This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

REGD . NO . D. L. ( N ) 04 / 0007 /2003-05

सत्यमेव जयते भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 19]

नई दिल्ली , मई 2 -मई 8 , 2010 , शनिवार /वैशाख 12- वैशाख 18 , 1932 NEW DELHI , MAY 2 - MAY 8, 2010 , SATURDAY /VAISAKHA 12 - VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

No. 19 ]

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 11- खण्ड 3-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 )

विधि और न्याय मंत्रालय

( विधि कार्य विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 26 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1167.- केन्द्रीय सरकार दंड प्रक्रिया संहिता , 1973 ( 1974 का 2 ) की धारा 25 की उपधारा ( 1 क ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , निम्नलिखित अधिवक्ताओं , अर्थात्:-

22 अगस्त, 2009 से प्रभावी;

( i ) श्री अजीत इनामदार

22 अगस्त , 2009 से प्रभावी;

( ii ) श्री आर. के. पाठक

27 मई , 2009 से प्रभावी;

( iii ) श्री राजेश देसाई

12 दिसंबर , 2009 से प्रभावी;

( iv ) श्री देवदास ए , अरोसकर

15 अप्रैल , 2009 से प्रभावी;

( v ) श्री एन. नटराजन

की वृहत्तर मुंबई में महानगर मजिस्ट्रेट न्यायालयों और विशेष न्यायालयों में भारत संघ या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग या कार्यालय या अपनी पदीय हैसियत में कार्यरत केन्द्रीय सरकार के विभाग के किसी अधिकारी द्वारा या उसके विरुद्ध सभी दांडिक मामलों का संचालन करने के प्रयोजन के लिए , इस शर्त के अध्यधीन कि ऊपर उल्लिखित अधिवक्ता केन्द्रीय सरकार या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी अधिकारी या केन्द्रीय सरकार के किसी विभाग के विरुद्ध किसी दांडिक मामले में वृहत्तर मुंबई में किसी महानगर मजिस्ट्रेट न्यायालय और किसी विशेष 1547 G1 / 2010

न्यायालय में उपसंजात नहीं होंगे , सहायक लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्ति की अवधि का तीन वर्ष की अवधि के लिए या अगले आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , विस्तार करती है ।

[फा. सं. 23 ( 3 ) /2010 -न्यायिक ] अशोक कुