read with rules SC and 5E of the said Rules .

[Notification No. 27.20. 10. F. No. 203 / 151 / 2009 /TTAR AJAY GOYAL .,Director नई दिल्ली , 22 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1099.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम ऽग और रड के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण खर्थ 2009-2010 के आगे से संगठन एम. पी. बिरला इन्स्टीट्यूट आफ फंडामेंटल रिसर्च , कोलकाता को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुसध ान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित कियाः गया है , अर्थात्: -

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

( ii ) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपन नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से सामाजिक विज्ञान या सांख्यिकीय अनुसंधान करेगा;

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता यही रखेगा अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि उसमें दर्शाई गई हो , उक्त अधि नियम की धारा 288 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता बही की लंखा परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हप्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा । (iv) अनुमोदित संगठन सामाजिक विज्ञान में अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण स्वगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ लखा परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की प्रति प्रस्तुत करेंगे। 2. केन्द्रीय सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी गदि अनुमोदित संगठन :-

(क) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लखा बहो नहीं रेखगा; अथवा

(ख ) पैराग्राफ । के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (ग ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित सामाजिक विज्ञान में अनुसंधान अथवा सांख्यिकीय अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करंग , अथवा (घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा. अथवा [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

( ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( iii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 26/2010/फा. सं. 203 /148/2009- आ.क.नि.- II ]

अजय गोयल , निदेशक New Delhi the 22nd April , 2010 S.O. 1099. Itis hereby notified for general information that the organization M.P. Birla Institute of Fundamental Research , Kolkata has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 ( said Act) , read with rules 5C and 5E of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules ) from Assessment year 2009-2010 onwards in the category of ' other Institution ' partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely:

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub -paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1; or

2195

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

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

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

[Notification No. 26 /2010 /F . No. 203 / 148 /2009 /ITA - II ] AJAY GOYAL , Director सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1100 केन्द्र सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के. शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप - नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में , आकाशवाणी महानिदेशालय ( सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय ) के निम्नलिखित अधीनस्थ केन्द्र/ कार्यालय , जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का आर्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , को अधिसूचित करती है।

1. विज्ञापन प्रसारण सेवा , आकाशवाणी , नई दिल्ली। [फा. सं. ई -11017/ 6/2010 - हिन्दी] प्रियम्वदा , निदेशक ( रा.भा. ) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROADCASTING New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

S.O. 1100.In pursuance of Sub - Rule ( 4 ) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages ( Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976 , the Central Government hereby notifies the following office under Directorate General of All India Radio ( Ministry of Information and Broadcasting) , more than 80 % of the staff whereof have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi : ---

1. Commercial Broadcasting Service , AIR , New Delhi . [F. No. E - 11017/6 / 2010 /Hindi ] PRIYAMVADA , Director ( O.L. ) स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय ( स्वास्थ्य और परिवार कल्याण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2010

का. आ . 1101. केन्द्रीय सरकार दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से 196

DIET GAZETIL OF INDIA MAY 1 , 2010 VAISAKHA 11.1952

पर्श करन कमाउन अधिनियम की सूची के এদে । में বিলালशেोधन करती है . अर्थात

अधिनियम , 1948 1948 1 160 स्वास्थ्य विधान विश्वविधालय, गाईनक, মায়ার প্রায় সবনা यों को मान्यता के गंध में क्रम सं. 60 के सामन की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में गवर्नर डेंटल कॉलज एंड यांसंबंध में निम्नलिधित प्रविष्टियां " ॥. गवीर उदल कॉलेज एंड हॉस्पिटल , पम्बई दंत शल्य चिकित्सा निष्णात

एम.टी.एस. आरन पैथोलांजी । विश्वविद्यालय वाय महाराष्ट्र ।"

म. की 120 : 7-42: 28 ) होई । आर. शधारण , अवर सचिव MMINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (Departmentof flealth and Family Welfare ) No D. , Be 10th February , 201

5.O. 1101 la exercise of the powers conferred by ste - sechontocmon 10 of the Dentists Act. 1948 ( 16 Government , after consultation with hereby , mmakes the following amend- aienes im Part - il the Schedule to the stud Act , namely:

In the exit , antries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. hd , in Pan - toi de Schedule to the Dentists Act . 1918 To of 19.48 ) petaining to recognition of denas deprees awarded by Viakashtra University of Heaith Serences . Nastik . Maltaa stora, the following entries in respect of Govt. Dentalt clierea Hospital , Mumbai , shall be inserted ireneander

Il Govt . Dental College & Hospital , Mumbai

Master of Dental Surgery

(A) Oral Pathos

if granted on or aiz 21-7-2009 :

MDS (Oral Pathology ; Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik,. Maharashtra ,

[ No. V - 12017-12.2009 - DEJ R. SANKARAN , Under Secy . फरवरी , 2010

का.आ. 102 . अन्द्रीय सरकार दंत चिकित्सक नियम, 1945-1945 4 घा 10 को उप-भाग 2 ) द्वारा प्रदन नार में समान और संशाधन करनी है, अथांत :

2. दंत चिकित्मक आसन 1995 16 : निश्वविद्यालय, संनिक अनुसूची के भाग । में महाराष्ट्र महाराष्ट्र द्वारा प्रदान डिग्रियों का माननादक 60 के ।।। सम्र प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर

" दंत शल्य चिकित्सा निष्णान

यदि यह 21 7 2009 का अथवा उसक उपरान्त प्रदान को डा .

New Delhi , the 10th i chus 2010 S.O. 1102 .--In exercise ofthe powers coultred by stub - section ( 2 ) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act 1918 ( 16 of 1948 ) , the Central Goverenen , alter consaltaiton WE Dental Council of India , het ebs , makes the loflowing ansetad ments in Part - 1 of the Schedul 2 to the sard Act , panely 2. in the existing chrise Co Ill of Serral No. 60 in respect of't loserrament Dental Caliga &Hospital . Nagpur , Maharashatra za Partet of the schest ale to the Dentists Act. 19:30 1918 ) pertamargto recognition of dental degrees awarded by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences , Nashik , Maharashtra , tire following entries shati be sened thereunde

"Master of Dental Surgery

Oral Mediene it granted on or alter 21-7-20091

Malan ,shtra Unversity of Health Sciences . Nisbik .

नई दिल्ली , 20 अथन , 2016

या. आ. 1103.- নালায় বান্দলের चारसर अधिनियम, 1956 1956102 को म उपधारा ( 1 ) ( ख ) के अनुयालय का प्रतिनिधित्व कर बालो 29 8 2007 से भारतीय निर्वाचित किया गया था ।

जर्याक भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञापित किय करल विश्वविद्यालयका प्रतिनिधि । अपनी ह भास्करन ने भारतीय चिकित् 1956 4.1 के रूप में उनका नामांकन हानेका 25 2 2010 में कार [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( in ) ]

आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् की सदस्यता से भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् , 1956 की धारा 3 ( 1 ) ( ख ) के अंतर्गत त्यागपत्र दे दिया है । अतएव केरल विश्वविद्यालय का प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाली डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) रानी भास्करन की भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् की सदस्यता समाप्त हो गई है। इसलिए अब , उक्त अधिसूचना में धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में केरल विश्वविद्यालय का प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाली डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) रानी भास्करन की भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् की सदस्यता को दिनांक 28-2-2010 से समाप्त हुआ माना जाएगा ।

[सं. बी -11013/5 / 2010 - एमई ( नीति-1 ) ]

अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 20th April , 2010

S.O. 1103. Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub - section ( 1 ) ( b ) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act , 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) Dr. ( Mrs. ) Rani Bhaskaran was elected as a member of the Medical Council of India representing Kerala University with effect from 29-8-2007.

Whereas the Medical Council of India has informed that Dr. (Mrs. ) Rani Bhaskaran who is representing Kerala University under Section 3 ( 1 ) ( b ) of IMC Act , 1956 had resigned from Medical Council of India's membership with effect from 28-02-2010 due to her nomination as member , Medical Council of India under Section 3 ( 1 ) ( e) of IMC Act , 1956 representing the Central Government . Therefore , Dr. (Mrs. ) Rani Bhaskaran has ceased to be a member of Medical Council of India representing Kerala University .

Now, therefore , in pursuance of the provision of sub- section (2) of Section 5 of the said Act , Dr. (Mrs. ) Rani Bhaskaran shall be deemed to have ceased to be a member of the Medical Council of India representing Kerala University with effect from 28-02-2010 .

[No. V - 11013 /5 /2010 - ME ( Policy - I ) ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

इस्पात मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 20 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1104.-केन्द्रीय सरकार , सरकारी स्थान ( अप्राधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए और भारत सरकार के इस्पात मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्यांक का.आ. 2640 दिनांक 9 सितंबर , 2003 को अधिक्रांत करते हुए , उन बातों के सिवाय जिन्हें ऐसे अतिक्रमण से पहले किया गया है , या करने का लोप किया गया है नीचे दी गई सारणी के स्तंभ ( 1 ) में वर्णित अधिकारी को , जो भारत सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के समतुल्य श्रेणी का अधिकारी है , उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनों के लिए संपदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है, जो सारणी के स्तंभ ( 2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट सरकारी स्थानों के संबंध में अपने अधिकारिकता की स्थानीय सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम द्वारा या उसके द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों

2197

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

का प्रयोग करते हुए संपदा अधिकारी पर अधिरोपित कर्तव्यों का पालन करेगा ।

सारणी

अधिकारी का नाम तथा पदनाम सरकारी स्थानों के प्रवर्ग और अधिकारिता की सीमाएं (1)

(2)

उप महाप्रबंधक ( कार्मिक ) , मैंगनीज ओर ( इंडिया ) लिमिटेड , 1 ए काटोल रोड , मॉयल भवन , नागपुर -440 013

मध्य प्रदेश का बालाघाट जिला , महाराष्ट्र के नागपुर और भंडारा जिलों और आंध्र प्रदेश के आदिलाबाद जिले में स्थित मैंगनीज ओर इंडिया लिमिटेड से संबंधित या पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।

[मि. सं. 1 ( 9 ) /2009- आरएम -11 ]

ए. धनलक्ष्मी , उप सचिव MINISTRY OF STEEL

New Delhi the 20th April , 2010

S.O. 1104.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 3 of the Public Premises ( Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants ) Act , 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India , Ministry of Steel number S.O. 2640 , dated the 9th September , 2003 , except as respect things done or omitted to be done before such supersession , the Central Government hereby appoints the officer mentioned in column ( 1 ) of the Table below , being an officer equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of Government of India , to be Estate Officer for the purposes of the said Act , who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officer by or under the said Act , within the local limits of his jurisdiction in respect of the public premises specified in column (2) of the Table .

TABLE

Address and designation ofthe Officer

Categories of the public pre- mises and local limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

Dy. General Manager (Personnel ) , Manganese Ore ( India) Limited , 1A , Katol Road , MOIL Bhawan , Nagpur - 440013

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by Manganese Ore ( India) Limited situated in Balaghat District of Madhya Pradesh , Nagpur and Bhandara Districts of Maharashtra and Adilabad District of Andhra Pradesh .

[ F. No. 1 (9 )/ 2009 - RM . II ] A. DHANALAKSHMI , Dy. Secy .

2198

THE GAVEENOTA MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11、1932

[PAR : 11 SE उपयोग आधले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता यायले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल , 2010

1105- के दीयानिहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हा गया है कि उक्त रिधोने में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे हो गई कृति देखें) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माघ धानक से अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगाताः प्रयोग की अवधि में भी नक्त मॉडल (मॉडलों का यथार्थता और विभिन्न में उपयुक्त सेवा पदान करता रहेगा;

हुए, मैसर्स अ केन्द्रीय सरकारको भार 36 की उप - धारा ( १ ) और उपधाद्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियां का प्रयोग करते ४, सुहाता सिटी सेंटर दुर्गापुर -713216 पश्चिमा द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वाले " यूएसवमडी 303 " ला के अकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तो प्लेटफार्म प्रकार के गॅदर का, नेटवेट है।इतो पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अमोदन चिह्न आई एनटी/09 18 201 जिसके बाद समनुदेशिन किया है , अनुमोदन अधीकारती है ।

इस एक विकृत क्षमता 20000२६ अऔर न्यूनतम शत प्रतिशत उपकरण मेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( फोनका प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम है । सत्यापन यापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 500 गा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका प्रभ्भाल है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी दश चलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करना है । विद्युत प्रदाय र कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-2 सीलिंग प्रावधान

उपबंधा पिछली में से ली और वायर सील निकाल कर सोला की पानी है भाँडस को मीलबंद करने के योजनाबद्ध हरदिया गया है ।

आर -दीय सरकार, उनकी धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तिया प्रयाग करते हुए यह सपना करती है कि उक्त साहायक अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामयी जिससे है विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और आर्यधालनको ल ছালি लिए 500 से 10.000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एर ) सहित १० किग्रा. ए "ड " शाद × 10 , 2× 10 *, 5 × 10 % , के हैं , जावनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णाक या शून्य उक्त अनुमोहित का विनिर्माण जो 5 ग्रा. अधिक के " ई " 5000 कि. अधिकतम करना के समतुल्य है

० में डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 102)/ 2008 ]

बी एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक विधिक माप निज्ञान 2199 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs )

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S.O. 1105.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7 ) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Plateform Type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy ( Accuracy Class - III ) of series " USMD - 304 " and with brand name " NETWET " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Ultra Scale Measuring Device Pvt . Ltd. , 5/38 , Suhatta City Centre , Durgapur - 713216 , West Bengal and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/08/211 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Plateform Type ) with a maximum capacity of 2000 kg . and minimum capacity of 10 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 500 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

Figure- 1: Model

ScaledMowsuringDevicePvtLtd

Figure- 2: Sealing provision of the indicator of model

Sealing is done by applying lead and wire seal through the holes made on the rear side of the indicator . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

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

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 102)/2008 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1426 GI /10-2 [PART 11 SEC. SG ) ] 2200

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल, 2010

का.आ. 1106.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और मान जनक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स अल्ट्रा स्केल मेजरिंग डिवाइस प्रा . लि. , 5/38 , सुहाता सिटी सेंटर , दुर्गापुर -713216 पश्चिमी बंगाल , द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " यूएसएमडी-305 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित, अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " नेटवेट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन ही/ 09-08/ 212 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 60 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 10 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 2 : 1 ) वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-2 सीलिंग प्रावधान

इंडीकेटर के पिछली तरफ बनाए गए छेदों में से लीड और वायर सील निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंग करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन में 200 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 * , 2 × 10 , 5 × 10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शुन्य के ममतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 102 ) /2008 ] बी. एन . दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2201 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S.O. 1106. - Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument Weighbridge Type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy ( Accuracy Class - III ) of series " USMD - 305 " and with brand name " NETWET " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Ultra Scale Measuring Device Pvt . Ltd. , 5/38 , Suhatta City Centre , Durgapur - 713216 , West Bengal and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09/08/212;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Weighbridge Type ) with amaximum capacity of 60 tonne and minimum capacity of 200 kg . The verification scale interval (e ) is 10 kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1 Model

000

Figure2 - Sealing

Sealing is done by applying lead and wire seal through the holes made on the rear side of the indicator . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further , in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1 × 10k, 2 × 10k or 5x10k , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured .

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 102 )/ 2008 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology [PART 11 Sec. 300 THE GAZI THE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11.19.2

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2010

1107.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपार्ट पर वार कर के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है मोंडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1970 का 60 ) तथा बाट और भाथ मानक पंडला का अनमीर ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाम वंगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

न. अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- भाग द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करत हुए. मैसर्स प्रीकोल लिमिटेड , 2/439 , मैन रोड, करमादई पोस्ट , कोयम्बतूर -641104 तमिलनाडु द्वारा विनिर्मित " इंटी " शृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , " टैक्सी मीटर " के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " प्रीकोल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त भांडस कह। गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन श्री-12: 08/51 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।

उकल " टैक्सी मीटर " मापन उपकरण है जो लगातार योग करता जाता है और यात्री द्वारा देब भाई को यात्रा के दौरान किमी भी समय दर्शाता है । सार्वजनिक वाहन के यात्रियों द्वारा देय भाड़ा, तय की गई दूरी और निर्धारित स्पीड से कम गर व्यतीत किए गए समय का फलन है जो प्राधिकृत शुल्क के अनुसार अनुपूरक भाड़े से स्वतंत्र है । फेयर मीटर के टॉप पर एक अनुपूरक प्रिंटिंग सुविधा लगाई गई है । प्रिंटिंग सुविध। किसी भी समय पैयः मीटर द्वारा दर्शाए गए किराए को प्रिंट कर सकती है । बाहरी सम्पकों की सुविधा जैसे मोबाइल कम्यूनिकेशन टर्मिनल भी उपलब्ध है । मीटर की गति प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) द्वारा दर्शायी जाती है और पावर सप्लाई 10 वां से 16 वी डीसी तक है । टेक्सी भीटर का' के ' फक्टर 1270 प्लसिस प्रति किलोमीटर पर चलता है । अधिकतम दूरी और किराया 5 अंकों तक प्रत्येक के लिए दशांता है । pricol . ET 120

No.

Rs .

TAXI FARE METER

आकृति-2 उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

बीस बाड़ी की सीलिंग के लिए मीटर के पीछे की तरफ तीन टेम्पर प्रूफ सीलिंग स्क्रू दिए गए हैं । ये स्क्रूलगाने के बाद, इन स्क्रू के छेदों में से सील वायर निकाल कर सील किया जाता है । सेंसर प्वाइंट , स्पीडोमीटर प्वाइंट और स्पीड कंबल इन सभी तीनों को सीलिंग के लिए आपस में जोड़ा जाता है । मॉडल की सीलिंग व्यवस्था का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21-141 /2008 )

वो मन क्षित , निदेशक विधि विज्ञान

1 2203 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S.O. 1107.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of ' Taxi Meter ' with digital indication ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) of " ET " series with brand name " PRICOL " manufactured by M/ s . Pricol Limited , 2/439 , Main Road , Karamadai Post , Coimbatore - 641 104 , Tamil Nadu and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 08 / 51 ;

The said model of " Taxi Meter " is a measuring device which totalizes continuously and indicates the fare , at any moment of journey , the charges payable by the passenger of a public vehicle as function of the distance travelled , and below a certain speed on the length of the time occupied , independent of supplementary charges according to the authorized tariffs . A supplementary printing device is also fitted at the top of the fare meter . At any movement the printing device can print the fare indicated by the fare meter . Facility of external interface i.e. mobile communication terminal is also available . The reading of the meter is indicated by Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) and the power supply is 10V to 16V DC . The 'K ' factor of the Taxi meter is 1270 pulses per kilometer. The indication of maximum distance and fare is of 5 digits each.

Figure- 1 . Model

pricol ET 120

No.

As .

TAXI FARE METER

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

For sealing the meter body there is three tamper proof sealing screws are provided at the rear side of the meter . After putting these screws , steel wire to be put through the holes of these screws and to be sealed . The sensor point , specdometer point and the speed cable all three are linked together for sealing . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 14 ) / 2008 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II SEL. 3 (ii ) TOP GAZETTE OF POSHG1 , 2010 /VAISAKНА 11 , 1932

2204

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल , 2010

का हित अधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में गहनीचे दी गई आदत देखें बाट और भाप भानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और धाप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन, पथम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अत: ७७८० 1 सरकार उक्त अधिति को पारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स आईका १३० - जबूत एवं ५२५ एज नं. ४ गर चिया बंधकः पेंट इंडस्ट्री, ठाक्कर नगर, अहमदाबाद, गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता यात आले " आईक के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तालन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ग्रांथिक नाथ " आईकॉन " से इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न नुन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है । आई एन डी समनुदेशित किया है.

उक्त मांडत विकृत गंज प्रकारको क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. औतम क्षमता 100 प्रतिशत व्यकालमास्त्यरित आधयतुलन प्रभाय है 230 वोल्ट और प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण (टेबलटा प्रकार है । इसको अधिकतम अत्यायन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रकारः उत्सर्जक अयांड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति ? मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

इंडीयन में दादर बनाए गए छंदों में से वायर निकाल कर वायर पर लाडल से सीलिंग का जाती है । भोडल को सीलबंद करूयात्म उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

है कि उक्त मांदलन के दस प्र 6 को उप भारा कृत प्रदत्त शक्ति * उसी विनिर्माता अस उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन करते हुए यह घोषणा करती और उसी साभग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदिन भांडत का विनिर्माण किया न ६ अर्थ उसी श्रृंखला के वेसे ही 'मेक , यथार्थता औरकाफलन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि.ग्रा में तक के "ई " मानक के " ई " मान काल "ई" मान 15.000 तक का से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल एन ) और 5 ग्रा.या उससे अधिक सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा ए. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 43 )/ 2008 ) वी. एन. दीक्षित निदेशक, विधिक पाप विज्ञान 2205 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S.O. 1108.- Whereas the Centra ! Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop Type ) with digital indication of " IKT " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and with brand name " IKON " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M / s . Ikon Instruments , A- 16 , Jabuka Avenue , on N.H. No. 8 , Nr . Champak Paint Ind . , Thakkar Nagar , Ahmedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND! 09/08/103;

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

Figure- 1: Model

A1865

Figure-2: Sealing diagram of the model.

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

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

[ F. No. WM - 21 (43 )/ 2008 ]

RN . DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II SEC Benj 2206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKIHA 11. 1932

नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1109.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और नाप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त गॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( ४ ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स आईकॉन इंस्ट्रूमेंट , ए-16 , जबूका एवेन्यू, एन एच नं. 8 पर, नियर चंपक पेंट इंडस्ट्री, ठाक्कर नगर, अहमदाबाद , गुजरात द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थना ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " आईकेपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्राड़ का नाम " आईकॉन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है । और जिसे अनुमोदन सिद्ध अगई इन डी/09/ 08 / 104 अमनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त पॉडस्न एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( पलेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकने अधिवातम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकालनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन गरिणा उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 बोटन और हट्र्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति--।: मॉडल

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

इंडीकेटर की बाटम प्लेट और टाप कवर में बनाए गए छेदों में से वायर निकाल कर वायर पर झील से सीलिंग की जाती है । मांडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

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

फा. से डब्ल्यू एम-211430/2008 ]

वी. एन दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2207 भारत का राजपत्र : मई1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S.O. 1109. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform Type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy Class - III ) of series " IKP " and with brand name " IKON " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s. Ikon Instruments , A- 16 , Jabuka Avenue , On N.H. No. 8 , Nr . Champak Paint Ind . , Thakkar Nagar , Ahmedabad , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/08/104;

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

Figure- 1 Model

Figure - 2 Sealing provision of the indicator of model

Sealing is done through the holes made in the bottom plate and top cover of the indicator , then a wire is passed through these holes and the lead seal is fixed on the wire. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe mode ! is given above .

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

[F. No. WM - 21 (43 )/2008 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1426 Gl /10-3 2208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

[PART 11 SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1110.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और साए मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उन्नत मोडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स आलविन पेइंग सिस्टम , प्लाट नं. 155 +156/3 , शेड नं. सी1 बी3 , जीआईडीसी नरोदा , अहमदाबाद-382475 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " एडब्ल्यूएस- एफडब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( बंब्रिज प्रकार के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " आलविन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गय्ण है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न गई एन डी/09 / 08 / 242′ समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( वेब्रिज प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 40 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 200 कि.ग्रा. है । सःयापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 10 कि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-1: मॉडल

drss-111

FullyWeighBridge

Allwin

2-10kg

class-11

min-200kg

max-40tonne

आकृति-2 : सीलिंग प्रावधान ।

इंडीकेटर में किए गए छेदों में से वायर निकाल कर और वायर पर लीड सील लगाकर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद भारने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (112/2008 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक साथ विज्ञान 2209 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S.O. 1110. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Weighbridge Type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy ( Accuracy Class - III ) of series AWS - F.W and with brand name " ALLWIN " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Allwin Weighing Systems , Plot No. 155 + 156/ 3 , Shade No. CI - B3 , G.I.D.C. Naroda , Ahmedabad - 382475 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/08/242;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Weighbridge Type ) with digital indication of maximum capacity of 40 tonne and minimum capacity of 200 kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 10 kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

Figure- 1: Model

dass-111

Allwin

FullyWeighBridge

max-40tonne min-200kg --10kg class-il

Figure - 2 : Sealing arrangement.

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

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

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 112 ) /2008 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology THE GAZETTE OF INDIA. MAY 1, 2010/ VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

[PART 11 -SEC. 3 ( i) ]

नई दिल्ली , ४ अप्रैल , 2010

1111 केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि पांडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और भाप यानक (मांडलों कः अनुनादन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त भाड ল यथार्थता अभाव राखगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मेसर्स डिजी टेक सिस्टम, आर एच नं. 14 , बिमल इन्कलेव , व्यास तालाब के निकट, भानपुरी , रायपुर , छत्तीसगढ द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथाधता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ईएसडीटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ईएसएस- डीआईजीआईकॉम " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/08 63 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

ESS -DIGICOM

आकृति-2 सीलिंग प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायाग्राम

स्केल की बॉडी और बाटम प्लेट में बनाए गए छेद में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर लीड सील के साथ सीलिंग की जाती है । सील तोडे बिना उपकरण को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है । और न्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल को अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि या. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई बान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10* , 2 × 10* और 5 × 10% , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -210112 /2008 ]

बी. एन . दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान

1.1 14 2211 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

New Delhi , the 8th April, 2010

S.O. 1111. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop Type ) with digital indication of " ESDT " series of medium accuracy ( Accuracy Class - III ) and with brand name "ESS - DIGICOM " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Digi - Tech Systems , R.H. No. 14, Bimal Enclave , Nr . Vays Talab Bhanpuri , Raipur, C.G. and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09 / 08 / 263 ;

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

Figure- 1 Model

May 30kg

ESS - DIGICOM

25.

re- 2Sealing diagraft

Sealing is done by the se ingrep sing through the holes mode en Plate and top cover of the scale with the lead seal . The instrument connot be opened without breaking the seals . A typical sechematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

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

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 115 ) / 2008 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 2214

[PART 11 SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2010

का अ .. 1112 ... कान्द्रीय सरकार का विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि अनंत रिपार्ट में धणित मॉडल ( नीचे दो गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मंसर्स डिजो टैक सिस्टम , आर एच नं. 14 , बिमल इन्कलेव , व्यास तालाब के निकट , भानपुरी , रायपुर , छत्तीसगढ़ द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थतः । यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एसडीपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ईएसएस डॉआईजीआईकॉम " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 08/264 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गंज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 300 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता । किः ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 50. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वॉल्ट और 30 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धार विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-2 सीलिंग प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायाग्राम

स्कंल की बॉडी और बाटम प्लेट में बनाए गए छेद में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर लीड सील के साथ सीलिंग की जाती है । सील तोड़े बिना उपकरण को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है । और , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मांडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन बो अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मांडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 किया. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाल हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 , 2× 10 और 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 115 ) / 2008 ] बी. एन . दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2213 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S.O. 1112.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform Type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy ( Accuracy Class - III ) of series " ESDP " and with brand name " ESS - DIGICOM " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturedby M/ s . Digi - Tech Systems , R.H. No. 14 , Bimal Enclave , Nr . Vyas Talab , Bhanpuri , Rajpur , C.G. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 / 08 /264 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with maximum capacity of 300 kg and minimum capacity of 1 kg . The verification scale interval ( e ) is 50 g . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1 Model!

Figure- 2 Sealing provision of the indicator of model

Sealing is done by the sealing wire passing through the holes made in the bottom Plate and top cover of the indicator of the scale with the lead seal . The indicator connot be opened without breaking the seals . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

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

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 115 ) / 2008 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology [ PART 11 ---SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

2214

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2010

का.आ. 1113... केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी नीदरलैंड मीटिनस्टिटूट ( एन एम आई ) , नीदरलैंड द्वारा जारी मॉडल अनुमोदन प्रश्शया पार के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर लित्तार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें। बार और माए मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और नाप यानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात को संथ है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में २१ युक्तमा प्रदान करता रहेगा.

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , जवत अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) और उपधारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक द्वारा शतितया को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसम फॉर हरमैन , राउट डे बोनेटेबल , 72400 ला फटें बनार्ड फ्रांस द्वारा विनिर्मित " एफएच 8500 " शृंखला का एक अपन सेंसर ( अल्ट्रासोनिया मेरा ) जिसका उद्देश्य परिशुद्धता श्रेणी 0.3 की मापन प्रणाली के भाग के रूप में उपयोग किया जाता है जो सनी के अलावा अन्य द्रवों हेतु सिस्टम का एक भाग है , जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " फॉरे हरमैन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त पदिना कहा गया है ) के गॉडल का तथा भारत में मैसर्स लिक्विड कंट्रोल इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , 231-1 और 2 , पोर रामनगापडी , जीआईडीसी गि , पर 391243 , जिला बड़ौदः गुजरात द्वारा विपणन किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13 /09304 ममनुदेशित किया अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी की है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक इलैक्ट्रोनिक मेजरमेंट ट्रांसड्यूसर है जिसका प्रयोग पेट्रोलियम लिक्विड , लिक्विड कैमीकल्ज और चिपचिपाहट/विसकोसिटी के श्रोत है गल्ट्रास्गेनिक ट्रांसिट - टाइम तरीके के सिद्धांत पर निम्नलिखित आवश्यक विशेषताओं को साथ करता है: - Diameter

Flow rate Min. Max.

Maxkinetic viscosity

Min , measmod quantity

Minimum Reynolds rumber

1-1

[m3 /h]

[m3/h]

16500

600

13.5

100

1000

13.5

300

3000

1000

300

4500

600

450

1000

इसका तापमान रेंज 25 में से 55 सें. है । अधिकतम परिचालन दाब 150 बार है । उसका 230 वोल्ट ओर 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती भारत विद्युत प्रदाय या 24 वी डी गं पर कार्य करता है ।

फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 229 )/2008 ]

[ बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक विधिक माप विज्ञान 2215 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S.O. 1113.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMI ) , Netherlands , is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to sub - section ( 3 ) and sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of a measurement sensor ( Ultrasonic Sensor) intended to used as part of " Measuring system for liquids other than water " with brand name ' Faure Herman ' and of series " FH8500 " series of accuracy class 0.3 (hereinafter referred to as the model ) , manufactured by M/s . Faure Herman , Route de bonnetable , 72400La Ferte- Bernard , France and marketed in India by M/ s . Liquids Control India Private Limited , 231-1 & 2 , Por- Ramangamadi , GIDC Industrial Area , Por - 391243 , Baroda, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 / 09/ 304;

The said model is an electronic measurement transducers used for custody transfer of petroleum liquid products , liquid chemicals and potable liquids with viscosities between 0.5 mn's and 1000mns and working on the principle of ultrasonic transit time method , with following essential characteristics .

Diameter

Flow rate

Min. Max.

Min , measured quantity

Max. kinetic viscosity

[m³/h ]

[m³ /h]

Minimum Reynolds Number [ -]

600

150ทาทา

16500

13.5

200

13.5

100

18500

1000

300

1000

300

3000

600 400

1000

450

4500

600 The temperature range is -25 ° C to + 55 ° C . The maximum operating pressure is 150 bar. The instrument operates on 230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply or 24V DC .

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 229) / 2008 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 1426 Gl/ 10-4 2216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1 , 2010/VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

[ PAR II S মলা

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2010

का.आ. 1114.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी नीदरलैंड मीटिनस्टिटूट ( एन एम आई। नीदरलैंड द्वारा जारी माँदा प्रमाण पत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल जीते जी गई देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनु‌मोदन ) नियम, 1987 के से अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बना? ब्रेगण और विधिन्न परिस्थित उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) और उपधारा ( 7 ) और उप - धाग १ ९ ) का नौगो परन्तुक द्वारा शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स फॉर हरमैन , राउट डे बोनटेबल , 72400 ला फर्ट ब्रनार्ड फ्रांस द्वारा विनिर्मित टीजेडएन , हेजिफ्ल्यूटीएलएम " शृंखला का एक मापन ट्रासड्यूसर ( टरबाइन मीटर ) जिसका उद्देश्य परिशुद्धता श्रेणी 0.3 की मापन १० भाग के रूप में उपयोग किया जाता है जो " पानी के अलावा अन्य द्रवों हेतु मापन सिस्टम " का एक भाग है , जिसके ब्राण्ड का हरमैन" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) के माडल का तथा भारत में मैसर्स लिक्विड कंट्रोल इंडिया प्राइवेट 231-1 और 2 , पोर- रामनगामडी , जीआईडीसी एरिया, पोर-391243 , जिला बड़ौदा , गुजरात द्वारा विपणन किया गया है और फिस चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13 / 09 / 305 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक इलैक्ट्रोनिक मेजरमेंट ट्रांसड्यूसर है जिसका प्रयोग पेट्रालियम उत्पाद , हाइड्रोकार्बन्स , अंडर प्रैसर लिविवपाडग अल्कोहल , पोटेबल लिक्विड्स और लिक्विड कैमीकल इत्यादि के कस्टडी ट्रास्फसर के लिए होता है और जो रोटेरी टरबाइन मेजरमेंट सेंसर का सिद्धा पर कार्य करता है, मुख्यतः सिलण्डरीकल पाइप , फ्लेंगर के साथ वेकल्पिक लगाया गया है , 2 या 4 हैलीकाल्म एक रोटर सहित अन्दर की हाफ माउंटिड है , प्लज जेनरेशन हेतु मेगनेट्स से जोड़ा गया है और सिंगनल जेनरेशन के लिए 2 पिक आफ कोयाल्स वाला है । [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

मेजरमेंट सेंसर की आवश्यक विशेषताएं निम्नलिखित हैं:-

TZN. family

Meter Type

Diameter [mm]

TZ-25

TZ- 12

TZ-40

TZ-50

TZ- 80

TZ- 100

100

150

TZ- 150

200

TZ - 200

TZ- 250

250

TZ-300

300

350

TZ- 350

400

TZ -400

450

TZ-450

TZ- 500

500

Heliflu TLM

Meter Type

Diameter [mm]

TLM3

TLM4

100

2217

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

MMQ [L]

Qmax [m³ /h1 ]

2 to 5

5 to 10

8 to 20

10 to 50

8 to 20

20 to 50

50 to 100

30 to 70

70 to 150

100 to 200

200 to 500

200 to 300

400 to 600

500 to 1000

800 to 1000

1000

1200 to 2000

1000 to 2000

2000

2400 to 3000

3500

5000

4000

5000

4800

5000

6000

10000

MMQ [L]

Qmax [m3 /h1 ]

30 to 150

50 to 200

70 to 300

100 to 500

इसका परिचालन तापमान रेंज 30 ° सें. से + 180 ° सें. के बीच होता है । अधिकतम परिचालन दाब 250 बार टी जेड टाइप मीटर के लिए और 160 बार टी एल एम टाइप मीटर के लिए है । उपकरण 220 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 229 ) /2008 ] बी. एन . दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S.O. 1114.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , along with the Model approvai certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut ( NMI ) , Netherlands , is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now , therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to sub - section ( 3 ) and sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of a measurement transducer (turbine meter ) intended to used as part of " Measuring system for liquids other than Water " with brand name ' Faure Herman ' and of series " Heliflu TLN , Heliflu TZM " series of accuracy class 0.3 (hereinafter referred to as the model ) , manufactured by M/s . Faure Herman , Route de Bonnetable , 72400 La Ferte- Bernard , France and marketed in India by M /s . Liquids Control India Private Limited , 231-1 & 2 , Por - Ramangamadi , GIDC Industrial Area , Por- 391243 , Baroda , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND / 13 / 09/ 305 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1, 2010 /VAISAKHA 11. 1932

[PART 11 SEC The said model isan electronic measurement transducers used for custody transfer of petroleum, products , hydrocarbons , under pressure liquefied gases , alcohol , potable liquids and liquid chemicals etc. and working on the principle of rotary Turbine measurement sensor mainly consists of cylindrical pipe , optionally fitted with Flanges , mounted inside a Rotor with or 4 helical vanes which are equipped with a set of magnets for pulse generation and 2 pick off coils for signal generation .

The essential characteristics of measurement sensor is as follows :

Nunily

Diameter [mm]

17-25

17-32

T7-10

17.50

100 17-150

150 17-201

200 17-250

250

300 12-300

17-350

350

400 T7-400

17-450

450

500 Helitlu TLM

Diameter Meter Type

[mm] TLMB

100

MMO [ L ]

Qmax [m3 /hl ]

2 to 5

5 to 10

8 to 20

10 to 50

8 to 20

20 to 50

30 to 70

50 to 100

70 to 150

100 to 200

200 to 300

200 to 500

400 to 600

500 to 1000

1000

800 to 1000

1200 to 2000

1000 to 2000

2400 to 3000

2000

3500

5000

4000

5000

4800

5000

6000

10000

MMQ

Qmax [m3 /h1 ]

30 to 150

50 to 200

70 to 300

100 to 500

The temperature range ambient is -30 ° C to + 180 ° C. The maximum operating pressure is max . 250 bar . For TZ type Meters and 160 bar for TLM Type Meters . The instruments operates on 230V, 50 f1z alternative current power supply for24V DC.

[ F. No. WM- 21229) 2008

B.N. Dixit , Director. Legal Metrology 2219 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1115.--केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी नीदरलैंड मीटिनस्टिटूट ( एन एम आई ) , नीदरलैंड द्वारा जारी मॉडल अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) और उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स फॉरे हरमैन, राउट डे बोनटेबल , 72400 ला फटें - ब्रनार्ड फ्रांस द्वारा विनिर्मित " एफएच 8400 " श्रृंखला का एक मापन सेंसर ( अल्ट्रासोनिक सेंसर ) जिसका उद्देश्य परिशुद्धता श्रेणी 0.3 की मापन प्रणाली के भाग के रूप में उपयोग किया जाता है जो " पानी के अलावा अन्य द्रवों हेतु मापन सिस्टम " का एक भाग है, जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " फॉरे हरमैन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) के मॉडल का तथा भारत में मैसर्स लिक्विड कंट्रोल इंडिया प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , 231-1 और 2 , पोर - रामनगामडी, जीआईडीसी एरिया , पोर-391243 , जिला बड़ौदा , गुजरात द्वारा विपणन किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13/ 09/306 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक इलैक मै चिपचिपाहट/विसकोसिटी 0.5 mm² निम्नलिखित विशेषता है : - ट : इयूसर है जिसका प्रयोग पैट्रोलिया जीच है 3 अल्ट्रासोनिक सिट उत्पाद लिक्विड केमीकल्स और सिद्धांत पर कार्य करता है । मीटर की Diameter

Max. kinetic viscosity

Min. measured quantity

Minimum Reynolds Number

Flow cate Min. Max. [m³ /h] [ m³ /h]

[ -]

20000

60 600

150 mm

इसका तापमान रेंज -25 ° सें. से + 55 ° सें है । अधिकतम परिचालन दाब 150 बार है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय या 24 वी डीसी पर कार्य करता है । ओआईएमएल आर 117 के अनुसार मॉडल का परीक्षण किया गया है ।

[ फा.सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 229 )/ 2008 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 2220

THE GAZETTE INDIA MATI, 2010VAISAKIA

New Delhi , the 8th April . 2010

S.O.115. Whereas the Crairal Governmeat , after considering w inted it by the prese authority , along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands et teillant ( NMI ) , Netherlands , 15 satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) , isin contornatty with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over penods of sustained use to render accarate service under varied conditions ;

and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues acuatica model) , manufactured by M/ s . Faure Herman , Route de Bonnetable, 72400 La Fertance and marketed a ods by M/ s . Liquids Control India Private Limited. 231-1 and 2, Por - Ramaneamadi , GIDA Arca, Por- 491243 . Вι ου Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the third provis model of a measurement sensor ( Ulirasome Sensor ) intended to used as part of faceang sesten der inquth other me Water" with brand name ' Faure Hernian ' and of series "FH8400 " series of accurarinaitor reten , me Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 / 09 /306 .

ihe said model is an electronic measurement transducers used for custody pericum quad liquid chemicals and potable liquids with viscosities between 0.5 mm/ s and 25 m² and working on the pitche ultrasonic transu time method . The meter has following characteristics .

Flow rate

Diameter

Min. Ma

Max. kinetic iscosity

Min, measured quantity

[m²/h] [m

150mm

The temperature range ambieni is 25 ° C to + 55 ° C . The maximum operating preste is 1.50 bar . The instrukca operates on 230 V, 50 Hz alternative carrent power supply or 24 V DC . It has been according to ONE P specifications

No. WM-2

steet Pirector of Legal Mchorog :

2221 [ भाग !! - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल, 2010

का.आ. 1116. केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स बिजेब्रा इंडिया प्रा.लि. , 27 एकड़ प्रताप कोठारी कंपाउड नं. 3 , टिकूजी नी वाडी के सामने , मानपाड़ा , थाणे ( वेस्ट ) -400 610 महाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " बी जेड - डब्ल्यू बी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( बेब्रिज प्रकार ) के माडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " बिजेब्रा " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 08 / 215 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 60 टन और न्यूनतम क्षमता 400 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 20 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 बोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति-2 उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

स्टाम्प और सील के सत्यापन के लिए इंडीकेटर के बाटम में कवर को काट कर दो छेद बना कर इन्हें लीडिड़ वायर से कसा जाता है । सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना इंडीकेटर खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल की सीलिंग व्यवस्था का एक विशिष्ट स्कीम आधारित डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रभाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा . या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से 200 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10 * , 2 × 10 * , 5 × 10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 100 )/2008 ]

बी. एन . दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 2222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1 , 2010/ VAISAKHA

New Delhi, the 8th April, 2010

01116 .--Whereas the Central Government , after considering the tenat submitted to it by the preserthed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure giver below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval at viodels ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accorces over retieds of sustained us : and to render rate service under variel condimons;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and 8 or Section 36 of the said at the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval ofthe Model of non - automatic weighing instrument Weighbridge type ) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Acentacy class -111 ) of series " B7-WB " and with brand name " BIZERBA " ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by Mrs. Bizerba India Pvt Ltd. 27 Acres Pratan athari Compound No. 5. Opp . Tikuji Ni Wadi . Manpada , Thone 610, Maharashtra indenean is assigned the approval mark INDV09/08 /215 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weight swument ( Weighbridge type : ith a maximun..apacity of 60 tonne and minimum capacity of 400 kg . The verification wale merval ( e ) 70 kg. aris a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode LED indicates the weighing suits . The instrument operates on 2.10 Volts 50 flertzalternative current power supph .

Figure i Model

Figure-2-Sealing arrangement

At the bottom of the indicator cover two holes are made by cutting the cover testened by a leaded wire for receiving the verification stamp and seal . The instrument cannot be opened without uspe ,the seal A typical schenuatic diagram ot sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 at the vard Act , the Centre.seminent hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shail also cover the wrighing instruments ot sanilar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with vertication scale interval ) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g or more and withre value of 1 10 %, 2.10 or 5-10 , where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the sarie materials with which , the said approved Model has been manufactured

IF No WM- 21 ( 100 ) 2008 )

1B 1DX Director of Legal Aietrelogy 2223 भारत का राजपत्र गई 1 , 20: 0. वैशाख 11, 1932

[भाग (1- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ;

नई दिल्ली, 9 अप्रैल, 2011

का.आ. 1117, केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित अधिन्नरी द्वारा कई प्रस्तुत पोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है किउक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) घाट ओर भाप पानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का ०० ) तथा बार और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार एयोग की अवधि में भी रक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उदयक्त होण बन जाता रहा;

अतः अण, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उका अधिनियम की धारा 35 से उप- था और उपभान ( 8 ) करा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स सेंसोग्राफ पैकेजिंग टेकनोलोजी प्रा.लि. , नं. 202, तिरुपदि इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट सुभाष नगर, मुबई-400078 गहाराष्ट्र द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग, X ( 2 ) वाले स्वचालित ग्रेविमेट्रिक फिलिंग उपकरण के मोडल का दिएको ब्रॉड का नाम लेंसोग्राफ है ( जिसे इसमें इराव्के पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आहे एनडी/ 04/ 18/ 3 / 8 अनुदेशित किया गया है अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करतो है:

उक्त मॉडल एक भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित ऐविनेटिक फिलिया है । इसकी अधिकतम श्रमना 2 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 50 ग्रा. है । भापमान अन्तराल पर है । उपकरण में एक फिलिंग प्वाइंट है । इसकी अधिकतम भरण दर 50 फिल/ मिनट है । लिक्विड किस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उगदर्शित करता है । अधकरण 2.30 पोस्ट और 50 हर्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

आकृति 2 इंडीकेटर के मॉडल का सोलिंग प्रावधान

डिस्पले के बेस और टाप कवर में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्पल के टॉप पर सौलिंग की जाती है ताकि सीलिंग के बद सील हटाए बिना डिजिटजर को खोला न जा सके मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रभाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही येक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो । कि.ग्रा. से 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की रेंज में हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 185 )/2008 ] बी. एन . दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1426 G1 /10-5 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1, 2010 (JAISARIL

New Delhi , ine 9th Au

firs

1117, Whereas the Central Сетиль , the considering satisfied that the model described in the said tenert ( see the of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976166 1976 ) (Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Mudal is likely to maintale s

unite service under varied conditious;

w. therefore , in excrcise ofthe powers enaforted by sub - section

rincat bereby issue:: and publishes the scient

longing to Accuracy Class X ( 2) with brand 'SENSOURATE

d by Mis . Sersograph Packaging Technolog : Private United N.400078 , Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval

anses kalen

the low andere 50.

aid rmodel is a load cell based Automatic Gravimetre Filling ponty is 50g. The value of scale interval is ig. The instrument has The Liquid Crystal Diode ( LCD: display indicates the weighing mort at native current power supply

PigresModd

van de dispby sa اءالدقة thing is done on the top of the display by passing wire in base and top digit ar samt opened without removing the seal . A typical schermatic diagram of a vas prin four of the megama When in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) ot Section to be said the card Geneby declares that this certificate of approval of the said modzi shall atser va the weighing suis trets o simetarouracy and performance of same series with capacity in the range of iky tooing oreginal neo ne that the the sarae manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, dels to at the same reite whipproved Model has been manufactured.

N. DIT Decoratiedag भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 2010/वैशाख ।। , 1932

माः । खण्ड 31 ) ]

नई दिल्ली , 9 अप्रैल , 2010

को. आ. 1118, केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उका रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मंडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेग्गा और विभिन्न कोस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रक्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए . मेसर्स समार्ट टेकनोलोजी सिस्टम , नं. 31 , 5 वां सी क्रॉस , शारदादम्बा नगर, जलहली, बंगलोर -560 013 द्वारा विनिर्मित " एसटीएल -305 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित " टेक्सी/आटो फेयर मीटर ( फ्लैग क बिना ) " के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " समार्ट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसको पश्चात् उक्त गांडल कहा गया हैं ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/08 /190 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाणपत्र जारी करतो है । उक्त मॉडल " टैक्सी आटो फेयर मीटर ( फ्लैग के बिना ) मापन उपकरण है जो लगातार योग करता जाता है और यात्रां द्वारा दंग भाई को यात्रा के दौरान किसी भी समय दर्शाता है । सार्वजनिक वाहन के यात्रियों द्वारा देय भाड़ा , तय की गई दूरी और निर्धारित स्पीड से कम पर व्यतीत किए गए समय का फलन है जो प्राधिकृत शुल्क के अनुसार अनुपुरक भाड़े से स्वतंत्र है । मीटर की रीडिंग प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) द्वारा दशांदी जाती है । टैक्सी मीटर का ' के ' फेक्टर 2800 प्लसेल प्रति किलोमीटर पर चलता है ।

FARE

Made In India MODEL 515 306

TO PAY

HIRED

PANUFACTURED SY SMART TECHNOLOGY SYSTEIA SH CROSS SHARADAMPA HAGAR ALAHALES : SANDALOSET MODEL SISWS emai.nfo@smart-laxnaeiers com

DISTANCE

51 .

WAITING TIME

आकृति- उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

कपरपूर्ण व्यवहार को रोकने के लिए मीटर के खुले पंच पर सील तार लगाकर सीलिंग की गई है । सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना किया मोटर खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल की सीलिंग व्यवस्था का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 98 ) /2008 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक नाप विज्ञान TTD GALITE OF INDE , WAY 1. 2010 VAISAKHA 11. 120

New Detal the 9th April, 2019

18 -Whereas dhe vetratunammer uter considering the report slotted to ta by the prescribon authorit chui the romodel descanned co the said repar ( see the figure giver slow ) is in rodernis with the provision at the alandards of weights and Measures Act 1976 ( 60 of 1979 ) and Co Standards at Weights and Measures (Approval wise, far ) Rahs , 1987 and me said M. del is dy to painda ftros tancy ser periods of stated use and το πεπόοι απαιevice under warrent conditions;

ото, пеxercise at die povers entered by sulcetions that of seetha 36 el me vde ac , the Cenical Government hereby issues and publishes the sentitume of approval of the Mol of taxwAure Fare Motor (withour days . digital indication thereinafter refermal to us the said Moden of SIS VS daries with " SMART" sued by Mrs. Sourn Techno'ogy Systos , No P. Sth CCross , Store eduroa Nagar , amech Majumde 560013 , P. ir assigned the approvat macs IND -09.08 193,

heat abort of " la : Auto rue Mover ( withorn flag " is a measuring he par shat otalzes cinahangla and house trov at any moment of yeary, the changes payable by the passenger te path thick sorazmer dha distanta and below att drapead us he taugh of the ume taket , 'hit sting Lalesandens of a plers ntary charges donde the authorized tariffle. The teadmg of die meter is indicared benige Braning God Lorin Merk factor . Pes 2800 pases pas kageter

MODEL STA

HIRED

DISTANCE

WAITING TIME

Culty lonely afflixing a scting wize on the oponam sne af de mestu moter canon ha poned whhont sampeng the stal . Atypical schemand diagram of sealing provision of tite hold is iven above

IF No MC [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2227 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 9 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1119.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स समार्ट टेकनोलोजी सिस्टम , नं. 31 , 5 सी क्रॉस , शारदादम्बा नगर , जलहली , बंगलोर -560013 द्वारा विनिर्मित " एसटीएस -300 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित " टैक्सी फेयर मीटर " के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " समार्ट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त माडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिड़ आई एन डी/ 09/08 / 191 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है । उक्त मॉडल " टैक्सो फेयर मीटर " मापन उपकरण है जो लगातार योग करता जाता है और यात्री द्वारा देय भाड़े को यात्रा के दौरान किसी भी समय दर्शाता है । सार्वजनिक वाहन के यात्रियों द्वारा देय भाड़ा , तय की गई दूरी और निर्धारित स्पीड से कम पर व्यतीत किए गए समय का फलन है जो प्राधिकृत शुल्क के अनुसार अनुपूरक भाड़े से स्वतंत्र है । मीटर की रीडिंग प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) द्वारा दर्शायी जाती है । टैक्सी मीटर का' के ' फेक्टर 1274 प्लसेस प्रति किलोमीटर पर चलता है ।

DISTANCE KIMI

CANT

MADE IN INDIA MODEL NO STS - 300

λιπ 1274

VACANT

TO PAY

NGHI

आकृति-2: उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार को रोकने के लिए मीटर के खुले पेच्च पर सील तार लगाकर सीलिंग की गई है । सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना किराया मीटर खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल की सीलिंग व्यवस्था का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम 21 ( 98 ) / 2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1 , 2010 NAISAKHA 11. 1930

New Desi , the 94 : April , 2010

S.D. 1119 Whereas the tenttal Government , after considering the repet theate authority is satistica that the model described in the said report ( ses the figare gia a beats in provisions ofthe Standards of Weigh .. and Measures Vat , 1976 : 60 of 1976 ) and the (Approval of Vindgby Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to saimain its access to render and service ander varied condriers,

Now, heretore , in exercise of the powers confched by sub - sections ( 7 ) ata ( Central Gas emmer hereby issues and publishes the corureate of approval ofthe Models " ndication hereinafter referred to to the said Model) of $ 18-300 series with brend use SMART Ms. Saran Teduclogy Systems , No 31. Sur C Cross , Sharadadamba Nagar , Jubhkalli, Bat va te assigned the appro al mark IND 09.08 191 ;

the The said tadel of Taxi Fare Meer " is a mensuring instrament which total zus fare , stary women of journey , ne cherges payable by the passenger of a public vende s traveled, and belos a certam speed on the lengun of the time takes this beng ucieradent gccording to me rathorized tanfl . The reading of the wester is indicated by Ligm Emiitong Drenthel the se Taxi meter is 1274 ulses per kilometer .

Rs .

FARE

Ps.

HIRED

TS PAY DISIANCE K.Μ.

WAITING TIME CLOCK

VACAN MADE IN INDIA

STATS

MODEL NO, STS - 300

VACANT

Figure-? Scoeling ciagret of the sealing provision whe : se

Scaling is done by affiving seating wire on the opening screw of the inter to Add audio meter can not be opened withom tempering the seal A typical schematic diagrain swetry provision of the given above

F.No. WMCT08 : 30

E.N ODE : Drector of a Metrog भाग - खण्ड ( 1)

भारत का राजपत्र मई 1 , 2010/ वैशाख 11 , 1932

2229

नई दिल्ली , 9 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1120, कोद्रीय सरकार का. विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि कल रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक शोदाला हा अनुमोदन) नियम 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल बार्दनः बना देगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा:

अतः , अव, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) , उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) के तीसरे परन्तुक द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स रिमोट आटोमेशन सोल्यूशंस इमर्रसन प्रोसेस मेनेजमेंट , 1100 बकिंघम स्ट्रीट , वाटरटाउन , मिटी 06975, यूगए द्वारा विनिर्मित " कंट्रोलवेत माइक्रो " शृंखला के गैस फ्लो मीटर जो मापन मिस्टम का एक भाग है, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम ' ब्रिस्टल ' है ( जिसे इसमें इसत पश्चात् तथत माडल कहा गया है ) के माडल का तथा जिसे मैसर्स रिमोट आटोमेशन सोल्यूशंस इंडिया आपरेशंस , ए. एम ए के सामने , डा. डी बी एस रोड, अहमदाबाद -380009 गुजरात द्वारा भारत में बिक्री से पूर्व या आद में बिना किसी परिवर्तन ने विपणीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुनादन चिह्न आई एन डी/09.08/ 345 सननुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

आकृति-2 माडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों से बचने के लिए कंप्यूटर के प्रत्येक प्रवाह पर दिए गए छंदों में से स्कू और सीलिंग बायर निकाल कर सीलिंग और स्टाम्धिग की जाती है । सील से साथ छेड़छाड़ किए बिना उपकरण को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

उक्त माडल प्राकृतिक गैस फ्लो मापने का गैस फ्लो मीटर है जो मापन प्रणाली का एक भाग है । विंडो साइज 2.8 सें.मी. × 7.9 सें. मी है और डायमेंशन 18.8 सें.मी. x 14.4 से.मी. के साथ करेक्टर साइज 4 मि.मी. 3मि.मी. है । मीटर में पावर की खपत 2.5mA @ 3.3V ( 0 . 008 वाट्स ) और परिचालन तापमान 20 से 70 ° सें. है ।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 188 ) /2008 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान WARE S THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010: VAISAKHA 11.197

2230

NewDelhi , the 9th April , 2010

1120.-Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report wdemiese to it by the prostil ed authority, ta satistied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below , is in contornish the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act . 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and faces (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accurae, aver periods of sustained to render accurate service under varied conditions :

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by the third proviso to san - sertion ( 2 ) , sub - sector et ind sub - section ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issties and publistes the certificate of approval of Model of Gas Flow Meter intended to be used as a part of a measuring syster with brand name BRISTOL and of series "Controlsave Micro " series ( hereinafter referred to as the model ) , manufactured by Mrs. Remote Antenn Solutions Emerson Process Management . 1100 Buckingham Street. Watertown , CT 00 95 , USA and marketed in the without any alteration before or after sale by M's . Remote Automation Solutions ludia Operations . Opp . AMA, Road. Ahmedabad - 380009 , Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND.09: 08645: V. 5 .

Figure - 2- Sealing provision

The sealing and stamping is done to stop the fraudulent practices by screw and sealing wire passed through the holes provided on each flow computer . The instrument can not be opened without tampering the seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

The said model is a gas flow meter intended to be used as a part of a measuring system for natural gas flow measurement . The window size is 2.8cm × 7.9cm and character size is 4mm x 3mm with dimensions 18.8cm × 14.4cm . The power consumption in the meter is 2.5mA @ 3.3V ( 0.008 watts ) and operating temperature -20 to 70 ° C .

[F. No. WM - 2 ) ( 188 )/ 2008 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legai Metrology [ भाग 1]-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2231 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1, 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 9 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1131.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :--

अनुसूची

स्थापित भारतीय पानक ( कों ) की संख्या

स्थापित तिथि संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

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

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) 1 .

10278 : 2002

31 दिसम्बर , 2009 आईएस 10278 : 2009/ आई एस ओ 7117 : 1995 मोटर साईकिल अधिकतम गति का मापन (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक की प्रतियां भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भजन , 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 , पुणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ: टी ई डी/जी -16 ]

टी. वी. सिंह, वैज्ञानिक ' एप्त' एवं प्रमुख ( टी ई डी ) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 9th April , 2010

S.O. 1121.- 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

Sr. No.

No. & Year of the indian Standards Established

Date of Established

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

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

10278 :2002

31 Dec.2009 IS 10278 : 2009 /ASO 7117 : 1995 Motorcycies Measurement of maximum speed (third revision)

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

[Ref: TED/G - 16]

T. V. SINGH , Sc . ' F ' & Head (Transport Engg .) 1426 GI /10-6 2237

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

[PART 1Sre . Sinf

नई दिल्ली , 9 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1122.-भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम 4 के उप- विनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं . वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं ...

अनुसूची

लाहनंस

क्रम

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

लाइसेंसधारों का नाम व पता

भामा सं.ः भागः खण्ड/वर्ष a संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि

(

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6) 790019 23-12-2009

10686 : 1982 अलायड इंस्ट्रूमेंट्स

सीमेंट और कंक्रीट के परीक्षण में उपयोग के लिए मोल्डस

यूनिट सं. 30,3701 , गणपति पाडा इण्ड. एरिया , कलवा, - भाणे -400605

7917021 11-01-2010

14543 : 2004

पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

सॉलीटेयर बेवरेजज गाला सं. डी-7/ 1 , वागले इण्ड. इस्टेट , रोड सं. 33 इंदिरा नगर, थाणे , पश्चिम-400604

[ संख्या केंद्रीय प्रमाणन विभाग

सी. के. महेश्वरी , वैज्ञानिक ' जी' ( प्रमाणन )

New Delhi . the 9th April , 2010

SO. 1122.-In pursuance of sub - regulation (5 ) of the regulation 4 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification) Regulations 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given below in the following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

Grant Date

Year

IS No. Parn /Sec

Product

SL No

Livences No.

Name & Address ( factory) of the Party

121

( 1)

(3)

(44)

(5)

1. 7996619 23-12-2009

10086: 1982

Moulds for use in tests of Cement and Concrete

Allied Instruments Unit No. 30 , 3701 , Ganpati Prala Indl . Area , Kalwa . THANE - 400605

7997621 11-01-2010

14543: 2004

Packaged Drinking Water

(Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water )

Solitaire Beverages Gala No. D - 7 / 1 , Wagle Industrial Estate . Road No. 33 , Indira Nagar , Thane- (W) 400604

No CMDVIS

C. K. MAHESHWARI , Sc. ( Certification !

भारत का राजपत्र : भई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

भाग !! खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2233

नई दिल्ली , 9 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1123.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के विनियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय आानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता स्वीकृत करने की तिथि

लाइसेंस संख्या

क्रम सं.

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

08-10-2009

7957609

बालपोइ वैली बोटानिकल प्रा. लि. एच सं. 26 , सिग्ने- नगर गांव , वालपोइ, सततारे , गोवा -403 506 09-10-2009

2. 7969313

ओम अक्वा प्रोडक्ट्स, गट सं. 228 , विलेज: बुधावली , पोस्ट: खुपरी , वाडा, जिला : थाने421 312 01-10-2009

7976411

इंटरनेशनल पैकेजिंग प्रोडक्ट्स प्रा. लि. सर्वे सं. 380/2 , दापडा गांन दादरा और नगर हवेली , सिलवासा-396 230 15-10-2009

4. 7978213

जैन एग्रो इंडस्ट्रीज प्लाट सं. 39 , डीआइडीसी, मणिपुर गणजद , डहाणू रोड , जिला थाणे-401 602 14-10-2009

5. 7978819

रितविज फूड एवं बेवरेजेज प्रा . लि. बी-34 , गने खदपोली इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया , एम आई डी सी, चिपलून , जिला- रत्नागिरी

14-10-2009

7979518

दि सुप्रीम इंडस्ट्रीज लि. यूनिट 3 , गट सं. 47 , 47/2 , 48 से 50, 55 से66, 69 , 70 , 72 एवं 73 जलगांव औरंगाबाद स्टेट हायवे , पोस्ट: गडेगांव , जामनेर , जिला-जलगांव-425 114 09-10-2009

7. 7979821

खंड वर्ष

भामासं, भाग

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(7) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

(5)

2004 पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी ( पैकेजबंद 14543 प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी ( पैकेजबंद 14543 2004 एकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

वस्त्रादि उच्च घनत्व पॉलीथिलीन 7903 2005 से चुने कपड़े से बना टरपुलीन

पैकंजबंद पीने का पानी ( पैकेजबंद 14543 2004 प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी ( पैकेज्जबंद 14543 2004 प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

सिंचाई उपस्कर- सेचक पाईप भाग 14151 ( भाग 2 ) : 1999 2- शीघ्र युग्मक पॉलीथिलीन पाईप

नीलीकॉन फूड डाईज एवं केमिकल्स लि. संलिष्ट खाद्य रंग- निर्मितियाँ प्लाट सं. 17 , एमआइडीसी , धातव , रोहा, जिला : रायगढ़ -402 116 5346 1994 और मिश्रण

19-10-2009

8. 7980604

जे. जे. फूड एग्रो टेक प्रा. लि. बी-10 , ( एच पी गैस फिलिंग स्टेशन के सामने ) एमआइडीसी , मालेगांव सिन्नर, जिला : नासिक-422 113 पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी ( पैकेजबंद 14543 प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) 2004 2234

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1, 2010 VAISAKHA

(1)

(3)

121

(4)

(5)

28 18-09-2009

पैकंजबंद पीने का बंद 14/4

प्राकृतिक मिनरल जन ,

अल्फा इंडस्ट्रीज तंबोली जीन कंपाउण्ड, टीबी सेन्टा के नजदीक , अमलनेर जिला : जलगांव 125 40

7478011 23-09-2009 मारू कमिकल्स इंडस्टरोज

उत्ार्वक पाईप सिलम

1492 प्लाट में 36-37 को - ऑपरेटिव इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, सयाने बाँके) , मालेगांव, जिला नासिक-423 203

New Delhi, me 9th April, 2010

S.U. 123 -m pursuance of sob -regulation (5 ) of regulation 4 of the Bureum of India Sadowications Regulations 1988, the Bureau of Indian Standards , herchy notifias the grant of becaces patientern of which are given below in tire following Schedule:

SCREDULE

Licences Grant Date

Product

ISMO . Par Sou Yer Sl . No. No

Name & address (factory) of the Party

(3)

(1)

(4)

(5)

1 . 7957609 08-10-2009

107

4543

Packaged Drinking Winer (Other than Packay Natural Mineral Waaor !

Volpoi Valley Botanicals Pvt. Ltd. 14. No. 26, Shmgne -Nagargaon , Valpoi Sattari , GOA-403 506

2. 7969315 09-10-2009

Packaged Drinking W

Om Aqua Producis GutNo. 228 , Village:

(Other than. Packaged Natural Mineral Wa

Budhavali, Post : Khupars Wada, Dist Thano-421 312

3. 7570411 01-10-2009

Textiles Tarpaulus Mad

FromHigh Dens

Poiyethylene an

International Packaging Products PV Ltd.. Survey No. 380/2, Village Dapada Silvassa. Dadra & Nagar Haveli 396230

7978217 15-10-2009

1454

Packaged Drinking water

(Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water )

JainAgro Industries Plot No. 39. D.I.D.C. Manipur , Ganjad Dananu Road, Dist Thane- 401 662

7978819 14-10-2009

Packaged Drinking Warn (Other thar Packaged Natural Mineral Wate

Ritvoj Foods & Beverages, Pvt Ltd. , B-34 , Gane Khadpoli Industrial Area , MIDC, Chiplun . Dist Ranmagiri [ भाग 1 ] -खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2235 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(3)

(5)

(4)

(6) (7) (8) (9) 6. 7979518 14-10-2009

1999

Pipes: Part 2 : Quick Coupleci Polythylene Pipes Irrigation Equipment - Sprinkler 14151 ( Pt2 ) :

The Supreme Industries Ltd , Unit 3 , Gat No. 47 , 47/2 , 48 to 50 , 55 to 66 , 69. 70 , 72 & 73 Jalgaon , Aurangabad State Highway , At post Gadegaon , Jamner , Dist Jaigaon -425 114

7. 7979821 09-10-2009

5346

1994

Synthetic Food Colour- Preparations & Mixtures

Neelikon Food Dyes & Chemicals Ltd , Plot No. 17 , MIDC , Dhatav , Roha . Dist Raigad -402 116

7980604 19-10-2009

14543

2004

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Naturai Mineral water)

J.J. Food Agro Tech Pvt . Ltd. , B -10 (Opp HP Gas Filling Station ) , MIDC , Malegaon, Sinnar , Dist . Nashik -422 113

9. 7976108 18-09-2009

14543

2001

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral water )

Alfa Industries Tamboli Gin Compound, NearT.V . Centre , Amalner DistJalgaon-425 401

10. 7978011 23-09-2009

13488

1992

Emitting pipe System

Maru Chemicai Industries Plot No. 36-37 Co - Operative Indl . Estate , Sayane (Bk ) , Malegaon , Dist Nashik -423 203

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11

C. K. MAHESHWARI , Sc . " G " ( Certification)

नई दिल्ली , 12 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1124.-- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम ( 5 ) के उपविनियम ( 6 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्न विवरण वाले लाइसेंसों को उनके आगे दर्शायी गई तारीख से रद्द/ स्थगित कर दिया गया हैं : --

अनुसूची

क्रम

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

रद्द करने की तिथि संख्या

लाइसेंस सं. सीएम/ एल

लाइसेंस के अंतर्गत वस्तु/ प्रक्रम सम्बद्ध भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5) 1.

7380879 साईबा इंडस्ट्रीज

सिमेंट पेन्टस

08-01-2010

भामा 5410 1992

प्लॉट सं. 27 , एमआइडीसी इ डस्ट्रीयल एरिया , कुलगाँव , ( बदलापुर ) अंबरनाथ , जिला थाणे-421 503

7697609 पन्सीलोन बेवरेजेज

15-12-2009

पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) भामा 14543 2004

सर्वे सं. 63 , सेजर छाया आश्रम के सामने , कामन भिवण्डी रोड , सागपाडा देवदल वसई , ( पूर्व ) जिला थाणे-401 208

[सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 13 ]

सी. के. महेश्वरी , वैज्ञानिक ' जी' ( प्रमाणन ) [PART U-Sec 30 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

2236

New Delhi , the 12th April , 2010

S.O. 1124. In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6 ) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regziauens 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies that the licences particulars of which are given inthe following Schedule have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each :

SCHEDULE

Date of cancellaton Name and Address of the Licensee

Licence No.

Sr.

No.

Article / Process with relevan Indian Standards covered by the licence cancelled

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1)

08-01-2010 Saiba Industries

2380879

Cement Paint

IS: 5410: 1992

Plot No. 27, MIDC Industrial Area , Kulgaon (Badiapur ) Armbernath Distt Thane 421503

15-12-2009 7697609

Packaged Drinking water (Other than раскаgеd natural minerusi water )

IS: 14543 : 2004

Pappillon Beverages Survey No. 63 , Opp Shejar Chhaya Ashram , Kaman Bhiwandi Road , Sagpada - Devdal Vasai (E) , Dist Thane 401208

[ No. CMD 13.13 ]

C.K. MAHESHWARI , Sci " G" ( Certification )

नई दिल्ली , 12 अप्रैल , 2010

का आ. 1125.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय नानक ब्यूरो एतद्‌द्वारण अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं. व स्वीकृन कर दिए गए हैं :

अनुसूची

भामा सं. भाग अनु

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

लाइसंस स्वीकृत करने

की तिथि वर्ष/माह

क्रम सं

(6) ( 7 ) ( 8 )

(5)

(4)

(3)

भामा 1. 06-01-2010

903 3300

फायर होस डिलीवरी कप्लिम्स ब्रांच पाईप , नोजल्स एंड नोजल स्पैनर

राश्री इंजीनीयरिंग इंडस्ट्रीज लि. 39 और 40/2 ,गौडनपाल्या , सुब्रमण्यापुरा रोड , बंगलौर अरधन बेंगलोर

कर्नाटक -560061

1417 सागमपुल 07-01-2010 3304540

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएँ, आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

राजलक्ष्मीज्वेलर्स गणपति कॉम्प्लेक्स , नियर , सीन्डिकेट बैंक , सदाशिवगढ़

कारवार

उत्तर कन्नाडा कर्नाटक-581352

भामा जोलरिया एसमेराल्डा ,

1417 सीएम एल 11-01-2010 3367445

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएँ, आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

दुकान नं. 5. न्यूक्लिएस रामलिंगहिंड , स्ट्रीट , बेलगाम -590002 , कर्नाटक [भाग - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(4)

(3)

( 1) ( 2)

4. सीएम/ एल 12-01-2010 3307344

अर्जुन ज्वेलर्स एन. आर. रोड , न्युपेट , आनेकल , बेंगलौर रूरल , बेंगलौर, कर्नाटक-562106 5. सीएम/एल 13-01-2010 3307243

बालाजी ज्वेलर्स मंडीपेट, तुमकुर , कर्नाटक-572101 6. सीएम/एल 18-01-2010 3309247

कोरल अक्वा टैक नं. 85 , 5वां क्रॉस , विडिया लेआउट , चंद्रा लेआउट बेंगलौर -560079 कर्नाटक

7. सीएम/ एल 21-1-2010 3310636

संदीप ज्वेलर्स नं. 145/10 , रंगनाथा मैंशन , अवेन्यु रोड, बेंगलौर अरबन , बेंगलौर , कर्नाटक-560002 8. सीएम/ एल 21-1-2010 3310737

मार्लेचा महल ज्वेलर्सं नं. 164 , अवन्युरोड , बेंगलौर अरबन , बेंगलौर , कर्नाटक -560002 9. सीएम/एल 27-1-2010 3312337

एस. एम. ज्वेलर्स पहला क्रॉस रोड़ , रोबर्टसनपेट , केजीएफ , कोलार , कर्नाटक-563122 10. सीएम/एल 27-1-2010 3313642

स्टोवक्राफ्ट प्राईवेट लिमिटेड नं. 81/1 , मेधामारनहल्ली , हारोहल्ली, होब्ली , कनकपुरा तालुक , जिला- रामनगर , बंगलौर, कर्नाटक -562112 11. सीएम/ एल 27-01-2010 3315040

श्री मुनेष्वरा एंटरप्राइजेस , सर्वे नं. 28 / ए , चिक्कबेल्लंदूर , सरजापुर रोड , कारमेलाराम पोस्ट, बेंगलौर ईस्ट तालुक , बेंगलौर -560035 कर्नाटक

2237

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

( 7 ) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6 )

(5)

भामा

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएँ, आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

भामा

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएँ , आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

भामा

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा)

भामा

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएँ . आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

भामा

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएँ , आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

भामा

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएँ, आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

2006

भामा

डॉमेस्टिक प्रेशर कूकर

2347

भामा 2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा )

[सं. सीएमडी/ 13 : 11 ] सी. के. महेश्वरी , वैज्ञानिक ' जी ' ( प्रमाणन )

New Delhi , the 12th April , 2010

S.O. 1125.-In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 5) ofthe regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulation 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licence particular of which are given in the following Schedule:

2238

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

SCHEDULE

Grant Date

Licences

S No. No.

Name and address of the Party

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

06-01-2010

1 . CM/L- 3306140

Rapsri Engineering Industries Lid 39 & 40/2 ,Gowdanapalya , Subramanyapura Road, Bangalore Urban , Bangalore , Karnataka - 560061 2

07-01-2010

CML- 3304540

Rajlaxmi seweilers Ganpati Complex , Near Syndicate Bank, Sadashivgad Karwar , Uttar Kannada, Karnataka- 581352 11-01-2010

3. CM- 3307445

Joalharia Esmeralda, Shop No. 5, Nucleus Mali Ramingkhind Street. Belgaum -590002 Karnataka

12-01-2010

CM/L- 3307344

ArjunJewellers N.R. Road, Newpet , Anekal , Bangalore Kamataka- 562106 13-01-2010

5. CM/L- 3307243

Balaji Jewetlers Mandipet Tumkur Karnataka - 572101 18-01-2010

6. CM/L- 3309247

Coral Aqua Tech No. 85 , 5th Cross Widla Layout , Chandra Layout , Bangalore, Karnataka- 560079 21-01-2010

7. CM/L 3310636

Sundeep Jewellers # 145 / 10 , Ranganatha Mansion , Avenue Road , Bangalore Urban, Bangalore , Karnataka- 560002 21-01-2010

8. CM/L- 3310737

Marlecha Mahal Jewellers No. 164 , Avenue Road , Bangalore Urban , Bangalore , Karnataka- 560002 9.

27-01-2010

CM/L- 3312337

S.M. Jewellers IST Cross Road , Robertsonpet, KGF Kolar , Karnataka -563122

PART 11- SH.3( 1)

Year

IS Ne Part Sec. Title of the Standard

(7) (8) (9) (5)

1993

18903

Fire hose delivery couplings branch pipe , nozzles and nozzle spanner

1999

IS1417-

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/ artefacts - fineness and marking

IS1417-

1999 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/ artefacts - fineness and marking

IS1417

1999 Gold and gold alloys , and marking jewellery/artefacts - fineness

IS 1417

1999 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/ artefacts - fineness andmarking

IS 14543-

2004 Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral water)

1999

IS1417-

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts - fineness andmarking

IG 1417-

1999 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts - finenes and marking

1999

IS 1417

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts -fineness andmarking | भाग -२७ण्ड ( E ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र मई 1, 2019 /वैशाख 11, 1932

(2)

(3)

(4)

CMT 27-01-2010 Stovekraft Pvt Ltd 3310642

No. 81/1 , Medaramaran Halli, Haroballi Hobli , Kanakupara Taluk, Ramanagara DistBangalore Rural Bangalore, Karnataka- 562112 CM/L 27-01-2010 Sri Muneshwara Euterprises

3315040

S. No. 28 /1A , Chikkabellandur , Sarjapur Road, Caramelaram Post . Bangalore East Taluk , Bangalore - 560035 Karnataka (5)

(6) (7) (8) (9)

182347

2006 Domestic pressure cookers

1514543

2004 Packaged Drinking Water

( Other than Packaged

Natural Mineral water )

[No. CMD/ 13 : 11 ) C. K. MAHESH WARI , Sc . " G " ( Certification )

नई दिल्ली , 12 अप्रैल, 2010

का.आ. 1126 भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियमन , 1983 को विनियमन ( 5 ) के उपविनियमन ( 6 ) के तहत भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो यह अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्नलिखित ब्यौ वाले लाइसेंम उनके आगे दी गई तारीखों से रद्द कर दिया गया है ।

लाइसंल में. लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता सख्या

(1) ( 2)

(3)

सोरम फूल- श्री बालाजी लैंड

6900773

डेवलापर्स विल्डस प्राइवेट लिमिटेड.

नं. 9. पहली मंजिल , कृष्णा कॉम्प्लेक्स, नियर कृष्णा रूम्स, नाडिवाला , होलूर मेन रोड , बेंगलौर -560068

कर्नाटक

अनुसूची

समयबाधित तारीख समवयाधित लाइसेस द्वारा आव्रत वस्तु प्रक्रिया के साथ संगत भारतीय मानक

(4)

(5)

पैकंजचंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद

28-01-2010 मिनरल जल के अलावा)

IS 14545 : 2004

[ सं सीएमडी/ 13 : 13 ] सी. के. महेश्वरी, वैज्ञानिक ''जी' ( प्रमाणन )

New Delhi , the' 2th April , 2010

S.0 . 1126.-In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 6 ) of the regulation 5 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulation 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notities that the licences particulars of which are given below have been cancelled with effect from the date indicated against each.

1426 GI /10-7 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11. 1932

2240

SCHEDULE

Name and Address of the Licensee

Date or Cancilation Icence No.

Sr. N

Article / Process with relevant Indian Standard covered by the licence car.celled/ suspension

(4)

(3)

28-401-2010

IS: 14543: 2004

Sri Balaji Land Developers & Builders Pvt . Ltd.

Packaged drinking water (Other than packaged natural mineral water

No. 9 , Ist Floor , Krishna Complex , Near Krishna Rooms . Madiwala, Hosur Main Road , Bangalore - 560068 Karnataka

C.K. MAHESHWARI Sey. Comitation

नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1127. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप - नियन ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण भारीय मानक ब्यूरो एतदद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गये मानक ( कों ) में संशोधन किया गया किए गए हैं : -

अनुसूची

संशोधन लागू होने की तिथि

संशोधन की संख्या और तिथि

मंशोधित भारतीय मानक की संख्या और वर्ष

क्रम संख्या

(4)

(3)

(2)

15 दिसम्बर, 200 ?

संशोधन सं. नं. 2 अगस्त 2009

आईएस 12766 : 1997 कागज कम्प्यूटर- विशिष्टि

(ण्डला पुनरीक्षण)

एसआरतीय 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, हैदराबाद , जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हेतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ: सी एच डी 15/ आई एम 12766]

ई. देवेन्द्र , वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख मायन )

New Delhi , the 20th April , 2010

5.0. 1127.-- In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Buread of indian Standards hereby notifies that the amendments to the Indian Standards particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Date from wheath the Sr

No , and Year of the Indian Standards No. and year of the amendment

amendment shall have effluct

(3)

(1)

(2)

15 Dec. 2009 1.

Amendment No. 2 August , 2009

IS12766: 1997/Paper , Computer- Specification ( first revision)

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 Badar Shat Zafi Maty , New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkatta Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and dist भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

2241

Branch Offices Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur , Nagpur , Patna , Pune , Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref: CHD 15 /IS12766 ]

E. DEVENDAR, Scientist F Head ( Chemical ) )

नई दिल्ली , 20 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1128. भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप- नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्द्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

क्रम स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या वर्ष

स्थापित तिथि संख्या और शीर्षक

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

(2)

(3)

(4) 1.

आईएस 11239 ( भाग 3 ) : 1985

31 दिसम्बर , 2009 आईएस 11239 ( भाग 3 ) : 2009 आईएसओ 2796:1986 दृढ़ जालीदार तापीय उष्मारोधी सानग्री की परीक्षण पद्धति भाग 3 आयामीय स्थायित्व ( पहला 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 , हैदराबाद, जयपुर , कानपुर , नागपुर , पटना , पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में बिक्री हंतु उपलब्ध हैं ।

[ संदर्भ: सी एच डी 27/आई एस -11239 ( भाग 3 ) ]

ई. देवेन्द्र, वैज्ञानिक एफ एवं प्रमुख ( रसायन )

New Delhi , the 20th April , 2010

S.O. 1128. In pursuance of clause ( b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, Lie 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 Eatablished No. No and Year of the Indian Standards Established

No. and year of Indian Standards . if any , Superseded by the New Indian Standard

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 1 1239 ( Part 3) : 1985

31 December . 2009 IS11239 ( Part 3 ) : 2009 ISO 2796 : 1986 Method of test for rigid Cellular thermal Insulation Materials Part 3 dimensional Stability ( First revision ,

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Mank Bhavan , 9 Bhadur Shah Zafar Marg . New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also 2012

(2)

(

हैदराबाद ,, wage पर

उपलब्ध हैं ।

hee the the 20th April, 2010

the Sunniwandands.by uninst the Peine Strands , purroun

here.en.het edhe as indiered agobin each

No.

it ans, Sparseded by the Nev

tushar Sonda.d 2243 भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4) Project Level for Quantification , Monitoring and Reporting of Green House Gas Emission Reductions or Removal Enhancerments

ISASO 14064-3:2006

31 December 2009 Green House Gases Part 3 Specification with Guidance for the validation and Verification of Green House Gas Assertions

Copy ofthese Standards are available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Mank Bhavan , 9 , Bhadur Singh Zafer Marg, New Delhi - 110002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi , Kolkata , Chandigarh , Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices Ahmedabad , Bangalore , Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar , Coimbatore , Guwahati , Ifyderabad , Jaipur , Kanpur, Nagpur , Patna, Puse , Thiruvananthapuram .

[ Ref: CHD 34/ IS/ IOS / 14064 ( Part 2 & Part 3 ) ] E. DEVENDAR , Scientist F & Head ( Chemical )

नई दिल्ली, 20 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 11.30.-- केन्द्रीय सरकार राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप नियम ( 4) को अनुसरण में उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय ( खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण विभाग ) के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन प्रजातीय छावा निगम के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों , जिनके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृन्द ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , कां अधिनचित करती है: -

:. भारतीय खाद्य निगम ,

क्षेत्रीय कार्यालय ,

हेदराबाद , आंध्र प्रदेश

[सं.: ई -11011/1/2008 - हिन्दी] नवीन प्रकाश , संयुक्त सचिव

New Delhi , the 20th April , 2010

S.O. 1130.--In pursuance of Sub - rule ( 4 ) of rule 10 of the Official Language ( use for official purpose ofthe Union ) Rales , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices of Food Corporation of India under the administrative control of the Ministry of Consumer Affairs , Food and Public Distribution ( Deptt . of Food & Public Distribution ) , where of more titan 80 % of staff have acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :

1.Food Corporation of India , Regional Office ,

Hyderabad . Andhra Pradesh

[No E - 11011 / 1 / 2008 -Hindi ]

NAVEEN PRAKASH , Jt . Secy .

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKIIA 11 , 1932

2244

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 19 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ 1131. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि नध्य प्रदेश राज्य में बीना संस्थापन से राजस्थान राज्य में फाटा तक पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन किराई जानी चाहिए:

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

अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 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 तारोग्त्र से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त भारत के राजपत्र की प्रतियां साधान्य जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन कं भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री किशोर कुमार शर्मा, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , बीना - कांटा पाइपलाइन परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड कान नं. 17 , गांधी नगर, कुसमोदा चौकी , ए.बी. रोड , गुणा 473 001 ( मध्य प्रदेश ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकंगा

अनुसूची

तहसील : मुंगावली जिला अशोक नगर राज्य मध्य प्रदेश

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क. सं. ग्राम कা নাল

! 3 if

0.3120

172/5

का. सं. आर. - 3 : 015/5/2009- ओ आर

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS New Deim , the 19th April , 2010

S.O. 1131. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Bina terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Kota in the State of Rapaschar should be laid by Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited ;

And whereas it appears to the Central Govemment that for the purpose of laying such pipeline it is necessary to acquire the right of user in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described the Schedule annexed hereto

Now, therefore , in exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petraicom and Minerals Pipelines Acquisition of Right oft ser im landa Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , the Central Govemonte berers declares its intention to acquue the right of user therein:

Any person , interested in the land described in " he said Schedule may within twenty one days frose the daa on which copies of the Gazene of india costalis tuis notification are made available to the pubi ... obje writing to the acquisition of the right of user there a lo laying of the pipeline under the land to Siro Kishore Kumar Sharma , Competent Authority , Bina - Kota Pipeline Project Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited. Hoes No Gandhi Nagar , Kusumoda Chowk , A. B. Road Gua 473 001 ( Madhya Pradesh )

CHEDULE

Tehsil:Mungawali Detect : Ashok Nagar State Madra Pradesh

S. No. Name of Village Survey No. Area in Hectare 2 3 1 . Phuledi 172/5 1 (0312)

[ No.R -31015 5 2009-08-11 A. GOSWAML. I nder Sery नई दिल्ली , 19 अप्रेल , 2010

का.आ. 1132, कन्द्रीय सरकार को आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्य प्रदेश राजस्थान राज्य में कोटा तक ट्रालियम उत्पादों पर লে ফেলাঃ भारत पेट्रोलियम कापरिशन लिमिटेड दाग যত লাফানে দি जानी चाहिए:

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को रंग पलाइन দিনে দু चन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता में किसी भूमि नं. को प्रथम उपबंध अनुसूची में वर्णित है जिनमें রমনাহন বিদায় জান का प्रस्ताव है , उपयोगको कारक अि

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सर ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन अधिनिम 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा द्वारा प्रदप्रयत करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार काम अपने आशय की घोषणा करनी है .

कोई व्यक्ति जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में निरुद्ध है उस तारीख से जिसको इस अधिसूचना से युक्त प्रतियों साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है इक्कास दिन को भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के लिए उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के सम्बन्ध में श्री किशोर कुमार शर्मा, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , बीना कांटा पाइपलाइन परियोजना , भारत पेट्रोलियम कोर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड कमान नं. 17 , गांधी नगर , कुसमोदा चौकी , ए. बी. रोड गुना-473001 ( मध्य प्रदेश ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा।

अनुसूची

तहसील : गुना जिला गुना राज्य मध्य प्रदेश

क्षेत्रफल हैक्टेयर में

सर्वे नंबर

क्र. संग्राम का नाम

95 0.4950 1. भूराखेड़ी

78 0.1500 2. चुरेला

178 0.1800 3 किशनपुरा

90 0.3055 4. किशनगढ़

[फा. सं. आर. - 31015 / 11/2008-ओ. आर- II ]

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 19th April , 2010 S.O. 1132. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Bina terminal in the State of Madhya Pradesh to Kota in the State of Rajasthan should be laid by Bharat Petroleum CorporationLimited;

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

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 150 of 1962 ) , the Central Government hereby déclares its intention to acquire the right of user therein ;

Any person, interested in the land described in the said Schedule may within twenty one days from the date on which copies of the Gazette of India containing this notification are made available to the public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri Kishore Kumar Sharma , Competent Authority , Bina- kota Pipeline Project , Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited , House No. - 17 , Gandhi Nagar , Kusumoda Chowk , A.B. Road Guna - 473 001 ( Madhya Pradesh )

2245

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Guna District: Guna State : Madhya Pradesh

Area in Hectare S. No.

Survey No.

Name of Village

1 2

95 0.4950 1 . Bhoorakhedi

78 0.1500 2. Churela

178 0.1800 3. Kishanpura

90 0.3055 4. Kishangarh

[ F. N. R- 31015 / 11 /2008 - OR - II ] A. GOSWAMI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 21 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1133. केन्द्रीय सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से बिहार राज्य में बरौनी तक कच्चे तेल के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन आयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा दामोदर नदी के आरपार एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है की होरीजेन्टल डायरेकशनल ड्रिलिंग ( एच.डी.डी. ) पद्धती से ऐसी भूमि जिसके भीतर पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए । अतः अब, केन्द्रीय सुरकार पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

कोई व्यक्ति जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती है , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के अन्दर पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में श्री प्रबीर कुभार साहा , सक्षम प्राधिकारी पारादीप- हल्दिया- बरौनी पाइपलाइन इंडियन ऑयल कारर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , कसबेरिया , डाकघर खंजनचक हल्दिया , जिला- पूर्व मिदनापुर -721602 ( पश्चिम बंगाल ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

पुलिस थाना : खण्डघोष जिला बर्धमान राज्य पश्चिम बंगाल

क्षेत्रफल अधिकारिता

ग्राम का

नाम

प्लाट संख्या हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर सूची संख्या

(4)

(3)

(5) (6) (2)

(1)

1540

00 00 65 56

नपारा

00 65

1540

00 2246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 VAISAKHA1.1932

5 1

00 01 71

1540

नपारा 56( )

1540

00 00

1540

00 76

1540

6!!

मसहिल्ला 57

613

00 01 02

609/463

01 84

611

00 85

608/631

611

608

00 47

611

00 23

(00

608/630

00 00 71

611

[ फा. सं. आर. -25011/4/2010- ओ.आर-1 ]

बी. कं. दत्ता , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 21st April , 2010

S.O. 1133. Whereas , it appears to the Central Gevermanent that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum ( crude ) from Paradip in the State of Orissa to Barauni in the State ofBihar , a new pipeline across Damodar river should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas , it appears to the Central Government that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline , it is necessary to acquire the right of user in the land under wirich the said pipeline is proposed to be laid by Horizontal Directional Drilling ( HDD ) technique and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

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

Any person , interested in the land described in the said Schedute may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of the notification issued under sub- Section fit 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 Shri Prabir Kumar Saha, Competent Authority , Paradip -Haldia- Baraum Pipeline , Indian Oil Corporation Limited . Kasberia, P.O - Khanjarchak, Dist. Purba Midnapur- 721602 (WestBengal)

Police Station: Disunct . Herawan

Khandaghosh

Name of Jurisdiction Bor No

Village List No.

(1) (2)

141

1510

Napara 56

1040

1540

1510

Mashilla 57

609-463

611

508631

611

608630

611

IN.R -25011400FEE B.K. CATTA, crea पेट्रोलियम और शकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली . 21 अप्रैल, 201

का.आ. 1134, केन्द्रीय सरकार को आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पारादीप ( उड़ीसा मेर एवं राँची (झारखण्ड) तक पंडलियम उत्पन इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरशन लिमिटेड द्वारा" पाल्दी-स राँची पाइपलाइन " चिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि ऐसी भूषत्रिय पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ता है और उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है में उपयोग के जयकाका अन किया जाए;

अतः, अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार पेट्रोलियम और नियम (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अन ) अधिनियम का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा द्वारा प करते हुए, उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अनंत काल में हर आशय की घोषणा करती है;

कोई व्यक्ति , जो उक्त अवर्णित उस तारीख से जिसका भाग्न के राजपत्र में παύση τ अधिसूचना की प्रतियां माधारण जनता को उपलब्धी , 2247

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 2010/वैशाख 11, 1932

(MB - 3 (h) ]

कुमेल सिंहा इस दिन के पोतर, उसमें उग्योग के अधिकार का अजन करने आ भूदि के नीने गइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री सुकान्त कुपन प्रधाम, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , सग - सब्बलपुर-रायपुर राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना , 1205 , फरिस्ट हां, धुतनेश्वर -751009 ( उड़ीसा ) को विश्चित रूप में आनेष भेज नकली ।

अनुसूची

उडोसा

राज्य :

जिला: बरगढ़

क्षेत्रफल

प्लाट नं.

एयर जर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

CO 12

2459

सुपल सिंहा

1811

1812

1815

1817

1814

1813

1791

1790

1786

1787

00 05

1785

1780

1747

1746

1743

1735

1738

1662

1734

1668

1732

00 04

1731

00 05

2533

1669

1670

1686

1681

1653

1672

100

1671

1426 Gi/10-5

00 01

97 1657

10 2363

1656

43 1654

1655

33 1651

16 1645

43 2348

00 02

69 1642

00 1644

00 02

31 1643

31 1622

2511

92 190

191

192

2432

2498

49 194

86 193

20 195

80 2435

15 198

199

168

52 165

167

20 166

162

83 163

78 159

158

97 138

156

139

71 140

45 134

00 01

10 126

133

41 132

24 101

00 05

100

00 01

83 99

00 2248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1. 2010 / VAISAKHA 11 , 1952

महखण्ड

258

दुलमपुर

489

290

291

289

288

287

286

281

277

00 10

267

266

268

270

(0)

238

00 00

237

236

235

232

234

233

00 02

1615

दुलमपुर

1641

00 03

1642

1645

1649

1648

1651

1654

00 01

कुजापालि

1655

1659

1660

1991

1662

गोडभगा 1582

00 16

1552

1581

1583

1553

[PART 1 St. 3 2

1556

(X)

1557

1558

(X)

1559

1522

1520

100

1519

()

20 1509

1508

1503

1505

וי 1492

00 10

1500

(X)

(K)

1504

1498

1426

65 1283

(X)

74 1281

1273

07 1272

1274

1271

(17

44 1270

(X)

$2 1269

1268

1267

00 03

20 1266

1260

32 1256

(0)

1255

113

19 1254

1252

57 68

00 09

א $7

2840

15 2841

26 2842

2823

000

2822

(X)

2821

00 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[भाग II-- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1 2

सरन्डा

07 2820

गोडभगा

00 02

3249

2819

36 2799

2793

00 01

2792

320

चकुलि

00 00

319

318

317

00 06

316

00 03

327

328

296

80 295

70 418

294

20 292

00 01

265

264

15 263

00 06

262

260

258

60 254

253

231

232

234

236

80 217

216

83 215

565

सरन्डा

691

692

693

727

00 16

744

743

2249

741

00 02

732

26 733

735

499

07 453

72 452

(X)

98 451

94 450

449

448

436

86 437

41 440

428

425

62 426

427

10 1146

72 429

92 422

392

391

390

389

21 388

92 371

78 387

213

382

372

33 367

20 365

78 289

20 288

290

291

05 293

00 (17

20 298

72 345

81 346

339

00 05

50 312 2250

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 20 : MAISANJI.2

313

00 03

सरन्डा

314

1776 1097

00 09

अताबिरा

5166

00 00

756 5039

5044

753

5043

5042

1748

5054

1746

5041

5045

5055

5056

5059

1707 5060

00 09

1726

5075

00 03

1727

5077

5076

5078

00 03

5079

00 04

17004

5082

1549

5083

1507

5086

5095

1554

5096

1556

5118

5106

5049 5107

5108

5116

5135

5140

514!

5142

5144

5145

4947

1413

1772

00 01

1771

1770

1774

350 1773 1-7330 )

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1, 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(4) (5)

1377

भुइँपुरा 1383

1382

1281

(X)

1325

(X)

1326

00 07

00 06

1313

5175

1527

00 00 20

1243

134

1331

1332

521

520

00 00

زيد

515

514

362

363

100

(4)

372

100

(2)

(4)

(3 )

177

173

(A)

43 176

56 180

00 $36

この 181

00 ()

182

183

185

89 89

45 90

01 92

४०

(2)

00 06

50 634

17 97

00 31

07 139

95 18

18 17

लादरपालि

386

345

387

00 US

393

00 08

380

283

238

00 09

638

00 00

172

659

00 00

10 656

00 102

४० 660

661

20 162

()

706

669

700

704

702

25 703

710

714

503

20 690

3 715

14 692

76 217

20 7: 8

38 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1 , 2010 VAISAKIA 11 , 1932

2252

(1)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(2)

जह्वापडा

719

लादरपालि

720

800

726

727

723

348

(x:

347

351

354

355

341

339

00 02

337

150

149

146

138

140

139

133

132

131

779

781

118

314

812

813

809

808

821

822

823

824

827

00 13

835

00 01

835

834

5098

844

843

PAR

5084

Sas

892

00 US

( 1

008

884

857

11:47

is 1145

114

1143

1140

1141

105

140

(K)

6089

27 1 ( 40)

1048

(K)

1049

1956

(X)

1057

い

1055

(3)

1065

(0)

1068

1069

( X)

1064

1071

א 1103

1102

1101

1099

1100

1406

1404

1405

1403

1402

(X)

1401 2253 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख ।। , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(1)

(2)

(4) (5)

(3)

(1)

(2)

(3) (4) (5) 2132

00 06

2407

03 00 05

03 2133

2406

50 2135

00 02

2409

000 05

2134

2405

20 2127

2404

00 02

03 00

2144

2403

2143

2466

58 2146

00 11

2468

04 00

2150

6390

00 01

44 00

2149

(07

6391

6305

2.477

12 00

2060

2512

51 00

2053

2515

2051

2514

32 2052

2527

16 2050

2528

00 01

41) 00

2237

2529

31 2238

00 09

2538

2239

2539

2540

20 00

2045

00 00

2.5

2241

[सं. आर-25011 /3/2010-ओ. आर-। ] 2244

बी.के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव 2242

New Delhi , the 21st April , 2010 00

2243

2041

2294

2298

2297

S.O. 1134. Whereas it appears to the Central Government that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip (Orissa ) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh ) & Ranchi ( Jharkhand ) , a "Paradip - Sambaipur - Raipur - Ranchi Pipeline " should be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

2299

2296

2326

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

2327

2333

2334

2332

2331

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, 00

2338

2339

2318

2340

2317

2385

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may , within twenty one days from the date onwhich the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the General Public , object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Sri Sukanta Kumar Pradhan , Competent Authority , Indian THE GAZCTIE OF INDIA: MAY 1 , 2010 VAISAKHA 11.

2254

Sole Singha

ned, Peradip Sambalpar Kaipur- , 1295, Forest Park , Shubaneswar

Oil Corporation kanchi

SCHEDULE

State: Oussa

District . Bargach

Aren

PlotNo.

Sq.mtr.

Hectare Are

Name of Village

(5)

(3)

2459

Kumal Singira

1812

US 54

1815

1817

1814

1815

1791

1086

1787

1785

1780

1747

(X)

1746

1743

1735

1738

1602

1704

1668

(2)

1732

1731

00 03

2533

۱۶

1669

1670

Mahakhand

1686

680

1631

1653

1672

1671

00 01

1657

2363

(۲)

1656

1654

1655

267

00 08

1651

1645

00(3)

2348

02 (9

1642 2255 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

(2)

(3)

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4) (5)

(1)

(4) (5)

238

1271

00 10 46 Mahakhand

Dulampur

237

00 07 49

1270

236

1269

00 07 82

235

08 61

00 09 00

1268

73 232

00 00 23

1267

00 03 79 234

00 01 74

1266

00 01 26 00

233

00 21

1260

00 31 32 55

00 01 94

1256

00 10 10 40

08 80

1255

00 05 53 00 02

1254

19 34

00 00 02 03

1252

00 10 1615

Dulampur

69 1641

Kujapali

21 1642

01 12

1645

05 58

00 1649

57 00

06 18

1648

13 88

1651

2840

00 00

Godabhaga

1654

01 57

05 65 00

2841

00 1655

2842

05 26

00 1659

03 88

2823

02 45 1660

2822

00 1661

2821

06 48 00

1662

2820

00 20 07 1582

3249

00 02 10 00

1552

00 00 00 68

23 96

2819

36 1581

00 34

05 02

2799

00 20

1583

00 00

2793

22 47

34 1553

00 04 73

2792

00 01 00

1556

07 35

10 41

Chakuli

320

1557

00 68

319

1558

02 82

318

00 00

1559

317

01 59 1522

00 76

00 00

06 80

316

1520

00 03 33

00 03 65

327

1519

00 00 57

328

1509

296

00 02 67

00 80 1508

00 29 08

295

1503

00 02

00 00 70

418

1505

00 96

01 22

294

1492

00 01

292

00 03 20 1500

00 20

17 82

1504

01 46

00 1498

00 14 85

29 23

00 1426

29 05

265

00 00 03 65

1283

00 04 64

264

1281

00 15

263

00 00

00 20

1273

06 95

262

00 1272

00 어

260

00 75 1274

258

25 00

00 1426 GI /10-9 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11 , 19 : 2

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

(X)

289

08 60

Saranda

Chaka

(X)

00 253

00 00 30

288

290

0 231

291

(0) 232

08 40

5 00

293

23-1

298

236

217

01 80

00 00 01

216

339

215

312

565

313

00 03

691

314

692

00 24

1097

603

(3)

5166

727

Attabıra

00 741

5039

17 743

5041

5043

741

00 38

00 7: 2

0 00

5042

733

5054

14 26

5041

735

00 00

18 35

10 100

5045

00 00

5055

01 07

00 453

5056

-452

00 00

00 451

5059

06 94

5060

00 450

103 00

5075

01 57

5077

448

01 03

5076

(X)

436

5078

00 03 437

()

ス

5079

77 440

5082

128

5083

06 41

10 425

05 43

5086

00 01 62

00 426

CO 00

04 82

427

5095

5096

00 10

1146

100

5118

14 00 00 72

00 00

5106

420

03 92

5107

00 392

65 000 00

00 95

5108

00 391

00 04

5116

00 02 75

5135

00 00 01 20

389

46 00

5140

41 388

5141

371

(0) 387

00 01 78

5142

(0)

213

00 00

5144

00 00

382

08 37

5145

23 33

05 372

4947

367

1772

45 365

00 20

1771 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

(1) (2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

00 06 14

2251

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

00 02

1383

Attabira

1770

Attabira

00 41

1774

00 02 43

1773

00 03

1775

00 40

1762

00 01

1778

00 33

1776

00 81

1756

1755

00 09

1757

00 01 53

1754

1748

00 02

1746

30 78

1382

86 1281

00 10

1325

1326

5242

00 03

1312

5175

20 1327

1343

1341

00 76

1331

21 83 1332

00 02

521

Bhuinpura

00 00

1729

00 03

1728

1521

00 01

1727

1726

1725

24 27

1523

00 18

1525

1524

1708

1549

1567

1568

1554

13 85

1556

1560

15 30

1562

5249

00 00

1558

06 59

1456

00 08

5247

08 98

1454

21 86

1434

00 03

1440

02 50

1421

1433

00 01 80

1415

1414

00 02

1399

00 07 39

1400

00 12 46

1398

1380

24 64

1377

520

47 84

518

12 45 516

05 66

515

00 01 35 514

362

25 12

363

300

(X)

372

371

16 35

369

386

00 03

385

13 48

396

00 58 387

194

08 05

393

395

390

00 10 392

389

00 10 388

(0)

238

(0) 63

160

00 00 20 161

07 80 538

168

172

00 00 10 177

(X) 03

173

21 55 176

06 00

180 2258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

( 1) (2)

(3) (4) (5)

(1)

06 43

636

Ladarpali Bhuinpura

00 99

181

182

183

185

08 01

00 09

00 07

634

06 33

631

04 48

00 06 95

Jahnapada

00 09

659

00 10

Ladarpali

02 80

656

660

00 09

00 20

661

00 24

662

00 10

706

06 48

699

700

04 21

704

00 25

702

04 57

703

00 12

710

714

693

00 02 83

690

00 02 14

715

692

717

718

719

00 05 80

720

726

00 20

727

03 99

723

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

(3)

(5)

(4)

355

00 06 33

00 05 47 341

00 13 60 339

337

00 02 40 150

00 00 97

140

11 29 145

08 90 138

70 140

00 08 28 139

00 67 135

132

16 51 131

00 00 10 779

00 02 92

78 :

01 10

00 01

01 26 814

812

00 05 39

96 8:3

809

06 21 808

821

822

823

55 8

01 81 807

836

(00

13 51

95 835

10 834

(0)

05 79

(X)

03 95 8-3

(X)

(4 06 6081

815

10 65

00 53 892

(0)

891

00 10

( X)

(۲)

il 83

11.47

(1) 03 52

08 51 1-15

107

88 1140

13 09

348

00 48

347

351

354

12 26

(X) 05

05 42 1146

00 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 / वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1)

(5)

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

00 12 09

1042

2259

(5)

(3) (4)

(2)

2239

Jahnapada

00 99

6074

1047

01 79

1046

5089

00 03

1040

1048

1049

05 96

1056

00 10

1057

1055

00 05

1065

00 00

1068

1069

1064

1071

00 03

1072

09 11

1103

02 93

1102

1101

00 14

1099

1100

1406

1404

1405

1403

00 13

1402

08 91

1401

00 06

2132

05 36

2133

00 02

2135

2134

00 03

2127

2144

2143

00 11

2146

2150

00 02

2149

00 02

6305

24 43

2060

00 03

2053

00 01

2051

2052

2050

00 01

2237

2238

01 22 2045

00 11

2241

00 58

2244

03 37

2242

00 09

2243

00 18 49 2041

00 11 67 2294

2298

01 49

2297

00 03

2299

00 45

2296

00 10

2326

00 00

2327

2333

2334

2332

00 01

2331

2338

2339

2318

01 84

2340

05 67

2317

00 01

2385

00 03 41 2407

03 50

2406

00 05

2409

2405

00 02 03 2404

03 18

2403

00 06

2466

04 54

2468

01 44

6390

00 07 05 6391

12 2477

00 01 51 2512

2515

00 32

2514

02 16

2527

2528

31 2529

00 00 68 2538

2539

04 20

2540

[No. R- 25011 / 3 /2010 - ORI ] B. K. DATTA , Under Secy .

2260

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

[PART II- SEC 30

नई दिल्ली , 30 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1135.-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 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की नीचे दी गई अनुसूची में यथा उल्लिखित तारीखों की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. द्वारा उन अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया था ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त भूमि में , जो सभी विल्लंगों से मुक्त है , उपयोग का अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न का अधिधार इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में, निहित किया था;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह रिपोर्ट दी है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में चेन्नै से तिरुचिरापल्ली होकर मदुरै तक पट्रोलियम उत्पाद के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जा चुकी है । अतः उस भूमि में प्रचालन की समाप्ति को जाए जिसका संक्षिप्त विवरण इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट किया गया है ।

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के स्पष्टीकरण - के अधीन अपेक्षानुसार उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 7 में उल्लिखित तारीखों को प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीखों के रूप में घोषित करती है ।

अनुसूची जिला : तिरुवल्लूर

क्रम का.आ.सं. एवं गाँव का नाम

तालूका सं तारीख

1 2

अम्बत्तूर 1. 326 ,

नं. 24 , साट्टनकाडू

16-1262004

अम्बत्तूर

नं. 41 , मनालि

नं. 28 अरियलूर

अम्बत्तूर

पोन्नेरी

नं. 150 विचूर

पोन्नेरी

नं. 121 पेरुंगावूर

पोन्नेरी

नं. 123 कुम्मनूर

पोन्नेरी

124 अंगाडु

पोन्नेरी

125 ओरक्काडु

पोन्नेरी

नं.. 104 सोतुपेरुंबेडु

पोन्नेरी

नं. 116 शेलवरम्

पोन्नेरी 2. 2244 ,

नं. 109 एरुमैवेट्टिप्पालायम् नया

पोन्नेरी 06-01-2000 नं. 108 आत्तूर

3. 2146

उत्तुकोट्टै

नं. 93 कोट्रैक्कुप्पम्

25-09-2000

2244,

नं. 110 एरुमैवेट्टिप्पालायम् पुराना पोन्नेरी 08-11-2000

4. 2436

तिरुवल्लूर

नं. 40 पुदुक्कुप्पम

08-11-2000 नं. 39 ऐलाचेरि

तिरुवल्लूर

नं. 38 सेंगिलिक्कुप्पम्

2146

उत्तुकोट्टै

नं. 77 बूच्चियात्तिप्पटटु

25-09-2000

2436

तिरुवल्लूर

नं. 41 कोडुवालि

08-11-2000

राज्य : तमिलनाडु

प्रचालन की

राज्य

जिला

समाप्तिका

तारीख 5

30-09 2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

22-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

23-09-2005 तिरुवल्लूर

तमिलनाडु

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

24-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

25-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

26-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

28-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

01-10-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

22-08-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

20-08-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

20-08 2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

18-08 2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

4 5. 2147

नं. 3 पाण्डेश्वरम्

अम्बत्तूर 25-09-2000

नं. 2 आलत्तूर

अम्बत्तूर

नं. । कीलकोण्डैयूर

अम्बत्तूर 2436

नं. 45 मेलक्कोण्डैयूर

2261 5

30-09-2005 तिरुवल्लूर

तमिलनाडु

06-09-2005 तिरुवल्लूर

तमिलनाडु

10-10-2005 तिरुवल्लूर

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

08-11-2000

नं. 84 नल्लण्कावणूर

12-09-2005 तिरुवल्लूर

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

01-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

नं. 101 नयाप्पाक्कम्

तिरुवल्लूर

02-चव-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

नं. 136 तोडुकाडु

29-09-2005 तिरुवल्लूर

तमिलनाडु

तिरुवल्लूर

जिला : कांचीपुरम

गाँव का नाम

क्रम का.आ.सं. एवं

तालूका सं तारीख

4 1. 2245

नं. 108 कीण्डवाक्कम्

01-10-2005 तिरुवल्लूर

तमिलनाडु

राज्य : तमिलनाडु जिला

राज्य

प्रचालन की

समाप्तिकी तारीख 5

श्रीपेरुंम्बुदुर

06-10-2000

नं. 107 बलरपुरम्

कांचीपुरम

01-10-2005

तमिलनाडु

श्रीपेरुंम्बुदुर

नं. 103 नेमिली

28-01-2006 कांचीपुरम

तमिलनाडु

श्रीपेरुंम्बुदुर

नं. 106 आयक्कोलत्तूर

04-10-2005 कांचीपुरम

नं. 115 वंडमंलम्

10-09-2005 कांचीपुरम तमिलनाडु

06-10-2000

नं. 174 वड़गल्

10-07-2005 कांचीपुरम

तमिलनाडु

श्रीपेरुंम्बुदुर

नं. 157 वेण्बाक्कम्

16-07-2005

कांचीपुरम

18-08-2000

2245

नं. 213 पनैयूर

कांचीपुरम तमिलनाडु

20-07-2005 कांचीपुरम

श्रीपेरुंम्बुदुर

06-10-2000

नं. 214 एलिच्चूर

तमिलनाडु

29-08-2005

तमिलनाडु

श्रीपेरुंम्बुदुर

4. 2148

नं. 71 पालूर

कांचीपुरम

15-07-2005

तमिलनाडु

चेंगलपट्टू

25-09-2000

5. 2246

नं. 96 सात्तनजेरी

कांचीपुरम

03-10-2005

अदिरमेरुर

06-10-2000

तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

अदिरमेरुर

नं. 95 करुम्बाक्कम्

02-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

20-07-2005

अदिरमेरुर

नं. 94 कवनैप्पाक्कम्

कांचीपुरम

तमिलनाडु

अदिरमेरुर

नं. 104 माम्बाक्कम्

20-07-2005 कांचीपुरम

तमिलनाडु

अदिरमेरुर

नं. 105 पेरनकडूर

नं. 103 तण्डरै

20-07-2005

तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

अदिरमेरुर

21-08-2005 कांचीपुरम

तमिलनाडु

21-08-2005

अदिरमेरुर

नं. 109 सीत्तन्नक्कवूर

तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

22-08-2005

अदिरमेरुर

नं. 110 अन्नादूर

कांचीपुरम

तमिलनाडु

अदिरमेरुर

नं. 113 सालवाक्कम्

10-08-2005

तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

16-08-2005

अदिरमेरुर

नं. 115 कुरुम्बारै

तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

02-08-2005

अदिरमेरुर

नं. 116 कीलक्काड़ी

6. 2151

तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

02-08-2005

मदुरांदगम

नं. 10 कुमारवाड़ी

28-09-2000

नं. 11 करुणगरचेरी

कांचीपुरम

तमिलनाडु

01-08-2005

मदुरांदगम

कांचीपुरम

तमिलनाडु

01-08-2005

मदुरांदगम

नं. 12 पल्लियागारम्

नं. 13 नेल्लि

कांचीपुरम

तमिलनाडु

25-07-2005

मदुरांदगम

कांचीपुरम

तमिलनाडु

01-08-2005

मधुरांदगम

नं. 19 पुलिदीक्किम्

कांचीपुरम

तमिलनाडु

28-08-2005 कांचीपुरम

नं. 42 वलियप्पुत्तूर

तमिलनाडु

28-07-2005

मदुरांदगम

नं. 51 पुदुच्चेरी

कांचीपुरम

तमिलनाडु

28-07-2005

मदुरांदगम

नं. 52 मदुरै

तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

27-07-2005

तमिलनाडु

नं. 63 वेलमूर

18-07-2005 तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

मदुरांदगम

नं. 74 काटदुक्करणै

17-10-2005

तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

मदुरांदगम

नं. 115 कोट्टक्कायप्पाक्कम्

नं. 76 मदुर

01-08-2005

तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

मदुरांदगम

26-06-2005

तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

नं. 99 कील्पट्टु

29-05-2005

तमिलनाडु

मदुरांदगम

नं. 16 चित्तामूर

कांचीपुरम

21-05-2005

तमिलनाडु

कांचीपुरम

मदुरांदगम

नं. 95 कलत्तूर

1. 2152

नं. 125 ओल्क्कुरमेलपदि

28-09-2000

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

28-05-2005

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 145 तेंगप्पाक्कम्

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

10-06-2005

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 144 वैरपुरम्

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

10-07-2005

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 28 पुलैयूर

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

19-06-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 29 नेइक्कुप्पी

विल्लुप्परम

11-06-2005

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 35 उरल

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

10-07-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 34 पाम्पुण्डि

विल्लुप्परम

12-06-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 38 वेण्मेणियात्तूर

विल्लुप्परम

29-05-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 39 काट्टुसिविरी

विल्लुप्परम

22-06-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 40कोल्लार

विल्लुप्परम

02-07-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 41 सालै

विल्लुप्परम

20-06-2005

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 42 पेरड़िकुप्पम् ( मेल )

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

02-07-2005

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 44 वेंगण्डूर

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

23-06-2005

तमिलनाडु

तिण्डिवनम

नं. 43 असूर

जिंजी 2. 1988

नं. 235 कोगारप्पट्ट्टु

31-08-2000

जिंजी

नं. 238 मेलसेउर

जिंजी

नं. 239 मरुर

1426 GI 10-10

विल्लुप्परम

24-06-2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

23-06-2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

13-06-2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम PAR : I SEC 300 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

जिंजी नं. 141 कल्लाडिक्कुप्पम्

जिंजी 200 नं. 240 कीलवयलामूर

जिंजी नं. 138 अनिलाड़ी

जिंजी नं. 137 मेलनूड़लूर

15 06-2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

17-06 2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

25 06 2015

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

25-06-2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

27 (06-200

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 34 तिरुनं. दिपुरभ्

26-06-2017

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 35 बह्मदेशम्

2060 2065

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 33 सेंजिकुण्णत्तूर

2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 32 कुलप्पाक्कम्

2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 31 मंदगप्पटटु

नमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 37 नं.दिवाडी

विल्लुप्परम

2405

मिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 29 नेमूर

नं. 28 मेलकरणे

22-06 2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

26-06 2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 39 बंगायक्कुप्पम्

2006 2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 40 कारतूर

2:16 2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 4 ) कन्जनूर

नं. 26 एलुसम्यांन

2006 2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 45 मिलि

विल्लुप्परम

26 006 2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं (66 अरुम्यूलि

नं. 47 वीरामुर

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

विल्नु'भरम

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 14 वालाग्पटटु

नं. 52 केदार

2:06 2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 62 अगरम्चिन्नामूर

2006 2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 53 कंजियनूर

TO OF US

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

N 06 2005 विल्लुप्परम

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 59 करिंगलिप्पट्ट्टु

2006 2005

नमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

नं. 55 माझ्यलप्पट्टु

नं. 57 सिरुवाक्क्रूर

विल्लुप्परम

006 2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

206 2005

नमिलनाडू

विल्लुप्परम

विल्लुप्पग्म

नं. 56 कल्लपट्ट्टु

विल्लुप्परम

तिरुक्काविलूर

नं. 169 मरंगियूर

as 200

तमिलनाडु

तिरुक्कोविलूर

नं. 156 पैयूर

विल्लुप्परम

तमिलनाडु

तिरुक्कोविलूर

नं. 158 टी. एडेयार

विल्लुप्परम

105 205

तिरुक्कोविलुर

नं. 161 मनक्कुप्यम्

न. 103 पेरियसेवले

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

उलुन्दुरपेट्ट

नं. 101 आमूर

नं. 85 बेलूर

नं. 86 तिरुनिरण्कोपों

मिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

050 205

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

25 105 2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्पग्म

उलुन्दूरपेट्ट

[ भाग ।। खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

13-05 2005 विल्लुप्परम तमिलनाडु

उलुन्दूरपेट्ट

नं . ४0 कम्बटटु

नं. 74 कोणलवाड़ी

01-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

उलुन्दूरपेट्टै

नं. 73 वेल्लैयूर

14-05-2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

उलुन्दूरपेट्टै

नं. 72 अ. कुमारमंगलम्

06-06 2005

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

उलुन्दूरपेट्ट

नं. 71 कणैयूर

15-06-2005 विल्लुप्परम तमिलनाडु

उलुन्दूरपेट्ट

नं. 43 पू. मलैयनूर

06-05 2005 विल्लुप्परम तमिलनाडु

उलुन्दूरपेट्टै

नं. 44 सिरुवात्तूर

02-06-2015 विल्लुप्परम तमिलनाडु

उलुन्दूरपेट्टै

नं. 50 तिरुप्पैयार

तमिलना

18-07 2005 विल्लुप्परम

09-05 20 : 5

उलुन्दूरपेट्टै

6. 1033

नं. 123 कुदुलूर

तमिलनाडु

विल्लुप्परम

17-05-2008 विल्लुप्परम

कल्लक्कुरुच्ची

15-05-2000

नं. 125 एरन्जी

तमिलनाडु

30-09 2005 विल्लुप्परम

कल्लक्कुरुच्ची

जिला : मदरै

गाँव का नाम

क्रम का.आ.सं. एवं

तालूका सं तारीख

4 1. 1321

नं. 1. सुरापट्टी

मेलूर 16-06-2000

नं. 4. पीट्टलपट्टी

मेलूर

नं. 5. तोण्डिलिंगपुरम्

नं. 6 चेक्कमपट्टटी

मेलूर

नं. 9 मण्प्पाच्चेरी

मेलूर

नं. 10 कुण्णरामपट्टी

नं. 47 सेक्किप्पट्टी

मेलूर

नं. 46 कम्बूर

मेलूर

नं. 48 केसम्पट्टी

मेलूर

नं. 50 वल्ळळप्पट्टी

मेलूर

नं. 51 किडारिपट्टी

मेलूर 2. 1458 ,

तमिलनाडु

राज्य ता जिला

राज्य

प्रचालन की

समाप्ति को

तारीख 5

7 मदुरै

30 09-2005

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै

30-09-2015

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

50-09 2005 मदुरै

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

30 09 2005 मदुरै

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै ( उत्तर )

नं. 73 मांगुलम्

28-06-2000

नं. 77 कल्लांदिरी

30-09-2005 मदुरै

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै ( उत्तर )

नं. 79 सवलक्करायन

मदुरै

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै ( उत्तर )

मदुरै

30-09-2005

तमिलनाडु 2266

GAME OF INDIA . MAY 1 , 2010 VAISAKHA

(1)

SG काल्लांगूलम्

नं. ४। बोलल्यंगण्डम-अंदमान

नं. 58 एरुवकलेनायম

न. 57 उनिलमपट्टी

२. 56 कोडिमगलम

न. 54 चंटिवकूलन

न. 35 वीरपार्णडं

नं. 30 वेप्पंगुळम्

नं. 3 ! चूत्थाक्कुड़ी

नं. 28 मंल्पणंगाड़ी

मुलक्करणी

नं. 17 पोडुन्यु भाग !!

नं. 18 कोविल्पाण्णाक्कुड़ी

नं. 19 विलांगुड़ी भाग ।।

न. 14 परवै

3.6.20

नं. 5 तुवरिमान

नं. 13 विलाचरि

नं. 12 साम्यक्कुड़ी

न. 25 वड़िवेलकरें

162

(4)

(5)

मदुरै ( उत्तर ) मदुरै

संमलनाडु

मदुरै ( उत्तर) मदुरै

मदुरै

मदुरै ( उत्तर)

मदुरै ( उन्नर) मदुरै

मदुरै ( उत्तर) मदुरै

नदुरै ( उत्तर) मदुरै

मदुरै ( उत्तर)

तमिलनाडू

मदुरै

30-187 मदुरै (उत्तर)

तमिलनाडू

मदुरै

मदुरै ( उनर)

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै

मदुरै ( उत्तर) मदुरै

नमिलगड

मदुरै ( उत्तर) मदुरै

मदुरै

मदुरै (उत्तर )

भदरै ( उत्तर ) मदुरै

33%??????

मदुरै

मदुरै (सबुध)

मदुरै

मदुरै (सवुथ)

मदुरै

दमिलनाडु

मदुरै (सवुथ)

मदुरै

मदुरै (सत्रुथ)

भमिलनाडु

मदुरै

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै (सवुथ)

नं. 23 कीलक्कुइलकुड़ी

नं. 24 तडटनूर

नं. 20 वेड़रपुलयंगुलम्

नं. 17 सक्किलप्पट्टी

नं is कोणप्पुदुप्पट्टी

न. 4 करड़ीक्काल्

नं. 13 उरप्पनूर

नं..। धर्मनुप्पट्टी

नं ! कप्पन्नूर

४ चक्कनाननपट्टी

तमिलना

मदुरै

मदुरै (सवुध)

30-09 मदुरै

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै (सवुथ)

30-0 ) (05

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै

मदुरै ( सवुथ)

30 09 205

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै

मदुरै ( सवुथ)

तिरुमंडगलम

009 2005 मदुरै

तिरुमंडगलम

रमिलनाडु

मदुरै

तिरुमंडगलम मदुरै

तिरुमंडगलम

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै

तिरुमंडगलम मदुरै

तिरुमंडगलम

तमिलनाडु

मदुरै

[फा. सं. आर 250115/2010 .आर. ।

वी. के. नारसन

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2010

S.O. 1135. Whereas , by notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natral Gas S.O. Number and date as mentioned in the Schedule below issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the Petroteatre and Minerais Pipelines Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act. 1962 (50 of 1962 ), the Central Government acquired the rigi ofuser atthe lands , specified in the Schedule appended to those notifications .

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

[भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2267 And whereas , in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section ( 4 ) of Section 6 of the said Act , the Central Government vested the right of user in the said lands , free from all encumbrances , in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas the Competent Authority has made a report the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose of transportation of petroleum products from Chennai to Madurai via Tiruchirapalli in the State of Tamil Nadu , has been laid in respect of said lands , so the operation may be terminated in respect of the ROW ( Right of Way ) in land , description of which is brief is specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now , therefore , as required under explanation - 1 of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Rules 1963 , the Central Government hereby declares the dates mentioned in Column 7 of the sand Schedule as the dates of termination of operation .

SCHEDULE

District Tiruvallur

Taluk

Name ofVillage

SI . S.O. No. No. and Date

(2)

(3)

(1)

(4)

No. 24. Sattankadu

Ambathur 1. 3216. 16-12-2004

No. 41. Manali

Ambathur

No. 28 Ariyalur

No. 150 Vichur

Ponneri

Ponneri No. 121 Perungavoor

No. 123. Kummanur

Ponneri

Ponneri No. 124 Angadu

No. 125 Orakkadu

Ponneri

Ponneri No. 104 Sothuperumbedu

Ponneri

No. 116 Sholavaram

2. 2244 ,

No. 109

Ponneri 06-10-2000 Erumaivettipalayam (New)

No. 108 Attur

Ponneri 3. 2146

Uthukottai No. 93 Kottaikuppam

25-09-2000

No. 110

Ponneri 2244, 06-10-2000 Erumaivettipalayam ( Old)

Tiruvallur No. 40 Pudukuppam

4. 2436 08-11-2000

Tiruvallur No. 39 Ayalachery

Tiruvallur No. 38 Sengilikuppam

2146

Uthukottai No. 77 Boochiathipattu

25-09-2000

Tiruvallur No. 41 Koduvali

2436 08-11-2000

5. 2147

No.3 Pondeswaram

Ambathur 25-09-2000

Ambathur No.2 Alathur

Ambathur No. ! Kilkondaiyur

State: Tamil Nadu District

State

Date of Termination ofoperation (5)

(7)

(6)

Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

30-09-2005 Tiruvallur

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Tiruvallur

TamilNadu

22-09-2005 Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

23-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

30-09-2005 Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

2-4-09-2005 Tiruvallur

Tiruvallur

25-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

26-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Tiruvallur

28-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

01-09-2005 Tiruvallur

Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

30-09-2005 Tiruvallur

TamilNadu

22-08-2005 Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

20-08-2005 Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

30-09-2005 Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

30-09-2005 Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

18-08-2005 Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

30-09-2005 Tiruvallur

TamilNadu

30-09-2005 Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

30-09-2005 Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

30-09-2005 Tiruvallur

TamilNadu

06-09-2005 Tiruvallur

Tamil Nadu

10-10-2005 2268

(3)

(1)

PART 1

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11

(4)

(5)

Tiruvallur

Tiruvaliau

No. 45 Melakondaiyur 08-1128

Tiruvallur

No. 84 Nallankavandor

Tara Nadu

Tiruvallur

No. 85 Puliyur

No. 101 Nayapakkarm Tiruvallur

Tiruvallur

No 136 Thodukadu District Nanhe am

SI SCON

Name of Vitage

No. and Da

(3)

No. 108 Kondavakkam District

State

Tales

Teta (4)

(5)

FanMadu

Kancheepurum

Sriperambudu

Kancheepuram .

Sriperumbudur

No.107 Valarpuram

No. 103 Nemili

Sriperumludur

Kancheepur .

Kanchcepura

Sriperambuaur

No. 106 Ayakolathur

Janul N

No 174 Vadagal Kasheepa

Sriperumbudur

No. 153 Budanur Kanchceperan

Sriperumbudur

Sriperumbadur

No. 179 Mettupalayara

No. 157 Thiruvenkaranai Kancheeparaci

Kancheepea

Kancheepuram

1888

No. 212 Panrut!

(3)

(4) (1) (2)

12148

No. 71 Palur

2269

(7) (5)

(6)

Tamil Nadu

15-07-2005

Chengalpattu

25-09-2000

5 2246

Kancheepuram

Uthiramerur

No. 96 Sathananjeri

06-10-2000 No. 95 Karumbakkam

Tamil Nadu

03-10-2005 Kancheepuram

Uthiramerur

Tamil Nadu

02-09-2005 Kancheepuranı

Uthiramerur

No. 94 Kavanipakkam

No.104 Mambakkam

Tamil Nadu

20-07-2005 Kancheepuram

Uthiramerur

No. 105 Pernakkavoor

Tamil Nadu

20-07-2005 Kancheepuram

No. 115 Kurumbarai

Tami Nada

10-08-2005 Kancheepuram

Uthiramerur

No. 116 Kilakadi

FamilNadu

10-08-2005 Kancheepuram

Uthiramerur

6. 2151

No. 10 Kumaravadi

Tamil Nadu

02-08-2005 Kancheepuram

Tamil Nadu

02-08-2005

Madurantakam

28-09-2000

No. 11 Karungaracheri

Kancheepuram

01-08-2005

Madurantakam

No. 12Palliagram

Tamil Nadu

Kancheepuram

Tamil Nadu

01-08-2005

Madurantakam

2151

No. 13 Neill

Kancheepuram

25-07-2005

Madurantakam

28-09-2000

No. 19 Pulidivakkam

Tamil Nadu

Kancheepuram

01-08-2005

Madurantakam

No. 32 Vellaputhur

Kancheepuram Tamil Nadu

28-08-2005

Madurantakam

No. 38 Vinayaganallur

Kancheepuram Tamil Nadu

29407-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurantakam

No. 39 Thuratyur

Kancheepuram

29-07-2005

Madurantakam

Tamil Nadu

Madurantakam

No. 59 Sempundi

Kancheepuram

26-07-20 Kancheepuram

Tamil Nadu

Kancheepuran

Madurantakam

No. 112 Sirupairpandi

PanelNadu

Kancheepuram

Madurantakam

No. 99 Kilpattu

No. 16 Chithamur

TandlNadu

Kancheepurana

Madurantakam

No. 95 Kalattur

Madurantakam

No.94 Kongaraimanpattu

Madurantakam

No. 93 Sirudamur

Madurantakam

No. 91 Anantamangalam

Distric. Pram

Taluk

Name ofVillage

SI SON

(4)

(3)

Tamil Nadu

Kancheepuram

Tamil Nadu

Kancheepuram

Kancheepuram TamilNadu

28-05-20 Kancheepuram Tamil Nadu

State

District

No.42 Peradikuppam(Mel) Villupuram

Tamil Nada

HaveNadu

Villupuram

Gingee

No. 239 Marur

Tao.il Nadu

Villupuram

Gingee

No. 141 Kalladipkuppam

No. 240 Kilvayalamur

Tamad Nadu

Villupuram

Gingee

No. 138 Aniladi

Facil Nadu

Villupuram

Gingee

25/27

LammiNadu

Villupuram

Gingee

No. 137 MelGudalur

27-06 20 : 5

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

דאטן.3

No. 34 Tirunandhipuram

26-4-2018

TamilNadu

Villupuram

No. 35 Brahmadesam [ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

(3)

(1 ) ( 2)

(4) 1989

No. 101 Amoor

2271

(6)

(7) (5)

22-04-2005

TamilNadu

Ulundurpettai

05-09-2000

No. 85 Velur

Villupuram

Tamil Nadu

03-07-2005 Villupuram

No. 72A Kumaramangalam Villupuram

Tamil Nadu

15-06-2005

Ulundurpettai

No. 71 Kanaiyur

Villupuram

Tamil Nadu

06-05-2005

Ulundurpettai

No. 43 Pu -Malaiyanur

Villupuram

02-06-2005

TamilNadu

Ulundurpettai

No. 44 Siruvattur

Villupuram

18-07-2005

Tamil Nadu

Ulundurpettai

No. 50 Tiruppaiyar

Villupuram

Tamil Nadu

09-05-2005

Ulundurpettai

6. 1033

Villupuram

17-05-2005

Kallakurichi

No. 123 Kundalur

15-05-2000

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

Tamil Nadu

30-09-2005

Kallakurichi

No. 125 Eranji

District: Madurai

Sl . S.O. No.

Taluk

Name ofVillage

No. and Date

(3)

( 1) (2)

(4) 1321

Melur

No.1 Surapatti

16-06-2000

Melur

No.4 Pottalpatti

Melur

No. 5 Tondilingapuram

Melur

No. 6 Chokkampatti

Melur

No. 9 Manappacheri

Melur

No. 10 Kunnarampatti

Melur

No. 47 Sekkipatti

Melur

No. 46 Kambur

Melur

No. 48 Kesampatti

Melur

No. 50 Vallalapatti

Melur

No. 51 Kidaripatti

1426 Gl /10-11

Villupuram

State: Tamil Nadu

State

Date of District

Termination of operation

(6)

(7) (5)

30-09-2005

TamilNadu

Madurai

30-09-2005 Madurai

Tamil Nadu

TamilNadu

30-09-2005 Madurai

TamilNadu

30-09-2005 Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

Tamil Nadu

30-09-2005 Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005 Madurai

TamilNadu THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

2272

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

[PARI 11 SEC. 3 (ii) ]

(7)

(6)

(5)

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

Madurai North

No 73 Mangulam

2. 1458

28-06-2000

Madurai North

No. 77 Kallandiri

Madurai North

No. 79 Savalakarayan

Madurai North

No. 80 Kollangulam

Madurai North

No. 81 Velliangundram &

Andaman

Madurai North

No. 58 Erukkalainatham

Madurai North

No. 57 Usilampatti

Madurai North

No. 56 Kodimangalam

Madurai North

No. 54 Chettikulam

Madurai North

No. 35 Virapandi

Madurai North

No. 30 Veppangulam

Madurai North

No. 31 Boothagudi

Madurai North

No. 28 Melpanagadi

Madurai North

No. 26 Mulakaranai

Madurai North

No. 17 Podumbu Bit II

Madurai North

No. 18 Kovilpappagudi

Madurai North

No. 19 Vilangudi Bit II

Madurai North

No. 14 Paravai

Madurai South

No. 5 Tuvariman

3. 1626, 18-07-2000

Madurai South

No. 13 Vilacheri

Madurai South

No. 12 Sambakudi

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

TamilNadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

TamilNadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

TamilNadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

TamilNadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

TamilNadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

TamilNadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

TamilNadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

TamilNadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

30-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

25-06-2005

TamilNadu

Villupuram

No. 33 Senjikunnathur 1987

31-08-2000

26-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

No. 32 Kulappakkam

Villupuram

No. 31 Mandagappattu

Villupuram

No. 37 Nandivadi

No. 29 Nemur

Villupuram

No. 28 Melakaranai

Villupuram

No. 39 Vengayakuppam

Villupuram

No. 40 Koralur

Villupuram

No. 41 Kanjanur

Villupuram

No. 26 Elusembon

No.45 Siruvali

Villupuram

No. 66 Arumbuli

25-06-2005

TamilNadu

Villupuram

22-04-2006

TamilNadu

Villupuram

22-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

22-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

26-06-2005

TamilNadu

Villupuram

26-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

21-06-2005

TamilNadu

Villupuram

20-06-2005

TamilNadu

Villupuram

26-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

26-06-2005

TamilNadu

Villupuram भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1 2

No. 47 Veeramur

Villupuram

No. 64 Valappattu

No. 52 Kedar

Villupuram

No. 62 Agaramchittamur Villupuram

Villupuram

No. 53 Kangiyanur

Villupuram

No. 59 Karingalipattu

Villupuram

No. 55 Mambalapattu

No. 57 Siruvakkur

Villupuram

No. 56 Kallapattu

Villupuram 4 1952

2273

7 5

05-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

27-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

27-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

26-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

10-09-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

28-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

28-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

Tamil Nadu

30-06-2005 Villupuram

28-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Villupuram

28-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Tirukkoyilur

No. 169 Marangiyur

31-08-2000

Villupuram

Tamil Nadu

16-06-2005

Tirukkoyilur

No. 156 Paiyur

No. 158 T - Edaiyar

Villupuram

29-06-2005

Tamil Nadu

Tirukkoyilur Villupuram

17-05-2005

Tamil Nadu

Tirukkoyilur

No. 161 Manakuppam

No. 103 Periasevalai

5 1989

Villupuram

Tamil Nadu

17-05-2005

Ulundurpettai

05-09-2000

1626

Villupuram

Tamil Nadu

30-09-2005

Madurai South

No. 25 Vadivelkari

Tamil Nadu

Madurai

Tirumangalam

20-07-2000

No. 5 Chettikulam

TamilNadu

30-09-2005 Madurai

No. 10 Kappalur

No. 8 Chockanathanpatti

Tamil Nadu

30-09-2005 Madurai

Tirumangalam

[ F. No. R - 25011 5/2010 OR - 1 ]

B. K. DATIA. Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली , 30 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1136.- केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की नीचे दी गई अनुसूची में यथा उल्लिखित तारीखों की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 1991 तारीख 27 मई, 2005 द्वारा संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया था ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उक्त भूमि में , जो सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त है , उपयोग का अधिसूचनाओं से संलग्न का अधिकार इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में , निहित किया था ;

2274

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010/VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने केन्द्रीय सरकार को यह रिपोर्ट दी है कि तमिलनाडु राज्य में आईबीपी टर्मिनल , सीबीएमटी , मुट्टम गाँव से सीपीसीएल जैटी , पठनाचेरी गाँव तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पाद के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाई जा चुकी है, अतः उस भूमि में प्रचालन की समाप्ति की जाए जिसका संक्षिप्त विवरण इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट किया गया है ।

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , पेट्रोलियम पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) नियम , 1963 के नियम 4 के स्पष्टीकरण -1 के अधीन अपेक्षानुसार उक्त अनुसूची के स्तंभ 7 में उल्लिखित तारीखों को प्रचालन की समाप्ति की तारीखों के रूप में घोषित करती है ।

अनुसूची जिला : नागपठनम

तालूका का.आ.सं. एवं गाँव का नाम

क्रम

सं तारीख

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

नागपठनम 1. 1991

नं 4 , नागूर

27 05-2005

राज्य : तमिलनाडु राज्य

जिला

प्रचालन की समाप्तिकी तारीख

(6)

(7) (5)

25-11-2006 नागपठनम

तमिलनाडु

[फा. सं. आर-25011/5/2010- ओ. आर. -1 ] बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2010

S.O. 1136. Whereas , by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , S.O. Number 1991 dated the 27th May , 2005 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of Users in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962 ) , the Central Government acquired the right of user in the lands , specified in the Schedule appended to those notifications.

And whereas , in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act . the Central Government vested the right of user in the said lands , free from all encumbrances . in the Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;

And whereas , the Competent Authority has made a report to the Central Government that the pipeline for the purpose of transportation of petroleum products IBP Terminal , CBMT , Muttam Village to CPCL Jetty , Pattancheri Village in the State of Tamiladu , has been laid in the said land , so the operation may be terminated in respect of the said land , the description of which in brief is specified in the Schedule annexed to this notification:

Now, therefore , as required under explanation - 1 of rule 4 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of'l'ser in Land ) Rules 1963 , the Central Government hereby declares the date mentioned in Column 7 of the said Schedule as the dates of termination of operation .

SCHEDULE

District: Nagapattinam

Taluk

Name ofVillage

SL. S.O.No No. and Dat

(4)

(3)

(1)(2)

State . Tamil Nadu

State

District

Date of Termination of operation

(7) (5)

25-11-2006

Tamil Nadu (6)

Nagapattinam

| 1991

No. 4, Nagore

27-05-2005

[F. No. R-25011/ 5 /2010-OR - 1 ] B. K. DATTA , Under Secs.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 1 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1137.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनाईटेड बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 260 आफ 99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011 / 36/ 99 - आई आर( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 1st April , 2010

S. O. 1137. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 260/99 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to management of United Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 1-4-2010 .

[No. L - 12011 / 36/ 99 - IR ( B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BERORE SRI RAM PRAKASH , HJS , PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURTS , KANPUR Industrial DisputeNo . 260 of 99

In the matter of dispute between-

United Bank of India Sramik Karamchari Samity , C/ o . United Bank of India , 28/93 , Bhirana Road , Kanpur

And

United Bank of India , Chief Regional Manager , United Bank of India , Central Region, 4 - B , Habibullah Estate , Lucknow .

AWARD

1. The Central Government , MOL , New Delhi vide Notification No. L - 12011 / 36/ 99 IR( B - II) dated 16-8-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2275

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932 .

2. Whether the claim of the union for payment of OTA to staff and sub staff on 11-4-99 and 12-4-99 by the management of United Bank of India is justified ? If not to what relief the workers concerned is entitled to ?

3.Brief facts of the case is that as per the order of the Reserve Bank of India , the banks were instructed to keep their branches open for full day working on Saturday 11th April 99 , and 12th April , 99 Sunday. The branches of the opposite party bank functioned full working day on both the days , therefore , the members of the award staff (workmen) became entitled to receive payment of overtime wages as mentioned in para 3 of the claim statement . Therefore , they have prayed that the opposite party be directed to make the payment of over time to sub staff and clerical staff.

4.Opposite party has opposed the claim of the union on the ground that they have not violated any of the instructions and guide lines issued by Indian Banks Association . As per the contents of the Allahabad Bank's circular quoted by the applicant opposite party bank being a separate and independent entity is under no obligation to be bound by the guide lines framed by the former . Moreover , no specific instance has been quoted by the applicant in the statement of claim giving the names of the branches or names of the aggrieved persons who have been deprived of their lawful dues . Therefore , they prayed that the claim of the union is not maintainable and be rejected.

5. Claimant has not filed any evidence , even did not appear at the time of arguments for lawful discussions . Opposite party has opposed the claim of the claimant .

6. I have perused the record heard the argument at length .

7. Perusing the record in absence of specific evidence and instances , I do not find any weight in the claim of the claimant union ; therefore , claim is not maintainable and therefore , is reference is decided against the claimant union and in favour of the opposite party accordingly. 22-3-2010

RAM PRAKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 1 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1138.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 283 आफ 99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12011 / 88 / 99- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस . पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी [ PAK: II -St.30 ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11.1932

22 6

New Delhi , the 1st April , 2010

S. O. 1138.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 283/99 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court . Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to management of Union Bank of India , and their workinen , which was received by the Central Government on 1-4-2010.

[ No. L - 12011 / 88 / 99 - IR ( B - II ) ]

U. S. PANDEY , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BERORE SRI RAM PRAKASH , HJS , PRESIDING

OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 283 of 99

per month . It is also an admitted fact that to fill up those post of Data Entry Operator , the aptitude test has to be conducted from the working senior most clerks working at the station . It is also admitted fact that till the regular appointment on the post of Data Entry Operator , there is a provision of appointing Data Entry Operator on ad -hoc basis from amongst the senior most clerks working at the station . Opposite party has created three posts of Data Entry Operator and the applicants being the senior most were to be appointed as Data Entry Operator on ad -hoc basis till regular appointment and therefore were entitled to get the special allowance , but the management in order to deprive the claimants from getting special allowance appointed the junior officials Sri Harı Bajpai , Sri P. K. Trwarı , Sri A. K. Chakrawarty as Data Entry Operatar and they were paid special allowance . It is alleged that the opposite party has vialated the terms of the appointment on ad - hoc basis and they have acted mala - fide . Therefore , they are entitled for the special allowance as mentioned in the chart along with interest at the rate of 15 ° 0 .

in the matter of dispute between-

imon Bank Stall Association , Secretary , C.P. Bank Staff Association , o. Umon Bank of India , 24 53. Bhirana Road , Kampur . UP .

And

mon Bank of India.

Assistant General Manager ,

mon Bank of Incia .

Pandu Nagar .

Nampin

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL , New Delhi vide Notification No. 1. - 12011 / 88 / 99 - IR ( B - 11 ) dated 5-11-99 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this bunal.

4. Opposite party has filed the reply . They have raised a number of pleas regarding that the reference is bad in law; there is no cause of action to the claimants . The matter does not fall under the Industrial Disputes . Main contention have been given in Para 9 of the reply. In Para 9 it is also admitted the creation of the post . It is also admitted how the regular appointment has te be made . It is also admitted that till regular appointment ad - hoc appointment will be made on the basis af seniority of the employees . They have stated that in case of the appointment is an ad - hoc basis is declined by any person for any reasons , the next person entitled is given the chance , thus no right or entitlement of any one is ever adversely affected by the management . Posting on ad - hoc basis is legal and justified and within the frame work of the rules . Opposite party has mentioned the facts of other industrial dispute cases Case No. 14/99 , 283.99 , L.D. Case No.181 98 in Para ten of the reply , but I do not find much relevancy in deciding the present case . Therefore , they have opposed the claim of the claimants .

2. Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India , Kanpur in not giving the Special Allowance For the post of Data Entry Operator to S / Sh . M. C. Gupta , A. K. Jain and M. C Pandey from the date of posting of the junior most workmen is legal and justified ? If not what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ?

5. Claimants have tiled a rejoinder vide Paper No. 11 /1-11/ 2 alleging that the action of the opposite is not justified. They have not disclose how the junior employees have been posted on the post of Data Entry Operator and why the claimants have been deprived off their claim for the post on ad - hoc basis and the claim of special allowance .

6. Both the parties have adduced documentary as well as oral evidence . Claimants have filed 6 papers vide index 7/1 . Paper No. A - l is the Letter of the UBI to ALCC , Paper No. - 2 is the letter dated 13-10-95 issuedby the bank issued to Sri S. K. Rakhit , Paper No. A- 3 Settlement of Computer agreement . Paper No. A - 4 Staff Circular No. 3913 dated 23-10-92 , Paper No. A- 5 is the dispute raised by the Union and A - 6 is the seniority list of the clerks .

3. Brief facts of the case are that Sri Madhukar Pandey, Sri M. C. Gupta and Sri A. K. Jain , who are in the clerical cadre have filed their claim statement through Sri P. N. Shukla. Secretary Union making a prayer that they should be awarded the special allowance of Rs . 285 with effect tiem 1-9-96 to 4-5-97 , for the post of Data Entry Operator . It is alleged by them that they were the senior most clerks at the station. It is admitted fact that as per staff circular dated 23-10-92 . the appointed officials on the post of Data Entry Operator haveto be awarded special allowance of Rs . 285 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2277

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

15. Therefore , considering all the facts and circumstances , reference is decided in favour of the Union and against the opposite party . Claimants become entitled to get special allowance for that period but without interest.

16. Reference is disposed off accordingly.

Dated: 22-3-2010

7. Opposite party has also . filed 6 papers vide list paperno.4/ 1 . First paper is copy of staff circular no.3913 , paper no . 2 is staff circular no . 4057 , paper no.3 is reference order pertaining to I. D. Case No.181 of 98 , paper no.4 is the reference arder pertaining to . I. D. Case No. 14/99 , paper no.5 is the copy of reply dated 13-5-97 of the Union Bank of India before ALC Kanpur and paper no.6 is the memo. dated 25-4-97 by the bank to Sri Madhukar Pandey.

8. Claimant has adduced oral evidence . WW - l is a witness Sri Mahesh Chandra Gupta and W.W.2 is Sri Akhilesh Kumar Jain who is the claimants . Opposite party has adduced evidence of Sri D. K. Sharma as M.W.1 .

9. I perused the whole record , evidence and heard the arguments at length .

10. During arguments the authorized representative for the opposite party has argued that the claimants though being senior at the station but have refused to be appointed as data entry operator on ad - hoc basis .

11. The only shart question therefore , is to be decided is as to , whether the claimants have ever refused to be appointed as data entry operator on ad - hoc basis .

12. Opposite party has not specifically mentioned in their reply that the claimants have specifically refused to be appointed as data entry operator on ad - hoc basis . It isthe claim of the claimants that they were the senior most at the station . This fact is admitted by the opposite party . This is also admitted that till regular appointment which can be made only after conducting the aptitude test etc. there is a provision for appointing on ad - hoc basis and providing them special allowance . Both the witness W. W.I and W. W.2 stated on oath that they were never invited by the management for their posting on ad- hoc basis at the post Data Entry Operator . Now the burden shifts on the opposite party . Opposite party has not filed any documentary or conclusive evidence on which they can say that they have given the chance to the claimant for appointment on ad - hoc basis for the aforesaid post .

RAM PRAKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 5 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1139.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , असनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [ सं. एल -22012/04/ 1997- आई आर( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th April , 2010

S. O. 1139.In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 06/1998) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-4-2010 .

[ No. L - 22012/ 04 / 1997 - IR( C- II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL .

PRESENT : Sri Manoranjan Pattnaik , Presiding Officer Reference No. 06 of 1998

13. M. W. - I Sri Sharma has stated in his cross that all the claimants were given in writing a chance for their appointment at the post of Data Entry Operator . But the management has not filed any such refusal letter or order of the competent person.

PARTIES : The Agent , Tilaboni Colliery of M/ s ECL , Ukhra , Burdwan . Vrs

Org . Secretary , C.M.U ( INTUC ) , Ukhra , Burdwan

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Management

For the Union ( Workman)

: P.K.Das , Advocate . : Asim Banerjee INDUSTRY : COAL

14. Therefore , in my view the evidence given by the claimants is believable . The contention of the opposite party that the claimants have refused to be appointed as Data Entry Operator on ad hoc basis does not have any force , as there was also no occasions for the claimants to raise the industrial dispute when they may have refused . There is also no force in the contention of the opposite party that the reference is bad in law , there is no force in the reply that there is no cause of action .

STATE

:WEST BENGAL THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

2278

Dated: 10-03-2010

AWARD

In exercise of power conferred by clause (d ) of Sub- Section ( 1 ) and Sub- Section 2 (A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L - 22012/ 04/ 1997 - IR ( C - II ) dated 5-3-1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Tilaboni Colliery , under Bankola Area of M / s ECL in not regularizing Sri Ashok kumar Chakraborty , as Truck Challan Munshi w.e.f. 14-05-1994 is justified ? If not, whatrelief the workman is entitled to ? "

Having received the Order No. L - 22012 / 04 / 1997 - IR (C - II ) dated 5-3-1998 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 06 of 1998 was registered on 30-03-1998 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post were sent to the parties concerned .

In responce to the notice issued from the Tribunal both the parties made their appearence and filed their respective pleadings . While the union relied on documentary evidence only the management preferred not to adduce any evidence .

On perusal of the pleading of the parties , evidence on record and upon hearing the learned counsel for both the sides , the workman Sri Ashok Kumar Chakraborty initially joined as Cat . - 1 Mazdoor at Tilaboni Colliery . The claim of the workman that he has asked to work as Truck Challan Munshi w.e.f. 14-05-1994 has also not been challenged as it is but the management has maintained that the workman was advised to work as Truck Challan Munshi in addition to his normal job due to certain exigency of work and for which the workman concerned is claiming for regularization . The management has also maintained that simple passing of School Final Examination or Higher Secondary Examination is not the only criteria for regularization in the higher category of post i.e. Truck Challan Munshi which will be in violation of the guideline ofthe National Coal Wage Agreement -V

In view of the clear admission of the fact that the workman was deployed to work as Truck Challan Munshi i.e. on higher grade of post . All the documents which relied upon from Exbt... Lw to Exbt . 11 / w which needs no elaborate discussion . The simple question remains as to whether the

[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) | workman who has been continuously and for a long time being deployed to work in the Higher Grade of Post . fie is entitled to be regularized in the service or not. In this connection , the settled position being that employer ordered to look up the duties of the higher post temporarily or in officiating capacity is entitled for payment of higher salary ( S.C. ) 2003 ILR 658 Selva Raj Vrs . Lt. Governor Port Blair and others .

It is needless to say that the workman is entitled for minimum wages in higher post as per National Coal Wage Agreement- V . But with regard to the promotion . guideline ofNational Coal Wage Agreement along with cadre scheme has to be followed . At any rate the action of the management of Tilaboni Colliery under Bankola Area of M/ sEastern Coalfields Ltd..in not regularizing of the service of Sri Ashok Kumar Chakraborty as Truck Challan Munshi w.e.f.14-05-94 is not justified . He is entitled to get the higher wages admissible for the said post of Truck Challan Munshi w.e.f. 14-05-94 and for promotion subject to the norms prescribed in National Coal Wage Agreement and Cadre Scheme in view of the long lapse of time , the management is required to implement the order within two months from the date of notification of the award . Hence , it is ordered .

ORDER

Let an award be and same is passed as per above Send the copies to Govt . of India for information and needful .

MANORANJAN PATINAIK , Presiding Officer .

नई दिल्ली , 5 अप्रैल , 2010

का, आ. 1140.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 194 " का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई. मी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय , असनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 48/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [सं. एल-220 : 2/323/ 1997 - आई आर भी ।।। अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकार New Delhi , the 5th April . 2010

S. O. 1140. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 48 9981 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of ECT .. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-4-2010 .

No.1-22012 323 1997-1RC - 1 ) | ALAY KO MAR GAD R. Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

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

Reference No. 48 of 1998

PRESENT : SriManoranjan Pattnaik ,

PARTIES

Industrial Dispute between the management of Parascole Colliery , Kajora Area of E.C.L

Vrs.

Their Workman

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the Management : P.K.Das , Advocate .

For the Union side : Sri N. Ganguly Advocate INDUSTRY: COAL

STATE

: WEST BENGAL

Dated: 18-03-2010

AWARD

In exercise of power conferred clause ( d) of sub- Section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of section 10 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L - 22012/ 323/ 97 - IR ( CM - II) dated 25-8-1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Parascloe Colliery under Kajora . a of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited, in not providing employment to Smt . Phoolmani Majhain , the dependant of Late Suku Majhi , Ex - Line Mazdoor as per provision of NCWA- IV is legal and justified . If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

2. Pursuant to the order No. L - 22012/ 323 / 97/IR ( CM- II) dated 25-8-1998 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 48 of 1998 was registered on 1-9-1998 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their Written Statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post where sent to the parties concerned .

3. Both the parties have filed their respective pleading while the union has relied on both the documentary and oral evidence the Employer has not adduced any evidence . Case of the Union , shun of all 1425 GI/10-42

2279

भारत का राजपत्र : मई1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

details , is that Smt . Phoolmani Majhain is the widow ofthe Late workman Suku Majhi , Ex . Line Mazdoor who died on 26-10-1990 . Smt. Phoolmani applied for employment on compassionate ground as per provision of National Coal Wage Agreement- IV . The management , however , did not bother for miserable plight ofthis helpless widow belonging to the scheduled tribe and for her children and after lapse of7 years simply granted only maintanence of Rs.2000 per month only refusing employement . Alleging discrimination and grant of a paltry amount which is even not the prescribed minimum wages and maintaining that the action of the management is denial of the right of the widow dependents of the deceased workman and violative of provision of NCWA - IV . The Union urged for holding the action of the management as illegal and unjust and for granting of relief by providing employement to Phoolmani .

Employer's case in short is that the workman an employee of Parascole Colliery ( ECL ) worked as line Mazdoor since 31-1-1973 . He was missing since February, 1987 as per the intimation of Phoolmani Majhain dt . 27-8- 1990. She also intimated about lodging of missing report of Suku Majhi at the Police Station on 14-2-1987 . Suspicion grew for entry ofthe name of the mother of late workman in the C.M.P.F. nomination paper instead of Phoolmani , if at all she was the wife and also for the birth of the second daughter after the reported missing of Suku Majhi . The representation of Phoolmani being self contradictory and appearing to be taken as misrepresentation of facts , the management simply granted allowance of Rs . 2000 per month on the proposal ofre- employement submitted by the union on 18-6-1996. The allowance was granted to Smt . Phoolmani Majhain till as of 60 years or death whichever is earlier but she refused to accept and insisted for employment. Maintaining that the relationship of Phoolmani with the Suku Majhi as his legally married wife having not been established provision under 9.4.1 of NCWA- IV employment is not attracted and alleging that claim of Phoolmani as imaginary, baseless and fictitious and that the company undergoing financial loss, the employer management urged to hold their action as legal and justified.

On perusal of evidence on record and hearing the arguments of learned counsel for both parties it is found that the management does not refute the fact that the Late workman , Suku Majhi was an employee of the E.C.L rather it has positively admitted that Suku Majhi worked as Line Mazdoor since 31-1-1973 . While it is claimed by the union on behalf of the widow of the workman that Suku Majhi died on 26-10-1990 , the management maintains that as per intimation dt . 27-08-1990 received from Phoolmani , Suku Majhi was missing since February, 1987 and further that missing report was also lodged at the Police Station . No death certificate has been filed by the union . In her oral evidence , Phoolmani has stated about filing of a death certificate, though in fact no such certificate has been filed. It isnot significant as this fact has simply been ascertained [ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

2280

do good if it disburse entitled amount immediately but at any rate it is to be implemented within two months of the notification including the other relief. Accordingly , it is ordered:

ORDER

Let an award be and same is passed in terms of the above . Copies be sent to the Govt . of India . MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 5 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1141.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 75/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012/ 75/1998- आई आर ( सी -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th April , 2010

S. O. 1141. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central overnment hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.75 / 1999 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to management of ECL , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 5-4-2010 .

[No. L -22012/ 75 / 1998 - IR ( C - II) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BERORE THE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , ASANSOL

Reference No. 75 of 1999

PRESENT

: SriManoranjan Pattnaik

PARTIES

Industrial Dispute between the management of Chora Colliery, Kenda Area of E.C.L.

Vrs

Theirworkman

REPRESENTATIVES:

Forthe applicant

Sri N.Ganguly, Advocate Sri P.K.Goswami , Advocate .

: For the Opposite Party : (Management)

INDUSTRY

COAL

WEST BENGAL

STATE

during the cross - examination only of Phoolmani , a cerdulous illiterate tribal lady . Then management has though in then pleading has challenged the death but from their conduct it appears that they are never at variance on the factum of death of Suku Majhi as maintenance of Rs. 2000 per month has admittedly been granted by the competent Authority to Phoolmani till 60 years of age or death which ever is earlier vide letter dt. 16-03-1997 (Exbt . 5/ W) with immediate effect and thereby officially acknowledging not only the death of Suku Majhi but also the fact that Phoolmani is the wife ( Widow ) of Suku Majhi . That apart , thedocuments relied on by the union like Voter Identity Card ( Ext . 1 /W ) Bahula Gram Panchayet's certificate (Ext.2 /W) .certificate ofthe M.L.A. , Sri Lakshman Bagdi (Ext . 3/W) and the Ration Card ( Ext. 4/ W) amply prove both the above facts . Exact date of death of Suku Majhi though is not proved but in the fact of the above over whelming evidence , no persistent of doubt exists regarding the death of Suku Majhi and that Phoolmani is his dependant widow which has otherwise been acknoweledged by the management . The management cannot blow hot and cold at the same time and challenge the marital status of Phoolmani and parenthood of the second daughter said to have been born after the missing of Suku Majhi which they have pleaded . In fact the intimation dated 27-8-1990 of Phoolmanı reporting about missing of Suku Majhi since February, 1987 and about lodging of missing report to the management as claimed by the management in their pleading have not been proved at all . As such , there is nothing against holding that Suku Majhi died on 26-10-1990 while in service and that Phoolmani is his dependant widow. Parties are not controverting on the legally binding provision under the NCWA - IV 9.4.1 for providing employment to one of the dependant of the worker who dies while in service . In the pleading though the management in vain raised a controversy regarding not changing of name of nominee in the Gratuity Nomination Paper is of no consequence at all in view ofthe facts proved above . The management is thus bound to be under legal obligation to provide employement to the dependant widow ofthe Late workman namely Phoolmani Majhain. Providing only maintainance instead of employement is not tenable under law . As such the action of the management of Parascole Colliery of M/ s E.C.L by not providing employment to Smt . Phoolmani Mejhain the dependant of Late Suku Majhi , Ex - line Mazdoor as per provision of NCWA - IV is not legal and justified. Smt. Phoolmani Mejhain is entitled for employment since the date of her application Since she has not been provided employment and has been granted the maintanence only which has been refused by her , it will be just and proper for requiring the management to pay the minimum wages prescribed by the Govt to her since the date of her application and employment with immediate effect observing usual formalities . In view of long lapse of time and the plight of the helpless widow and her children , the management will [ भाग II-- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

2281 Dated: 15-3-10

AWARD

urged for relief by holding that non - regularization is not legal and justified.

In exercise ofpowers conferred by Clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No.L - 22012 / 75/ 1998 / 1R ( CM - II ) dated 7-7-1999 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Chora Colliery under Kenda Area of M / s . Eastern Coalfields Limited , in not regularizing Sri Pranab Kumar Das Para Medical Trainee as clerk appointed on 30-8-1980 is legal and justified . If not , to what relief is the workinan entitled ?

5. Employer's stand as per their pleadings is that the workman was provided with the pay in grade - II after one year of his joining as para medical trainee , The workman was advised to perform some co- related work to his job only and hence is not entitled for higher scale . Regularization of post is being done on availability of the post and the promotion as per norms of National Coal Wage Agreement . The Union's claim for higher grade for the workman is out of the provision and contravenes the norms and statute. The workman in fact appeared in the examination held for the post in the year 1985 but was not taken as better qualified and experienced candidates were appointed. The workman nor the union raised any dispute in respect of the filling of the post by said process . The workman having availed the opportunity in the due process of filling the post as per law , his claim for regularization stands as infractuous . The management has not extracted the work of higher grade from the workman and as such the management had the right to deny him the wages of the clerk. The Employer thus has urged to hold their action on that score as legal and justified

2. Pursuant to the order No.L - 22012 / 75 / 1998 / IR ( CM- 11 ) dated 7-7-1999 of the above said reference from the Govt.ofIndia , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No.75 of 1999 was registered on 25-7-1999 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written Statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesse.. m support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registered post where sent to the parties concerned .

3. In response to the notice both the parites made their appearance through their Counsel and filed their respective pleadings .

6. On going through the pleading and evidence on record and having heard the learned counsel for both the sides , it is found that the claim of appointment of the workman as para medical trainee and his grant of pay in Grade -II is an admitted fact. The fact that regular examination to fill up the post of clerk was held in the year 1985 and the workman appeared and was placed at SI.No.24 of the merit list and that some others in the list were given appointment as per list serially stand unrefuted . The present Industrial Dispute is notdirected against that . As such , the workman's claim is based only on the ground that work of clerk was extracted from him w.e.f. 31-8-1981 but salary in grade - III scale meant for clerk was not granted and the service in next higher grade was not regularized .

7. With regard to the alleged extraction of work of a clerk by the Employer , from the workman , the management has not denied it in specific words nor has specifically indicated about the job - related works those were entrusted to the workman as pleaded . The evidence of the Workman that there was no clerk posted in the Medical Department has not been challenged . Further , the unblemished evidence ofthe workman reveal that his norm of work as para medical trainee was to attend administering medicines , dressing etc. , but he was maintaining register and doing the work of dispatch etc. , which is undoubtedly the work of a clerk .

4. The workman's simple case as reflected from the pleadings is that the workman Sri Pranab Kumar Das initially appointed as a para medical trainee in the Medical Department of the employer was engaged to perform the work of a clerk w.e.f. 31-8-1981 as there was no clerk in the Deparetment . He was entitled to get salary in the Scale of grade - III and promotion to next higher grade after completion of three years but his service was not regularized despite representation made by him . The Personnel Department of the Employer avoided to regularize the workman in the said post on the ground that isolated case would not be considered . The workman appeared in the written examination and oral test for appointment as clerk in response to the Circular of the Employer and was placed in serial No. 24 in the list only 12 candidates were appointed out of the list serially , The workman claimed for regularization since , 31.8.81 and timely promotion to higher grade on completion of every three years . The committee formed on 1995 by the Employer and consisting of representative of both the Employer and the Union has submitted report justifying the claim of the workman. Asserting his sincere and dedicated service and availability of post in the company and alleging Employer's inaction on the matter , the workman through the union

In view of the complete silence of the management on the matter and the above positive evidence , one can safely accept the version of the workman as true . It is also evident from the letter of the managementdt.9-12-82 ( ExtW/ A ) that the workman was considered to be deployed as clerk meaning that he was qualified to the post and was called PAG II S300 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11. 1932

2282

ANNEXURE

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

Case I. D. No. 339/2000 .

Shri Pankaj Goyal .

975 , Subhash Street ,

Amrik Singh Road,

Bhatinda (Punjab ) .

Applicant

Versus

The District Manager,

Bhagu Road, Bhatinda .

Food Corporation of India. (Punjab).

Respondant

APPEARANCES for written examination . The report of the Committee (Ext. W-2) constitered by the General Manager of Kenda Area also lays support to the claim of the workman . As such it is quite clear that the workman was in fact engaged to do the clerical work besides his job as para- medical trainee . It is settled position of law that employee ordered to look up the duties of the higher post temporary or in officiating capacity is entitled for paymeant of higher salary i.e. salary ofa clerk in the case . This proposition is bolstered by the reported decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Selva Raj Vrs . Lt. Governor Port Blair and others and another ( S.C. ) 2003 ILR 658 ) The employer having extracted the work of a clerk from the workman continuously is liable to pay him the higher salary w.e.f. 31-8-1981 and to regularize him and to consider consequent promotional benefit subject to the provision of the National Coal Wage Agreement- III . Cadre Scheme and other connected rules . The action of M/ s . Eastern Coal Fields Ltd. , in not regularizing the service of Sri Pranab Kumar Das , para medical trainee as clerk is held not legal and justified and the workman is entitled to minimum wages of clerk for the period clerical work has been extracted from him w.e.f. 31-8-1981 and with other consequential benefit. Hence it is ordered.

Shri Suresh Singia

For theWorkman :

Shri N. K. Zakhmi .

ORDER

For the Management :

AWARD

Let an awardbe and same is passed as per above Copies be sentto Govt. of India

Passed on 23-3-10 MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 5 अप्रैल . 2010

Government of India vide notification No. 1. - 22012. 68/2000 - IR( CM - II ) , dated 5-9-2000 by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act . ( the Act 1947 in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

"Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India, Bhatinda in terminating the services of Shri Pankaj Goyal S/ o Shri Parkash Chand Goyal w.e.f. 31-8-94 is just and legal ? Ifnot , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled and from which date ?"

का. आ. 1142.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ. सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण न.. चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 339/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-22012/ 68 /2000 - आई आर ( सी-11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 5th April, 2010

S. O. 1142. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 339/ 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. 1 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 5-4-2010 .

After receiving the reference . parties were informed. Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The case ofthe workman in nut shell is that he was appointed by the management of respondent Food Corporation of India as clerk on 31-8-91 at the fixed salary of Rs . 1.126 per month. His services were terminated by the management of Food Corporation of India without notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and without payment of terminal dues on 31-8-94. The termination was illegal as being against the provisions of the Act . He has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination . On the basis of the above the workman has prayed for setting aside the termination and consequential order for his reinstatement into the services with consequential benefits .

[No. L-22012/68 /2000 - IR (C - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

The management of Food Corporation of India appeared and opposed the claim of the workman by filing written statement . Management of respondent Food Corporation of India opposed the claim on the ground that their existed not employer and employee relationship between the workman and the management of Food Corporation of india . The services of the workman were provided with by a contractor Associates and Detectives . The services of the workman were not terminated by the management .

Both ofthe parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Workman Shri Pankaj Goyal filed his affidavit and he was cross examined by the learned counsel for the management on 18-12-09 Shri Surender Kumar who is said to be the Supervisor of the Associates and Detectives filed his affidavit and he was cross - examined by the learned counsel for the workman as MWI . Likewise , Shri C. P. Saharan filed his affidavit on behalf of the management and he was cross - examined by learned counsel for the workman as MW2 on 10-2-09 . Parties were heard at length . I have perused all the materials on record . The management has also supplied the documents relating to the agreements with the Associates and Detectives for providing contractual labour . The workman has also filed certain documents which includes photocopies of the peon book in which the name of the workman does not figure . Every photocopy of the peon book contains signature of the workman at the column ' by whom delivered ' .

Onthe basis of this document the workman changed his contention when he filed the affidavit . In his affidavit the workman has stated that he was appointed as clerk- cum -peon , whereas , in his pleadings ( statement of claim) he has stated that he was appointed as clerk . In his cross- examined he has admitted that clerk - cum - .peon are two posts of different cadres . One person cannot be appointed clerk and peon simultaneously . Thus , the statement given in affidavit by the workman that he was appointed as clerk- cum - peon cannot be relied upon .

The main dispute between the management and the workman before this Tribunal is whether workman is employee of the management of Food Corporation of India , or his services were provided by any outsourcing agency? The consequential dispute is to what relief, if any, the workman is entitled .

So far as the relationship between the management ofFood Corporation of India and workman is concerned , it is a matter of fact and will be adjudicated on perusal of the pleadings filed and evidence adduced by the parties . It is admitted by the workman that no appointment letter was issued to him by the management . No doubt , it is denied by the management that payment was made good by the contractor , but he documentary evidence filed by the management prove this contention that payment to the workman was made good by the contractor and not by the

2283 management of Food Corporation of India . Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 2008 LLR 801 ,GM ONGC , Shilchar 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 Shilchar's case ( supra), the workman has proved the following facts to establish the employee - employer relationship :-

(1 ) That there existed a relationship of master and servant,

(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 wages by the management of Food Corporation of India directly and not 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 management of Food Corporation of India to make the payment to the workers .

If above mentioned ratio of GM , ONGC Shilcher case ( supra ) is applied in all the references , it is clear that workman has failed to prove that he was appointed by the management of Food Corporation of India. There is no iota of evidence on record to prove that he was directly under the administrative control of the management of Food Corporation of India . The workman has field certain copies of peon book which bears the signature of the workman on particular column but in my view it will not be sufficient to prove the administrative control of the management over the workman . On the payment of wages the management of Food Corporation of India has filed the documentary evidence which proved that consolidate amount on the basis of number of days worked by specific number of security persons were given to the contractor , and contractor on the other hand , used to pay the wages to the workman. The management has filed all the relevant documents regarding the payment of wages by the contractor to the workman and providing the services of workman to the management on outsourcing agency . This fact that services of the workman were provided with to the management of Food Corporation of India through the Associates and Detectives on outsourcing , the supervisor of security agency Shri Surender Kumar fited his affidavit . He has specifically stated on oath that services of Shri Pankaj Goyal were provided with to the Food Corporation of India through Associates and Detective agency and he 2284

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

was not appointed by the Food Corporation of India . This fact is further corroborated and proved by the act of the workman . The workman made Shri Surender Kumar as respondent no.4 in his claim petition showing him as contract , whereas , in claim petition he denied that his services were provided with to the management through contractor . It is also not the contention of the workman that his services were provided will through the contrator and the contract if any , is shame and camouflage . Thus , in my view of the law laid down by Hon ble the Apex Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and others Vs. National Union Water Workers and others and Food Corporation of India Vs. Presiding Officer , Central Goverment Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court - I , Chandigarh ( High Court of Punjab & Haryana ) , workman cannot challenge the contract to be shame or camouflage because he has not pleaded in his pleadings or affidavit that he was appointed through the contractor and the contract was shame and camouflage. Thus , for want of pleading and evidence , I am not considering this issue open whether the contract was shame and camouflage .

On the basis of the above discussion , I am of the view that management has proved beyond shadow of doubt that workman was not appointed by the management . His services were provided with to the management through a contractor and there has been no master - servant relationship between the two . The administrative control over the workman was that of the contractor and payment of wages were also made good by the contractor and not by Food Corporation of India . In such situation no questions for terminating the services of the workman by Food Corporation of India arise . The workman is not entitled for any relief . Accordingly the refrence is answered as such . LetCentral Government be approached for publication of award, and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 5 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1143. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1, दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/214/2003- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th April , 2010

S. O. 1143. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 18/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour

[ PART II SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Court - I Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 1-04-2010 .

[ No. L - 12012/214 /2003 - IR( B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY , Desk Officer BERORE DR. R. K. YADAV , PRESIDING , OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I. D. No.18/2004

Workman Jitender Singh@ Jitender Kumar , C/ o Sh . J. N. Kapur , 33-34 , Bank Enclave , Ring Road , Rajori Garden , New Delhi .

Versus

The Regional Manager , Punjab National Bank , Rajindera Place , New Delhi .

.Management

AWARD

Shri Malkhan Singh , permanent part time sweeper working at Krishna Nagar Branch of Punjab National Bank , fell ill . On 7-3-99 Shri Jitender Singh was engaged as a stop gap arrangement . On 16-1-2000 Shri Malkhan Singh expired. The bank was under an obligation to fill that vacancy in pursuance of settlement dated 7-5-1984 . Krishna Nagai Branch of the bank merged with Lal Quarter Branch of the Bank . As such permanent part time sweeper working at Lal Quarter Branch of the bank filled in the vacancy created due to death of Shri Malkhan Singh , Services of Shri Jitender Singh @ Jitender Kumar were disengaged . He raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer . Since conciliation procedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L - 12012/214 /2003 - IR ( B - II ) , New Delhi 11-3-04 , with the following terms :

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank , New Delhi in terminating the services of Jitender Singh @ JitenderKumar is just, fair and legal ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled and from what date ? "

2. Claim statement was filed by the workman pleading that he was engaged against a leave vacancy in Krishna Nagar Branch of the bank on 7-3-99 , since Shri Malkhan Singh , a permanent part time employee was on leave . Shri Malkhan Singh expired on 16-1-2000 . Consequently he was appointed as a full time sweeper against that vacancy. All of a sudden his services were disengaged by oral orders on 22-3-2003 . Neither notice nor pay in lieu thereof was [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2285 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

givento him. No retrenchment compensation was paid . He worked for three years , two months and seven days . He was not made permanent and the management adopted unfair labour practice in that regard . Action of the management in terminating his services amounts to retrenchment . He seeks reinstatement of his services with continuity and full back wages .

undertaken . A contract of employment may be inferred from the conduct which goes to show that such a contract was intended although never expressed and when there has, in fact , been employment of the kind usually performed by the employees . Any such inference , however , is open to rebuttal as by showing that the relation between the parties concerned was on a charitable footing or the parties were relations or partners or were directors of a limited companywhich employed no staff. While the employee , at the time , when his services were engaged , need not have known the identity of employer , there must have been some act or contract by which the parties recognized one another as master or servant .

3. The management demurred the claim of the workman pleading that he was engaged as a stop gap arrangement for a specific period , when Malkhan Singh went on long leave due to his sickness . Malkhan Singh expired on 16-1-2000 and his vacancy was to be filled in pursuance of settlement dated 7-5-84 . On merger of Krishna Nagar branch with Lal Quarter Branch of the bank , the vacancy was filled by permanent part time sweeper , working in Lal Quarter Branch of the bank . Resultantly service of Jitender Singh @ Jitender Kumar were disengaged . Being a casual employee , he had not acquired status of an award staff. His services were for a specific period and his disengagement does not amount to retrenchment . He is not entitled for notice or pay in lieu thereof , as well as retrenchment compensation . His claim is liable to be dismissed ,

4. Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma was examined on behalf of the management . No evidence was adduced by the workman .

8. As admitted by Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma , Jitender Singh @ Jitender Kumar was working as part time sweeper with the branch from 16-1-2000 till 22-3-2003 . He was paid his wages at initial of the scale of a permanent sweeper . No orders were passed that he was appointed for a specific period . It merge over the record that Jitender Singh @ Jitender Kumar was employed by the management against a post , which had fallen vacant on the death of Shri Malkhan Singh on 16-1-2000 . Since he was not appointed on contract basis for specified period , it does not lie in the mouth of the management to contend that he has not acquired the status of an employee . Consequently relationship of employer and employee between the management bank and Jitender Singh @ Jitender Kumar emerged over the record.

5.Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri J. N. Kapur , authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the workman . Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma , Deputy Manager , advanced arguments 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 :

6. Shri Ashwani Kumar Sharma swears in his affidavit that Jitender Singh was never appointed by the bank . There was no relationship of employer and employee between the bank and Jitender Singh . However he concedes that Jitender Singh worked as a temporary part time sweeper as a stop gap arrangement . He was not covered in the category of award staff . During the course of his cross examination he concedes that Malkhan Singh expired on 16-1-2000 . From that date till 22-3-03 , Jitender Singh was paid at initial of the scale of pay . He concedes that no specific order was passed detailing therein that the claimant was appointed for a specific period . He denied that after the death of Shri Malkhan Singh , Jitender Singh was working on permanent basis .

9. Jitender Singh served the management bank from 16-1-2000 till 22-3-2003 against a post which had fallen vacant on the death of Malkhan Singh . It nowhere emerge out of testimony of Shri Sharma that Jitender Singh was employed for a specific period . Therefore , termination of services of Shri Jitender Singh @ Jitender Kumar on 22-3-2003 was not on account of non- renewal of his contract of employment . When termination of services of an employee falls within the mischief of clause ( oo ) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short the Act) it attracts the definition of " retrenchment " , enacted by that clause . It is not case of the management that Jitender Singh @ Jitender Kumar had sought voluntary retirement or he stood retired on reaching the age of superannuation. No facts are projected that his services were dispensed with on the ground of continued ill - health. Only evidence that has been brought over the record is that his services were dispensed withwhen a regular incumbent came there to fill in the vacancy . Therefore , it is evident that services of Shri Jitender Singh @ Jitender Kumar were not dispensed with on account of punishment inflicted by way ofdisciplinary action . Dispensation of his service does fall within the ambit of " retrenchment " within the meaning of clause ( oo ) of Section 2 of the Act .

10. Workman projects that his services were dispensed with abruptly on 22-3-2003 . Management nowhere 7. The relationship of employer and employee is constituted by a contract , express or implied between employer and employee . A contract of service is one in which a person undertakes to serve another and to obey his reasonable orders within the scope of the duty [PAR: 11 St. 3 ( THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

2286

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 . " presents that notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to workman while terminating his services . Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him . The management was under an obligation to pay him compensation for retrenchment at the time of retrenchment . Payment of retrenchment compensation is a condition precedent to a valid order of retrenchment . Precedents in Bombay Union of Journalists case [ 1964 ( 1 ) LLJ 351 ] , Adaishwar Lal ( 1970 Lab.I.C.936 ) and B.M.Gupta [ 1979 ( 1 ) LLJ 168 ] announce that subsequent payment of compensation cannot validate an invalid order of retrenchment . As retrenchment compensation was not paid to Shri Jitender Singh @ Jitender Kumar , consequently action of the management falls within the mischief of Section 25 - F of the Act .

13. 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 11. Services of the workman were retrenched without payment of notice pay , and retrenchment compensation . It is well settled that in a case of wrongful retrenchment , dismissal or discharge , the normal rule is to award rein statement . But where a case falls in any of the exception to genral rule , the industrial adjudicator has discretion to award reasonable and adequate compensation , in lieu of re- instatement . Section 11A of the Act vests the industrial adjudicator with discretionery jurisdiction to give " such other relief to the workman " where for same valid reasons it considers that reinstatement with or without conditions will not be fair or proper .

"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 prescribed manner which may in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange , where eligible candidates 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 . " 12. As deposed by Sharma , the workman joined services of the management on 16-1-2000 . He served the management till 21-3-03 . His appointment was not in consonance with recruitment rules . In Uma Devi [ 2006 ( 4 ) SCC If the Apex Court considered the proposition as to whether the persons who got employment , without followaing of a 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 post which were held by them in temporary or adhoc capacity for a fairly long spell . The Court ruled thus :

14. In P. Chandra Shekhara Rao and Others ( 2006 7 SCC 488 ) the Apex Court referred Uma Devi's Case ( supra ) with approval . It also relied the decision 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 . In view of law laid above services of Shri Jitender Singh cannot be ordered to be reinstated . since it would amount to a back door entry.

15. When services of Shri Jitender Singh cannot be ordered to be reinstated , he is entitled to compensation for illegal retrenchment of his services . What compensation is to be awarded ? No definite yardstick for measuring quantum of compensation is available . In S. S. Shetty | 1957 ( 11 ) LLJ 696 ] the Apex Court indicated some relevant factors which an adjudicator has to take into account in computing 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 waiting to compete . With respect the directions made in Piara Singh [ 1992 ( 4 ) SCC 118 ] is to some extent [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

compensation in lieu of reinstatement , in the following words:

"The industrial Tribunal would have to take into account the terms and conditions of employment , the tenure of service , the possibility of termination of the employment at the instance of either party, the possibility of retrenchment by the employer or resignation or retirement by the workman and even of the employer himself ceasing to exist or of the workman being awarded various benefits including reinstatement under the terms of future awards by Industrial Tribunal in the event of industrial disputes arising between the parties in future. In computing the money value of the benefits of reinstatement , the industrial adjudicator would also have to take into account the present value of what his salary, benefits etc.would be till he attained the age of superannuation and the value of such benefits would have to be computed as from the date when such reinstatement was ordered under the terms of the award .

Having regard to the considerations detailed above , it is impossible to compute the money value of this benefit of reinstatement awarded to the appellant with mathematical exactitude and the best that any tribunal or court would do under the circumstances would be to make as correct an estimate as is possible bearing, of course in mind all the relevant factors pro and con" .

16. A Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court in B. Choudhary Vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court, Jamshedpur ( 1983 ) Lab.1.1755 ( 1758) deduced certain guidelines which have to be borne in mind in determining the quantum of compensation viz . ( i) the back wages receivable ; (ii ) compensation for deprivation ofthe job with future prospect and obtainability of alternative employment ; (iii ) employee's age ; ( iv) length of service in the establishment ; (v) capacity of the employer to pay and the nature of the employer's business ; ( vi ) gainful employment in mitigation of damages ; and ( viii ) circumstances leading to the disengagement and the past conduct. These factors are only illustrative and not exhaustive . In addition to the amount of compensation , it is also within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award. interest on the amount determined as compensation. Furthermore , the rate of such interest is also in the discretion ofthe Tribunal . Reference can be made to Tabesh Process , Shivakashi ( 1989 Lab . I. C.1887) .

17. In Assam Oil Co. Ltd. [ 1960 ( 1 ) LLJ 587] the Apex Court took into account countervailing facts that the employer had paid certain sums to the workmen and her own earning in the alternative employment and ordered that " it would be fair and just to direct the appellant to pay a substantial sum as compensation to her " . In Utkal Machinery Ltd. [ 1966 ( 1 ) LLJ 398 ] the amount of 1425 GI/10-13

2287

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

compensation equivalent to two year salary of the employee awarded by the Industrial Tribunal was reduced by the Supreme Court to an amount equivalent to one year salary of the employee in view of the fact that she had been in service with the employer only for 5 months and also took into consideration the unusual manner of her appointment at the instance of the Chief Minister of the State . In A. K. Roy [ 1970 ( I ) LLJ 228 ] compensation equivalent to two years salary last drawn by the workmen was held to be fair and proper to meet the ends of justice .In Anil Kumar Chakaraborty [ 1962 ( II ) LLJ 483 ] the Count converted the award of reinstatement into compensation of a sum of Rs. 50000 as just and fair compensation in full satisfaction of all his claims for wrongful dismissal from service . In O. P. Bhandari [ 1986 ( II ) LLJ 509] the Apex Court observed that it was a fit case for grant of compensation in view of reinstatement . The Court awarded compensation equivalent to 3.33 years salary as reasonable . In M. K. Aggarwal [ 1988 Lab.1.C.380 ] , the Apex Court though confirmed the order of reinstatement yet restricted the back salary to 50% of what would otherwise be payable to the employee . In Yashveer Singh ( 1993 Lab.I.C.44 ) the court directed payment of Rs . 75000 in view of reinstatement with back wages. In Naval Kishore [ 1984 ( II ) LLJ 473 ] the Apex Court observed that in view of the special circurnstances ofthe case adequate compensation would be in the interest of the appellant . A sum of Rs . 2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement . In Sant Raj [ 1985 (II ) LLJ 19 ] a sum of Rs . 2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement . In Chandu Lal [ 1985 Lab.I.C. 1225 ] a compensation of Rs . 2 lacby way of bac'k wages in lieu ofreinstatement was awarded . In Ras Bihari ( 1988 Lab . I.C. 107) a compensation of Rs . 65000 was granted in lieu of reinstatement , since the employee was gairifully employed elsewhere . In V. V. Rao ( 1991 Lab . I. C. 1650 ) a compensation of Rs . 2.50 lac was awarded in lieu of reinstatement .

18. Shri Jitender Singh @ Jitender Kumar worked with the bank for about 3 years and two months . His engagement was in violation of rules . Vacancy was filled by a regular employee working at Lal Quarter Branch of the bank. Even otherwise , the bank was under an obligation to fill the vacancy by vvay of recruitment , in accordance withrecruitment rules or procedure . The claimant was not having a right to continue on the post against a person , recruited in accordance with the rules or procedure . On consideration of these factors , besides others , I am of the viewthat a compensation equivalent to six months pay , as inMarch , 2003 would meet the ends of justice , in lieu of reinstatement in service . Above compensation would be paid by the management , within one month from the date ofoperation ofthe award . An award is , accordingly , passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dated: 12-2-2010 DR . R. K. YADAV , Presiding Officer [PAR: So P THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

2288

Enquiry Officer submitted his report detailing these ada नई दिल्ली , 5 अप्रैल , 2010

charges stand proved against the claimant. The Disc

Authority awarded punishment of reduction in

one stage for one year, without cumulative eilec

preferred by the claimant was dismissed . An

dispute was raised by the onion betore the t

Officer . Since conciliation proceedings failed aprio

Government referred the dispute to thes Tribute

adjudication, vide order Ne L - 12011143.2005-20

New Delhi , dated 11-11 2005 , with the foll का.आ. 1144, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1, दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the D.G.M. , DMR

Baroda , New Delhi in reducing the pas सं. एल-12011/143/2005- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय, डेस्क अधिकारी

Chand Kotnala . Peon by one stage for on New Delhi , the 5th April , 2010

just, fair and legal ? If not , to what reliefthe isentitled to ? "

2. Claim statement was filed by the Rani ...

Employees Union (herein after referred to as th

union) , pleading therein that the claimant is en pla

sub - staff at Darya Ganj . New Delhi branch st

Baroda . He is a member of the claimant Crioo

holding post ofAssistent ireasurer . The claim

a registered with Registrar of Trade Unten. Det S.O. 1144.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 32/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- 1, Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05-04-2010 .

given a call for holding a demonstration on 29-8-4

floor, Zonal Office , Bank of Baroda Building , hat [No. L- 12011 / 143/2005 - IR (B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY, Desk Officer

Street , New Delhi , for high lighting their genuine le ANNEXURE

The said demonstrations were joined by the

alongwith others . He raised slogans to high..

demand of the claimant union . It is demed t

slogans were abussive derogatory and per

against the higher authority A claim has been BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

Shri Kotnala had exercised his right of orgаnіод I. D. NO . 32/2005

join or assistant trade union or the purpose of

bargaining . He has not committed any miscondit

been victimized by the management by serving chatte s

dated 2-1-2002. 11e denied the allegations levelfer

charge sheet . An enquiry was held, which was vecka

...Workman

TheGeneral Secretary, Bank of Baroda Employees Union, C/ o BOB , 4824/24 , Ansari Road, Daryaganj , New Delhi - 110002

ofthe principles of natural justice . There was no evidens Versus

before the Enquiry Officer . The Disciplinary Authent

awarded punishment vide order dated 26-7-2003 Thach

the charges levelied against him constitute

misconduct , yet different punishmenis werd awarded

Appeal preferred by him was heard by the authori

was Disciplinary Authority at the time of service of

.Management

The Dy. General Manager , Bank ofBaroda , DMR - 1 , ( Northern Zone ) 12th floor, BOB Building , 16 , Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110001

sheet . He dismissed the appeal in mechanical martes, it

has been claimed that the action of the AWARD

awarding punishment is uncalled for A prayer ferstra

made that order imposing punishment may be

salary of Shri Kotnala may be restored and rep

released in favour of Shri Ketnala.

3. Contest was giver to the claim staten

management pleading that act of organizing d

on 8th floor , Bank of Baroda Building , Penace e

New Delhi , smacks that the claimant usen sad

its rights. A servant does not have any rigi

demonstration inside the premises of it up .

A demonstration was heldby Bank of Baroda Employees Union on 29-8-2001 at 8th floor, Bank of Baroda Building, Parliament Street , New Delhi . Zonal Office of the Bank of Baroda was located at the said premises . The demonstration was joinedby the claimant, who was Assistant Treasurer of the Union at that time. He raised abusive , derogatory, and personalized slogans against his higher authorities . He was charge sheeted for the misconduct under clause 19.5 ( c ) , (j ) ( i ) of Bipartite Settlement dated 1-1-1966 . An enquiry was held. The

ייי भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

further been pleaded that factum of Shri Kotnala joining the demonstration and raising slogans is an admitted fact . Assertion of the claimant union that slogans raised were neitner derogatory nor abusive and personalized against the officers of the management , is wrong . Shri Dinesh Chand Kotnala raised abusive , derogatory and personalized slogans against his officers . While raising slogans , he made visible and violent gestures against his officers , with a view to terrorize them . He was charge sheeted for the misconduct committed by him . The Enquiry Officer gave him proper opportunity to defend himself. When charges stood proved , the Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority . The Disciplinary Authority awarded nominal punishment to him , though misconduct committedby him were very grave . Appeal preferred by ium was heard and disposed of by the General Manager (N.Z. ) Bank of Baroda , who was not the authority who awarded punishment . Claim put forward by the claimant union is based on surmises and liable to be dismissed.

4. Shri C.S.Dahia was examined on behalf of the claimant union . Shri K. C. Hans , Senior Manager ( HR ) , was examined on behalf of the management bank . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .

5 Case was listed for arguments on 11-9-2009 . None came forward on behalf of the claimant union to advanced arguments . None was there on behalf of the Management Bank too to raise its submissions . Consequently the matter was reserved for an award .

6. Shri Dahia has testified that the claimant union was not having good relations with bank authorities . Bank authorities were taking every steps to harass and victimize the members of the claimant union . Shri Dinesh Chand Komala is a member of the claimant union from last 25 years . ile was Assistant Treasurer of the unicon from 1996 till 2005. In the year 2000 and 2002 he was posted at Asaf Ali Road branch of the bank . With a view to dissuade him from taking active part in union activities and to harras and victimize him , charge sheet Ex . MW 1 WI was served pon him. The claimant union was having agitation programme, since their various demands were pending consideration with Bank authorities . on 29-1-22001 the lainant union took up a demonstration as a part of their collectivebargain to get their demands accepted . Demonstration was held outside the Zonal Office of the bank, and not inside the bank premises . Demonstration was wellorganized, peaceful and it highlighted demancts of the claimant union . A lot of people were present in that demonstration . They shouted slogans as decided by the union Dinesh Chand Kotnala was one amongst those , who were shouting slogans . He went on to depose that Kotnala participated in the enquiry proceed ingss . The Enquiry Officer had not allowed Shri Kotnala to examine

2289 his witnesses , simply on the ground that their names were not mentioned in the list of the witnesses . Union made representation against the order of the Enquiry Officer to the Deputy General Manager and Executive Director of the Bank vide communications Ex . WW 1/1 , Ex . WW1 / 2 , Ex . WW 1/3 and Ex . WW 1/4 respectively. The authority, who ordered to initiate departmental enquiry and served charge sheet on Kotnala , was the very person who heard appeal against the order of the Disciplinary Authority. During the course of his cross examination he concedes that the claimant union took a decision to demonstrate n front of the office of the Zonal Manager , located on 8th floor of Bank of Baroda building , 16 Parliament Street , New Delhi , which demonstration took place on 29th of August, 2001. He admits that in that demonstration slogans were shouted .

7. Shri K.C.Hans had testified that Shri D.C.Kotnala took part in demonstration held on 29-8-2001 . During tha: demonstration he behaved unruly and raised slogans against General Manager of the Bank, in bank premises itself . He incited others , who were party to the demonstration ,to insult the General Manager and speak against the bank authorities . On those charges punishment of reducing pay of Kotnala by one stage for one year in the scale of pay was awarded . In respect of two other charges warnings were administered to him . During the course of his cross examination , he projects that Dinesh Chand Kotnala was an active member of the claimant union and not office bearer . A list of witnesses to be examined in defence was given , out of those some of the witnesses were allowed to be examined . Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority were different and distinct persons . Order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are Ex.MW1 / W2 and Ex . MW 1 / W3 respectively .

8. When evidence , adduced by the parties , came to be appreciated , it came to light that Shri C.S.Dahia had tested that the Enquiry Officer had not allowed Shri Kotnala to examine witnesses in his defence . He unfolds that the Enquiry Officer simply refused to examine the witnesses , whose names were mentioned in the list of witnesses . Against the said order the union made representations to the Deputy General Manager , General Manager and Executive Director of the Bank , vide communications Ex . WW1 /1 , Ελ . WW1/ 2 , Ex . WW1 / 3 and Ex . WW1/4 respectively . These representations were not disputed by and on behalf of the management . When representation Ex . WW1 / lis considered it came to light that the claimant union made a representation to the Deputy General Manager detailing therein that after conclusion of the evidence of the management, the Enquiry Officer ordered for submission of list of witness and documents by the defence . A list of witness was furnished and after going 2290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

through that list Enquiry Officer took a stand not to allow examination of those witnesses on the ground that the list ofwitnesses was very large and it was not feasible to allow examination of all of them . Enquiry Officer closed the defence evidence , without allowing an opportunity to examine the witnesses in defence . Representation Ex . WW 1/2 was addressed to Deputy General Manager , wherein it was projected that not even a single witness was allowed to be examined on behalf of the delinquent employee . Ex . WW1 / 3 is a representation sent to the General Manager , wherein same facts were narrated . Ex. WW 1/4 is a representation made to Executive Director ofthe bank claiming therein that the delinquent employee was not allowed to examine any witnesses in his defence. Therefore , out of these representations the claimant union 'nad brought it over the record that the Enquiry Officer had not accorded any opportunity to Shri Dinesh Chand Kotnala to examine witnesses in his defence . These facts remained unrebutted . When delinquent employee was not allowed to examine any witness in his defence , including himself, it can not be said that the enquiry was fair.

9. Enquiry Report has not been placed before this Tribunal for its perusal . For adjudicating validity of the enquiry proceedings , the Tribunal is under an obligation to assess that there was no basic error in the approach adopted by the Enquiry Officer and his report was not perverse . The importance attached to the enquiry report and the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer postulate that the report would highlight reasons for such conclusion , otherwise it is likely to impair substantial value of the report and the enquiry . The enquiry will be exposed to criticism that it was an empty formality , if it does not detail the merits of the case presented before the Enquiry Officer . Consequently basic requirement of natural justice is that an Enquiry Officer must consider the evidence and record his conclusions. Here in the case the Enquiry Report has not been placed before this Tribunal to assess whether principles of natural justice were followed or not . As stated above , the claimant union projects that the Enquiry Officer had not allowed the delinquent employee to examine even a single witness in his defence . What were the reasons for such a refusal , on the part of the Enquiry Officer , cannot be taken note of, since the report has not been placed before the Tribunal . Whether there was any evidence available to record a finding against the delinquent workman , is a proposition which cannot be answered , without going through the report of the Enquiry Officer . Without appreciation of the report of the Enquiry Officer , this Tribunal cannot opine that the report was not perverse .

10. It is necessary that the explanation offered by the workman to the charge sheet should be duly considered by the Enquiry Officer . The Enquiry Officer should allow the delinquent employee to examine himself and others in

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ] his defence . In case he does not allow delinquent employee to examine himself and others in his defence , his decision should be based on reasons . To record favourable appreciation in favour of the witnesses of the management, he should give sufficient reasons. When Enquiry Officer mentions twisted facts out of the statements made by the witnesses before him in such a situation the enquiry stands vitiated . Consequently to assess whether the Enquiry Officer had recorded sound reasons to reach a finding against the delinquent employee , it is expedient for this Tribunal to peruse the enquiry report . Without going through the enquiry report , the Tribunal is unable to record a conclusion that the Enquiry report was not perverse . Absence of enquiry report for consideration by this tribunal constrains the Tribunal not to record a finding to the effect that the report was based on evidence . Reference can be made to a precedent laid by the Apex Court in Sumunuggur Jute Factory Company Limited ( 1964 ( 1 ) LLJ 634 ) . Precedent in Khardah & Company ( 1963 ( 2) LLJ 452 ) can also be referredto.

11. When this Tribunal cannot form its opinion about the perversity of the enquiry report , in such a situation the said report cannot be upheld . The Tribunal had no occasion to comment that opinion arrived at by the Enquiry Officer was not coloured by any irrelevant consideration or matters of prejudice . It cannot be said that if there were any circumstances which were required to be explained by the delinquent employee , an opportunity was given to him for so doing . The Tribunal has to assess as to whether findings of the Enquiry Officer were not based on suspicion , conjecture or surmises . The Tribunal is also under an obligation to assess that the findings of the Enquiry Officer werebased on evidence and if not found so , it has a duty to set it aside . Therefore , this Tribunal cannot come to a conclusion that the Enquiry Officer had followed principles of natural justice and reached a decision in favour of the management , which decisions was based on evidence . Report of the Enquiry Officer cannot affirmed for the reasons , referred above .

12. When report of the Enquiry Officer is discarded, the order of the Disciplinary Authority as well as that of the Appellate Authority also go to dooms . Neither in its written statement nor during the course of proceedings any request was made by the management to allow it to lead evidence to prove misconduct of the workman , if the enquiry is found to be defective . Question for consideration comes as to whether an obligation is fastened to the Tribunal to call upon the employer suo moto to prove misconduct of the workman . Such proposition was raised before the Apex Court in Shambhu Nath Goyal ( 1983 ( 11 ) LLJ 145 ) . The Apex Court ruled that if the enquiry is found defective , the Tribunal will have to give the employer an opportunity to produce additional evidence and also give [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

a similar opportunity to the employee to lead evidence contra, in case request to adduce evidence had been made by the management to the Tribunal during the course of the proceedings and before the trial comes to an end . The Court ordained that in the absence of pleadings in written statement to the effect that it wants to prove misconduct of the workman by adducing evidence or want of request during the pendency of the proceedings , no situation arises for the Tribunal to advise the employer to lead evidence for proof of misconduct of the workman. Reference can also be made to the decision of the Apex Court in Lakshmidevamma ( 2001 ( 2) LLJ 199) . In view of the law laid by the Apex Court , the Tribunal is duty bound to accord opportunity to the management to lead evidence to prove misconduct of the workman . If such a request is made either in the pleadings or during the course of proceedings and not otherwise .

13. The enquiry conducted against the workman was found not be in consonance with the principles of natural justice . Therefore , the enquiry report and orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority as well as Appellete Authority are not est . The order of punishment awarded by the Disiplinary Authority and its confirmation by the Appellate Authority looses its efficacy . The management is under an obligation to restore the pay of Shri Kotnala to the very stage at which it would have been , in case no punishment would have been awarded to him . The management is , therefore , commanded to restore his wages to the stage manner as if no punishment was awarded to him . An award is , accordingly , passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV , Presiding Officer Dated : 19-03-2010

नई दिल्ली , 5 अप्रल , 2010

का.आ. 1145.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों व बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 84/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 01-04-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/409/95 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th April , 2010

S.O. 1145.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 84/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court- 1 . Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the

2291

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 01-04-2010

[No. L- 12012/409/ 95 - IR ( B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT - 1 , CHANDIGARH Case I.D. No. 84/97

Shri Raj kumar C/ o Shri Dutt Ram , Village Rai Majra, Nalwa , Tehsil - Sahabad Markanda , Kurukshetra . Applicant

Versus

The Zonal Manager , UCO Bank SCO No. 1092-93 , Sector- 22- B , Chandigarh .

.Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman : Shri K. K. Gupta

Shri N. K. Zakhmi

For the Management

AWARD

Passed on : 23-03-2010

Government of India vide notification no . L- 120 12 / 409/95 - IR ( B1 ) , dated 3-1-97 by exercising its powers under Section 10 at the Industrial Disputes Act , ( the Act in short) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank represented through Zonal Manager , UCO Bank , S.C O No 1092-93 , Sector- 22- B , Chandigarh in terminating the services of Shri Raj Kumar S / o Shri Dutta Raj a daily rated peon - cum- chowkidar w.e.f. 1-7-95 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? " After receiving this reference , parties were informed. Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The case of the workman in nut shell is that he was appointed by the management of United Commercial Bank Branch Sector - 22 - B , Chandigarh w.e.f 1-1-90 as peon - cum- chowkidar on daily wages and he continued as such up to 1-7-95 . During day hours he has worked in the branch office and during night he was directed to work as a chowkidar in bank hostel situated in House No. 1303-1304 , Sector - 44 - B , Chandigarh . Initially he was paid the consolidated salary ofRs . 600 per month and w.e.f. 1-4-92 he was paid daily wages at the rate of Rs . 43 per day . He has continuously worked w.e.f. 1-1-92 to 1-7-95 . His services were terminated without any notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and without payment of other lawful terminal dues . His TW GAZETA MAY 1, 2010 VAISAKHA L.

work , fresin hands were recruted, Humors cod

wherea

restre teramated agapest the

Act. On the basis of the above provisin

man has prayed for an order setting aside lis tama order and for consequential relief for reinstatement of the services with consequential benefits .

The sement of bank appeared and contested the clam

ethioner by Gling emitter statement .

Huns were raised the workinan was Prenainas

appointed t aacific purpose for consumo tion of hostel Thamstruction of tin, project was over and of the bars.

workman were no mere required and he the services

was accorden ginated from the services it is admitted that be watered as daily waged worker but denied that he

mated as peon- chowkidar . The pleadngs has meated cenain case managuo

lavs decei

for ble the Apex oni to prove that a daily wage

right to post The period whien has the workman in his catement of claim beenmene .

started specifically by the management . The has not be

cumular:

the pleadings is that itis admitted that the weto

cogaged as a daily waged worker and per daily rates pressing in the bank al was pand

the his

parues warc ..

ned is affidavit Lance. The s

tot addusa

examined by ledsel for the and be sus

-03 . Likewise.... Kaushik has managemen

filed his artis

behalf of the manent of the bank and he w

examined by ream consel for the workman

ified the application an- aoang the records by

bank regardin

the numbe

withholding the documems lying in its cogeni reasut

custody werd . The workina filed five documents which aFA & ALAThe original pass book

ac . 16013 st the workinan , whereas .

of savnig

mark A is the of the letter written by the Zonal Manager to the Gered Manager regarding the permanent sorkman Shri Raj Kamar These two the custody of the nangeemat of the attendance in the bant for celcalating Aing day and regarding the payment of wages , we were filed by the management . No Hot been denied by the management . It is workman has completed 240 days of yoat trombis deserlerarainatican . appoinen.t document . not also true work m

workman has to prove that he was ak as daily waged worker ? He comes аррошен в

within the deda ton of the workman and he has completed 240 davr the preceding year from the date ofhis termination ne cumulative effect of the pleadings and the evigen, ine parties is that appointmentntment of the workman as daily caso edes tomber which has been charmes est

also admitted by the

through vous hers

management that worm. ans engaged iset purpose for construction of naak hostes anst construction of hoste s the sew workman was no dove venres This

been provedby the

on record to prot

ofthe bank hostel

letter mark A itself prat

was not appointede pape

of the hostel. As per da

not been denied, Indi

for rendering lus catalog

Zonal Manger of t

theGeneral Manager focus erat ipp 中で of the parties who ha

strong then the workan in such an timbatore it is the duty of the Tribunal to be sensitizad that no advantage is the man his strong socio - economic esten

position and the shower Cadk, of the indis reflected on the issue thankithaoles 24 th of workman and

transactions in his pic transaction when't

worker or pavon

admitted that pa

There is distan The management is all Constitution also require circumstances has tentata allt bel equal protection of as Jocuments lying in ascensor agandisaste is a Government through wwf.charAt but management faites aty at the wa lying in its casted

mentioned . Thas T

inference shall be al

Tribunal is what shottidbente alere ofaun Considering all Gie acts and

and the advance

management , the nai 21 dat nie shouldbe that it sh

worked as daily way to parodon his statement of class con " work in the precedmyd die sidts of he It is also askhanchaoine

in lieu of notice and lain soodaal dies , workman before tentai 2293 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

termination of the workman void and illegal being against the provisions of the Act . The management has referred certain case laws in the pleadings , though against settled norms of pleadings , to prove that a daily wager has no right to post . The question before this Tribunal is not regarding the regularization of the services of the workman against any post . The question before this Tribunal is the protection of right to work. This protection has to be given by this Tribunal and by the management under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . It is important to narrate that even the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act does not barred the termination of any daily waged worker but the termination is regulated . It is regulated in the way that if the services of a daily waged worker are no more required , it should be succeeded by one month notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and by payment of lawful termina ! dues . If it is not done the termination of the workman shall be void and illegal being against the provisions of the Act . This issue i.e. protection of right to work ( illegality of termination ) has no nexus with the regularization of the services of the workman . These two issues are altogether different . The regularization of the workman can only be made by the management as per the rules applicable to the parties . The illegality of the termination has to be evaluated by this Tribunal under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act .

From the above discussion , it is clear that services of the workman were terminated in violation of the provisions of the Act and the termination was void and illegal .

be provided to the workman the conduct of parties should also be seen . The conduct of the management in this case has been strange . The management admitted that the workman was engaged as daily waged worker for a specific project and even does not hesitate to file the affidavit on the same lines . No records were placed before this Tribunal to prove that he was engaged for a particular purpose . it has only been contended by the management that it is the duty of the workman to prove that he has worked continuously for 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination and workman has failed to prove it . Yes, it is the duty of the workman to prove these facts but the way , manner and method the workman has adopted to prove this fact is different issue then the burden to prove this fact . The workman has opted a particular way of proving this fact by summoning the documents lying in the custody of the management . In my view , it was a lawful and reasonable method adopted by the workman for proving the fact . But the management deliberately withholds all the documents lying in its custody . Accordingly adverse inference has been taken against the bank. On one hand , the General Manager of the bank is appreciating the work and conduct of the workman and purposing for regularization of his services to the : Zonal Manager on the other hand , before this Tibumri the bank has even refused that he has ever worked as chowkidar . The conduct of the management appreciating the work of the workman in letter marked A , and or the fact that he has continuously worked from 1992 to 1995 with the management of the bank , I am ofthe view that reinstatement ofthe workman on the same position, he was previously working and which is clear from the letter Marked 4, is the appropriate remedy for redressal of the grievances of the workman . Accordingly, the management of UCO bank is directed to reinstate the services of the workman with full back wages within one month from the date of publication of this award. The reference is accordingly answered . Let Central Government be informed for publication of the award and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 5 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1146.--औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय 1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 73/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Whenever the termination of any workman has been held to be void and illegal , there are two possible remedies available for redressing the grievances of the workman . The first remedy is the reinstatement of the workman on the same position from which he was terminated from the services and another remedy is a reasonable compensation . It has been the settled principle of service jurisprudence that priority should be given for reinstatement of the workman and in the special and exceptional circumstances he should be compensated by a reasonable amount of compensation . There has been also a change in the trend regarding the reinstatement of the services of a daily waged worker whose termination has been held to be void and illegal . Hon'ble the Apex Court in several judicial pronouncements has held that reinstatement should not be casual . If the Tribunal or any other Forum is ordering for reinstatement of the services of the workman it should be supported with cogent reasons . If sufficient reasons are there , the services of the workman should be ordered to be reinstatement otherwise has grievances should be redressed by payment of reasonable compensation .

[ सं. एल -12012/ 433/ 95- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

यू. एस. पाण्डेय, डेस्क अधिकारी While going through the entire materials on record , I am of the view that while passing any order on remedy to 2294

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

New Delhi , the 5th April , 2010 S.O. 1146.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 73/97 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court - I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 1-4-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/433 /97 - IR (B - II ) ]

U. S. PANDEY , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case I.D. No. 73/97

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] account no . 4500 and 4580 mentioned in the bank . The claim was made by his brother and not by him . The enquiry officer and disciplinary authority has perused the evidence properly and have given enquiry and the punishment respectively arbitrarily. It has been further contended by the workman that he was supposed to produce the documents in defence even before adducing evidence by the management of the bank . Sometime the enquiry officer has worked as Presenting Officer - against the rules mentioned in the bipartite settlement .

...Applicant

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

Versus

...Respondent

The Divisional Manager , UCO Bank , Divisional Office , Sector - 17 , Chandigarh .

APPEARANCES

: Shri Tek Chand Sharma For the Workman

Shri N.K. Zakhmi

For the Management

AWARD

Passed on: -23-3-2010

The Government of India vide notification No. L- 12012 / 433 / 95 - IR ( B - 2 ) , dated 30-12-96 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: -

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in terminating the services of Shri Manmohan w.e.f. 13-8-93 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the said workman entitled ? "

After receiving the reference , parties were informed. Both of the parties appears and filed their respective pleadings , Fromthe perusal of the pleadings of the parties it is clear that the main contention of the workman has been that enquiry officer has not afforded the proper opportunity of being heard and enquiry was conducted in violation of the principle of natural justice . In so many garlanding words in six pages pleadings the workman has contended the violation of right of hearing . He has stated that he has no concern with any manipulation made in The management of respondent bank appeared and contested the claim of the workman by filing written statement . It has been contended by the management of respondent bank in written statement that proper opportunity of being heard was afforded to the workman atevery stage of departmental proceedings during enquiry and during disciplinary proceedings . Preliminary objections has also taken by the management that the petitioner is not workman and has no right to raise the industrial dispute . It was further more contended by the management of the bank that all possible opportunity of being heard was given to the workman and there has been no violation of any rules of principle of natural justice . Saving bank account No. 4500 was the joint account of the workman and brother Shri Amarjeet Singh . The workman himself has made claim and during enquiry above fact was well established by the management . Workman was , as per the contention of the management , rightly dismissed from the services of the bank .

Both ofthe parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Shri Manmohan the workman filed his affidavit and he was cross examined on three occasions by learned counsel for the management . Likewise , Shri Satwant Singh retired officer of the bank filed his affidavit in support ofthe contentions raised by the management of respondent bank and he was cross - examined by learned counsel for the workman on 23-3-2009 . Parties were heard at length and file was reserve for award long back . When I was preparing the file for award , this Tribunal received an application by registered post addressed to this Tribunal by the workman prayed for opportunity for additional evidence . For ends of justice this Tribunal disposed off the application and further opportunity for adducing additional evidence was afforded to the workman . No oral evidence was adduced by the workman . Some documents were filed by the management those are on record. These documents include the copy of the decree passed in appeal . The workman has also filed the copy of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal No. 80/98 Manmohan Singh Vs. UCO Bank . A statement was also given by the workman that he does not want to adduce any evidence oral and documentary except the documents which he has filed. Thereafter , file was once again listed for arguments and after affording the opportunity for arguments , the file भारत का राजपत्र :

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

was reserve for award . It is unfortunate that this Tribunal isanswering this reference after 13 years . Reasons maybe many , the workman has been ultimate sufferer . The possibility for causing delay on the part of the workman cannot be denied at this stage but timely justice was denied. Whenever this Tribunal can do at this stage is to offer sincere regret for denying timely justice and answering this reference after 13 years .

The problem as alleged by both of the parties in nut shell is that workman was charged for fraudulently getting the amount of Rs . 18,032 by making fraudulent entries in the bank records . On perusal of the materials on record the main issues before this Tribunal for adjudication are as follows :-

( 1) Whether the petitioner is a workman as defined under the provisions of the Act ?

(2) Whether a proper, fair and reasonable enquiry was conducted against the workman by the management ?

(3) Whether there has been any violation of the principle of natural justice while adjudicating the enquiry and during disciplinary proceedings?

(4) Wherther the decision making of the enquiry officer and disciplinary authority respectively sufferers with any peversity affecting their decision making ?

(5) To what relief , if any the workman is entitled .

As stated earlier , I have heard the parties at length along with the learned counsels and perused entire materials on record. I am answering all the issues one by one.

Issue No. 2 & 3 are related to each other , hence , both of the issues are answered simultaeously . On perusal of the materials on record , it is evidently clear that enquiry officer was appointed strictly as per the rules . Copy of the concerned bipartite settlement is on record and I do not find any irregularity and illegality in appointment of enquiry officer . The workman was cross -examined at length on fairness and reasonableness of enquiry . On perusal of the evidence of the workman it is evidently clear that all possible opportunity of being heard was afforded to him by the enquiry officer . He has admited that copy of the charge sheet was provided with to him . He answered the charge sheet . It is the contention of the workman that enquiry officer also afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence in defence to him. There is no dispute that documents filed with and relied upon by the management were not provided to him . He has received the report ofthe 1426 GI /10-14

2295

मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

enquiry and has also received show- cause notice along with tentative proposed punishment . Opportunity of personal hearing was also afforded to him.

Onperusal ofthe materials on record, it is also clear that opportunity for personal hearing was afforded to the workman by the disciplinary authority but workman failed to avail the opportunity . Thereafter , the disciplinary authority awarded the punishment to the workman . A plea was taken by the workman before the appellate authority that he was not afforded the opportunity for personal hearing . This plea of the workman was accepted by the appellate authority and the case was remanded bank by the appellate authority after setting aside the punishment awarded to the workman for affording the opportunity of personal hearing afresh . The disciplinary authority again afforded to opportunity for personal hearing which was availed by the workman, and thereafter punishment was again awarded by the disciplinary authority .

Thus , from the about discussion , it is clear that all possible opportunity of being heard was afforded by the enquiry officer to the workman and there has been no violation of any rules of principle of natural justice while awarding the punishment by the disciplinary authority. Accordingly, issue no . 2&3 are disposed off.

On issue No. 1 Learned counsel for the management has cross examined the pertitioner at lenght . Whether a person is a workman in the Central Government Industry is to be decided on the facts and circumstances of this case . The criterias to adjudicate this issue are the work carried on and functions dischrged by the workman . If the employee is discharging the supervisory functions at the time of the charge sheet the employee will not be within the definition ofthe workman enumerated under the provisions ofthe Act. But if during the period in question , meaning thereby, at the time of issuing the charge sheet and commission of so called misconduct the workman was not discharging any supervisory functions the employee will fall within the definition of the workman . As stated earlier , learned counsel for the workman , cross- examined the workman on this issue in detail . Burden of prove of this issue lies on the management . Management fails to file even iota of evidence to prove this issue . On perusal of the entire materials on record, I am of the view of that no supervisory functions were discharged by the employee atthe time so called misconduct was committed by him and he was charge sheeted. Accordigly, this Tribunal is of the view that Shri Manmohan Shigh was the workman for the purpose of provisions of this Act . Issue No. I is also dispossed off accordingly.

All the rest issues are connected with each other and are therefore taken together for simultaneous ajudication . I have gone through the proceeding of enquiry, THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

2296

enquriry report and other materials on record . The evidence recorded by the enquiry officer has also been perused by me . On perusal of the entire materials on record , I am of the view that workman has committed the misconduct for which he was charge sheeted . My decision is based on the following grounds :-

(1 ) That account No. 4500 was a joint account of the workman and his brother Shri Amarjeet Singh. The cliam of Rs . 18,032 was moved by the brother of workman Shri Amarjeet Singh and not by Shri Manmohan Singh . It is hereby made clear that all the records of the bank were burnt in fire and person who have financial relations and transaction with the bank were asked to supply materials so that they may be compensated . Shri Manmohan Singh and Shri Amarjeet Singh were having joint saving bank A'c in the bank . Shri Amarjeet Singh moved an application for claiming Rs . 18,032 which according to the bank was claimed fraudulently on the basis of the fabricated entries in pass book and concerned register . It was the important circumstance which has come up before this Tribunal that during the adjudication of cliam application the Chairman and members of the claim committee asked the workman to join the proceedings of claim but he refused . The workman faild to show bonafide of his act for refusing to join the proceedings of claim.

(2) From the perusal of the materials on record , it is also evident that some manipulation in records was made . Entries which were in saving Bank Account No. 4500 were shown in accont no . 4800 , whereas , on the day such entries were made account no . 4800 does not exist . From this circumstance , it is clear that someone fabricated the entries in the A/ c No. 4500. Now the question arise who can fabricate such entries ? As stated earlier , the workman is the brother of Shri Amarjeet who apply for the claim of Rs . 18,032/-In the ordinary course of nature it is highly probably for the workman to fabricate the entries .

(3) From the perusal of the materials on record , it is also evidently clear that opportunity and occasion was also available to the workman to fabricate the entries in A/ c no . 4500 and in relevant records concerning the account . The workman was very well posted in the same branch and was entrusted with the relevent work.

[PART II - SFC . 3 (ii ) ] (4) The brother of workman Shri Amarjeet Singh was cross - exammind as defence witness . Who has protected the workman by saying that entries were made by another clerk Shri Satnam Singh. The bank has proved by the document and circumstantial evidence that workman has fabricated the entries . If defence witness Shri Amarjeet Singh alleged that entries were made by Shri Satnam Singh this act has to be proved by the workman . There is no iota of evidence on record except the statement of Amarjeet Singh to prove that disputed entries were made by Satnam Singh. Satnam Singh was alive and available for recording the evidence but the workman has not prayed for recording his evidence . It was open for him to prove this fact that Satnam Singh entered the disputed entries which the workman failed . Thus , there is no force in the contention of defense witness Shri Amarjeet singh that entries were made by Satnam Singh .

(5) The defence representative of the workman has raised one more issue that workman has in strained relation with his brother Amarjeet Singh . There has been a distribution of properties and both are not in talking terms . The defence representative has tried to prove that even brother of workman Shri Amarjeet Singh has tried to maline the position of the workman . I have gone through the statement of defense witness Shri Amarjeet Singh . He has not stated even a single line regarding his strained relations with the workman . On the other hand , he has tried in his evidence at his level best to protect his brother , the workman. Thus it is a after thought of the defence representative that workman and his brother Amarjeet Singh are in strained relations and brother of workman might have done the act to maline the position of the workman .

(6) It has also been established that claim for compensation was moved by workman in his handwriting . It is also a strong circumustance to prove the alleged misconduct .

Thus , the enquiry officers has rightly held all the charges proved against the workman . The nature of committed misconduct is such that the punishment awarded by the disciplinary authority seems to be proportionate . There is no occasion for this Tribunal to interfere either in the decision making of the enquiry officer or the disciplinary authority . The workman was legally , after lawful enquiry , awarded the punishment of भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

termination from the services and he is not entitled for any relief. Let Central Government be approached for publication of award , and thereafter file be consigned to record room .

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 5 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1147.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 137/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 1-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/258/99- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 5th April , 2010

S.O. 1147.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.137 / 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court - 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 1-4-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/ 258 /99 - IR ( B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case ID No. 137/2000

Sh . Devinder Pal Singh S / o J. Singh , Nai Basti Near ITI Chowk , Budhlada , Distt . Mansa ( Punjab ) ...Applicant

Versus

The General Manager , Punjab National Bank , Regional Office- 1, Sector 17 /B , Chandigarh ...Respondent

APPEARANCES

: None

For the Workman

: Shri N. K. Zakhmi For the Management

AWARD

Passed on 16-3-2010

Government of India vide Notification No. L - 12012/ 258 /99 - IR ( B - II ) dated 31-1-2000 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal: -

2297 "Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank in awarding the punishment of dismissal from services to Shri Devinder Pal Singh s / o . Shri Joginder Singh is legal and just ? If not 'what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

2.Today the case was fixed for arguments on fairness of enquiry . No one is present on behalf of the workman . The case is critically old as the same was referred to this tribunal in the year 2000. Already 10 years have been passed . It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference . In view of the above , the claim in the present reference is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution . Central Government be informed , File be consigned.

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer Chandigarh . 16-3-2010

नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1148. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक आफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 120/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012 /233/97- आई.आर. ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस . पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S.O. 1148. - In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 120/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court - I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 7-4-2010 .

[No. L - 12012 /233 /97 - IR (B - II ) ] U. S. PANDEY , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case I.D. No. 120/98

Applicant Shri Ashok Kumar C/ o . General Secretary , Union Bank Staff Union , Union Bank of India , G. T. Raod , Panipat. ...

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

2298

Versus

The General Manager , Union Bank of India , Shaheed Bhagat Singh Place , IIIrd Floor , Gole Market , New Delhi .

[ PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] cashier post identify for promotion from sub - staff to clerical cadre . Under this policy the workman was debarred and held ineligible to appear in promotion process .

..Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman : Shri Pawan Bansal , Advocate .

For the Management B. B. Bagga , Advocate .

AWARD

Passed on 26-3-2010

Government of India vide notification no . L - 12012/ 233/97 - IR ( B - 11 ) , dated 29-06-1998 by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : -

"Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India in refusing promotion to Shri Ashok Kumar Jain from sub - staff to clerical cadre w.e.f. 10-7-95 , the day on which the other employees have been promoted in terms of Circular No. 4202 , dated 10-7-95 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled ?"

After receiving the reference , parties were imformed Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The issue of the workman Shri Ashok Kumar Jain in nut shell is that he is deaf and dumb falls under the category of physical handicapped employees . He was appointed by the bank against physical handicapped quota as group D employees . In violation of promotion policy , from sub staff to clerical cadre as contained in staff circular letter no . 3712 dated 3-1-91 , duly modified vide staff circular letter no . 4268 dated 6-3-96 , the management of the bank unilaterally disqualified the workman to participate in the subsequent promotion process . Initially for two years the managment of bank permitted the workman to participate in promotion process but subsequently workman was declare ineligible under Clause 2 of the said promotion policy. On representation of the workman he was allowed for participating in the promition policy , but vide letter dated 26-2-95 , he was debarred from participating in promotion process and the letter given to the workman for participating in such process was cancelled . On the basis of the above grievances of the workman , the workman raised an industrial dispute and on account of failure of conciliation proceedings , this reference .

The management of the bank appeared and contested the petition of the workman by filing written statement . It is contended by the management that as per the policy of Union Bank of India dated 12-3-98 the candidates belonging to deaf and dumb category whose disability is 40% and more are not eligible for the clerk/ Parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Workman being deaf and dumb , his representative Shri V. K. Aggarwal was permitted to file his affidavit on his behalf vide order dated 19-6-2006 . Shri Aggarwal filed the affidavit and he was cross - examined by learned counsel for the management of the bank . Likewise , Shri Mohan Lal , Senior Manager filed his affidavit on behalf of the management of the bank and he was cross- examined by the representative of the workman . All the policies related to the promotion from sub - staff to clerical cadre are on record . I have heard the parties at length and perused all the policies and entire materials on record . As per the policies relied upon by the workman , any government policy adopted by the bank regarding the promotion shall be applicable between the parties . Clause- 2 contains the criteria for promotion from sub - staff to clerical cadre and it does not bar any deaf and dumb candidate for promotion from sub - staff to clerical cadre . But as per this very policy any other policy of the bank which affects the promotion process of any workman from sub - staff to clerical cadre shall be applicable between the parties . Thus , the policy which is filed as Exhibit W 21/2 adopted by the Union Bank of India regarding the promotion of deaf and dumb employee from sub - staff to clerical cadre will be applicable between the parties . Clause 4 of this policy (guidelines ) for promotion process from sub - staff to clerical cadres reads as under :

"Clause - 4 please note that candidate belonging to blind, deaf and dumb categories whose disability is 40 per cent or more are not eligible for the clerical / cashier posts identified for promotion from si : b - staff to clerical cadre. " It is not disputed that disability of workman is 100 per cent . He cannot heard nor speak . Thus , as per Clause- 4 of above policy he was , rightly debarred and made ineligible for participating in promotion process from sub- staff to clerical cadre .

The virus of this policy has not been challenged and cannot be challenge before this Tribunal . The bank has adopted a policy regarding the promotion from sub - staff to clerical cadre and that policy is applicable and enforceable upon the parties . Thus , the management of the bank has rightly debarred Shri Ashok Kumar Jain for participating in promotion process from sub - staff to clerical cadre and Shri Ashok Kumar Jain is accordingly not entitled for any relief. Let Central Government be approached for publication of award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

Chandigarh

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

नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1149.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार देना बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रम न्यायालय , पुणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 317/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/39/2005 - आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S. O. 1149. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 317/2005 ) of the Labour Court , Pune now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to management of Dena Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 7-4-2010.

[No. L- 12012/39 /2005 - IR ( B - II) ] U. S. PANDEY , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE PRESIDING OFFICER - III , LABOUR COURT , PUNE AT PUNE

Reference ( IDA ) No. 317/2005

The Regional Manager , Dena Bank , Regional office , Madha Chambers ,

.. 1st Party S. P. Bapat Road , Pune - 16

And

Sarjerao Khandagale ,

Post-Deolali Pravara ,

Ganet, Nagar , Karwadi ,

... II Party Tai . Rahuri , Ahmednagar

Coram : Shri P. T. Rahule

APPEARANCES : Mr. N. A. Kulkarni , Adv . for II Party

AWARD

(Date: 30-12-2009 )

This reference is made by Government of India , Bharat Sarkar , Ministry of Labour , Shram Mantralaya , New Delhi under clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 for adjudication of industrial dispute between above referred parties to decide the legality of the management action and what relief can be granted.

2299

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

2. The case of the Second Party- Sarjerao Khandagale in brief is that the Second Party was working with the First Party as a sweeper- cum- sub - staff for full day forthe period from 2000 till 19-1-2004 . He was paid salary of Rs . 55 per day on vouchers on weekly basis . His services were terminated by the First Party - Bank w.e.f. 19-1-2004 by oral orders without giving any reason . He was illegally terminated without complying the provisions of Section 25 - F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and any seniority list as per Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes ( Bombay ) Rules , 1957 was not displayed prior to retrenchment . Niether any chargesheet nor any enquiry was conducted before terminating his services , nor any notice pay or compensation was paid . Hence , he approached the conciliation officer , where on failure of the conciliation , the reference came to be made to this Court on 18-8-2005 . He filed statement of claim with the prayer of reinstatement and back wages and continuity of service .

3. The First Party resisted the claim by filing written statement at Ext . 21. The employment of the Second Party with the First Party is itself, denied by the First Party . The further allegation of illegal termination has been denied . It is contended that he was never in the employment of the First party . The employer - employee relationship never existed between them and hence the reference is bad in law for want of employer - employee relationship and hence deserves to be dismissed . On these and other grounds , it prayed for rejection of the reference .

4. On the basis of the pleadings , averments , allegations and rival contentions , following issues came to be framed at Ext . 22 on 11-9-2008 ; the reasonings and findings thereon are as follows :

ISSUES

FINDINGS

Yes 1. Whether employer - employee relationship exists the First Party and Second Party ?

2. Whether the First Party has illegally terminated the Second Party w.e.f. 19-1-2004 ?

Yes 3. Whether the Second Party is entitled to the reliefs claimed ?

Yes 4. What Award ?

Allowed REASONS

5. Issue Nos . 1 and 2 : The Second Party- Sarjerao Raghunath Khandagale has examined himself by way of anaffidavit at Ext . 26. On the other hand , the First Party did not adduce any sort of evidence .

6. It is evident from the testimony of the Second Party ( Ext . 26 ) that he came in the employment of the First Party as sweeper- cum- sub- staff since 2000 and continuously worked till 19-1-2004 . On 19-1-2004 , by verbal orders , his services were illegally terminated without giving [PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] 2300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010/VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

drawn salary. I , therefore , answer Issue No. 3 accordingly, and in the aftermath , pass following order :

ORDER

The reference is allowed .

The first Party is directedto reinstate the Second Party with full back wages from the date of termination i.e. 19-1-2004 and continuity of service within one month from the date of publication of the award . No order as to costs .

Place: Pune

any notice pay and compensation . Even the compliance of Rule 81 was not done by displaying seniority list . His last drawn salary was Rs . 55 per day . It has also been specifically deposed that the stand taken by the First Party of employer - employee relationship is absolutely baseless and false . It is also evident from his testimony that despite the order of the Court , the First Party did not produce vouchers , attendance card and register for the period 2000 till 2004. He also deposed that between 1.00 p.m. to 1.30 p.m. Everyday he used todo additional work in Deolali Branch of the First Party Bank for which he was getting additional amount of Rs . 175 per month .

Date: 30-12-2009 .

P. T. RAHULE , Presidng Officer Any cross examination has not been done on behalf of the First party .

नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2010 7. By agglomerating the entire evidence of the Second party , it is clear that he continuously worked as sweeper- cum- sub - staff since 2000 till 19-1-2004 and had completed more than 240 days.

का. आ. 1150,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक आफ बड़ोदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 175 आफ 2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/205/99- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] यू. एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010 8. It is also evident from his testimony that the compliance ofmandatory provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 has not been done by the First Party by terminating his services and the seniority list as per Rule 81 was also not displayed before termination . This part ofthe testimony remained unchallenged for want of any cross examination and hence has become trust- worthy especially when , the order below Ext. 23 dated 30-4-2009 has not been complied by the First Party regarding the production of the relevant documents . It has given room to draw adverse inference against the First Party .

S. O. 1150.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 175/ 2000 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court No - I , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-4-2010.

9. Having considered the foregoing discussions coupled with the unchalleged testimony of the Second Party, without giving any further details , I dauntlessly reach the conclusion that the employer - employee relationship exists between the Second Party and First Party and the First party had illegally terminated services of the Second Party w.e.f. 19-1-2004 . 1 , therefore , answer this Issue Nos . 1 and 2 accordingly .

[ No. L - 12011 / 205 /99-1R ( B - II ) ]

U. S. PANDEY , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 , DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/ S . 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) ( 2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947

10. Issue no . 3 In view of the findings on Issue Nos . 1 and 2 , there is no other go than to hold that the Second Party is certainly entitled for the reinstatement . It does not mean that he is also entitled automatically for the back wages . In that regard , he has to adduced required evidence . In respect of the back wages , the Second Party has specifically deposed that after his termination , he tried his best to get alternative employment but could not get it and he is unemployed since then . This fact remained unchallenged for want of cross - examination and hence has to be believed .

Reference No. 175 of 2000

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda .

And

11. Having considered the discussions in foregoing paras , wherein it has been held that the unchallenged testimony of the Second Party is trust- worthy , I dauntlessly reach the conclusion that the Second Party is entitled for the entire back wages at the rate of his last [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

2301 Their Workmen

ANNEXURE Present : SHRI H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer .

APPEARANCES :

BEFORE THE COURT OF CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT , ASANSOL :

None

For the Employers

Reference No. 81 / ITC/ 2006

For the Workmen

: None

State :

Bihar

Industry :Bank

Management of Nimcha Colliery of E. C. L. Vrs .

Dated , the 25th March , 2010 AWARD

Asst. General Secretary , Koyla Mazdoor Congress

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALT

HELD ON 11TH DECEMBER , 2009 AT KAJORA GUEST HOUSE

AWARD

By Order No. L - 12011 / 205 / 99/ IR ( B - II ) dated 5-6-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A ) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute is resolved in the Lok Adalat. The Terms of agreement contained in form ' H ' to form part of the Award .

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer FORM 'H'

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda Patna in transferring award staff who are junior to other award staff in same station vide circular No. CO.: BR: 71/357 dated 13th December , 1979 read withCircular No. RM : 88 : PD : 6/251 dated 31-12-1985 in respect of granting request transfers to workmen were justified ? If not , what relief the workmen are entitled to ? "

(See Rule 58 ) under Industrial Dispute

Central Rules - 1957

Memorandum of settlement arrived at between Sri Sunil Bouri , Ex . U.G. Loader U. M. No. 130906 of Nimcha R/Colliery .

Representative of Management Person Concerned 2. This reference case was received in this Tribunal on 3-7-2000 . But after notice sent to the parties none appeared from either side till 18-11-2009 . The union also did not take any step to file written statement on behalf of the workmen . It therefore appears that neither the sponsoring nor the concerned workmen are interested to contest the case .

1. Sri S. Saran ,

1 . Sri Sunil Bouri In such circumstances , I render a ' No Dispute ' Award in the present reference case .

Chief General Manager , Satgram Area

Ex U. G Loader . Nimcha ®/ Colliery H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2010

2. Sri J. S. Sayare , Dy . C. P. M , Satgram Area

3. Sri B. Bhowmick ,

Dy . PM , Nimcha ®/ Colliery

Short recital of the case का. आ. 1151 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एंव ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , असनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल-22012 /38/2006 - आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

1. Sri Sunil Bouri , Ex.UG Loader , U.M.No. 130906 of Nimcha® Colliery was charge sheeted for absenting from duty from 17-01-2004 . A departmental enquiry was conducted , where in the charges were proved and accordingly Sri Bouri was terminated from his services on dismissal vide letter No. Sat/ PER / Dismissal/ 05 / 911 dated 8-2-2005 .

S. O. 1151. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 81/2006) of the Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Eastern Coalfields Limited , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-04-2010 .

[ No. L - 22012/ 38 /2006 - IR ( CM - II ) ]

2. Sri Sunil Bouri , Ex . UG Loader , U.M.No 130906 of Nimcha® Colliery had submitted mercy application for his re - instatement in service and the Competent Authority , ECL has been pleased to approve re - instatement of his service on revocation of his aforesaid order of dismissal without payment of any back wages subject to ascertaining his medical fitness as communicated by Dy. C.P. M ( L& IR) , ECL , HQ vide letter Ref. No. ECL/ CMD / C - 6 ( D ) / L & IR / 09/ DA/ 897 dated 14/ 21-8-2009 .

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer [ PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

2302

2. J. S. Sayare

TERMS AND CONDITION OF SETTLEMENT

Dy. Chief Personnel Manager , Satgram Area

3. B. Bhowmick

Dy . Personnel Manager , Nimcha® Colliery.

WITNESSES

1. Agreed that Shri Sunil Bouri , Ex . UG Loader, U.M.No. 130906 of Nimcha® Colliery will be re - instated in service in his pervious designation as he has been declared FIT FOR UG JOB by the competent medica . board , Satgram Area and to be posted in any of the Colliery under Satgram Area where there is requirement .

Name

Desig- U. M. Area Signature Colliery

1. Sri Kartik Bouri nation No. Ug . Loader Ug . 2. Sri Binod Kumar Gupta Loader 115189 Nimcha Colliery/Sat. Area 124675 -do-

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल , 2010 2. Agreed that this settlement resolves the dispute fully and finally . Neither the workman concerned nor his union shall raise any dispute in any forum / court of law after this settlement in this regard . Even he has assured for unconditional withdrawal of his CGIT case No. 81 of 2006 pending before the CGIT, Asansol before his instatement. It is also agreed that the person concerned will also submit a " NO DISPUTE " certificate in this regard to the management . Process for his Re - instatement in service will be made accordingly .

3. Colliery Authority have confirmed that Sri Sunil Bouri has not yet drawn his gratituty & CMPF accumulations .

का. आ. 1152 , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एंव एफ.सी. आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2, मुम्बई. के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/45 ऑफ 2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । 4. Agreed that the Ex - employee concerned will not be entitled for any back wages for the period of his idleness and the period of his absence /idleness shall be treated as DIES -NON .

[सं. एल-22011/ 9/2009- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010 5. Agreed that Ex -employee will be allowed the benefit of continuity of service for the period of his idleness for the purpose of computation of his final gratituty payment only.

6. Agreed that the ex - employee on such re- instatement in service shall be on probation for a minimum period of ONE ( 1 ) year and the same will be confirmed only on reciept of satisfactory performance certification on expiry ofprobation period by CGM/GM on the area .

S. O. 1152. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 2/45 of 2009) ofthe Cent . Govt . Indus .Tribunal No. 2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 8-4-2010 .

[ No. L - 22011 / 9 / 2009 - IR ( CM - II ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer 7. Agreed that the instant settlement has been arrived with the free consent of the ex - workman concerned as he has found the settlement to be reasonable just and free from any kind of influence .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2 , MUMBAI

PRESENT

8. Agreed that a copy of this Memorandum of settlement shall be sent to CGIT.Asansol & the Regional Labour Commissioner ( C) . Asansol for registration as per I.D. Act, 1947.

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT - 2 /45 of 2009 9. The workman will submit his undertaking that in future he will not commit the misconduct of unauthorised and/ or habitual absence from duty .

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA The agreement is signed by both the parties on 23-10-2009 .

Ex-Workman Concerned

Management Representative

1. S. Saran

LTT ( Sunil Bouri ) ofEx . UG Loader ,

Nimcha® Colliery

1. The Assistant Manager , Food Corporation of India , Grinha Nirman Bhavan , Journalist Colony , Alto Provorim , Goa -403521 .

Chief General Manager Satgram, Area 2303

भारत का राजपत्र : मई1, 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2. The General Manager ( Mah. Region) ,

Food Corporation of India, Dheeraj Arma Building , 2nd flr , Dr. Anant Kanekar Marg ,

Bandra (East) , Mumbai -400051 .

... 1st Party

V/s.

THEIR WORKMEN

The Joint Secretary,

Food Corporation of India Workers Union ,

58/1 , Diamond Harbour Road, Kolkata -700023 .

..2nd Party APPEARANCE :

No appearance

Forthe Employer :

For the Workmen:

No appearance

Date of passing the Award : 9-3-2010

AWARD

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

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by its Order No. L-22011 /9 /2009 - IR(CM - II) dated 18th May, 2009 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Management of FCI in engaging Handling & Transport Contractor at Verna Rail Head and not to allow the DPS workers to continue food handling job at Verna Rail Head is legal and justified ? To what relief is the claimant entitled for ? "

2. Notice was served on the union . However , nobody appeared in the Reference to file Claims Statement . Even Corrigendum to this Reference reveals that, while sending Refrence for adjudication it is mentioned that parties should file Claims Statement within 15 days by exchanging the copy of it to other side . However though notices were sent and served Union has not taken any steps to file its case . Hence , the order:

ORDER

Reference is dismissed for want of prosecution .

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer Mumbai , 9th March , 2010

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1153.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एण्ड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक 1425GI/10-15

अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1, चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या आई. डी. संख्या 15/2004 , 303/2004 , 125/2002 , 123/2002 , 13/2006 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 7-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/202/2003- आई आर( बी- II )

15/2004

एल -12012/123/2004- आई आर ( बी- II )

303/2004

एल-12012/34/2002- आई आर ( बी-11 )

125/2002

एल -12012/13/2002- आई आर ( बी-11 )

123/2002

एल-12012/140/2005- आई आर( बी-11 ) ]

13/2006

यू. एस. पाण्डेय , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S. O. 1153. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. Nos . I.D. No.15 /2004 , 303/2004 , 125 / 2002,123 /2002 , 13/2006 of the Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Punjab and Sind Bank, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 7-4-2010 .

[No. L - 12012 /202/2003 - IR (B - II ) For15/2004

No. L- 12012/123 /2004 - IR (B - II) For303/2004

No. L - 12012/34/2002 - IR (B - II ) For125/2002

No. L - 12012 /13 /2002 - IR (B - II ) For123/2002

No. L- 12012/ 140 /2005 - IR ( B - II ) ] For13/2006

U. S. PANDEY , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

Case I. D. Nos . - 15/2004 , 303/2004, 125/2002 , 123/2002 and 13/2006

(1) Shri Paramjit Singh S/o Shri Bahadur Singh , R/ o H.No. 397 , LIG , Phase - I , Urban Estate , Patiala .

(2) Shri Hari Prasad S /o Shri Chandra Mani C /o Shri Ajay Mahajan , Labour Law Advisor , 1529 , Sector- 18D, Chandigarh.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

2304

(3) Shri Davinder Kumar S / o Shri Jagbir Singh , VPO Shahzadpur (Majra) , Tehsil - Naraingarh , Ambala.

(4) Shri Ghanshyam Singh , S / o Shri Dharam Pal , H.No. 1780 , Gali Gaushala Tibi Sahib Road , Mukatasar (Punjab) .

(5) Shri Rashpal Singh , S / o Shri S. Aya Singh , R/ o Bhore Camp Ward No. 2 , Tehsil & Dt . Jammu , Jammu .

[ PART II- Sec. 3 ( ii ) ] ( 1 ) ID No. 15/2004 , Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank through Regional Manager , Patiala in terminating the services of Shri Paramjit Singh , Daily Wager w.e.f. March 2002 by not complying with the provisions ofSection 25 - F , 25 -G of ID Act , 1947 was just legal and fair ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "י

Applicants

Versus

(1 ) The Regional Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank, Passey Road, Patiala .

(2) The Branch Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank, Sector- 17 - B . Chandigarh .

(3) The Zonal Manager, Punjab & Sind Bank , Zonal Officer , Bhago Road , Bhatinda 151001 .

(4) The Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank , M. C. Khalsa School , Jammu .

(2) ID No. 303/2004 , Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Hari Parshad S / o Shri Chandra Mani , Ex- Peon- cum- Driver ( Daily Wages Basis ) w.e.f.31-08-1999 without any notice and payment of retrenchment compensation in violation of statutory provisions of Sections 25 - F, G & H of the ID Act, 1947 is just and legal ? If not, what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ?

Respondents

APPEARANCE :

For the Workman

Shri Sandeep Bhardwaj , R. P. Rana , Ajay Mahajan , M. S. Gorsi Advocates .

For the Management: Shri Sapan Dhir & J. S. Sathi Advocates .

AWARD

Passed on: 26-3-2010

This award shall disposed off following five industrial disputes and references :-

(1) ID No. 15/2004 , Ref. No. 12012 /202/ 2003 - IR (B - II ), dated 30-01-2004 Shri Paramjeet Singh Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank.

(2) ID No. 303/2004 , Ref. No. 12012 / 123 / 2004 - IR (B- II ) , dated 20-10-2004 Shri Hari Prasad Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank .

(3 ) ID No. 125/2002 , Ref. No. 12012/ 34 /2002 - IR (B - II ) , dated 28-06-2002 Shri Davinder Kumar Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank .

(4) ID No. 123/2002 , Ref. No. 12012/ 13 /2002 - IR ( B - II ), dated 18-06-2002 Shri Ghanshyam Singh Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank .

(5) ID No. 13/2006 , Ref. No. 12012/ 140/2005 - IR ( B - II ) , dated 28-04-2006 Shri Rashpal Singh Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank .

The references referred by the Central Government in all the five industrial disputes are as follows :-- (3) ID No. 125/2002 , Whether the action of the management of Zonal Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank , Zonal Office Haryana , Chandigarh in terminating the services of Shri Devender Kumar, Peon isjust and legal ? If not , what relief the workman isentitled to ?

(4) ID No. 123/2002 , Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Ghanshyam Singh S/ o Shri Dharam Pal , Peon w.e.f. 17-02-2001 without paying him any retrenchment compensation is just and legal ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date ? "

(5) ID No. 13/2006 , Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank i.e. Zonal Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank , M.C.Khalsa School Jammu Branch in terminating the services of Shri Rashpal Singh S/o Shri S. Aya Singh , Ex - Temporary Peon posted in the M.C. Khalsa School Branch as perthe Bank's first Bipartite Settlement singed on 19-10-1966 was justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled and from which date ?" Common question of law and facts are involved in all these references , hence , the same are adjudicated and answered by this award.

In all the five references , it is the contention of the workman that they were engaged by the management of respondent and they had served the management with different periods . They served for more than 240 days in the preceding year from the date of their termination but their services were terminated without notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and without payment of lawful retrenchment compensation. Their termination is illegal and void being against the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act (the Act in short ). On the basis of the above contention H [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

they have prayed for their reinstatement in to the services with full back wages along with other consequential benefits.

In Hari Parshad Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank , the workman has contended that he worked as driver - cum- peon form 3-11-94 to 31-8-99 . In Paramjit Singh's case , the workman has contended that he worked from November 1992 to March 2002 as casual labour . In Devender Kumar Vs. Punjab & Sind Bank it is contended by the workman that he worked with the management of respondent in two spans , namely from 24-4-97 to 26-9-1999 and thereafter , 11-1-99 to 21-1-2000 . In Ghanshyam Singh's case it is contended by the workman that he worked with the management as daily casual worker from 1-2-2000 to 17-2-2001 . In Rashpal Singh's case , it is contended by Shri Rashpal Singh that he worked with the management from 4-10-1989 to June 1993. The management maintained his seniority list and his name figured at Serial No. 1 in branch seniority list and at serial no . 8 of the seniority list maintained at region level . All the persons mentioned in the list were afforded the temporary status and thereafter , their services were regularized , whereas , his services were terminated without notice , or a month wages in lieu of notice or lawful terminal dues . From the above facts , it is clear that matter of all the workmen is similar and some facts in one matter ( Rashpal Singh's Case) are different which shall be dealt with separately in this award .

The management of respondent appeared and denied the relationship with the workman in preliminary objections . It is contended by the management that none of the workman was appointed as per the procedure mentioned in the rules applicable to the bank . The bank has its own rules and regulations for appointment of employees . None of the workman was appointment as per rules . It is admitted by the management that all the workman except one ( Shri Hari Parshad) namely , Parmajit Singh , Devender Kumar , Ghanshyam Singh and Rashpal Singh were appointed on casual basis temporaily as per need . They were paid the daily wages . Regarding Shri Hari Parshad it is contended by the management that he was appointed as Driver by the then G.M. in his personal capacity. As per the rules of the bank the officers of the Bank of a particular cadre can appoint his Driver on the vehicle provided by the bank and the wages of the Driver can be reimbursed from the bank . It was further contended by the management that in the case of Shri Hari Prashad there was no master - servant relationship between the workman Shri Hari Parshad and the management of respondent bank .

Parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Evidence of the parties was recorded . Documents were also filed in some cases by the workman and the management of respondent bank.

The parties were heard at length . In Hari Parshad's case , the workman has filed certain documents which

2305

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

includes his identity card issued by the bank , certain bills for repairing of the bank vehicle and the copy of the vouchers' register in which the signature of the workman have been accepted by the witness of the management . Few letters written by the Chief Manager of the concern branch to the GM are also on record which shows that workman Shri Hari Parshad was not only working as a Driver but he was also doing other work of the bank . He was sometimes paid the wages through vouchers and some vouchers are on record . On perusal of the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the parties , it is evident that Shri Hari Parshad , the workman , was not only working as a Driver but he was also discharging the work of a temporary peon . Thus , there is no force in the contention of the management that Hari Parshad was engaged as a personal Driver by the DGM and he was paid the wages by the DGM personally . As stated earlier , the documents on record proved that he was working as a temporary Driver of the bank as well as discharging the work of a peon . There is no dispute on the issue that workman has completed 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination .

Likewise , in the case of Shri Paramjit Singh , the workman was working as a casual worker . It is not denied thathe has completed 240 days of work . The management of respondent bank in this reference was afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence but the management failed . Order dated 18-11-09 , makes it clear that on account of absence of the management opportunity for cross- examination and evidence of the management was closed. Thereafter , management appeared but did not avail the opportunity for evidence . The workman not only by filing affidavit but otherwise has proved that he has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination. If the pleading of the management in Paramjit Singh's case are perused , it is not specifically denied as well that the workman has completed 240 days of work.

Likewise , in the case of Devender Kumar , it is admitted that he was working as daily waged worker . It is not denied that he was worked in two spans as mentioned by the workman . In Devender Kumar's case there is no dispute of two spans worked by the workman with the management . The witness of management MWI has admitted that workman has worked with the bank from 11-1-99 to 21-2-2002 . No doubt , slightly thereafter, in the cross - examination on the very day he has shown his ignorance that he does not know whether he has completed 240 days or not . The first reflection and the statement given by the witness shall be considered to be true because the second statement was afterthought . The management has filed all the vouchers and during arguments it is contended by learned counsel for the management that Sunday and Holidays are not calculated in these 220 days . It is settled principle of service jurisprudence that workman has only worked for 220 days in the preceding year from the date of THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

his termination . It is also stated by learned counsel for the management that Sundays and Holidays are to be counted white calculating the working days of the workman . If the Sundays and other Holidays are counted , the workman has certainly completely 240 days with the management in the preceding year from the date of his termination .

in Ghanshayam Singh's case it is not denied by the management in cross - examination that workman has completed 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination . The witness of the management has shown his ignorance about the completion of 240 days . The workman has filed the vouchers and the same are not denied . From the perusal of the vouchers , it is clear that workman has completed 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination .

Likewise , in the case of Shri Rashpal Singh . documents tiled by the workman have not been denied. These documents are admitted by the witness of the management in his cross - examination . The inter se correspondence between the officers and the management has been admitted. The seniority list of temporary employees prepared by the management is on record . The witness of the management has not denied the two facts: - ( 1 ) Maintaining the seniority list .

( 2) All the persons except Shri Rashpal Singh have been conferred temporary status and their service have been regularized .

The witness has just shown his ignorance about this fact but it is not specifically denied . I have recorded the evidence of the management in my own handwriting and I am of the view that the ignorance shown by the management witness is an attempt to bye pass from the main issue . It should not be permitted . The Industrial Disputes Act is the beneficiary legislative provisions to the workman. If a fact has not been denied by the witness of the managementgement but the witness of the management tried to bye pass the question, the fact should be considered to be true.

In Rashpal Singh's case it has also been argued by learned counsel for the management that industrial dispute suffers with delay and latches on the part of the workman . It has further been argued by learned counsel for the management that workman is guilty of concealing certain materials facts that he has approached the Civil Court and Hon'ble High Court prior to raising the Industrial dispute . On perusal of the pleading of the workman , it is evident that the workman has very well mentioned the fact in his claim petition that after withdrawing the petition from Hon'ble the High Court , he raised the industrial dispute .Thus , the workman is not guilty of concealing the material facts . I have also gone through the orders passed by different courts including the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana filed by the management . I am of the

[PARI 11 S3 ( ⅱ) ] view that workman is also not guilty of delay and latches . He has raised his claim within a reasonable time before the CivilCourt and he continuosly raised the issues before different Forums . It may be result of wrong legal advice thathe opted different Forums . For this wrong legal advise the workman should not suffer. This Tribunal while adjudicating such grievances should not be technical in its approach but should try to delivery justice . Justice requires that when a person is raising his disputes before the different Forums throughout and after considerable time he has approached the right Forum with permission of the previous Forum, it should not be held that there was delay and latches on his part . The workman withdrawn has the petition before Hon'ble the High Court on condition of raising his grievances before the appropriate Forum .

Shri Rashpal was working as temporary Peon . It is also not denied that he has worked for more than 240 days inthe preceding year from the date ofhis termination.

Thus , in all the references it is established that every workman was engaged by the management as temporary Peon on daily wages . Every workman has completed 240 days in the preceding year from the date of his termination . It is admitted that no notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and lawful terminal dues were given to every workman before termination of their services . There is one more issue by learned counsel for the management of respondent bank regarding regularization of the services ofthe workman . It is contention of the management that even if daily causal workers have completed 240 days of work are not entitled for regularization of their services . The management has relied upon certain case laws which are the part of pleadings of management . I have gone through the case laws mentioned in the pleadings . The management has also relied upon the judgement given by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Secretary State of Karnataka and others Vs. Uma Devi and others . I have gone through this judgement as well . The issue raised in all the four industrial disputes except the dispute raised by Shri Rashpal Singh are not related to the regularization of the services of the workman . The issue raised by all the workman except Shri Rashpal is the protection of right to work . The protection of right to work under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act is different issue then the regularisation of the services of the workman. The regularization of the services can be made by the management only as per rules . The protection of right to work means the protection from unlawful termination . The provisions of Industrial Disputes Act are equally applicable to prevent the infringement of any right of the daily casual worker or a temporary employee. The provisions of the Act specifically provides that once a daily waged worker has completed 240 days ofwork in the preceding year from the date of his termination , his services cannot be terminated without the procedure established by the Industrial Disputes Act. It is also mentioned in the provisions of this Act that भारत का राजपत्र: मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

management cannot be elective in terminating the services . The workman should be disengaged on the principle of first come last go . Likewise , even after the lawful termination , if the services of a daily waged worker are required , preference has to be given to the retrenched workman . Meaning thereby , the Industrial Disputed Act does not absolutely barred the termination . It regulates the termination in the sense that if the circumstances arises in which termination of a daily waged worker or any other workman is inevitable , it has to be terminated as per the provisions mentioned in the Industrial Dispute Act . The Act says that before terminating the services of any workman who has completed 240 days in the preceding year forms the date of his termination , one month notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and payment of other lawful terminal dues is condition precedent . If it is not done , it will make the termination of any workman illegal and void being against the provisions of the Act . In all the five references it has been established that every workman was working with the management directly . Every workman has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination . Their services were terminated without notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and without payment of lawful terminal dues . This makes the termination of every workman unlawful and void being against the provisions of the Industrial Dispute Act .

Whenever the termination of workman from the services has been declared to be void , there are two possible remedies available . The first remedy is reinstatement ofthe workman into the services and another remedy is the lawful compensation . It is the established law of service jurisprudence that preference should be given to the reinstatement of every workman in to the services . Where the circumstances do not warrant reinstatement , a reasonable compensation should be paid . The reasonable compensation should be based on reasonable criteria . The facts to be considered as a reasonable criteria are the wages which the workman was getting at the time of the termination , one month wages in lieu of notices , lawful terminal dues , interest thereon , length of service , depreciation in the money , inflation and index cost factor .

There is a diversion trend of the service jurisprudence as established by different case laws of Hon'ble the Supreme Court and High Courts . The present trend is that the services of the workman should not be reinstated casually. There should be some reasons behind the order for reinstatement of the services of the workman . Out of five files, I am considering one file which has the specific reason for passing the order of reinstatement of the workman in to the services . In rest of the files , I am of the view that a reasonable compensation will meets the end of justice . There is sufficient reason to differentiate one case then other four . In Rashpal Singh's case the seniority list of temporary workman was maintained by the management . The seniority list maintained by the management consisted

2307 the name of 12 persons . The name of workman Shri Rashpal Singh figured at Serial No. 9. It is not specifically denied by the witness of the management that seniority list was not maintained by the bank. He just shows his ignorance and as I have earlier stated that ignorance about the fact which is alleged by the workman cannot help the management . As per the statement of workman he was at Serial No. 1 of the branch level list and at Serial No.9 in region level list . He has also stated that all the 10 persons whose name figured in the list were given the temporary status and thereafter their services were regularized but no heed was given by the management on his request . His services were illegally terminated . this issue that other 10 persons , were conferred the temporary status and their services were regularized , thereafter has not specifically denied by the witness of the management . Again the witness has shown his ignorance which will not help the management . In absentia of specific denial the statement of the workman supported with the cogent evidence ( the seniority list ) which is not denied has to be accepted as such . Thus , in this case it was gross injustice with the workmen that out of seniority list 10 persons were conferred temporary status and their services were regularized , whereas , services of the workman were illegally terminated . Even the services of his two junior persons were regularized .

The seniority list was maintained by the management as per the rules . The temporary status was conferred and thereafter , their services were regularized as per the procedure . So the law relied by the management and established by Hon'ble the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case (supra) will not help the management . Management has not proved that there was some illegality in maintaining the seniority list , conferring temporary status and thereafter , regularization of the services of those persons whose name figured in the seniority list . In absentia of it , the principle laid down in Uma Devi's case ( supra ) will not be applicable in the present case .

Thus , Shri Rashpal Singh is a special case where his right to reinstatement should be protected by this Tribunal . The reasons I have mentioned above . Accordingly , the management of respondent is directed to reinstate the services of the workman Shri Rashpal Singh within one month from the date of publication of award and thereafter , to treat the workman in the same way as other persons out ofthe seniority list were treated . As the workman has opted to raise the industrial dispute very late so he will be entitled for the back wages only from the date he raise the industrial dispute but his seniority will be protected . Management is also directed to pay the back wages from the date of raising the industrial dispute within one month from the date of publication of this award .

So far as other four workmen are concern , the management has specifically mentioned that no post is available and no work is left behind for the workman . It has also been alleged by the management that it has initiated VRS scheme . Number of class - IV employees have opted for this scheme . Instead of it , the staff is in surplus . It is not 2308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010/VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

the case ofany of the four workmen that any junior to them isstill working with the bank. Thus , they are entitled for a reasonable compensation . On the issue of determination ofcompensation, I have already mentioned the facts which should be considered while granting the reasonable compensation . Thus , after considering the above facts and length of services , the workmen have served with the department, I am of the view that workman Shri Hari Parshad is entitled for a compensation of Rs . 2,00,000 (Two Lakhs) including the litigation expenses which also includes the litigation expenses he has incurred in pursuing his grievances . Likewise , workman Shri Paramjit Singh is also entitled for Rs . 2,00,000 ( Two Lakhs) which he has incurred in pursuing his grievances . Shri Devender Kumar as per the facts and length of services is entitled for an amount of Rs. 1,00,000 ( One Lakh) which also includes the litigation expenses he has incurred in pursuing his grievances . Likewise Ghanshyam Singh is entitled for a compensation of Rs . 1,00,000 ( one lakh) which also includes the litigation expenses he has incurred in pursuing his grievances . Thus , on the basis of the above , I am mentioning the operative part ofthis award as follows :-

( 1) On the basis of the reason mentioned in the body of this award , the management is directed to reinstate the services of Shri Rashpal and to pay him the back wages from the date of raising the industrial dispute within one month from the date ofpublication of the award . The management is further directed to treat the workman after reinstatement in the same way as rest 10 persons have been treated of the seniority list in which the name ofworkman Shri Rashpal figured at serial No. 9. The seniority of the workman Shri Rashpal shall also be protected .

(2) On the basis of the reasons mentioned in the body of this award , Shri Hari Parshad and Shri Paramjit Singh will be entitled for an amount of compensation of Rs . 2,00,000 each (two lakhs each) which also includes the litigation expenses which they have incurred in pursuing their grievances . The management of respondent is directed to pay this amount within one month from the date of publication ofthis award .

(3) On the basis of the reason mentioned in the body of this award, the workman Shri Devender Kumar and Ghanshyam Singh are entitled for a compensation of Rs . 1,00,000 each (one lakh each) which also includes the litigation expenses which they have incurred in pursuing their grievances .

Accordingly , the management is directed to pay/ deposited the above mentioned compensation within one month from the date of publication of the award. If the management pays /deposits the amount within one month from the date of publication of the award , no interest need

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] to be paid , failing which the workman will also be entitled for an interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annum on the amount of compensation from the date of filing the statement of claim till final payment . Accordingly , all references are answered . Let Central Government be approached for publication of award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

Chandigarh G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1154.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय सं.1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 106/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/344/93- आई आर( सी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S. O. 1154. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 106/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court No. - 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in the relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 8-04-2010 .

[No. L -20012/344/93 - IR( C - I ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , DHANBAD In the matter of a reference U/ s.10( 1 ) ( d) ( 2A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 Reference No. 106 of 2000

Parties Employers in relation to the management of Moonidih Area of M / s . BCCL .

AND

Their workman Present : Shri H. M. Singh , Presiding Officer APPEARANCES

For the Employers

For the Workman

State : Jharkhand

Shri D.K.Verma , Advocate . None : Industry: Coal भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Dated , the 22nd March , 2010

AWARD

By Order No.L - 20012 / 49/ 2008 - IR ( C - I ) dated 8-2-2000 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers confered by clause (d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

Whether the demand of Union that Shri Nirantar Singh & 34 others workman as per the list should be created as regular workmen of Moonidih Area of M / s . BCCL and they should be entitled for consequential benefits is legal & justified ? If so , what relief the workman concerned are entitled and from what date ? "

2. The reference was received in this Tribunal on 23-2-2000 . But after notice bering served to the Parties by speed post neither the sponsering union nor the concerned appeared till 1-10-2009to file written statement before this Tribunal . This is the case of year 2000. It seems that neither the concerned workman nor the sponsering union are interested to contest the case .

In such circumstances , I render a ' No Dispute ' Award in the present industrial dispute .

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 8 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1155 ,- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) को धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स टाटा स्टील लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं.1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/10 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-20012 /49/2008- आई आर ( सी -1 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S. O. 1155. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 2/10 of 2009 ) of the Cent . Govt . Indus . Tribunal- cum- Labour Court No. - 1 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M / s . Tata Steel Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 8-04-2010.

[ No. L - 20012 /49 / 2008 - IR ( C - I ) ]

AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

2309

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U / s.10 ( 1 ) ( d ) ( 2A ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 .

Reference No. 2 of 2010

Parties Employers in relation to the management of Sijua Colliery of M / s . Tata Steel Ltd.

AND

Theirworkmen

Present : Shri H. M.Singh , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES

: Shri D.K. Verma , Advocate Forthe Employers

For the Workman

: Shri N.G. Arun , Treasurer , Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor Sangh

State : Jharkhand : Industry : Coal

Dated , the 26th March , 2010

AWARD

By Order No. L - 20012 / 49 / 93-1R ( CM - 1 ) dated 15-12-2009 the Central Goverment in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d ) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of management of Sijua Colliery of M / s . TATA Steel Ltd. in not providing dependednt employment to Shri Uma Shankar Rabidas , S/o Lt. Jadu Nadan Rabidas , Trammer , is justified and legal ? ( ii ) To what relief is the dependent son of the concerned deceased employee entitled ? "

2. On 21-1-2010 the concerned dependent son of 1.t. Jadu Nadan Rabidas filed a petition before this Tribunal starting therin that M / s . Tata Steel Ltd. Vide letter dated 12-12-2009 agreed to provide employment to him according to the conditions mentioned in the said letter .. Shri N. G. Arun , Treasurer of the sponsoring union has not raised any objection .

3. Since the management is ready to provide employment to the dependent son of Lt. Jadu Nadan Rabidas , I pass a'No Dispute ' Award in the present reference case .

H. M. SINGH , Presiding Officer 2310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010/VAISAKHA 11. 1932

नई दिल्ली, 8 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1156.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैर्सस बी. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय सं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 91/96) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 8-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/462/93- आई आर( सी-1 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 8th April , 2010

S. O. 1156. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 91/96 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No - 1 . Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s B.C.C.L. , and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 8-4-2010 .

[ F. No. L- 20012/ 462/ 93 - IR (C - 1 ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO- 1 , DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri H.M. Singh , Presiding Officer, In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) ( d ) of the I.D. Act . , 1947.

Reference No.91 of 1996 Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Bharat Coking CoalLtd. , Koyla Bhawan, Dhanbad and their workman .

APPEARANCES

Onbehalf of the Workman Mr. D. Mukherjee , Advocate .

Onbehalf of the employers :

Mr. D.K. Vema , Advocate. Jharkhand

State

: Coal .

Industry

Dated, Dhanbad . the 22-3-2010

AWARD

The Govt of India , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of

[ PARI I St.300 the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order No. 1. -20012462 93 - I.R . (C - I ) , dated , the 1st October 1996 .

SCHEDULE

Whether the demand of the Union for revision of the date ofbirth of Shri Tapan Chaterjee , Driver by the Management of M / s . BCCL is justified ? If so whatrelief is the said workman entitled ?" 2. The case of the concerned workman as disclosed in the written statement submitted by the Union is that the concerned workman Shri Tapan Chaterjee , Driver is the permanent employee of the Central Pool of the management ofM / s . BCCL . His actual date of birth is recorded as 8th February, 1954 in the Admit Card issued by the West Bengal Board of Education as well as per C.M.P.F. record For correction of his date of birth he made several representations before the management but the management failed to give any reply or no correction has been made regarding the actual age/date of birth of the concerned workman as recorded in the admit card and the C.M.P.F. records . It has been stated by the concerned workman that management after long process issued a letter vide letter No. BCCL/PA - 1 SCI /Tapan Chaterjee 15417 dated 28-10-1992/30-10-1992 stating his date of birth as Sth February, 1994.

3. It has been alleged by the concerned workman that the above date of birth recorded in the recruitment register is quite false , fabricated and there is no legal evidence to support the case of the management . Moreover , the management is very much adamant for not taking proper action and taking law into their ownhands Thereafter the Union of the concerned workman raised an Industrial Dispute before the ALC ( C ) Dhanbad and on failure of the conciliation the ALC ( C ) , Dhanbad reterred the case for adjudication to the Ministry of Labour . Butthe DeskOfficer refused to refer the matter for adjudication by the Tribunal . On receipt of the Ministry's letter the concerned workman filed a write petition before the Hon'ble High Court of judicatiure at Patna, Ranchi Bench vide C.W.J.C. No. 1290 which was allowed, and as per order of the Hon'ble High Court the Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour , has referred the matter for adjudication betore the CGIT No. 1 , Dhanbad .

4. It has been stated by the workman that the management has also admitted and identified in f LCFoca that the date of Birth of the concerned workman is St. February , 1954 and not as 8th Feb. , 1944. The Admit care issued by the West Bengal Board of Education and the C.M.P.F. A/ c . is the most authenticate documents which was never challenged by the management at any point of time. There is no other documentary evidence except this documents . Ithas been stated by the workman that clause A( ii ) of the said implementation instruction for the 1 [भाग-खण्ड (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

2311 procedure for determiniation/ verification of age of the employee tor Non - Marriculation but eduacted is as follows:

only a person attaining the age of majority that is 18 years , become entitled to procure driving licence ifhe is otherwise competant also.

to case of the appointees , who have persued studies in a recognised educational institution the date of birth recorded in the School Leaving Certificate shall be treated as correct date of birth and the same should not be aitered in any circumstances . "

it has been further stated that clause ( B ) of the said implementation instruction provides review/determination of date of birth in respect of existing employee only when there is a very glaring and apparent wrong entry brought to the notice of the management. The Admit Card issued bythe West Bengal Board of Secondary Education should be treated as correct and the date ofbirth ofthe workman. Shri Tapan Chaterjee be recorded as 8-2-1954. Accordingly prayer has been made to pass an Award holding the demand ofthe concerned workman for revision ofhis date ofbirth asjustified.

7. It has been stated by the management in their written statement that with his driving licence issued to him on 30-8-66 , it become clear beyond doubt that on 30-8-66 the workman Shri Tapan Chatterjee was of more than 18 years and that the proof of Admit Card of West Bengal of Secondary Education is of no help by which on 30-8-66 the concerned workman is around 12 years only since the same would have been made available to the West Bengal of Secondary Education by Shri Tapan Chatterjee himself . According to the management the Admit Card of the WBBSE dates back to the examination of March, 1975 prior to the recruitment of the concerned workman in the company , then the concerned workman Shri Tapan Chatterjee is guilty of fraudulenty procuring employement in the management of the BCCL by deliberately and intentionally providing wrong and incorrect information for gains amounting to serious misconduct discount on his part and has thus rendered himself liable for disciplinary action , of which the punishment may go even to his dismissal .

5. In the written Statement filed by the management it has been stated that the reference is not maintainable in law as wellas infact. They have also stated that the demand ofthe concerned workman is not justified. They have further stated in their Written Statement that the demand by the Union for the tevision of date of birth of Shri Tapan Chaterjee . Driver is entirely improper , throughly illegal and has been enshrined with an intention to dupe the management for achieving improper gains which is not possible in normal course . It has been stated by the management that the date of birth of the concerned work.nan Shri f'apan Chatterjee , a Car Driver made available by the workaran himself and entered into the Management's Recruitment Register at the time ofhis recruitment in April , 1975 is 8-2-1944 . The concerned workman Shri Tapan Chaterjee made representation before the management to revise his date of birth from 8-2-1944 to 8-2-1954 with a malafied intention to make his over - stay by 10 years in the service of the management with a purported plea of his alleged duplicate Admit Card for taking up his School Final Examination that was to commence from 5th March, 1975 under the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education , artintaining that in the said Admit card his date of birth was mentioned as 8-2-1954 . The duplicate Admit Card is in the name of Shri Tapan Kumar Chattopadhyaya and not in the name of Shri Tapan Kumar Chatterjee .

8. It is the further case of the management that on 16-12-8 / the concerned workman submitted an application to the Sr. Fersonal Officer , Koyla Bhawan , BCCL stating that he had no Identity Card as he had not been given any Identity Card . Thereafter on 13-1-88 , he lodged a Sanha (Entry) with the Officer- In - Charge of the Scradhella Police Station stating that on 11-12-87 while he was coming from Barakar by train , his Identity Card No. 124837 had been lost . This episode goes to prove that he was having the Identity Card issued to him earlier but was deliberately and intentionally giving false information to the management for obtaining the same, and, thus has again rendered himself liable for disciplinary action . In the L.T.C. Bill he deliberately and willfully inserted his date of birth as 8-2-54 which was however , corrected to 8-2-44 by the dealing clerk of the Personal Department of the Koyala Bhawan with his signature and then the LTC bill was passed . Thus the concerned workman showed his guilty intention by way of managing to get a photo copy of the bill during transit when the same was being sent to Personal department for comments . In this case also the workman concerned commited grave misconduct and , rendered himself liable for disciplinary action under the certified standing orders of the management . In view of the above facts the management have prayed to pass an Award rejecting the claim of the Union for revision of the date of birth of the concerned workman Shri Tapan Chatterjee , Driver , by the management of M / s . BCCL .

9. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paras of each other's Written Statement .

6. It has been stated by the management that the date ofbirth of Shri Tapan Chatterjee as per the Recruitment Register, made available to the managementby Shri Tapan Chatterjee himself at the time of recruitment , is 8-2-1944 and not 8-2-1954 . He was recruited Driver in the BCCL's Koyala Bhawan at Central Pool, and he had obtained his driving licence on 30-8-66 after attaining the age of 18 years . Ifthe workman's or for that matter the Union's version be taken as correct that Shri Tapan Chatterjee was born on 8-2-54 , then how he obtained his driving licence merely at the age of 12 years . As per Motor Vehicle Act and rules

1426 G1/10-45 THE GAZELE OF PREY MAY C. concerned workrona Kumar

Sausa astawe

aas be

bengal Fo

GLL :

ar of eth shond corded the Decored

12:00

origias News

Fductio..

works.at

care of hi mesom been Cardhen... but he is Cand Carda

3-2-1954 . He hende Ferneral De Company's record in this respect sontulive mesostatit les ci sinh of man is treated us & So and when he which war issited on 30-5 06. he 17 yearsars en raat dite, it is eas to get Drhagicence at the age of am -ing majority in Syumas, it hasalso one- nodern started the to West Beneat Board of Secondary der to recruterent of the cowarned wany the ins got that very Admit produced the same before the Coetpay so . De tas not filed the original LD ensued by the management. Waba the document he has stated that his D vus won iost in the Begin en 1-1-37 supres Phet te raty led the depilere Admit Card hes spowe

net file : regard joning in the she must have produced the school Leavingatid at the mind of entry in the service under the Cooper

page- 2

Wear Cherin the year 1966. It shows that th suppanen his date of beth is 8-2-1914 according to date of birth : " 8-2-1954 " be i sored the evidence of it is very 1. has stated at page at his crove red appeared in the matrecciation ary joning the service ." Bat he has Mancatation Cerufferre in the count to in the exammation Wactuallyne M criculation examination prior to his da also stated in reas exactitution at driving licence also in my possesSto sizi be has not filed in the Court to years boy no Driving Licence car Drenthe de

Fapan Numer Chatepad this dociament in the verm of his date of bird we the and mischievous worktim service He has acentel mentioned as 8-2

14. The conmemot

reported in 1982 SCCLAS Court laid down the flow

Criminal Trial

Evidence regantng uitst zomission tom

afficiar duty and

The con , erned wom lementabry Even the ri produced by the audiuenticate its cate com Card

In view of the fore discussed above , i fod reud.mea-

uf binh ve sari smanagemen Corsequsers the to get any relies भारत का राजन मगर , 200 बेसार 11,1912

नई दिल्ली -बेन . 2010

1157 - औधोगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 परमेोचीय सरकार मैमाई एयर के देव अर्थन में निर्विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार काको प्रतिहै, जो पोद्रीय सरकार को १६. एल -1006235 / 2009 आई आरा

अजय कुमार गौड़ , देस्क अधिकाने New Delim , the oth April , 2010

0. 1157 -in pursuance of Secanon of the Dispates Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) the Central Camry publishes the award ( Ref. No. 820061 Pecued Guveravent Ladusinal I misunal - cum- labou 1 New Deainow as shown amire Annesinee She aberate between the roamagament of M's Air lada Paace a hat werkman , sich was received by the Code wonenten 6-4-2010.

IF NL - 11012 /35/ 2009 RC-

AJAY KUMAR GAUR, D. Officer

ANNEAUBE

BEFORE OR RIK YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, PATRAC GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL MAI, KARAARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX DELHI ANDALSMDaaS & Shri Om Prakasu ,

Workman New Data ! 10061

Versus

Vetadeld ill Airport .

Bebe- 10037

2. Working Emerprises . Msha indgar . Mangohen .

2313 and sweeping . Kotification asted 9-12-76 was issued by the Contral Governmant wherein work of cle orng saveping , watchind word were dectred pronibina under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Regulalea sud Abolition ) Act, 1970 ( in short the Covarast Labs Act The Apex Court to An Inak Samveer uporation ( 1997 (9 ) SCC 377 ) bad aphold the said nothaion , inmiyina zutemane absorption of the Contract Labour , engered the Seid of cleaning , sweeping , watch and ward savicca Ir. compliance of the sard judgem , the wanapen.on . regutarized services of the contract laleurs engaged a sweeping and cleaning areas , who were working with them as en 6-12-96 . Jagesh Dat Srurina , Saline Yanin Khan and Meharuddin Khan were sound not cov red under the said jocgement , hence then services were net regalanzed. Contract between toe management and the cuитасия спе to an end en 1-1-07 . Service ofthe aforesaid stopioyeas were also disengaged . Claimants filed wit paitiers " WP Na 2052 of 1997 at ( WP623 of 1998 herve ligh Court of Delhi seeking directives for regularizattse of thee services , frote the one of theh comproyment by the Contracter, In the means the Apex Court i Neel Authority of India 2201 ( 7 ) SCC1 ) over ruled the judgemen in Air India Statetory Corporation sit use frupray and at only quashed noudicatise dad 9-12- " but also held fix prohibition of contract labo ay nan ocuva cartat lead to automatic absorption of the cataract hshour . In vie law laid by the Apex Court . High Court of Dhid- pase ! of the aforesaid writ pent.ons, vide its uric : dated 20-11- 2001 .

-2002 . Since 2. Claimahls ratsed a dispate for their told t Before the Conciation fleer on conciliatica pasverdings tailed the Condador sebiritted his laliure report before the appreciate Government on 24-9-05 . The appropriate formed an opinion that there was no dispute to be rel . pod For adjudication to the Indasual Trounal

Management

AWARD

mota Ltd ( hereinafter referred to as the rajattento awarded a contract to Mis Sparking ASSUNTOnafter referred to as the entacion to com.and the work of cleaning and seeping . The contractor bersons to carry on the job se asnded . On adhe e ampio , es Jagesh Dutt Sharma , Salim . Yaoun 14 во Меbaruddin Khan wort derng the yobt 3. The claimoms again appos , hed ther's Oficer raising a doque on multiple site proceedings agamtale ! The Comlotas : Other schnittsa his failure report dated 14-9-7 betore the app sprid Government On coastdetion of contents of the form tre report , the appropriate Governamen tened an opinion that there was no dispute to be retened for adathcador so ine Industrial Tribunat . The clainous assalled the opinionef the appropriate Cnsemnend betore ch Ceas of Tecid vide writ petitions No.1712-1715-2005 High Court issued directions to the appropriate Govemeerd to rett he dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal , in pursuance of missives , the appropriate Govedatheterredta di рас to this Tribunal , vide orde Nad - 1101235 2001-10-1 New Deils dited 23-5 2018 with the following term "Whether the domaret of Jagesh Datt Sharia and three other workane fas per list enclosed) from te management of Air tedia i id . for their reinscrement 2314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1, 2010/VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

into service and regularization is justified ? if so to what relief are the workmen entitled and from what date?"

(b) to obtair item thracter and our amongst sweeper , and cleaners the ente used for sweeping and cleaning hora tine a . tie

( d) to take daily acudencend tosintare atietara records in ruspect of sepers al

( e) sertling and sorting out gresante fara

( ic supervise the work series out of t and cleaners to ensure cleenituers me hygiene.

(g) to assist the contractor in payment of other allowances to sein werker , workout the Craimants

(b ) haison with the Curracer e равна на grievances complaint of any departments Se of the contractor .

To keep track of irave and absence of all to and ensure alternate arranganeres for gerth.gr sobs Jore without for

4. Claim statement was filed by the claimants pleading therein that the alongwith others ( about 80 persons ) were supplied as contract labour by the contractors to the management in the year 1994 for cleaning, sweeping and dusting work . Sapply of contract labour was absolutely illegal , since neither the management had any registration for employmem of contract labour nar the contractor had any valid license under the Contract Labour Act. The Contract for supply of manpower , awarded by the management to the contractor for cleaning , sweeping and dusting work , by necessary implication includes supervision work also . The claimants were designated as supervisor for upkeep of better hygiene in the establishment . Claimants were never employed in the establishment of the management in any administrative, managerial or supervisory capacity . in view of the decision ofthe Apex Court the management had regularized services ofall contract labours , suppliedby the contractor . However , they were left in an illegal and arbitrary manner. Their services were not regularized by the management . On the other hand , their services were terminated on 1-4-97 in an illegal , arbitrary and unjustifiable manner . The managerment is engaged in air transport industry and an industrial establishment , within the meaning of clause ( e ) of Section 2 of Industrial Employment ( Standing Orders ) Act, 1946. The contract between the management and the contractor was sham and bogus , made with a malafide intention to avoid any liability under the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (in short the Act ) . The management being a principal employer que the claimants had employed them in their establishment. Tennination of services of the claimants amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of cianse (oo) of Section 2 of the Act . There were statutory obligations on the management , as prescribed by Section 25 - F of the Act, which were not complied with . Termination of their services is , therefore , void ab initio . They claim reinstatement in services with continuity and fuli back wages , besides regularization of their services , in pursuance of law laid by the Apex Court in the aforesaid precedents.

5. Contest was given to the claim by the management pleading that the claim has not been properly espoused by any registered trade union nor by substantial number of the workmen of the establishment of the management . li has been pleaded that the claimants were employed as supervisors by the contractor and their duties were to supervise functions of the employees , who were performing job of cleaning and sweeping Main functions of the claimants were as follows :

(a) deployment of manpower provided by the contractor for various sweeping and cleaning jobs , based on the exigencies of requirements .

" 6. Claimants were superesors and drawing aans inore thar Rs.1870 - PM. As such they setem within the meaning of clause ( s ) of Nether 2f th Their claun is not meintainable on that coun to 7 management attacks the clein statement leiding that legai and valid contract for cleaning and sar awarded to the contractor, after following intrat Notification dated 9-12-76 was upheld by the Aren in the matter of Air India Statumors Corporation vide its judgement datza b- 17-46 . in pursuance of the tim judgement , the managemen had tularised series of contract labours engaged in sweeping and Wong Se the claimants were supervisors , hot covered willen ambit of the precedent of the Apes Cron , cour services were not regularized . / ggrieves in the aca the management they preferred Chu re perfo 2052 of 1997 and 1221 of 199x before High Cour Pending adjudicetion of those writ petities , the w Court over zuled its prevement in an india Sta Corporation ( supra ) and nor only quashen me notifica dated 9-12-76 out also announced that prohibiting of contact labour in an activity cannot led to auto absorption of the contract labour Fellowing that prece High Court of Delni disposed of the wa petrions , de order dated 20-11-2004 The claruants Fich main stetort before the Concilation Officer and the catatan on proceedings friled, a failure reруг млы ойланted Tor appropriate Govemment toos a deciva ton to wie the dispute for adjudication . Again a claim was mised alongsim multiple issues before the Couchnion Officer, whenzin 50 conciliation proceedings failed Apropiata Covernment opred not w refer the dispate , which decision was assato before High Court of Delhi, On directure Tigh Cour [ भाग 11 -खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

of Delhi the present dispute was referred for adjudication.

7 The management pleads that it was duly registered under the Contract Labour Act and the contractor was having a valid license under the said Aci . Claimants themselves admit they were engaged as supervisor through the contractor. As such their case is different than the case of the employees engaged for cleaning and sweeping . When contract expired on 31-3-97, the contractor had withdrawn services of the claimant , who were performing supervisory functions . There was of refusal of work to the claimants w.e. f. 1-4-97 . It cannot be said that the services of the claimants were retrenched , that too in violation of the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Act . Their claim is Jevoid of merits and liable to be dismissed .

8. Jagesh Dutt Sharma ( WWI ) , Salim ( WW2 ) . Meharuddin Khan ( WW3 ) and Yamin Khan ( WWW4 ) have examined themselves in support of their claim. Shri G.S. Khalsa was examined by the management in support of its defence. No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

9. Shri S.P.Sharma , authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimants . Shriv.P.Gaur , autorised representative , raised his submisssion on behalf of the management . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cauriously persued the record . My findings on saues involved in the controversy are as follows :

10. In their claim staiement , the claimams project that cleaninig , sweeping and dusting work is inclusive of suprevision work of employees doing those jobs . They admit that they were designated as " supervision " for upkeep of better hygiene in the establishment and as an internal arrangemert divison of work was done for better pertomance and execution of the work relating to cleaning, sweeping and dusting . Therefore , om of these facts, the claimants slead that work of cleaning , sweeping and dusting was awarded to the contractor, who had employed services o various persons to carryout that job . The comractor had employed them, as supervisor " to ensure better pertunance and execution of the work of cleaning , sweeping and dusting in the establishment of the management . Therefore , it is evident that the claiments projects i cese that they were supervising the persons , who wer : carrying out cleaning , sweeping and dusting 10b

11. Jagesh Dutt Sharma deposed that he joined services through the contractor . He used to mark bis attendance in a register kept by the contractor . He was serving the management as a sweeper . His services , alongu ih three others, were terminated on 1-4.97 . No erminanon letter was uued to him. No notice or pay in fieu thereof was given . No reasons were assigned for

2315

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

termination of his service . He was getting a sum of Rs.1500- 1600 PM as his wages . Therefore , facts projected by Jagesh Dutt Sharma , highlight that he had improved facts and tried to assert that he was serving as a sweeper .

12. Salim deposed that he joined his services with the mangement through the contractor on 1-8-94 . He joined as a sweeper . More than 70 persons joined services alongwith him . He used to perform the very work , which was performed by those 70 persons . He used to send his attendance to the contractor . He was paid probably at the rate of Rs . 1400 PM . Contractor used to mark his attendance . His services were terminated by the Personal Manager of the management on 31-3-97 . No notice or pay in lieu thereof, besides retrenchment compensation was paid to him. As emerged over the record , Salim had also twisted facts and claimed that he used to work as a sweeper . Theory of supervision of work of sweepers had been discarded by him.

13. Meharuddin Khan also claimed that he joined services of the management as a sweeper in 1994. There were 75 other workmen who joined services of the manage ment alongwith him. They were doing job of sweeping . No appointment letter was issued to him . No letter was issued to him when his services were terminated. No reasons were assigned for termination of his job . No notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to him. No retrenchment compensation was paid to him . This witness had also fabricated a story of being employed as sweeper with the management . It is evident that with an ulterior motive he had tried to depose convenient facts .

14. Yamin Khan deposed in the same vein. He testi fied that he joined services with the management through the contractor on 1.8.94. He was doing job of a sweeper. He worked continuously till 31-3-97 . At the time of termination ofhis services , no notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to him . He was not paid retrenchment compensation . Out of 70-75 workmen , services of the claimants only were dis- pensed with . As detailed above , he has given wings to truth and made it to fly away . He deposed facts , which were contrary to those pleaded in the claim statement 15. Shri G.S.Khalsa presents that the Apex Court in AirIndia Statutory Corporation's case upheld notification datel 9-12-76 issued by the Government of india and de- clare : an automatic absorption of contract labour employed in the field of cleaning, sweeping , watch and ward services in the services of the principal employer . In pursuance of the sad judgement the management regularized services of the contract labours engaged in sweeping and cleaning areas as on 6-12-96 . Supervisors were not covered within the ambit of orders passed by the Apex Court . Therefore services of the claimants were not regularized. During the course ofhis cross exarr ination he admits that lagesh Duit Sharma , Salim, Yamin Khan and Meharuddin Khan were amongst those 75 persons , who were supplied by the THF

For rents, taimed to obam foot the

for sweeping and wing from tape to

and the chands were tang ...

Leto sorervice work and coaener el

essing on the grey was to uplaint of any 160ملي bs done without tal de : idnisa and clein water act of t hand I down

Shangly

superviso Jaimanis ac and there wa ...

was wr kayd nap : áticas are d Pothic tac and precedcas tot The guiding a ciples laid in Article moors , ate ara sint larte situated, sha't be back in ori - steges conferred and Infitiy I means that among as the law should bould he equally adonistered and that lise 2317 भारत का राजन्य : मई 1, 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

conclusion in para 45 of the said judgeriet tarein . With great respect, it appears to us that the lest of the auections clearly runs counter to the constentioned scheme of employment recognized in the earlier peit ofthe decision . Really, it cannot of said that this decision has heid down the law that all ad -hoc temporary or casual employees engaged without following a regular ecruitment procedure should be made permanent

beret in wine in the establishment and for setter pertoarte aan diexecution f he work . Couscquently, it is at the clalunas nowhere dispute that they were dressupervisor and not as wepers . As supervizors Adamot bong joo ofwweping and cleaning . Pressure deproving, menpower, distributing materials arjat the creepers , used to allocare duces to sweepers . tale met ad tadanosetti- their grievenось, варотуиви 12 view head by them assist the contractor in Marmol kc wages, been track of leaves and absence and heiser with the contractor for seetling the grievance atswochers Hense they dere rightly categorii persuas o aut era category than the sweeper, whose services were condarized cy the managernes , impursuance of the artis given by the Apes Court in Air India Statutory poratena's case ( supra ) Classification made by the wargrund was bazed as intelligent differentia and is not rose da fondamental right. When cisimatuts vore webit de ambit of the precedem izid down by Fyzer , heir services were rightly not regularned . rein , Lalie to be rejected on that count

A pleadet and deposed by the claimant they are supplied as contract labour by the contractor to the wegen, in the year 1984 for cleaning , sweeping andan dusting rob . It is not their case that they v ere engaged by Неодолееtin accordance with rules Their intransgression of rules of regular SLADKYgies of recruitment can not be relaxed t ecserenade the claimants Regularisation of services of fee chât 2008 A corot be ordered , since it would amountto back door entrs in the Government job

22. 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 152 of the Constitution . The Court quoted its decision in Girichayawati Lai Vaghela 12006 ( 2 ) SCC 482 ] with approval , wherein in was ruled thus . " The appointment to any post weder the State can only be made after a proper veniscicent has been made inviting applications from eligible candidates and hoiding of a selection by a body of experts or t specially constituted committee, whose members are fair and impartial , throusi a written exeraination or interview Ja some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates , who have applied in response to the advertisement nmade . A regular appointment to the post under the State or Union cannot be made without issuing advertisement in the prescribed manner winch imas in some cases include inviting applications from the employment exchange , where etigible candidate ger their names registered . Any regular appointment made on a post under the State or Linion without itsaing a ivrisenem inviting applications from eligible candidates and without lording a proper selection where alt eligible candidaics get a fair chance to compete would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution" .

in Lima Devi [ 2006 ( 4 ) SCC 1 ] the Apex Court con Are the proposition as to whether the persons who got comployment , without following of a regular procedure Aresenteon the back. Joor or on daily wages can be ordered tad de " ermanent in their posts , to prevent regular recatedu ba tb , pouts concemed . Catena of decisions be subject were considered and the Court declined the arcessions of the workmen to be made permanent on datepic were held by them in temporary or adhoc Jawan le aPainty long spell . The Court ruled thus .

23. In P Chandra Shekhara Rao and Others ( 2006 (7 ) SCC 488 ] the Apex Court referred Uma Devi's case ( supra ) with approval . It siso relied the decision in Uma Rani [ 2004 (7) SCC 112 and ruled that no regularization i penoissible in exercise of statutory powers conferred in Article : 62 of the Constitution , if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules. to Somveer Singh [2006 ( 5 ) SCC 493 ] the Apex Court rated tiert appointment made without following due procedure cannot be regalarized . In Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2007 ( I ) SCC 408 ] the Apex Court reiterated the law and announced that the rules of recruitment can not be relaxed and court can not direct regularisation of teciporary employees dehors the rales , nor can it daect continuation of service of a temporary employee ( whethet called a casual , ad -hoc or daily rated employee ) or payinent of regular salaries to them.

24. In Uma Devi ( supra ) it was laid that schon a person: euters a temporary employment or get engagement as contractual or casual werker and the engagement is not based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure , he is aware of the consequence of the Withrespect , why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary emplomentja permanent posts ? This Court , in our view , is bomed to insists on the State making regular and proper reconttrents, and is bound not to encourage or shut its Mes to the persistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitumem. The direction to make permanent the asincer da between regularization and making permanent was net cimpressed here can only encourage the Stare . the mouel employer to flout its own rules and would confer in due benetits on few at the cost of many waiting to Compete With respect the directions made in Piara Singh 11992 ( UNCC118 ] is to some extert inconsistent with the 2315

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010/VAISAKHA 11. 193 .

sponsoring les chef he conditions fo of section 2 ofthe set

27. Clause ( s ) vasco. 2 of two werkman as follows.

appolarecut being temporary, casual or contractual in nature Such a person canno invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed for the post when an appommern to the post could be made only by following a proper procedtae or selection in any concemed cases, in consultationwan the public service corrmission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary . contractual or casual employees . i cannot also be held that the State held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are taake them permanent . The State cannot construionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that fi : theory cannot be invoked to seek relief of being made permanent in the post. In view of those precedem neither coctiouance nor regularisation of services of the claimants can be ordered.

Workpar , any person we appratici smployed vary insity to an nanual, visi illed ,salied, tethered upoutora clerical or non sory won for fere or servarg. whethertistims of suployrt bevapress r implied, andseethe barooses apreendag und : Reet Ac i reistinn temde dispate merades any such person wie sch dismissed, drthesgedrercocendin coanvetion , or as a compone dispete, or whose dismissar, became on retranchiment has led to that once na s not inclods mes such person

( when is souro to the Air Dнеля , 150 45 of 1950 ), o de Army Act 1950 - eet 1950 the NavyA762 1971 25 A dispure was raised by the claimants before the Conciliation Officer. Question for consideration comes as to whetherit was an industrial dispute. For an answer to this proposition one has to see the definition of" industrial dispute". Clause (k) of section 2 of Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( n short the Act ) , defines industrial disputes , which defiasm is extracted thus:---

(ii ) who is comboyed in the police servaew as an off.cer or other employee of a pisos, te

tin) whow, comployel auity ma administroue capacity , or

Industrial dispute" means any dispute or difference between employers and employers , or between ermples ers and workmen , or between workmen and workmen, which is connected with the employment ur tout- employment or the terms of employment or wth the conditions of labour , of any person;"

( iv) who, bent employzd a в регу capacity, dras: wages excooong one thewand sixhen bed rundes por terusia resectiser ther by the nature of the duties tachal co the office or by teason of the powers vested sa nam, functions mainly of a managerial nauury .

The detin ion of " Industrial dispute " referred above , can be divided into four parts , viz. ( i) factum of dispute, (2)parties to the dispute , viz . (a) employers and employers . (b) empley rand workmen , or ( c ) workmen and workmen. (3) subject matter of the dispute , which shouldbe connected with employment or non employment , or ( ii)terms of employment , or ( iii ) condition of labour of any person , and (4)it should relate to an " industry " .

26 The definition of " industrial dispute " is worded in very wide terms and unless they are narrowed by the meaning given to word " workınan " it would seem to include all " emptoyras ", all " employments ail "workmen ", whatever the nature or scope of the employment may be . Therefore , exrept in the case where there can be a dispute between the employers and employers and workmen and workmen, one of the parties to an industrial dispute must be an employee or a class of employees . The first point , therefore . to be notea , perhaps self evident , is that the phrase "employer and workmen " , the plural may include singular on either side or any permutation of singular or plural , the masculine inching the feminine . in order , therefore , to deterraine as to whether a controversy or difference or a dispute is an an industrial dispute ' or not , it must first be determined whether the workman concerned or workmen

28. The first part of the delicition gives her nave- y meaning of the workman. This part of the Jefinidon determines a workman by reference to a person ( including an apprentice) employed an " industry " too aray manai, unskilled, skilled, technical , operational , cleneti or supervisory work for hire or reward . This part desemaines what a " workman " means . The second rart is designed to include something more in what the term primarily denotes . By this part of the definition, persen (it who have been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in correction withran industrial dispute, or (ii) whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has lead to an industrial dispate, for the purposes of any proceedings under the Act in relation te such industria! dispute, have been includedinthe definition of "workman " . This part gives extended connetation to the expression "workinan" The third part specifically excludes the categories of perscus specitied in clauses ti to ( iv) of this sub- section . The third part connotes inat even if a person satisins me requirements of any of the first two parts but if he fal's in any of the four categories the third part, he snell be excluded from the definition at 'workman' . Not only the persons who are actually employed

1 2319 भारत का राजपत्र : पई ।1 . 2010/वैशाख 11. 1932

बागखण्ड 3 (11) )

tadttry but ale those who have buen discharged, dismissed on cet.ached in connection with or as a consequence of an endusaial disputs, and whose dismissal .

diselringe of retrencheront has lead to that dispute, would tall within the embit of the definitiva la other words, the se convi category ofpersons included in the definition a ould fh in the aabut of the definition , only for the purpose of my provechags tader the Act in relation to an industrial dispate and for no other purposes . Therefore, date of reference is relevant and in care a person falls within the definition ofworkman on that day, the fribunal would be sted viib jurisdiction to entertain it and the jurisdiction Merid not cease merely because subsequently the workmen conses to be workman.

union ceases to be registered trade union during the continuance of the adjudication proceedings that would not affect the maintainability ofthe order of reference. Law tothis effect was laid by the High Court of Orissa in Gammon India Limited ( 1974 ( 11 ) 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 IndiaMatch Co. Ltd. ( 1970 ( II ) LLI 256 ) .

31. No evidence has been brought over the record by the claimants that the dispute under consideration was espoused by a union of the establishment of the managensent . An industrial dispute is to be supported by the majority of the workmen of the establishment, when it is not espoused by a union . Not even an iota of fact has been brought over the record that the dispute was espoused by the union of the establishment or it was supported by the majority of the workers of the establishment of the management . Even otherwise , as projected by the claimants and established by Shri Khalsa through his testimony, the claimants were working as supervisors , who used to supervise work and conduct of sweepers . They were drawing wages at the rate of Rs. 1370 per month . There is no denial on the part of the claimants that their functions weremainly ofsupervisory in nature. They fall in a category which is excluded from the ambit of" workman" , as defined by crause (s) of Section 2 of the Act . Hence it can not be saidthat it was a dispute between employer and workmen , to answer the definition of an industrial dispute .

29 Foron existing or apprehended industrial dispare st must be between an employer and the werkman . Clause (4) of sub section ( 1 ) of section 10 ofthe Act empawers the appropriate Governant to refer the dispute or any matter appearing to be connected with or relevant to the dispute whether it relates to any matter specified in the second schedule or third schedule to a Tribonal for adjudication . Except the disputes , as specified in section 2 A of the Act. a dispute shali not acquire the character of an indusa ial dispet." unless it is eapoused by a union recognized by the establishment of the management or majority of the workers , employed in that establishment of the management . However.it is not necessary that the spon soring union is a registered trade anion or a recognized trade union . Once it is shown that a body of substantial namber of workmen either acting through a union or otherwise bad sponsored the workman's cause , it is sufficient to convert it into an Industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works ( 1970 ( 1 ) LLJ 507) compiounts relating to dispute of ten workmen were filed before the Conciliation Officer by the individual workmen thereselves . But their case was subsequently taken up by a new imion foined by a large number of co workmer, if not a majority of them . Since this unionwas not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five representauvos to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed workmen . Thus cases of the dismissed workmen wore espoused by the new union , yet unregistered and Unrecognizca . The Apex Crant 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" .

32. Shri Khalsa swears that on 31-3-97 contract between the management and the contractor came to an end. Services of the contractor were withdrawn by the management. When services of the contractor were withdrawn, claimants were disengaged by the contractor on 1-4-97. in such a situation the claimants cannot agitate that their services were dispensed with by the management . To prove that their services were retrenchedby the management , the claimant is under en obligation to establish that it fall within the ambit of clause ( oo) of section 2 ofthe Act , which is reproduced thus :

(oo) " retrenchment " means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include;

(a) Voluntary retirement of the workman ; or (b) Retirement of the workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of 30 It is not expedient that same unior, should remain in-charge of that dispute till its adjudication . The dispute rmay be esponsed by the workmen of an establishment , through a particular union for making such a dispute an "Industrial cispate ", while the workman may be represented before the Tribunal for the purpose of section 36 of theAct by a number of executive or office bearer of altogether another arist. The crax of the matter is that the dispute should be a dispute between the employer and his workmen . It is not necessary that the dispute must be espoused or conducted only by a registered trade union . Even ifa trade

1428 Gi /10-17 2320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11, 1932

[PART I -SH 35 ) employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in thatbehalf; or

(bo) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the nonrenewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under a stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

33. No evidence worth name has been brought over the record that services of the claimants were retrenched by the management. On the other hand it has been established that when contract of supply of manpower between the management and the contractor came to an end, services of the claimants were disengaged on 1-4-97 . The disengagement of services of the cliamants nowhere answers the ambit of the defination of retrenchment , as contained in clause (oo) of section 2 of the therefore, disengagement of the claimants does not amount to retrenchment. It was not obligatory on the part ofthe management or the contractor to give notice or pay in lieu thereof to the claimants . Question of payment of retrenchment compensation also does not arise , since when their services . were dispensed with when terms of contract of the contractor came to an end. The claimants are not entitled for reinstatement of their services . Therefore , claim is liable to be disinissed on that score too.

the employment , employment of contract labour tood prohibited, (3) wherein discharge of statutory ebligation ofmaintaining a canteen in an establishment the principal employer availed the services of the contracter , in which situations the courts have held that the contract labor would indeed be employees of the principal employer fhe Court ruled that neither Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act nor any other provision in that Act, whether expressis or by necessary implication , provides for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a notification by the appropriate Government under sub section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of contract labent on any process , operation or other work in any establishment . Consequently the principal employer cannot be required to order absorption of the contract labour work ing in the establishment concerned, it was further ruied therein tras in Saraspur Mills case ( 1974 (3 ) SCC 66), the workman engaged for working in the canteen run by the Co-operative Society for the appellant were the employees of the appellant milis. In Basti Sugar Mills (AIR 1964 S.C. 355 ) a canteen was run in the factory by the Cooperative Society and as such the workers working in the canteen were held to be employees ofthe establishment . The Apex Court ruled that these cases fall in class (3 ) mentioned above . Judgment in Hussain Bhai ( 1978 Lab.1.C. 1264) , was consciered by the Apex Court in the said precedent and it was ruled therein that the said precedent falls in class (2 ), referred above TheApex Court concluded that on issuance of prohibitive notification under Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute brought before it by the contract labour in regard to conditions of service, the Industrial Adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to produce any given result for the establishment or for supply of contract labour for work of the establishment under a genuine contract of is a mere ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of various beneficiai legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benetit there under. Ifthe contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, the so called contract labour will have to he treated as employees of the principal employer, who shall be directed to regularize the services of the contract labour in the establishment concerned, subject to the conditions as may be specified by the industriai adjudicatos fer that purpose.

34. The Apex Court was confronted. with a proposition, as to whether automatic absorption of contract labour , working in an establishment of the principal employer, as regular employees follows on issuance of a valid notification under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Contract Labour Act, prohibiting contract labour in the establishment concerned, in Steel Authority of India Limited (200 L (7) S.C.C. 1 ) . Catena of decisions were considered by the Apex Court and it was laid therein that the contract labours fall in three classes viz, ( 1 ) where contract labour is engaged in or in connection with the work of an establishment and employment of contract labour is prohibited either because the industrial adjudicator/court ordered abolition of contract labour or because the appropriate Government issued notification under section 10( 1) of the Contract Labour Act , no automatic absorption of contract labour working in the establishment can be ordered, ( 2) where contract was found to be a sham and nominal . rather a camouflage , in which case the contract the establishment of the principal labour .

35. Here in the case, the management awarded contract to the contractor for supply of contract labour for doing job of cleaning and sweeping . Management was Cilpase per employ on the dead such

cases do not telete to the anolition of samen tahour but

present instances wherein the court pierce the veil and

declare the cornee position and as a fact the stage after

sered under the contractor was having a base under the evidence worth name have been brought over by the claimant to show that the said contract was show and bagus . Therefore, it camnot be concluded that h 2321 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

claimants were in fact and in realty employees of M/ s Air India Ltd. They are not entitled to their reinstatement in the services of the management . The case deserves to be discarded on that count too .

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 31 of 2000 Between

The Secretary, National Confederation of Bank Employees , U.P. State , Agra , Unit C/ o BOB Sanjay Place Agra . AND The Senior Regional Manager , Indian Overseas Bank , Regional Office , 3rd Floor Navchetna Kendra , 10Ashiok Marg , Lucknow.

AWARD

1. Centra! Government , MOL , New Delhi vide notifica- tion No. L - 12012 /259 / 99 / IR ( B - II ) dated 31-1-2000 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal .

36. The claimants seek their reinstatement and regularization in the services of the management . It is not their case that their services were engaged by the management after following regular procedure for appointment . No evidence is brought over the record by them to show that an advertisement was issued inviting the public at large to compete for the jobs . Reservation policies for granting share to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes communities were followed , has not been claimed by the claimants . They were neither called upon to take a test and face the interview board . Consequently it is evident that by claiming reinstatement and regularization of their service the claimants want back door entry in the service of the management , which is a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution . Their claim is found to be not maintainable , as articulated in preceding sections .

37. In view of the foregoing discussions , it is evident that the claimants are not entitled to any relief muchless relief ofreinstatement and I regularization of their services . Their claim is unfounded , hence dismissed . An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

DR. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

2. Whether the claim of Sri Rajesh Kumar that he was employed by the management of Indian Overseas Bank at RBS College , Agra , branch as a peon / tempo- rary messenger during the period from 1-4-85 to 31-3-93 is correct ? And whether the management is justified in terminating / discontinuing him from ser- vice with effect from 31-3-93 ? If not justified, what relief is the disputant Sri Rajesh Kumar entitled to ?

Dated: 12-3-2010

नई दिल्ली , 9 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1158.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का ( 4 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन औवरसिज 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 31/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/259/99- आई आर ( बी- II } ] यू एस . पाडेय , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 9th April , 2010

3. In the present case after receipt of registered notices from the tribunal both contesting parties have filed their claim and counter claim . The claimant has prayed that the tribunal may hold that the workman was em- ployed by the management of Indian Overseas Bank atRBS College Agra Branch as peon/ temporary mes- senger during the period 1-4-85 to 31-3-93 and further that the action of the management in terminating/ discontinuing Sri Rajesh Kumar from service with effect from31-3-93 is not justified and accordingly he be reinstated in the services of the opposite party with full back wages as also his absorption in perma- nent service of the bank in terms of Government of India guidelines referred to in the body of the claim statement .

4. As against the above claim of the claimant the oppo- site party has filed his written reply countering the claim ofthe claimant on a number of grounds and has prayed that the claim of the applicant be rejected being devoid ofmerit .

S. O. 1158.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 31/2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Indian Overseas Bank , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 9-4-2010.

[F. No. L- 12012/ 259 / 99 - IR ( B - II ) ]

5. Claimant has not adduced any oral or documentary evidence despite giving of several opportunities . Opposite party has filed certain photocopies of payment vouchers as were desired by the claiment U.S. PANDEY, Desk Officer 2322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1, 2016 VAJSAKRA PLIS

6. Opposite party has also produced in oral evidence one witness Sri M. K... Vermaas M.W.1 .

7. I heard the argatments and perived the records. My findings are----

शाकिर मोहम्मद

8. Considering the freis initially the burden fics on the claimant to prove that be had been engaged skher against a permanent vacancy or on temporary basis . Whereas opposite party has specifically denied that he was never deployed against any vacancy. So the initial burden ties or the claimant to prove his Case , but he did not adduce any oral or documentary evidence . Only pleadings cannot forra basis of proof

9. Opposite party has placed reliance on a decurion (2008 (118 ) FLR.1164 ) Allanabad High Coun in betwe M/ s . Uptren Powertronics Employees (inion Ghaziabad and Presiding Officer labour Coa Ghaziabad.

(1 ) श्री अनिल अ

10. The Hon'ble High Court has laid down the principle that in the absence of any evidence lead by or ar behalf of the workmon- reference is bound to be answered by the court against the workman .

लिए

11. Therefore in tius case the workniau has not been able to prove his cesn. As such reference a decided against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party .

Date: 30-3-2010

RAM PRAKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 9 अप्रैल, 2010

18-10-2000 को दू

"Whether ser ampl

Baroda Gikarrua

का. आ. 1159, औद्योगिक विशद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक अक बड़ौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबनियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में श्रन्यायालय , भी कार के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 5:2000 ) को प्रकारको फेन्द्रीय सरकार को 9-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Shakle nous.১২

Tara Cherm Ma

whet relier the

[ सं. वल-12012/106/2000 - आई आरची- II ) ] ५. एस. पाण्डेय सेस्क अधिकारी

New Dathi the 9th April , 2010

છઃ છછ

TOY 5. 0. 1159 -1s pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 , the Ceutral Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 5/2000 ) of the Labour Court Bikaner now as shown in the Annexcare in ing Industrial Dispute between the employees la vela on the management of Bank of Baroda, and their werkraan, which was received by the Central Government on 9-4-2010 . [No. 1-12012/ 10 /2000 ARP -RJ U.S. PANDEY, Desk OfficeC भारत भई , 2017 11,1912

::..

संशदुति की दान जी है ।

put طة منحة ولا قلم بكاتth,inổngthương **********?? ?????? ????????????????????????????????? ? * બુદ્ધ છછછછછ છેઠ पर एप नहीं का

# 6 સ્વસ્વs - w ? છ ?????? ????

*????? ***** ******? ???? 3 134 17 પ?? ?????? ???????

به شرطة

6-1-1997 সাজ ३ : १२-1997 सहभाग জাকির দিলপুদিনা दिन मी व्यवधान को कार्यविनासम्म में लिया था । अन, अभी [ PART I - SLC. 300j IL GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11,192

जुभानी आदेश से कात

इलाज यानुसार भी दी जा सकती

गाने मेसर्स एसोसिएट कम्प्यूटर्स

मालो को बैंक में

विपक्षी को कभी संवाए नहीं की और

के यहां अनुबन्ध के लाभ पर

आलिया उस दिन का आकस्मितः

यहां होंने कभी विपक्षी ने

ना ही वहां नियोजित

এই রেজা খাবার ন एगा बैंक में कोई भी

चेला और ना ही विपक्ष अनुपरा उसे अंटी पूर्व एक सेना के लिए पात्र नहीं होता कि

এবং বদ্ধবিদ্ধ ध पद दैनिक वेतन भोगी मुआवजा नहीं दिया गया जिरह में यह एवाथ कई सीनियरी लिस्ट बनाई गई पास 2000 रू प्रतिमाह पर मोर विहै, बैंक नियोजया व

नियुक्त करने बाया कोरिनहीं है, सका नये नेजर सबको भी शकीर अहमद

साहब के जिसका नया या जनताका और 12

सितंबर को करना में या बारहो . 353 रु.

कम देने की शिकायत महीने रहको की

थी. 221 दिन बैंक में कामको प्रमउसके पास नहीं हे । प्रदर्भ एम से 22 भोपरान्त क्षर है । यह

गलत है कि यह सांभालकर बैंक में सप्लाई करता हो

जिसके भुगतान शक्त यहादिये हों यह गलत है किप्रदर्श

भुगतान किया हो , चेक पर बैंक

एम -21 एसेंशिष्ट का

सीपैकधारी को रूप में नियोजित

एक अनाशोनार का कभी कोई समय

या अहना गलत है कि प्रदर्श एम-23 वालों ने हस्ताक्षर क अगर यहां काम करने का प 24 एसोसिएट क

काप नहीं करता था उसको सीधे

प्रमाणपत्र दिया है

और उसकी निमुक्ति के लिए

ही बैंक मैनेजर ने

रानी का विगुणित पर उनके पास कोई बोर्ड नहीं बैठा

नहीं है और वह नहीं

से किस तारीख तक

इसकी বিয়তে সফল जो गवाह कमल ने अपने नहीं कर सकता । उनके अनुसार शकीर कहीं जाने । यह ने कहा है कि उसको जब भी आईचं निर पुन गया तथा जो वह जोय वयोवसाई करने का हो. এখो श्री भाको पानी के बिल जमा पीएलका को, चाहे सीट कतर या 3 aage????? ???? છછ છછછછછઃઃ सुदेवा उसको लेके का भुगतान कर अभी प्रकार अहमद द्वारा बैंक का कार्य समय के बारे में कभी नभर देज प्रसाधन या उसके प्रति कभी कोर्ड और कुला जोब वर्क जब उसे 14 , की तो हाजरी दर्ज की जाती और बैंक नियोजित नहीं रहा, कार्यमयी ही लिया गया उसका कार्य বাবার स्वयं के विरूद्ध कनेम

जवान दाये के तथ्यों हराया

है और उसके अनुसार 892-7-2010 उप चैम ऑफ

बडील स्टेशन रोड,

Ad সুর নে मौरा स्वयं प्रार्थी श्रमिक

कार्य देखता था । सो कजिक संबंध अपना किया है जिसके खंडर में

नहीं है , प्रार्थी को 5-5-17 2000 महान पर सेवाकरजनन शपथपत्र पेश हुआ

कप्प्यूटर को साफ - सफाईडावितरण दियोजित नहीं

प्रस्तुत शपथपत्र पर

किया और शाखा प्राको नियोजन अधिक्षनहीं है । उसने कुजी साक्ष्य प्रर्दश - एभ ।

अगस्त 97 में मिश्री कमलरी का काम नहीं

किया और उल्कोका आदेश से मंवा भूमत नहीं

किया । प्रार्थी अन्यत्र निभाना था, तारावर मालीको विपक्षी प्राथी

की जगह नहीं हाही नहीं था और पत्रावली का ध्यानपूर्वक भारत मरकार द्वारा प्रपित इस सन को लिए प्रमुख रूप से यही विचारणीय है

सेवाईका अव दने का कोई कारण

इसलिए सेवापुक्ति नहीं उठताः प्राथी उसको नियोजित

हो गया । मैसर्स एसोसिएटर व प्राथ था

उसको जानकारी विषयुटर्स से

समय - समय पर जांथा और कम्यूटर का দুই কষ্টে उन स्थापराचन्द माली को

उपजित होने के कारक कई र विपक्ष के हमार- संभाल

करने आता था. वही नहीं इसलिनीका सवाल वाले अधिक व विपक्षी बैंक के मध्य श्रमिक एवम् श्रमिक शकीर मोहम्मद এই প্রদেশ दिनहीं हो प्रार्थी क्या ५०० एकरी है ? "

होपैदा नहीं होता ओरी बुआवजे का र.वान्न पैदा होता है ।

मार्च 97 में कम्प्यूटर की सफाईनेतुर्थी बैंक द्वारा अनुबंधित किया गया या है जिसके अनुसार उसको 6-3-97 स

था जिसके लिए उसे 2000 मार्च से जून 97 तक भुगतान किया । - স্টयुে क्त किया जुलाई 97 का 355 रू

अधिक अपन शपथपत्र में क्लेम 2006

जुलाई 97 में प्राथी की सेवाएं बैंक द्वारा अनुबंधित कर्म मैसर्स मस्त 97 का वेतन नहीं दिया व 13-9-97 से [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

एसोसिएट कम्प्यूटर्स से प्राप्त कर ली इसलिए वह फर्म के नियोजन में चला गया जहां उसे तकनीकी ज्ञान भी प्राप्त करना था । जुलाई व अगस्त 1997 में कम्प्यूटर की सफाई का कार्य उक्त पफर्म से ले लिया गया व बैंक द्वारा फर्म को हो भुगतान किया तथा फर्म ने कर्मचारी शाकिर मोहम्मद को भुगतान किया । शाखा प्रबन्धक को कर्मचारी नियोजित करने का कोई अधिकार नहीं है । बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा राष्ट्रीयकृत बैंक है जिसमें केन्द्रीय सरकार व रिजर्व बैंक के निर्देशों पर ही नियुक्ति निर्धारित प्रक्रिया अपनाकर की जा सकती है व लिखित आदेश दिया जाता है । श्रभिक पिछले दरवाजे से बैंक में नियोजन चाहता है , उसे आकस्मिक कार्य के लिये रखा गया था और सक्षम अधिकारी ने कभी उसे नियुक्ति नहीं दी । प्रार्थी श्रमिक का न तो कभी बैंक में आने जाने का कोई समय निश्चित था और न ही कोई कार्य अवधि निश्चित थी और न ही उसकी कोई हाजिरी दर्ज की जाती थी इसलिए वह बैंक का कर्मचारी नहीं था । जिरह में यह ग्वाह मानता है कि शाकिर मोहम्मद उनके कम्प्यूटर कक्ष में कार्य करता था लेकिन चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्यरत नहीं था और उसे कम्प्यूटर मैन्टेमैन्स के महीने के 2000 रू. देते थे और मार्च 97 से जून 97 तक रखा था और वाउचर द्वारा भुगतान किया गया था वे काउचर पेश नहीं किये हैं । वह कम्प्यूटर के रख - रखाव के लिए चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी का काम नहीं करता था । मार्च 97 में काम पर रखने बाबत कोई नियुक्ति पत्र नहीं है, जुलाई 97 से कम्प्यूटर के रख-रखाव का ठेका मैसर्स एसोसिएटेड कम्प्यूटर्स को दे दिया था उससे पहले बैंक कम्प्यूटर का रख - रखाव का कार्य खुद करवाता था । कम्प्यूटर एसोसिएटेड व बैंक के बीच कोई अनुबन्ध हुआ हो तो उसे जानकारी नहीं है । एसोसिएटेड कंपनी ने उन्हें प्रदर्श एम-24 द्वारा सूचना दी थी कि श्रमिक अन्यत्र नियोजित हो गया है , जुलाई 97 व अगस्त 97 में श्रमिक एसोसिएटेड कम्प्यूटर्स की ओर से उनके यहां आता था और यदि बरिष्ठ प्रबन्धक ने श्रमिक को दैनिक वेतन पर रखा हो तो उसे जानकारी नहीं है ।

जिसमें एसोसिएटेड कम्प्यूटर्स ने यह लिखा है कि श्रमिक शाकिर 8. इस प्रकार दोनों पक्षों की जो साक्ष्य पेश हुई है उनमें प्रार्थी स्वयं यदि मानता है कि उसने विपक्षी के यहां 240 दिन कार्य नहीं किया बल्कि 221 दिन ही काम किया इसलिए बिना मुआवजा दिए यदि उसे तर्क के लिए हटाया हुआ मान भी लिया जाए तो उसकी सेवामुक्ति किसी प्रकार से छूटनी की श्रेणी में नहीं आती है क्योंकि छंटनी के लिए सेवामुक्ति से पूर्व के वर्ष में 240 दिन की अवधि के लिए कार्य करना आवश्यक है । प्रार्थी ने 221 दिन भी दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में कार्य किया हो इसकी भी कोई साक्ष्य पेश नहीं की गई है जबकि विपक्षी बैंक ने प्रदर्श एम 21 व 22 चेक व वाउचर पेश किए हैं जिसके अनुसार कम्प्यूटर रिपेयरिंग व साज- संभाल के 1645 रू एसोसिएटेड कम्प्यूटर्स को देना तय किया है और इसका प्रार्थी के नाम 11-9-97 को चेक प्रदर्श एम -21 जारी किया गया है , प्रदर्श एम -23 एसोसिएटेड कम्प्यूटर्स का बिल विपक्षी ने पेश किया है जो उक्त 1645 रू. का है और प्रदर्श एम-24 एसोसिएटेड कम्प्यूटर्स का पत्र है मोहम्मद को उन्होंने काम सौंपा था । इसके अलावा जो दस्तावेज

री बाउचर्स है जिनका भूमनल वार्थी को किया गया है । प्रायर्थी का कोई हाजरी रजिस्टर पेश यहां हुआ है त न ही प्राधी ने इस तथ्य को स्पषित किया है कि उसकी ड्यूटी किस समय में किस समय तक काम करने की थी और उस पर

2325

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

विपक्षी बैंक के शाखा प्रबन्धक का निवासकार के घण्टे उसके नियंत्रण में काम करता था । श्रतिबंजारा संबंध साबित करने के लिए यह दथ्य सামির ফলে আদা । इसके अलावा यह भी स्पष्ट है कि विपक्षी देঃि ছাই किसी को नियोजित करने का अधिकार भी नहीं स्पति राष्ट्री बैंक होने के कारण विपक्षी बैंक में नियुक्ति की সূরা বিশ্বাদির সদিনব্যা है और नियुक्ति देने के लिए सक्षम अधिकारी की नियुक्त है । इस सम्बन्ध में विपक्षी बैंक की ओर से ए, आई, कमर 2000 कल. सा 2996, 2002 ( II ) मी. एल. आर. 1043 2001 ) ही एक आर. पृष्ठ 3 के न्यायनिर्णय उद्भुत किये हैं , बतीयन अन्यले में मेरी सर में न तो श्रभिक अपनी सेवामुक्ति के पूर्व 240 दिन तक प्रयतर द करना साबित कर पाया है और न ही वह लगातार 21 मतद दैनिक वेतन पर कार्य करत रहा हो यह साबित करक इसके विपरीत उसने एसोसिएटेड कम्प्यूटर्स में जुलाई अगस्त 1097 के बिल 1645 रु. प्राप्त किये हैं और यह विषयाव कथित किया गया है इसलिए प्रार्थी व विपक्षी से बोन में अभिय नियोजक द्वारा साबित किया गया है इसलिए प्रार्थी विपक्ष के पी में श्रमिक व नियोजक का सम्बन्ध भी कतई साथित रहीं हुआ है ५ ही प्रार्थी श्रमिक लगातार 221 दिन तक काम करता रहा उसास को साबित कर पाया है व इस दौरान उस पर शाखा प्रवन्धक का नियत्रण रहा हो और उसने विशिष्ठ समय तक अर्थ करनारायण दौरान पूरे समय उसको सौंपा गया कार्य किया हो । सभ्य को सामिण नहीं किया है । ताराचन्द मालो को उसे हटाकर सेवा में रखा गया हो यह तध्य भी साबित नहीं कर पाया है और न ही उ ark wipa को सेवा में रख लिया गया हो और उसको हटा दिया २२। সা বাথ भी सावित हुआ है । इसलिए श्रमिकों को सिनिगरानी होस्ट नाम का सवाल ही नहीं उठता है । मेरी राय में शर्थी विपक्षीको चता श्रमिक व नियोजक के सम्बन्ध स्थापित हुए हैं

समाप्त करते हुए ताराचन्द माली को इसके स्थान

साबित हुआ है इसलिए श्रमिक कोई भी अनुलो पाने का अभिकारी नहीं है ।

१. अतः केन्द्रीय सरकार द्वारा प्रेषित इस प्रसग को उत्तरित करते हुः यह पॅचाट इस प्रकार पारित किया जाता है कि साथी अpिee शाकिर मोहम्मद व विपक्षी बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा के एध्य श्रपि नियोजका का सम्बन्ध होना साबित नहीं है और न ही यह साबित हुआ है कि शर्थी श्रमिक की सेवायें समाप्त करते हुए उसले स्थान घर ताराचन्द माली को नियुक्ति दी गयी हो इसलिए श्रमिक शाकिर मोहम्मद विपक्षी बैंक से कोई अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी नहीं है । उक्त अधिनिर्णय प्रकाशनार्थ केन्द्रीय सरकारको अभिवा की धार, 17 ( 1 ) के अन्र्तगत प्रकाशनार्थ भेजा जाये ।

सुनाई गई :

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1, 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

2327 her termination . Therefore , she is entitled for reinstatement with full back wages .

been helpful but the claimant did not refer either of these papers inher claim statement as well as in her oral evidence. Opposite party has specifically denied about the veracity ofthese papers . How did she got it has not been proved. If these papers are looked for a moment front page carries the name of Soma Devi which is up to the period of 2-5-98 , but the second and third page does not show or bear the name of Soma Devi . Regarding the significance of these papers no arguments were placed by the authorized representative for the claimant then it is difficult for me to give any weight- age to these papers . When I inquired about the original payment vouchers which were filed by the opposite party which are in the name of Surjit Kumar , Smt . Soma Devi and other persons, claimant said that she does not want to rely upon these papers . None of the A.Rs of the parties tried to give any significance about the vouchers before me , evenafter putting a query by me also .

4. Opposite party filed the written statement contradicting the aversions made by the claimant. It is stated that the claimant was never appointed in the bank therefore , no case of termination is made out . She has misrepresented the facts to win the sympathy of the court . Employment in the bank is made through employment exchange . But it is stated that she was engaged as a casual labour on daily wages on petty cash basis for attending petty works like cleaning of bank premises . She was not engaged against any permanent vacancy. It is also stated that there is no such vacancy of a safai karmchari therefore ; the question of appointment and taking work from the applicant does not arise . It is stated that she was engaged on day to day basis ; therefore , question of retrenchment does not arise. It is also denied that she had ever worked for 240 days in a calendar year . Therefore , they have opposed the claim of the claimant.

5. Claimant has filed three photocopies of day book vide No. 8/2 to 8/4,

12. I have given due consideration to the oral evidence of both the witnesses . Initially the burden lies on the claimant to prove that she has worked continuously for 240 days in a calendar year. If she had been appointed on a regular basis then her name must have been sent through employment exchange but no such evidence has been filed.

6. There was an application ofthe claimant to produce payment vouchers which are in the possession of the bank . Therefore , opposite party has produced numerous payment vouchers in original in all 152 .

13. Workman has placed reliance upon a decision (2010) Supreme Court Cases L& S . Director Fisheries Terminal Department versus Bhikhuji Bhai Megha Ji Chavda and 2001 Lab IC 649 Supreme Court. Gujrat Agriculture University versus Rathod Laghyu Bechar and others .

7. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence . Applicant has adduced herself as W.W.1 Smt . Soma . Opposite party has adduced one Sri Johar Mazoomdar who is branch manager as M.W.1 .

8. I have perused the whole evidence considered the circumstances and heard the arguments of the parties at length .

14. I have respectfully gone through the principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court , but in the present case the claimant has not been able to prove prima facie by giving cogent evidence that she had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year preceding the date of her termination .

15. There is one more contention that after her termination some other person was engaged and appointed on her post . Though there is no such reference in this respect even she has not given any evidence who was the person who was appointed in her place . This contention also does not carry any force .

16. Opposite party has placed upon a number of decisions ofthe Supreme Court viz . (i ) AIR 1997 SC 3097 Syndicate Bank versus Paul and others etc. 9. It is contended by the opposite that the branch manager does not have any power to appoint any person even as a safai karamchari . They contended that the claimant was engaged on day to day basis for a petty work for cleanliness . It is admitted fact that her name was not called from employment exchange and the opposite party has specifically contended that without calling the name from employment exchange no one can be appointed. Claimant has no where alleged that her name was sent from employment exchange . She is not having any appointment letter, therefore , the aversion of the claimant that she was appointed as a safai karamchari against a permanent vacancy is not proper .

10. She herself stated that she was supposed to work for two hours a day .

17. In view of above discussions , it is held that the claimant has not been able to prove her claim , therefore, reference is decided against her and in favour of the opposite party bank .

Dtd.: 29-3-2010 RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 13 अप्रैल , 2010 11. Now it has to be seen that as to whether any right has accrued to her under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . Naturally in such a case if there had been any documentary evidence it could have been the best evidence . Claimant has filed three photocopies of the day book for the period 1997 to 2-9-99 . These papers may have

का. आ. 1162.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार ईस्टर्न रेलवे के 1426GT/ 10-18 2328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 114/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. 41012/39/2002- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ]

सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010 S. O. 1162.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 114/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Eastern Railway and their workmen , receivedby the Central Government on 13-4-2010 .

[No. L -41012/39 /2001 - IR ( B - I ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , LUCKNOW Present : Sri N. K. Purohit , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 114/2002

Ref . No. L -41012/ 39 / 2002 - IR ( B - I ) , dated: 28-6-2002

BETWEEN

Shri Suresh Gautam S/ o Shri Nandlal R/ o Lakri Mohal , H. No. 68/523 Bherimandi , Nahar Ka Kinara Lucknow ( U.P. ) - 226001

AND

The Divisional Railway Manager Eastern Railway, Ashok Marg Lucknow/ Sr . Divil . Mechnical Engineer Lucknow ( U.P .) - 226001

AWARD 01-04-2010

1. By order No. L - 41012/ 39/ 2002 - IR (B - 1 ) dated: 28-06-2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour , New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section (2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this industrial dispute between Shri Suresh Gautam , S / o Shri Nandlal , R/ o Lakri Mohal , H. No. 68/523 , Bherimandi , Nahar Ka Kinara , Lucknow ( U.P. ) and the Divisional Railway Manager , Eastern Railway , Ashok Marg , Lucknow / Sr. Divil . Mechnical Engineer , Lucknow ( U.P. ) for adjudication .

2. The reference under adjudication is :

"Kya Prabandhan Purvottar Railway dwara Shri Suresh Gautam putra Shri Nand Lal , Safai karmchari

[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] ko dinank 31/08/1999 se naukari se nikala jana nayayochit tatha nayasangat hai ? Yadi Nahi to karmkaar kis anutosh ka adhikari hai ? "

3. Admitted fact of the case is that the workman , Suresh Gautam was regular Safaiwala in the Railways and he was charge sheeted and the departmental enquiry started in case memo no . M / CDO/ Sept.97dt . 28-9-97 and the departmental enquiry entrusted to Sri S.M. Lal . The charge was that the workman , Suresh Gautam Safaiwala was unauthorizedly absent from 1-2-97 to 2-9-97 . It was also alleged that in the year 1996 he was unauthorizedly absent for which the increment was stopped for 30 months. The workman was charged for habitual absentee . The departmental enquiry was conducted during 17-03-99 to 21-05-99 and ultimately enquiry officer found the charge proved in the ex -party enquiry . The worker was accordingly terminated from the service .

4. The workman contended that domestic inquiry was conducted in violation of principles of natural justice and the workman remained sick from 16-03-99 to 09-06-99 and he was admitted in Indoor Hospital of the Railways . In the circumstances he could not appear in the inquiry proceedings . On the pleading of both the sides following preliminary issues were framed on 15-09-2003 :

1. Kya vipachi dwara ki gayi vibhagiya janch nayay ke naisargik sidhdhanton ka anupalan kiye bina ki gayi hai , yadi haan to praphav ?

5. After examining the workman and management witness , the then Learned Presiding Officer decided the issue No. 1 in favour of the workman and vide order dated 09-12-2005 following order was passed :

"Enquiry proceeding and subsequent enquiry report is set aside . Opposite party is directed to file the copy of the charge sheet and list of witnesses and documents on which he relies . The documents aforesaid be filed on 10-01-2006 . "

6. In pursuance to the above order , the opposite party, Railway administration filed list of documents , C- 27 and list of witnesses , C - 28 and examined Sh . S.M. Lal as management witnesses to prove the charges levelled against the workman . In rebuttal the workman has examined himself as witness .

7. Heard the arguments of both the sides and perused the relevant record . Admittedly vide memo dated 28-09-97 following charges were levelled against the workman by the CDO , Gorakhpur :

1. " Shri Suresh Gautam/ Sa . Ka . Aadhin SSE (CDO )/ BG Di. 1-2-97 se 02-9-97 tak anadhikrit roop se anupasthit rahe hain.

2. Varsh/ 97 main anadhikrit anupasthiti ke viroodh aapki dand sawaroop 30 maah ke vetan vriddhi roki ja chuki hai.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

2329

not inform about his absence to the concerned authorities . He also stated that earlier of withholding of increments was imposed for unauthorized absence .

3. Shri Gautam anadhikrit anupasthiti ke vasani ho chuke hain jo ek kadachaar evam rail aachaar sanhita 1966 ke niyam 3 (ka)( i) ( ii) ka ullanghan hai jiske liye Shri Gautam doshi hai . "

8. Under Section 11 -A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , relating to discharge or dismissal of workman hasbeen referred to a Tribunal and the Tribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, by its award , set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct re - instatement of the workman on such terms and conditions , if any , as it this fit , or give such other relief to the workman including the award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal and the circumstances of the case may require .

9. In the present case the enquiry proceedings and findings of the inquiry officer have already been set aside . It is pertinent to mention that the provisions of Section 11 - A envisage that any proceeding under Section shall rely only on the materials on records and shall not take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter and shall not consider fresh evidence but in the matter of Neeta Kaplish vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court and another while considering the question of material evidence under Section 11 -A of the I.D. Act, Hon'ble Apex Court has held:

12. In rebuttal , the workman has admitted in his affidavit on oath that he remained absent from period 01-02-97 to 02-09-97 due to serious illness of his wife and no one was there to look after her . He has further stated that he had informed the Incharge about his absence . After fitness of his wife he reported on duty on 03-09-97 and awaited for orders . Subsequently vide letter dated 15-09-97 , he was sent for medical fitness certificate . In cross -examination he has stated that he had submitted medical certificate of his wife's sickness which was given by a private doctor . He has also stated certificate paper no . 3/6 to 3/8 are pertaining to period 03-04-97 to 01-09-97 , 01-03-97 to 09-04-97 and 01-02-97 to 21-02-97 . But he did not submit any certificate for period 21-02-97 to 38-02-97. The workman has not adduced any documentary evidence to show that he proceeded on leave with prior consent of the authorities or he had informed the authorities for his absence due to sickness of his wife from time to time as stated by him . Thus , as per his own version the workman remained absent for the period 01-2-97 to 02-09-97 and admittedly he was not on sanctioned leave for said period . He has not adduced any document to establish that he had communicated or that he made any request in writing to sanction the leave for the said period. Therefore , it is established that he remained unauthorizedly absent for the said period. Therefore , charge under article 1 stands proved.

13. The railway administration has not adduced any evidence to prove that the workman was a habitual absentee . Even the order of alleged penalty of withholding of increments has not been produced , therefore , it is not established that the workman was a habitual absentee .

" In all case where enquiry has not been held or the enquiry has been found to be defective Labour Court/ Tribunal can call upon the management or the employer tojustify action taken against the workman and to show by fresh evidence that the termination or dismissal order was proper . If management does not lead any evidence by availing ofthis opportunity, it cannot raise any grouse any subsequent state that it should have been given that opportunity , as the Tribunal , in those circumstances , would be justified in passing an award in favour of the workman . If however , opportunity is availed of and evidence is adduced by the management , validity of action taken by its has to be scrutinized and adjudicated on the basis of such fresh evidence .

Records pertaining domestic enquiry would not constitute ' fresh evidence ' as those proceedings have already been found by the Labour Court to be defective . Such record would also not constitute 'material on record ' within the meaning of Section 11 -A as the enquiry proceedings , on being found bad, have to be ignored altogether . "

14. It is not disputed that the workman was working as Safaiwala and was having more than 11 years' of service . In such circumstances the punishment of termination of services of the workman is not in consonance with the alleged misconduct and seems to be unjustified . Therefore, in lieu of termination from services , the workman deserves lesser punishment . I am of view that the interest ofjustice would be met if the workman is reinstated with 25 % of back wages and lesser penalty of withholding of one increment with cumulative effect is imposed in lieu of penalty imposed by the said impugned order .

10. In view of the above legal proposition we have to see whether the management has proved the charges leveled against the workman by adducing fresh evidence .

15. Thus , in view of above discussions the impugned order dated 31-08-99 , imposing penalty of terminating services of the workman is modified to the extent in lieu of above punishment lesser punishment of withholding one increment with cumulative effect is imposed upon the workman . The opposite party is directed to reinstate the workman with 25 % of back wages and other consequential benefits .

11. In this regard the management witness , Sh . S.M. Lal has been examined to prove the charges of misconduct . He has stated that time keeper , Shri Iqbal Ahmad said during inquiry that the workman remained unauthorizedly absent for the period from 01-02-97 to 02-09-97 and he did

1425 GI/10-19 2330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

16. Award as above .

N. K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer Lucknow 01-04-2010

नई दिल्ली , 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1163.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर पश्चिम रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , बीकानेर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [फा. सं. 41012/ 140/2003 - आई आर ( बी. - 1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

S. O. 1163.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 1/2005 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bikaner as shown in the annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Uttar Passim Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 13-4-2010

[ F. No. L -41012 / 140 /2003 - IR ( B - I) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

औद्योगिक विवाद अधिकरण , बीकानेर

पीठासीन अधिकारी

: हरी शुमार गोदारा आर.एच.जे.एस.

नं. मु. केन्द्रीय औद्यो , वि. प्रसंग सं. 1 सन् 2005 पेमाराम पुत्र श्री घासीराम जाति मेधवाल निवासी गांव टिडिपासर तहसील रतनगढ़ जिला चुरू

--प्रार्थी/ श्रमिक -- विरुद्ध

1. मण्डल रेल प्रबन्धक , उत्तरी पश्चिमी रेलवे , मण्डल , बीकानेर 2. स्टेशन अधीक्षक , उत्तरी पश्चिमी रेलवे जंक्शन चूरू

-- विपक्षीगण/नियोजक प्रसंग अन्तर्गत धारा 10 (1 ) ( घ ) , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947

उपस्थिति: -

1. श्री संतोष सैनी, श्रमिक प्रतिनिधि , प्रार्थी पक्ष के लिये 2. श्री हीरालाल हर्ष , अभिभावक , विपक्षी नियोजक पक्ष के लिये

:- अधिनिर्णय: - दिनांक : 12 जनवरी , 2010

[PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] श्रम मंत्रालय , भारत सरकार , नई दिल्ली के आदेश सं. एल -41012 / 140/ 2003/आई. आर. ( ई-1 /दिनांक 23-2-2004 के द्वारा प्रार्थी श्रमिक पैमाराम को सवामुक्ति से सम्बन्धित एक विवाद अधिनिर्णयार्थ औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( जिस आगे चलकर केवल अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 10 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( घ ) के अधीन अधिनिर्णयार्थ इस अधिकरण में भेजा था , जिसे समसंख्यक शुद्धि- पत्र दिनांक 4 मई , 2006 के द्वारा संशोधित करते हुए उक्त प्रसंग विवाद में सेवामुक्ति दिनांक 16-1-1996 पढ़े जाने हेतु निर्देशित किया है । इस संशोधन के फलस्वरूप अधिकरण के समक्ष लंबित विवाद प्रसंग निम्न प्रकार पढ़े जाने योग्य है :

" क्या कर्मचारी श्री पेमाराम पुत्र श्री घासीराम को सेवामुक्ति प्रबन्धन उत्तर रेलवे बीकानेर , मण्डल बीकानेर द्वारा दिनांक ( 21-12-95 ) 16-1-1996 बाद दोपहर से किया जाना न्यायसंगत व उचित है ? अगर नहीं तो कर्मचारी किस लाभ का हकदार है और किस तिथि से ? " 2. प्रसंग प्राप्त होने पर प्रकरण दर्ज रजिस्टर किया गया , दोनों पक्षकारों द्वारा अपने-अपने लिखित अभिवचन पेश किये गये हैं अर्थात् प्रार्थी श्रमिक पेमाराम की ओर से प्रस्तुत क्लेम आवेदन का जवाब विपक्षीगण द्वारा दिया गया है ।

3. संक्षेप में , प्रकरण के तथ्य इस प्रकार है कि प्रार्थों श्रमिक पेमाराम ( जित्ते आगे चलकर केवल प्रार्थी श्रमिक कहा जावंगा ; द्वारा 12-3-04 को क्लेम आवेदन पेश किया जिसे संशोधन के पश्चात् संशोधित क्लेम आवेदन 12-5-06 को पेश किया गया है उसके अनुसार वह भारतीय रेल सेवा उत्तरी रेलवे मण्डल बीकानेर जो वर्तमान में उत्तरी पश्चिमी रेलवे में परिवर्तित हो चुका है के नियोजनों में अप्रार्थीगण के अधीन जंक्शन चुरू रेलवे स्टेशन पर दिनांक 27-3-95 को दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मकार के रूप में बॉक्स पोर्टर के पद पर नियुक्त हुआ तथा अपनी नियुक्ति तिथि से लगातार बिना किसी व्यवधान के दिनांक 16-1-96 तक वह उक्त पद पर कार्यरत श्रमिक नियोजित रहा , इस अवधि में उसके कार्य व सेवा के सम्बन्ध में कोई किसी प्रकार की शिकायत अथवा आरोप नहीं रहा तथा उसकी ड्यूटी प्रतिदिन 12 घण्टे नियमित संवर्ग के कार्य पर रही , अप्रार्थी संस्थान एक औद्योगिक संस्था है तथा उसके कार्य की प्रकृति शारीरिक श्रम व कोशलपूर्ण कृत्य की होने से उसकी सेवा अप्रार्थी के नियोजन में बतौर कर्मकार की रही है व प्रार्थी व अप्रार्थी नियोजक का सम्बन्ध मजदूर व मालिक का रहा है , उसकी मंत्रा अप्रार्थीगण के अधीन किसी भी संविदा पर अथवा अंशकालीन कर्मकार के बतौर किसी अस्थाई स्कीम अथवा निश्चित समय के लिये न हाकर स्थाई प्रकृति के कार्य पर बतौर नियमित कर्मकार के रही है. उसकी संवा कलेण्डर वर्ष में 240 दिन से कहीं अधिक लगातार होने से वह एक औद्योगिक कर्मकार हो गया और उसकी सेवा औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 के आज्ञापक प्रावधान एवम् उक्त अधिनियम के नियम 1957 के प्रावधानों के प्रतिकूल समाप्त नहीं की जा सकती तथा अप्रार्थी संस्थान के सम्वन्ध में प्रबंध तंत्र एवम् कर्मकार संगठन मध्य समय - समय पर हुए समझौते के सम्बन्ध में जारी सेटलमेंट व रेलवे बोर्ड द्वारा जारी आदेश व परिपत्र के आधार पर प्रार्थी जैसे कर्मकारों की सेवा संधारित रही है जिसके अनुसार प्रार्थी अपनी संवा 2331 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

अवधि के अनुरूप नियमित सेवा व पद के वेतनमान को प्राप्त करने का मुश्तहक रहा है , प्रार्थी अपनी नियुक्ति तिथि से सेवा पृथक करने की तिथि 16-1-96 तक अप्रार्थी के नियोजन में लगातार व बिना किसी व्यवधान के कार्यरत होने से प्रार्थी अपने पद की सेवा पर नियुक्तितिथि से नियमित कर्मचारी व पद के अनुरूप वेतनमान तथा देय भत्तों के लाभ को प्राप्त करने का विधिक हकदार हो गया था जो लाभ वह प्राप्त न कर सके की बदनियति से प्रार्थी की सेवा अप्रार्थी द्वारा मौखिक आदेश 16-1-96 को बाद दोपहर बतौर छंटनी के समाप्त की भर्ती और उसे सेवापृथक करने के पूर्व प्रार्थी जैसे कार्यरत कर्मकारों की कोई वरिष्ठता सूची जारी नहीं की तथा ना ही ऐसी कोई सूची अपने कार्यालय से नोटिस बोर्ड पर ही चस्पा की गयी । इस प्रकार औद्योगिक विवाद नियम 1957 की धारा 77 व 78 के विपरीत की और उसकी सेवा समाप्ति से पूर्व अप्रार्थी द्वारा अधिनियम की धारा 25- जी की भी पालना नहीं की गयी । एक माह का लिखित नोटिस अथवा नोटिस वेतन व छंटनी - मुआवजा राशि का भुगतान भी नहीं किया और उसकी सेवा अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एफ के विपरीत बतौर छंटनी के की गयी तथा उसके सेवा निधि में इसके वास्तविक कार्य के स्थान पर उसे कुली पद पर ठेका श्रमिक अपने अभिलेख में दर्शाया जाकर अनुचित श्रम नीति को अपनाया जो उसकी समस्त कार्यवाही अधिनियम की पांचवी अनुसूची के तहत अनफेयर लेबर प्रेक्टिस है , उसके अनुसार अप्रार्थी नियोजक द्वारा उसकी सेवा समाप्त करने से पूर्व औद्योगिक सिद्धांत " प्रथम आये आखिर जाये " की भी पालना नहीं की गयी तथा अप्रार्थी संस्थान में प्रार्थी के पद का कार्य व पद रिक्त होते हुए भी मात्र बेरोजगार करने की मंशा से उसकी सेवा समाप्त की गयी तथा प्रार्थी के साथ के व बाद के नियोजित श्रमिकों को बराबर काम पर बनाये रखा और उसे सेवामुक्त करने के पश्चात्, नई नियुक्ति भी की गई तथा प्रार्थी जो कि नियोजन के लिये तत्पर था को नियोजन के हक से वंचित रखा है और अधिनियम की धारा 25 - एच का उल्लंघन भी किया है । अंत में सेवासमाप्ति दिनांक 16-1-96 से पुनः सवेतन , देय सभी लाभों व निरन्तरता के लाभ सहित अप्रार्थीगण के नियोजन में बहाल करने की प्रार्थना की है ।

रेलवे कर्मचारी नहीं होने के कारण प्रार्थी व अप्रार्थीगण के बीच मजदूर व मालिक का सम्बन्ध नहीं हो सकता , कुली नं. 9 के रूप में कार्यरत होते हुए कभी- कभी प्रार्थी से गार्ड का बक्सा उठावाने का काम तो लिया जाता था जिसके सम्बन्ध में उसे कभी भी कोई आदेश नहीं दिया गया । उनके अनुसार प्रार्थी द्वारा जो कार्य किया गया है वह चुरू जंक्शन रेलवे स्टेशन पर लाईसेन्सधारी कुली नं. 8 के रूप में किया गया है , और लाईसेन्सधारी कुली पर औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1947 या उसके अधीन बनाये गये नियम 1957 के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं और न ही वह कर्मकार की परिभाषा में आ सकता है । उनका यह भी कहना है कि प्रार्थी को अप्रार्थीगण के किसी आदेश द्वारा न तो चूरू जंक्शन रेलवे स्टेशन पर बॉक्स पोर्टर के पद पर नियुक्त किया गया और ना ही दिनांक 16-1-96 को उसे हटाया गया , प्रार्थी द्वारा चूरू जंक्शन रेलवे स्टेशन पर लाईसेंस धारी प्राईवेट कुली ( बेज नं. 8 ) के रूप में कार्य किया जाता था , उसी दौरान कभी- कभी उससे बॉक्स पोर्टर का कार्य ले लिया जाता था और उसी को मिथ्या आधार बनाकर प्रार्थी ने मिथ्या क्लेम प्रस्तुत किया है जो चलने योग्य नहीं है । प्रार्थी को अधिनियम के प्रावधानों के अन्तर्गत कोई नोटिस , वेतन व छंटनी मुआवजा आदि प्रदान किये जाने का न तो कोई प्रावधान है और न ही दिया जा सकता है उस पर अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू नहीं होते हैं , प्रार्थी द्वारा सितम्बर 1997 तक लाईसेन्स धारी कुली नं. 8 के रूप में चुरू जंक्शन रेलवे स्टेशन पर कार्य किया जाता रहा है वह शुद्ध हस्त से न्यायालय के समक्ष नहीं आया है । विशेष कथनों में यह भी अंकित किया है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा उत्तर पश्चिम रेलवे बीकानेर मण्डल के चुरू जंक्शन रेलवे स्टेशन पर लाईसेन्स प्राप्त कर लाईसेन्सधारी कुली नं. ४ के रूप में गाड़ियों से उतरने वाले यात्रियों का सामान प्लेट फार्म से बाहर ले जाने का कार्य प्राईवेट तौर पर किया जाता था , इसी दौरान कभी- कभी रलेवे का चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के अवकाश पर होने अथवा उपलब्ध न होने पर प्रार्थी से गार्ड का बक्सा उठवाने का कार्य लिया जाकर उसे नकद भुगतान कर दिया जाता था , कभी - कभी गार्ड का बक्सा उठवाने पर आर.पी. एफ. व जी.आर.पी. के जवानों द्वारा आपत्ति नहीं करने पर कुछ लिखित मीमो जारी किये गये थे परन्तु स्टेशन मास्टर द्वारा टेक्नीकल रूप में भविष्य में आने वाली कठिनाईयों को न समझ पाने के कारण इन मीमों का प्रार्थी द्वारा दुरूपयोग किया जा रहा है जबकि तत्कालीन स्टेशन मास्टर ऐसी भाषा लिखने में सक्षम नहीं है , इन मीमों के आधार पर किये गये भुगतान को रेल प्रशासन ने अवैध व अनुचित मानते हुए उनके वेतन से वसूल किया गया और उनके द्वारा प्रार्थी को किये गये भुगतान को उनका व्यक्तिगत भुगतान माना गया इसलिये प्रार्थी इन मीमों का जो उसकी स्वयं की सुविधा के लिये दिये गये थे का गलत अर्थ निकाल कर कानूनी रूप से दुरूपयोग कर कानूनी लाभ प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है , इन मीमों पर अप्रार्थीगण सं. 1 व 2 के हस्ताक्षर नहीं है , उसको स्वयं यह साबित करना है कि उसने क्लेम आवेदन में हटाने की वर्णित दिनांक 16-1-96 से पूर्ववर्ती एक कलेण्डर वर्ष में 240 दिवस श्रमिक के रूप में निर्विवाद कार्य किया है , उनके अनुसार प्रार्थी जिसे कभी भी बॉक्स पोर्टर के पद पर नियुक्त नहीं किया गया बल्कि कुली नं. 8 के रूप में कार्यरत रहते हुए 4. विपक्षी नियोजक पक्ष की ओर से इसका जवाब दिया गया है जिसमें यह अंकित किया गया है कि श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा प्रेषित रेफरेन्स उत्तर रेलवे से सम्बन्धित होने व अप्रार्थीगण का उत्तर- पश्चिम रेलवे से सम्बन्धित होने के कारण त्रुटिपूर्ण होने से बिना संशोधन करवाये चलने योग्य नहीं है और ना ही वह त्रुटिपूर्ण रेफरेंस के माध्यम से कोई अनुतोष प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी हो सकता है , उनके अनुसार प्रार्थी को 27-3-95 को अप्रार्थीगण के अधीन चुरू जंक्शन रेलवे स्टेशन पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में बॉक्स पोर्टर के पद पर नियुक्त नहीं किया तथा न ही प्रार्थी द्वारा 16-1-1996 तक लगातार बॉक्स पोर्टर के पद पर दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में कार्य निष्पादित किया गया , प्रार्थी द्वारा चुरू जंक्शन रेलवे स्टेशन पर प्राईवेट कुली नं. 8 के रूप में गाड़ी से उतरने वाले यात्रियों का सामान प्लेट फार्म से बाहर पहुंचाने का कार्य प्राईवेट तौर पर किया जाता था जिसके लिये उसे बेज नं. ४ आवंटित था , अप्रार्थीगण द्वारा कभी भी बॉक्स पोर्टर नियोजित नहीं किया गया तथा कुली एक 2332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010/VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] उससे कभी- कभी आवश्यकता पड़ने पर बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम लिया जाकर उसी समय उसे भुगतान कर दिया जाता था ऐसी स्थिति में चूरू रेलवे स्टेशन पर उसकी उपस्थिति स्थानांतरित किये जाने , वेतन बिल बनाने , कार्मिक शाखा को , अकाण्डट्स शाखा को प्रेषित कर सत्यापित करने का कोई औचित्य ही नहीं है , उसने लगभग 10 वर्ष पश्चात् अत्यन्त देरी से न्यायालय में यह विवाद पेश किया है जिसके सम्बन्ध में प्रार्थी द्वारा अप्रार्थीगण के साथ कोई पत्र व्यवहार उसके द्वारा साबित नहीं किया गया है और न ही कोई स्पष्टीकरण प्रस्तुत किया है स्पष्ट है कि प्रार्थी द्वारा बारीक कानूनी सलाह से रेलवे में सरकारी नौकरी प्राप्त करने के उद्देश्य से किसी के बहकावे में आकर देरी से कार्यवाही की है जो चलने योग्य नहीं है , कुली कभी भी रेलवे का श्रमिक अथवा कर्मचारी नहीं होता और कुली किसी प्रकार से नियमित सेवा व पद के वेतनमान प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी नहीं है , प्रार्थी व अप्रार्थी के मध्य नियोजक व श्रमिक का सम्बन्ध नहीं हो सकता और ना ही औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के प्रावधान लागू किये जा सकते हैं । उनके अनुसार प्रार्थी ने दिनांक 20-1-2002 को अप्रार्थीगण को एक आवेदन प्रस्तुत कर निवेदन किया है कि उसकी पत्नी के बीमार हो जाने के कारण व अन्य विपरीत घरेलू परिस्थितियों के कारण सितम्बर 97 से लगातार कार्य पर नहीं आ सका तथा अब अपना कुली का लाईसेन्स का नवीनीकरण करवाकर कुली का कार्य करना चाहता है , प्रार्थी द्वारा मिथ्या कथन करते हुए 16-1-96 से हटाना वर्णित किया है , वह विवाद से सम्बन्धित प्रार्थनापत्र में सहायक श्रम आयुक्त के समक्ष कहीं सेवामुक्ति 15-12-1995 व वहीं 21-12-95 अंकित किया है जिसके आधार पर रैफरेन्स न्याय निर्णय हेतु आया है उसमें उसने 16-1-96 हटाये जाने की कोई तिथि अंकित नहीं की ओर ना ही प्रार्थी द्वारा उस समय उसमें कोई संशोधन करवाया गया अतः प्रार्थी का क्लेम सव्यय निरस्त करने की प्रार्थना की है ।

5. पक्षकारों द्वारा प्रस्तुत साक्ष्य के दौरान प्रार्थी श्रमिक पेमाराम ने स्वयं का शपथपत्र पेश किया जिसके खण्डन में विपक्षीगण की ओर से अब्दुलरहमान , सोहनलाल , जयसिंह मीणा ने अपने शपथपत्र पेश किये हैं । दिनांक 17-11-06 को गवाह जयसिंह मीणा ने एक शपथपत्र और पेश किया है जिसके खण्डन में प्रार्थी श्रमिक पेमा राम ने भी अपना शपथपत्र दिनांक 22-2-08 को न्यायालय में पेश किया है , प्रत्येक पक्ष द्वारा एक - दूसरे पक्ष के गवाह , द्वारा प्रस्तुत शपथपत्र पर जिरह की गयी है और प्रलेखीय साक्ष्य भी पेश की गयी है ।

6. बहस उभयपक्ष सुनी गयी और पत्रावली का ध्यानपूर्वक अवलोकन किया गया , हमारे समक्ष लंबित इस प्रकरण के निस्तारण के लिये प्रमुख रूप से विचारणीय बिन्दू यही है कि :

क्या प्रार्थी पेमाराम की सेवामुक्ति प्रबन्धन , उत्तरी रेलवे (उत्तरी - पश्चिमी रेलवे ) द्वारा दिनांक 16-1-1996 को बाद दोपहर से किया जाना न्यायसंगत व उचित है अगर नहीं तो प्रार्थी किस लाभ का हकदार है और किस तिथि से ? इसके अलावा यह भी विचारणीय है कि क्या प्रार्थी ने बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में कार्य किया ।

7. इस बिन्दू पर प्रार्थी श्रमिक पेमाराम ने अपना शपथपत्र पेश किया है जिसके अनुसार मण्डल बीकानेर के अधीन रेलवे स्टेशन चूरू

में 3-1-95 को दैनिक वेतन भोगी के रूप में बॉक्स पोर्टर के पद पर नियुक्त हुआ और 16-1-96 तक लगातार नियोजित रहा , उसका व विपक्षी का मजदूर व मालिक का सम्बन्ध रहा है और उसकी सेवा कलैण्डर वर्ष में 240 दिन से अधिक रही है , 16-1-96 को विपक्षी सं. 1 के निर्देश से विपक्षी सं. 2 ने मौखिक आदेश से उसकी सेवा समाप्त कर दी और ऐसा करने से पूर्व न तो कोई वरीयता सूची जारी की और ना उसे कोई नोटिस या नोटिस वेतन व मुआवजा राशि दी, उसे हटाने के बाद विपक्षी ने अपने चहेते व्यक्ति राजकुमार को नियोजित किया । वह नियमित सेवा का लाभ नहीं पा जाये इस कारण उसकी सेवा समाप्त की । वह कभी भी कुली के पद पर कार्यरत नहीं रहा , ना ही उसने कुली के लिये किसी प्रकार का लाइसेन्स अथवा बेज के लिये आवेदन किया । उसकी ड्यूटी के सम्बन्ध अप्रार्थी द्वारा दिये गये आदेश मीमो प्रदर्श डब्लू, 1 से 29 है , इन पर ए तथा बी कार्य आदेश व सी तथा डी विपक्षी सं. 2 के हस्ताक्षर हैं । सेवापृथक विवाद में तिथि के सम्बन्ध में री - ज्वाईण्डर प्रार्थनापत्र प्रदर्श डब्लू. 30 व 31 शुद्धि बाबत भेजे गये प्रार्थनापत्र प्रदर्श डब्लू. 32 व उसकी रसीद प्रदर्श डब्लू. 32 है । रैफरेन्स के बाद उत्तरी रेलवे को पश्चिमी रेलवे में मिलाने के कारण उत्तर - पश्चिमी रेलवे दुरस्त करने बाबत भी प्रार्थना की गयी थी । उसकी सेवा कार्य अवधि का मूल अभिलेख विपक्षी गण के कब्जे में है जो प्रार्थनापत्र प्रदर्श डब्लू. 34 पेश करने के बावजूद भी पेश नहीं किया है , उसका सेवा पृथककरण बतौर छंटनी करने के बाद से वह बेकार है । इस शपथपत्र के बाद प्रार्थी श्रमिक ने दूसरा शपथपत्र दिनांक 22-2-08 को पेश किया उसमें इस शपथपत्र के तथ्यों को दोहराते हुए केवल मात्र यह अतिरिक्त कथन किया कि श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा जारी कोरिजेण्डम प्रदर्श डब्लू. 35 है और वह कभी भी अंशकालीन कर्मकार या कुली के पद पर कार्यरत नहीं रहा , कुली का अभिलेख फर्जी तैयार किया गया है जो उसे स्थाई नियोजन के हक से वंचित करने के लिये किया गया है । विपक्षी के गवाहान जयसिंह मीणा , सोहनलाल , अब्दुलरहमान ने अपने शपथपत्रों में गलत तथ्य अंकित किये हैं । प्रदर्श एम -1 में उसकी कोई लिखित प्रार्थना नहीं है और उसके हस्ताक्षर फर्जी बनाये हैं । विपक्षी सं. । द्वारा कुलियों का उपस्थिति रजिस्टर प्रदर्श एस -5 व प्रदर्श एम-2 से 4 पत्र गलत तैयार किये हैं । जिरह में इस गवाह का स्पष्ट कथन है कि रेलवे स्टेशन पर बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में 3-1-95 को लगा और 16-1-96 तक काम किया और उसको रेलवे के खजांची भुगतान करते थे, 3-1-95 को जब वह बॉक्स पोर्टर लगा तब वह कुली नहीं था और लाईसेन्स नंबर 8 उसके नाम से जारी नहीं था , वह रेलवे स्टेशन पर रोजाना बक्से उठाता था और यात्रियों का सामान नहीं उठाता था , उसे स्टेशन पर मीमो जब देते थे तब उसका काम बदलते थे । प्रदर्श डब्लू 1 से 28 पर स्टेशन मास्टर के हस्ताक्षर हैं जो निसारजी , विजयकुमारजी , दामोदरजी , रामेश्वरजी वगैरह के हैं । यह गलत है कि उसे मीमो इसलिये देते हों कि आर.पी.एफ. और जी.आर.पी.एफ. वाले बॉक्स ले जाते समय नहीं रोके । उसने कभी भी कुली का काम नहीं किया , उसे जयसिंह मीणा साहब ने कहा था कि कल से काम पर नहीं आना । प्रदर्श एम -1 पर खाली कागज पर दस्तखत कराये थे । यह गलत है कि वह रेलवे स्टेशन पर कुली नंबर 8 के रूप में काम करता हो और कभी-कभी उससे रेलवे वाले बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम लेते हों और 2333 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010 /वैशाख 11 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

उसके बदले उसे अलग से मजदूरी देते थे । दूसरे शपथपत्र पर की गई जिरह में उसने स्पष्ट कहा है कि उसे 1200 रु . महीना देते थे और वेतन देते समय टिकट लगाकर वेतन देते थे । वह स्टेशन पर गार्ड व ड्राईवर के बक्से उतारने व चढ़ाने का काम करता था । उसने इस तथ्य को गलत बताया कि उसने लाईसेन्स फीस 5 रु. जमा कराई हो , यह भी गलत है कि रेलवे स्टेशन पर काम करने वाले कुलियों को ड्रेस दी जाती हो और ड्रेस दी जाने वाली सूचि में उसका नाम क्रम सं. 21 पर दर्ज हो , यह भी गलत है कि चूरू स्टेशन पर अन्य लोग भी बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम करते हों । यह सही है कि जब उससे काम लेना बन्द कर दिया तब उसने जाना बन्द कर दिया फिर कहा कुछ दिन तो गया । इसकी कोई शिकायत उच्चाधिकारियों को नहीं की ।

को जमा कराया गया । स्टेशन अधीक्षक चुरू द्वारा कुलियों को वर्दी के सम्बन्ध में भिजवाये गये मांगपत्र में उसका क्रम सं. 21 पर व कार्यरत कुलियों की भेजी गयी सूचि में क्रम सं. 6 पर पेमाराम का नाम दर्ज है । जो प्रदर्श डब्लू. 3 व 4 है , पेमाराम ने 20-1-02 को विपक्षी के समक्ष एक प्रार्थनापत्र पेश किया कि पत्नी बीमार होने के कारण व अन्य घरेलू परिस्थितियां होने के कारण वह सितम्बर 97 से लगातार काम पर नहीं आ सका और कुली के लिये अपना लाईसेन्स पुनः नवीनीकरण करवाना चाहता है जिसका प्रार्थनापत्र प्रदर्श एम -1 है । जिरह में यह गवाह मानता है कि प्रदर्श डब्लू. 1 से 29 तक स्टेशन मास्टर व अधीक्षक द्वारा जारी किये हुए हैं जिन पर उनके हस्ताक्षर हैं । प्रशासन चाहे तो कुली से बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम ले सकता है जिसका भुगतान किया जाता है जो प्रार्थी को भी भुगतान किया है । बॉक्स पोर्टर चालक व गार्ड के बक्से लाने- ले जाने का काम करता है जिसका स्टेशन कार्यालय में रिकार्ड रहता है । प्रार्थी से बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम लेने व भुगतान का रिकार्ड कोर्ट में पेश नहीं किया है । नियोजित बॉक्स पोर्टरों की सूचि होती है । जिनकी उपस्थिति लगती है , प्रदर्श डब्लू. 29 में प्रार्थी को 15-16 जनवरी 96 के काम का आदेश है , प्रदर्श डब्लू. 1 से 28 भी ऐसे ही आदेश हैं ।

गवाह सोहनलाल का भी अपने शपथपत्र में यही कथन है कि पेमाराम द्वारा क्लेम प्रार्थना पत्र में वर्णित अवधि में चुरू जंक्शन रेलवे स्टेशन पर लाईसेन्सधारी कुली के रूप में काम किया जाता था जिसका बेज नंबर 8 था और कभी कभी चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के अवकाश पर होने या उपलब्ध ना होने पर पेमाराम से बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम लेते थे जिसके लिये उस समय नगद भुगतान कर दिया जाता था । कुलियों से सम्बन्धित रजिस्टर स्टेशन अधीक्षक कार्यालय द्वारा रखा जाता है जो काफी पुराना होने के कारण उपलब्ध नहीं हुआ था परन्तु, उसकी उपस्थिति पंजिका कापी तलाशने के बाद अब मिल गयी है जिसकी उसमें कुली नंबर 8 के रूप में उपस्थिति दर्ज है , उसकी उपस्थिति पंजिका प्रदर्श एम-5 व 6 है । जिरह में यह गवाह मानता है कि प्रदर्श डब्लू. 1 से 29 उनके विभाग के हैं, प्रदर्श एम -5 पर किसी विभाग का नाम व मुहर नहीं लगी है परन्तु स्टेशन अधीक्षक के हस्ताक्षर हैं । प्रदर्श एम -5 रजिस्टर की फोटो कॉपी है मूल वह साथ लाया है । कुली रेलवे का नौकर नहीं होता है । अब स्टेशन पर 3 बॉक्स पोर्टर काम करते हैं ।

गवाह जयसिंह मीणा का कथन है कि 20-3-95 से 10-11-97 तक वह रेलवे स्टेशन चुरू पर अधीक्षक के पद पर नियुक्त था और दिनांक 27-3-1995 से 16-1-96 तक दैनिक वेतनभोगी के रूप में बॉक्स पोर्टर के पद पर प्रार्थी को नियुक्त नहीं किया गया और न उसके द्वारा दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम किया गया । वह कुली के रूप में काम करता था जिसका बेज नं. ४ था । उसने कभी भी 240 दिन लगातार दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम नहीं किया । बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे न तो कोई नियुक्ति आदेश दिया गया और न नियमित रूप से उसके द्वारा बॉक्स पोर्टर का कार्य किया गया । रेलवे के किसी चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के अवकाश पर होने या उपलब्ध न होने के कारण उससे गार्ड का बॉक्स उठवाने का कार्य 8. इसके विपरीत विपक्षी की ओर से गवाह अब्दुल रहमान का शपथपत्र पेश किया है जिसके अनुसार वह चुरू जंक्शन पर स्टेशन अधीक्षक है और प्रार्थी श्रमिक को, 27-3-95 से 21-12-95 तक दैनिक वेतन भोगी कर्मचारी के रूप में बॉक्स पोर्टर के पद पर नियुक्त नहीं किया और ना ही उसने दैनिक वेतन भोगी बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम किया , वह चुरू जंक्शन पर प्राईवेट कुली के रूप में यात्रियों कासामान बाहर पहुंचाने का काम करता था और उसका बेज नंबर 8 था, उसने 27-3-95 से 21-12-95 तक स्टेशन अधीक्षक चूरू के अधीन लगतार 240 दिन बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में कार्य नहीं किया । उसे न तो बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में कोई नियुक्ति आदेश दिया गया । रेलवे के किसी चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के अवकाश पर होने या उपलब्ध ना होने व आवश्यकता पड़ने पर उससे गार्ड का बक्सा उठाने का काम लिया गया जिसका नकद भुगतान किया जाता था , उक्त काम लेने के कारण आर.पी.एफ. व जी.आर.पी.एफ. के जवानों द्वारा आपत्ति न की जावे इसलिये कुछ लिखित मीमो स्टेशन अधीक्षक चुरू द्वारा अपने स्तर पर सुविधा के लिये जारी किये गये थे जो मीमो में वर्णित भाषा अपने स्तर पर लिखने में सक्षम नहीं थे और इन मीमों के आधार पर स्टेशन अधीक्षक चुरू द्वारा किये गये भुगतान को रेल प्रशासन ने अवैध व अनुचित माना और व्यक्तिगत भुगतान मानते हुए उनके वेतन से री - कवर किया गया । कभी- कभी बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम लेने से वह रेलवे का कर्मचारी या श्रमिक नहीं हो जाता । औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम के प्रावधान उस पर लागू नहीं किये जा सकते ऐसी स्थिति में सेवा पृथक करने से पूर्व नोटिस , नोटिस वेतन व छंटनी मुआवजा देने का प्रावधान लागू नहीं होता और कोई रिकार्ड नहीं है । रेलवे में कार्यरत स्थाई व अस्थाई श्रमिकों व कर्मचारियों के भुगतान की अलग- अलग प्रक्रिया है और जिसके अनुसार प्रत्येक शाखा व विभाग में अलग - अलग वेतन बिल बनाकर मण्डल कार्मिक विभाग को भेजते हैं जहां बिल लेखा शाखा में जाकर सत्यापित होकर भुगतान किया जाता है । आवश्यकता पड़ने पर कभी-कभी बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम लेने के कारण प्रार्थी को उसी समय भुगतान किया जाता था और उसको वेतन बिल बनाने का औचित्य नहीं होने के कारण उसके भुगतान से सम्बन्धित कोई बिल व वाउचर नहीं बनाये गये । पेमाराम द्वारा कुली नं. 8 के रूप में कार्यरत रहते हुए फरवरी 95 से अगस्त 95 तक का लाईसेन्स शुल्क 35 रु. 14-9-95 को व अक्तूबर - नवम्बर- दिसंबर 95 का लाईसेन्स शुल्क 15-11-95

1426 / 61 /10-20 2334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

पोर्टर का काम लिया गया और उसको कोई नियुक्ति आदेश नहीं दिया गया , ना ही बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में उसे कोई वेतन दिया गया । कभी- कभी बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में काम लेने के कारण जो भुगतान किया गया वह भी अनुचित एवम् अवैध मानते हुए स्टेशन अधीक्षक के वेतन से री - कवर कर लिया गया ।

लिया जाता और नगद भुगतान किया गया , आर.पी.एफ. व जी.आर. पी.एफ. के जवानों द्वारा आपत्ति नहीं करने के लिय चुरू स्टेशन अधीक्षक द्वारा अपनी सुविधा के लिए जारी किये गये प्रदर्श डब्लू. 1 से 28 उसके द्वारा जारी नहीं किये गये । रेलवे विभाग में कर्मचारियों के नियोजन की अलग- अलग प्रक्रिया है व कुली के रूप में लाईसेन्स प्राप्त करने की अलग प्रक्रिया है । कभी- कभी बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम लेने मात्र से प्रार्थी रेलवे का कर्मचारी नहीं हो जाता है । प्रार्थी द्वारा कुली के रूप में कुली के लाईसेन्स की फीस जमा कराने व कर्मचारियों के बिल बनाने व उनके भुगतान की प्रक्रिया को भी उसने शपथपत्र में वर्णित किया है । इसके अलावा उपस्थिति रजिस्टर व मांगी गयी वर्दी के सम्बन्ध में इस गवाह ने गवाह अब्दुलरहमान के कथनों के अनुसार ही कथन किया है , उसके अनुसार 21-1-02 को प्रार्थी ने प्रार्थनापत्र प्रदर्श एम -1 विपक्षीगण के यहां पेश किया गया था । इस गवाह द्वारा इन्हीं तथ्यों का एक शपथपत्र दिनांक 7-11-2005 को भी पेश किया गया है । जिरह में यह गवाह मानता है कि मण्डलीय वाणिज्यिक अधिकारी बीकानेर को पेमाराम बाबत जवाब दिया था कि हमने इससे गार्ड बॉक्स हैण्डल करवाये हैं । बॉक्स पोर्टरों की लिस्ट बनाई जाती है परन्तु सूची पेश नहीं की है क्योंकि हमने इसको बॉक्स पोर्टर नहीं माना । दूसरे शपथपत्र पर की गयी जिरह में यह मानता है कि प्रदर्श डब्लू. 1 से 29 चूरू रेलवे स्टेशन से जारी है , वह बॉक्स पोर्टर सम्बन्धित ए.एस.एम. के अधीन कार्य करता है और उसको भुगतान रेलवे विभाग के डी.पी.ओ. बीकानेर के द्वारा किया जाता है और मासिक भुगतान होता है , वर्ष 1995-96 में बॉक्स पोर्टर नहीं था बल्कियह काम चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारियों से लेते थे । बॉक्स पोर्टर की उपस्थिति रजिस्टर में अंकित की जाती थी । उस समय कोई बॉक्स पोर्टर नहीं था ।

9. दोनों पक्षों की साक्ष्य पर विचार किया गया । प्रार्थी के अभिभावक का कथन है कि प्रदर्श डब्लू 1 से 29 ड्युटी के मीमो विपक्षी स्टेशन अधीक्षक चूरू के अधीन कार्यरत ए.एस.एम. द्वारा जारी किये जाना मानता है , विपक्षीगण अपनी साक्ष्य में यह भी मानते हैं कि चूरू स्टेशन पर अब 3 बॉक्स पोर्टर हैं और उस समय कोई बॉक्स पोर्टर नहीं था , वे यह भी मानते हैं कि पेमाराम से कभी- कभी बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम लिया जाता था और उसके लिये उक्त मीमो जी. आर. पी. एफ. या आर.पी.एफ. के लोग एतराज ना करें इस कारण जारी किये गये । विपक्षीगण यह भी स्वीकार करते हैं कि पेमाराम को बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में कार्य करने का भुगतान किया गया परन्तु उस भुगतान को अवैध व अनुचित मानते हुए स्टेशन अधीक्षक चुरू के वेतन से री - कवर किया गया । उसे भुगतान कभी- कभी किये गये कार्य की एवज में किया गया था इसके दस्तावेज विपक्षी के कब्जे में थे और उसे लगातार इस अवधि में भुगतान नहीं किया गया यह ऐसे दस्तावेज पेश करके विपक्षीगण साबित कर सकते थे । प्रार्थी द्वारा पेश किये गये मीमो से उसके द्वारा बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम करना पूरी तरह साबित है और इन मीमों में उसका पद भी बॉक्स पोर्टर का लिखा हुआ है ।

10. इसके विपरीत विपक्षीगण के अभिभाषक का तर्क है कि पेमाराम कुली नं. 8 के रूप में कार्यरत था जो प्राईवेट काम करता था और उससे कभी - कभी चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी ना होने के कारण बॉक्स

11. जहां तक प्रार्थी से बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम विपक्षीगण द्वारा लिया जाता था; इस तथ्य का सवाल है । विपक्षीगण के गवाह यह स्वीकार करते हैं कि पेमाराम से कभी- कभी चतुर्थ श्रेणी कर्मचारी के उपलब्ध ना होने पर बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम लिया गया , उनका यह भी कथन है कि उसने 240 दिन तक लगातार काम नहीं किया और जो भुगतान पेमाराम को बॉक्स पोर्टर के काम का किया गया वह अनुचित एवम् अवैध मानते हुए स्टेशन अधीक्षक के वेतन से री - कवर कर लिया गया । लगातार 240 दिन तक कार्य करने का तथ्य साबित करने का भार प्रार्थी श्रमिक पर था , उसके अनुसार उसने लगातार बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम किया जिसके मीमों प्रदर्श डब्लू 1 से 29 उसने पेश किये हैं । ये मीमो विपक्षीगण द्वारा जारी किये गये हैं यह विपक्षीगण के गवाह मानते हैं । प्रदर्श डब्लू. । मीमो में यह स्पष्ट लिखा है कि श्री पेमाराम बॉक्स पोर्टर स्टेशन अधीक्षक के निर्देशानुसार कार्य कर रहा है । प्रदर्श डब्लू. 2 में यह लिखा है कि उसको रात्रि में बॉक्स पोर्टर नियुक्त किया जाता है । अन्य मीमों भी भिन्न- भिन्न तारीखों को बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम करने का तथ्य अंकित है । प्रदर्श डब्लू. 8 में पेमाराम को बॉक्स पोर्टर लिखा है और यह भी लिखा है कि उसे बॉक्स पोर्टर के पद पर कार्य करना है । प्रदर्श डब्लू. 13 में पेमाराम बॉक्स पोर्टर 29-30/12-95 को ड्यूटी के एस.एस. के आदेश हैं यह अंकित है । यही तथ्य प्रदर्श डब्लू, 14-15-16-17-19 " में भी " अंकित है । प्रदर्श डब्लू. 20 व 21 में भी पेमाराम बॉक्स पोर्टर लिखा है । इस प्रकार पेमाराम बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में काम करता था यह तथ्य इन मीमों से पूरी तरह साबित है । उसने लगातार 240 दिन काम नहीं किया इस तथ्य को साबित करने का भार हालांकि प्रार्थी पर था परन्तु इस तथ्य को साबित करने से सम्बन्धित सभी दस्तावेज विपक्षीगण के कब्जे में थे पेमाराम ने अपने शपथपत्र में यह स्पष्ट कहा है कि उसके क्लेम में वर्णित अवधि के लिये बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में कार्य करने का भुगतान उसको किया गया जबकि विपक्षीगण यह तो स्वीकार करते हैं कि पेमाराम को बॉक्स पोर्टर का काम करने का भुगतान किया गया था , परन्तु उनके अनुसार उसको जिस- जिस अवधि के लिये कार्य लिया गया उतनी ही अवधि का भुगतान किया गया और वह भुगतान अवैध मानते हुए स्टेशन अधीक्षक के वेतन से री - कवर कर लिया गया । इससे सम्बन्धित जो दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य भी वह विपक्षीगण के कब्जे में भी थी और तत्कालीन स्टेशन अधीक्षक जयसिंह मीणा भी साक्षी के रूप में उपस्थित हुआ है जिसने अपने शपथपत्र में यह नहीं कहा है कि पेमाराम को भुगतान की गयी राशि अवैध मानी और ऐसी कोई राशि उसके वेतन से री - कवर की गयी । उसको लगातार बॉक्स पोर्टर का भुगतान नहीं किया गया यह तथ्य विपक्षीगण प्रार्थी पेमाराम को किय गये भुगतान के दस्तावेज पेश करके साबित कर सकते थे , परन्तु , बावजूद न्यायालय के आदेश के ऐसे दस्तावेज पेश नहीं किये और न ऐसा किया गया भुगतान अवैध 2335 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

इलेक्ट्रीकल लि. बनाम स्टेट ऑफ यू.पी. व अन्य का न्याय - निर्णय भी पेश किया है जिसमें माननीय सर्वोच्च न्यायालय ने यह स्पष्ट निर्धारित किया है कि यदि नियोजक रिकार्ड पेश नहीं करें तो अधिकरण उसके विरुद्ध विपरीत उपधारणा कारित कर सकता है । इसलिये मेरी राय में प्रार्थी के द्वारा विपक्षीगण द्वारा अपने कब्जे के दस्तावेज पेश नहीं करने के कारण 240 दिन लगातार कार्य करने का जो निष्कर्ष निकाला गया है , मेरे इस मत की पुष्टि इस उपरोक्त न्याय निर्णय से होती है । प्रार्थी के द्वारा उक्त विवाद सेवा समाप्ति के काफी बाद उठाया गया है, केवल मात्र इस आधार पर उसकी सेवामुक्ति को अवैध नहीं माना जावे ऐसा कोई सिद्धान्त नहीं है । हां यह अवश्य है कि इस अवधि के लिये प्रार्थी को अनुतोष में किसी अंश तक बैक वैजेज दिलाया जावेगा , इस बिन्दु पर विचार करते समय इस देरी को ध्यान में रखा जावेगा ।

12. ऊपर की गई विवेचना के आधार पर प्रार्थी श्रमिक पेमाराम को उसके नियोजक प्रबन्धन , उत्तर रेलवे बीकानेर मण्डल , बीकानेर द्वारा दिनांक 16-1-96 से सेवामुक्त किया जाना न्यायसंगत नहीं है एवम् अनुचित व अवैध है । परिणामस्वरूप वह विपक्षीगण के नियोजन में सेवामुक्ति दिनांक से सेवा की निरन्तरता मानते हुए आज तक के सभी सेवालाभ उसे नोशनल रूप से दिये जाने उचित हैं और सेवामुक्तिदिनांक 16-1-96 से आज निर्णय दिनांक के बीच की इस अवधि के लिये पिछले वेतन के रूप से वह एकमुश्त रूप से 40,000 रु . ही प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा एवम् आज निर्णय दिनांक से बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में सभी देय लाभ व पूरा वेतन नियमानुसार पाने का अधिकारी है ।

13. अतः भारत सरकार के श्रम मंत्रालय द्वारा प्रेषित इस प्रसंग को उत्तरित करते हुए यह पंचाट इस प्रकार से पारित किया जाता है कि:

( 1 ) प्रार्थी श्रमिक पेमाराम पुत्र घासीराम बॉक्स पोर्टर को उसके नियोजक प्रबन्धन , उत्तर रेलवे बीकानेर मण्डल , बीकानेर ( पुनः पदनामित उत्तर - पश्चिमी रेलवे ) के द्वारा 16-1-96 से सेवामुक्त किया जाना न्यायसंगत नहीं है एवम् अनुचित व अवैध है । परिणामस्वरूप वह विपक्षीगण के नियोजन में सेवामुक्ति दिनांक से निरन्तरता के साथ आज तक देय सभी लाभ नोशनल रूप से पाने का अधिकारी है ।

( 2 ) प्रार्थी श्रमिक पेमाराम सेवामुक्ति दिनांक 16-1-96 से आज निर्णय दिनांक के बीच की इस अवधि के लिये पिछले वेतन के रूप में वह एकमुश्त रूप से 40000 रु. ही प्राप्त करने का अधिकारी होगा एवम् आज निर्णय दिनांक से बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में देय सभी लाभ व पूरा वेतन नियमानुसार पाने का अधिकारी है ।

उक्त पंचाट प्रकाशनार्थ औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम की धारा 17 ( 1 ) के अन्तर्गत भारत सरकार को भेजा जावे ।

14. आज्ञा आज दिनांक 12-1-2010 को वितृत न्यायालय में सुनाई गई ।

हरी कुमार गोदारा , पीठासीन अधिकारी मानकर स्टेशन अधीक्षक के वेतन से री - कवर किया गया ऐसा भी कोई दस्तावेज पेश किया । इस लिये उक्त दस्तावेजात विपक्षीगण के कब्जे में होने के कारण न्यायालय के लिये यह अवधारणा करनी उचित होगी कि यदि ऐसे दस्तावेजात पेश किये जाते तो विपक्षीगण के विरुद्ध होते और इस बिन्दु पर प्रार्थी पेमाराम के शपथपत्र में किये गये कथन अधिक विश्वसनीय प्रतीत होते हैं और मेरी राय में व प्रस्तुत दस्तावेजी साक्ष्य प्रदर्श डब्लू. 1 से 29 से यह साबित होता है कि उपरोक्त अवधि पेमाराम ने बॉक्स पोर्टर के रूप में कार्य किया , प्रदर्श डब्लू. । से 29 में कई मीमो में उसका पदनाम भी बॉक्स पोर्टर लिखा हुआ है । पेमाराम द्वारा ऐसा कार्य स्टेशन अधीक्षक के अधीन ए.एस.एम. के निर्देश से किया गया है इसलिये पेमाराम पर उसका निर्देश व नियंत्रण होना व उसके बदले भुगतान होने के कारण पेमाराम व विपक्षीगण के बीच " श्रमिक " एवम् " नियोजक " का सम्बन्ध होना पूरी तरह साबित है । पेमाराम को कोई छंटनी का नोटिस नहीं दिया गया न कोई छंटनी मुआवजा दिया गया ऐसी परिस्थिति में मेरी राय में 16-1-1996 को उसकी जुबानी सेवामुक्ति करना उचित एवम् वैध नहीं है । प्रदर्श एम-1 प्रार्थनापत्र प्रार्थी स्वयं द्वारा पेश करना नहीं मानता है , परन्तु , इस पर अपने हस्ताक्षर होना मानता है । प्रार्थी द्वारा पेश करने मात्र से उसके सेवा पृथ्ककरण की वैधता पर कोई प्रभाव नहीं पड़ेगा क्योंकि बेरोजगारी की समस्या के कारण यदि प्रार्थी ने पुनः कुली के रोजगार के लिय आवेदन कर भी दिया हो तो इस कारण यह नहीं माना जा सकता कि उसे सेवा पृथक करना अवैध नहीं था । कुली के हाजरी रजिस्टर की भी प्रतियां जो पेश की गयी हैं व पहले पेश नहीं की गयी और विपक्षीगण ने इस न्यायालय को लिखकर दिया कि उपलब्ध नहीं है और नष्ट कर दिया गया है , उसके पश्चात् वह दस्तावेज अचानक यह कहते हुए पेश कर दिये गये कि यह रिकार्ड में जमा करा दिये गये थे और अब तलाशने पर मिल गये हैं , इसमें पेमाराम के कोई हस्ताक्षर नहीं है और न जिस व्यक्ति ने उसकी उपस्थिति अंकित की उसे पेश किया गया है । इसलिये इन दस्तावेजों को साबित नहीं माना जा सकता । प्रार्थी की ओर से इस मामले में जो न्यायनिर्णय आर एल.डब्लू. 1989 ( 2 ) पेज 336 - सुनी बनाम म्युनिसिपल बोर्ड सिरोही पेश किया गया है जिसमें यह स्पष्ट निर्धारित किया गया है कि एसे मामले में जहां न तो कोई नियुक्ति आदेश जारी किया जाये ना ही सेवा पृथक्करण का आदेश जारी किया गया हो तो भी सेवापृथक्करण आदेश को छंटनी माना जावेगा और उस पर धारा 25 एफ के प्रावधान लागू होंगे । इसमें यह भी निर्धारित किया गया है ऐसा कर्मकार पहले के सारे बकाया वेतन को पाने का अधिकारी होगा । आर.एल.डब्लू. 1989 ( 2 ) पेज 291 में भी राजस्थान उच्च न्यायालय ने यह माना है कि " वर्कमैन " की परिभाषा में अंशकालीन कर्मचारी भी शामिल है और उसकी नियुक्ति को खत्म करना छंटनी माना जावेगा । उन्हांने डब्लू.एल.सी. ( राज. ) यू.सी. 2004 पेज 524 पेश की है जो मेरी राय में इस मामले में कतई लागू नहीं होती है । 2003 सुप्रीम कोर्ट केसेज ( एल.एण्ड एस . ) 1170 भी उद्धृत किया है यह न्याय निर्णय भी मेरी राय में प्रार्थी को कोई मदद नहीं करता है । उन्होंने 2003 ( 4 ) एल.सी.टी. पेज 333 ( एस.सी . ) -- मैसर्स भारत हैवी 2336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] नई दिल्ली , 13 अप्रैल , 2010

68 , Sector - 16 , Sikandara , Agra - 7 and the Chief Workshop Manager , Central Railway , Janshi - 284002 for adjudication .

under: 2. The terms of reference under adjudication are as का. आ. 1164.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 122/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-41011/ 14/ 2002- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

" क्या उप मुख्य यांत्रिक इंजीनियर ( आर ) , सेन्ट्रल रेलवे , झाँसी द्वारा श्री कैलाश आत्मज श्री देवी दास की सेवा समाप्ति संबंधित रिवीजन याचिका को निरस्त करने का आदेश दिनांक 18-10-2001 एवं प्रीतम सिंह , श्री अमर सिंह सहायक की सेवा समाप्ति संबंधित रिवीजन याचिका को निरस्त करने का आदेश दिनांक 19-09-2001 न्यायौचित् है ? यदि नहीं, तो कर्मकार किस अनुतोष के हकदार है ? " S. O. 1164. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 122/ 2002 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Lucknow as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Railway and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 13-4-2010 .

3. In brief the case of the union is that the workman Sri Pritam Singh , Kailash and Rakesh Rao were working under the employer as Helper / Khalasi and during their service period they had acquired temporary status . They were charge sheeted for seeking appointment on the basis of alleged fake and bogus testimonials . Sh . Pritam Singh and Kailash were dismissed on 12-4-2001 and 26-9-2000 respectively. The appeal and revision petition filed against the dismissal order were also rejected.

[No. L -41011 / 14/ 2002 - IR ( B - I ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT , LUCKNOW

PRESENT

N. K. Purohit Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 122/2002

Ref . No. L - 41011 / 14 /2002 - IR ( B - I) dated : 10-7-2002

Between

Sri Surendar Singh , President Rashtriya Chaturth Shreni Rail Mazdoor Congress ( INTUC ) 68 , Sector - 16 , Sikandara , Agra- 7

4. The union has alleged that the enquiry proceedings were not carried out according to provision ofRailway Servant Disciplinary & Appeal Rule 1968. No sufficient opportunity to defend on account ofdismissal was provided . The revision petition were also dismissed without hearing . The union has further alleged that enquiry was done by vigilance organization and on the basis of their report workmen have been dismissed . The vigilance report was in violation of Railway Board circular dated 30-7-2001 wherein direction have been given that there are clear instructions of Goverment of India , Ministry of Railway ( Railway Board ) dated 30-7-2001 thatto suggest punishment is not the work of vigilance therefore , the union has prayed since impugned orders passed in revision petition are unjustified the workman be reinstated with full back wages and other consquential benefits .

AND

5. In rejoinder the union has only reiterated averments made in the statement of claim and not introduce any new fact.

The Chief Workshop Manager , Central Railway Jhansi - 284002

AWARD 29-03-2010

1. By order No. L - 41011 / 14 / 2002 - IR ( B - I ) dated: 10-07-2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour , New Delhi in exercise of powers conferredby clause (d) of sub section ( 1 ) and sub section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred this industrial dispute between Sri Surendar Singh , President . Rashtriya Chaturth Shreni Rail Mazdor Congress ( INTUC )

6. The railway administration in its written statement has refuted the claim of the workmen . It has been contended that the workmen have never been bonatide employees therefore, the question of their obtaining any status must less temporary status did never arise nor it could . The revision petitions have rightly been dismissed by the Competent Divisional Authority after considering all the aspects . The enquiry was conducted after following the principle of natural justice and as per relevant rules . It has been further contended that neither claim is tenable nor reference is maintainable , therefore , claim be rejected.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7. Vide order dated 14-04-2003 following issues were framed:

1. क्या कैलाश व प्रीतम सिंह रेलवे के वैध नियुक्त कर्मचारी थे ? जैसा कि राष्ट्रीय चतुर्थ रेल कांग्रेस , आगरा का कथन है ।

2. क्या कैलाश व प्रीतम सिंह को सुनवाई का अवसर दिए बिना , न्याय के नैसर्गिक सिद्धांतों का अनुपालन किए बिना सेवा से पृथक कर दिया गया ? जैसा कि उक्त मजदूर संघ आई एन.टी.यू.सी. का कथन है । 3. क्या कर्मचारियों की निगरानी को सुनावाई का अवसर दिए बिना निरस्त कर दिया गया ?

4. क्या सर्तकता अधिष्ठान द्वारा विशिष्ट दण्ड प्रस्तावित किया गया ? यदि हाँ , तो प्रभाव ?

5. क्या दावेदार कोई अनुतोष पाने का अधिकारी है ?

8. The union has examined workmen Pritam Singh and Kailash and railway management had examined Sh . B.K. Agarwal in support of their respective cases . The parties have also filed documentary evidence in support of their respective cases .

9. Heard the submissions of both the sides and perused the relevant record .

10. It is pertinent to mention that the union in its claim has espousing the case of Rakesh Rao workman also but there is no reference in respect of him .

11. During oral submissions learned representative of both the sides have confirmed their arguments only on the issues no . 3 and 4 other issues have not been pressed . The learned representative on behalf of the union has questioned the validity of impugned orders of revision petition dated 18-10-2001 and 19-09-2001 merely on the ground that opportunity of personal hearing was not given . Secondly vigilance organization was not empowered to suggest any punishment as per directions of Ministry of Railway vide circular dated 30-7-2001 , therefore , impugned orders being in violation of principle of natural justice be set aside . In support of its conention he has also placed reliance on following case laws :

1. 2005 SCC ( L & S) 765 Chief Engineer , MSEB VS S.R. Bhokare

2. 2006 SCC ( L& S ) 167 Hari Ram Vs Union of India & others .

3. 2009 ( 1 ) SCC ( L & S ) 394 Union of India Vs P.T. Tandon

12. Per contra , the learned representative on behalf of the railway administration has submitted that revisions are always on the point of law and it is not necessary at all for the Revisional Authority to afford personal hearing to the revisionist until and unless he chooses to enhance ,

2337

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

impose fresh or alter the penalty and punishment against the Revisionist . The railway have their own Rules known asDAR Rules and enquiry has been conducted following the principle of natural justice . The impugned orders suffers with no illegally or irregularity . He has also placed reliance on following case Iwas:

1. AIR 2005 - SC 1993 Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs. N. B. Naravade etc.

2. 2006 ( 1 ) SCCD 347 ( SC ) Ram Saran Vs I.G. of Police , CRPF and others .

3. AIR 2007 SC 2048 AG ( HR) BHEL Ltd. Vs. S.R. Burde .

13. I have given my thoughtful consideration on the rival submissions made by both the sides .

14. In pleadings as well as written statement apart from challenging the validity of impugned orders of the Revisionist Authority it has been alleged that enquiry was conducted without afforded opportunity to cross examine the management witness and it was not carried out according to provision of Railway Service & Disciplinary & Appeal Rules , 1968 but the workmen Pritam Singh as well as Kailash both have only alleged in their statement on oath that while deciding their revision no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded whereas management witness Sh . B.K. Agarwal has stated that both as well as revision filed by the workmen were dismissed as per law.

15. Rule 25 of Rules 1968 is pertaining to revision which empowered the Revisioning Authority to confirm or modified or set aside the order or confirmed , reduce , enhance or set aside the penalty or to impose where no penalty has been imposed . It further envisages that Revisioning Authority may remit the case to the authority which make the order and passed the such as may be deemed fit the provision of the rule A & B of the said Rule are as under :

( a) no order imposing or enhancing any penalty shall be made by any revising authority unless the Railway servant concerned has been given a reasonable opportunity of making a representation against the penalty proposed;

(b) subject to the provisions of Rule 14 , where it is proposed to impose any of the penalties specified in Clauses ( v) to ( ix ) of Rule 6 or the penalty specified in Clause ( iv) of Rule 6 which falls within the scope of the provisions contained in sub - rule (2 ) of Rule 11 or to enhance the penalty imposed by the order under revision to any of the penalties specified in this sub- clause, no such penalty shall be imposed except after following the procedure for inquiry in the manner laid down in rule 9 , unless such inquiry has already been held , and also except after consultation with the Commission , where such consultation is necessary .

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 1 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 11 , 1932

2338

18. The learned representative has particularly agrued that to suggest punishment is not the work of Vigilance since in the present case vigilance organization has suggested the punishment to the Revisioning Authority , therefore all proceedings are vitiated.

19. In the light of the above submission I have perused the relevant record . Indisputably the enquiry against Pritam Singh and Kailash was conducted by Sh . S. S. Kuddo and Sh . P. Y. Desai respectively who were officers in the vigilance organization this fact has been admitted by the management witness Sh . B. K. Agarwal . The enquiry was conducted under Rule 1968. The enquiry officers found the charges levelled against the workmen as proved . In enquiry report no punishment was suggested to the disciplinary authority who have passed the order of dismissal .Admittedly , appeals filed agaisnt the punishment orders of the disciplinary authority but the same were dismissed subsequently . Revision petitions were filed against the orders of dismissal of appeals filed by the workmen . In the present matter it is not evident for the record that any punishment was suggested by the vigilance organization to the Revisionary Authority. Punishment of dismissal was passed by the disciplinary authority on the basis of enquiry report therefore , the contention of the learned representative of the union in this regard is not sustainable .

16. As per sub rule 3 of the said rule application for revision shall be dealt with in the same manner as if it were appeal in these rules . There is no mandatory provision under the said rules to afford personal hearing to the revisionist where he did not choose to enhance imposed fresh or alter the penalty and punishment against the revisionist . The union has not shown illengality or judicial error in the orders passed in revision . The facts of the case law which has been referred by the learned representative are distinguishable and they are not relevant on this point whether it was imperative on the part of the Revisioning Authority to afford opportunity of personal hearing. Moreove , upon perusal of the revision petitions submitted by the workmen they have also not prayed that opportunity of personal hearing be given to them before deciding their revision petition . Upon perusal of the impugned order it is also evident that Revisioning Authority has passed speaking order and also considered the contention raised by the revisionist against the appellate order , therefore , the contention of the learned representative on behalf of the union that impugned orders have been passed in violation ofprinciple of natural justice is not tenable.

17. The learned representative has referred the Ministry of Railway ( Railway Board ) instructions dated 30-7-2001 (26/2 ) wherein following instructions have been given ;

20. In view of the above discussions there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders dated 18-10-2001 and 19-09-2001 passed by Revisionary Authority . Resultantly , the workmen are not entitled for any relief. The reference under adjudication is answered accoudingly .

The General Manager ( P ) All Indian Railways etc.

21. Award as above . LUCKNOW 2-3-2010

Sub: Revision of penalties under RS ( D & A ) Rules

1968.

N. K. PUROHIT , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 13 अप्रैल , 2010 One of the points raised for discussion in the last PNM /NFIR meeting is that , in some of the cases where the Vigilance Organization forward a disciplinary case to the Revising Authority for consideration of revision of the penalty imposed of the charged official a secific penalty that should be awarded is also suggested .

का. आ. 1165. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार रिजर्व बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 115/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/ 6/93- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी The Board have examined the matter in the context of above and it is clarified that disciplinay proceedings being quasi -judicial it will not be proper to suggest any psecific penalty to Revisionary Authority by any other Authority.

New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010 This may be brought to the notice of all concerned for compliance.

Sd/-

S. O. 1165.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 115 / 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the (V. Vaidehi ) , Joint Director , Establishment [ ( D & A) I ] Railway Board [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2339 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 1 , 2010/वैशाख 11 , 1932

Industrial Dispute between the management of Reserve Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 13-04-2010.

[No. L- 12011 /6/93 - IR(B - I) ]

SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case No. CGIT /NGP/ 115/ 2004 Dated : 26-3-2010

Manager filed an application on 16-11-2009 and requested to close the case that the Bank has returned membership subscription to the RBEA . However , they were informed to file the copy of the settlement under the signature of both the parties . Accordingly the parties filed above pursis thatthey agreed as per their application and do not want to proceed with the case. However, they have requested to pass the Award as per their joint agreement . Accordingly, parties are allowed to withdraw the case as they have settled the matter with the certain conditions as under and award passed as per their joint application dated 18-7-2006 .

Terms and conditions:

Petitioner /Party No. 1

TheGeneral Secretary , Reserve Bank Employees Association , BMS Office , Mandir Marg, Sitabuldi , Nagpur -440012.

Versus

(i) The Bank will hereafter discontinue recovery of an employee's membership subscription of the trade union concerned from his salary from the month following the month in which the employee gives an application/ letter for discontinuation of his membership of the trade union concerned .

Respondent/Party No. 2

The Regional Director , Reserve Bank of India , Post Box No. 15, Nagpur -440001 .

AWARD

(Dated: 26th March, 2010 )

(ii) However, in the captioned case , as agreed by Secretary, Reserve Bank Employees ' Association , Nagpur , the management of the Reserve Bank of India , Nagpur has refunded the membership subscription of Reserve Bank of India Employees ' Association recovered from S/ Shri G. S. Malik and Shri A. S. Puranik for the period from Aprilto September , 1992, at the rate of Rs.2 ( Rupees two only) per month . The Secretary of Reserve Bank Employees ' Association has accepted the payment by Payment Order No. 114195 dated July 13,2006 for Rs.24 (Rupees twenty four only) , being refund amount on behalf of the two above named employees .

Dated: 26-03-2010 .

A. N. YADAV, Presding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 19 अप्रैल , 2010 1. The Central Government after satisfying the existence ofdispute between the General Secretary , Reserve Bank Employees Association , Sitabuldi , Nagpur (Party No. 1 ) and the Regional Director , Reserve Bank of India, Nagpur (Party No. 2) referred the same for adjudication to this Tribunal vide its letter No. L- 12011/6/93 - IR(B - 1 ) dated 9-6-1993 under clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section (2A) of Section 10 of Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 [ 14 of 1947] with the following schedule .

का. आ. 1166.- राष्ट्रपति , श्री शिवाबसप्पा नीलप्पा नवलगुंड को 22-3-2010 से केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायधीकरण- सह- श्रम न्यायलय , बैंगलोर, के पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में 65 वर्ष की आयु पूरी होने अर्थात 9-5-2015 तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक जो भी पहले हो , नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. ए-11016/2/2009- सीएलएस- II ] पी. के. ताम्रकर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 19th April , 2010 2. Whether the action of the management of Reserve Bank of India , Nagpur in deducting membership sub- scription for the period from April , 1992 to September, 1992 from the salary of S/ Shri G. S. Malilk and A. S. Puranik , Coin Note Examiners Grade - II , in the absence of authorization from the workmen for deduction of membership subscription and crediting the same in the account of Reserve Bank of India Employees Association islegal andjustified? If not, to what relief the workmen are entitled to?"

S. O. 1166. The president is pleased to appoint Shri Shivabasappa Neelappa Navalgund as Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Banglore w.e.f. 22-3-2010 till he attains the age 65 years i.e. upto 9-5-2015 or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

[ No. A- 11016/2/2009-CLS - II ] P. K. TAMRAKAR, Under Secy.

3. The case, was fixed for argument ofthe respondent and when the case is ceased for award , both the parties settled the claim of employees and it'has filed pursis dated 18-7-2006 with a request to close the case. Though the settlement arrived at on 25-5-2006 , it has been filed in the Court on 18-11-2009 . Initially the Assistant General

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.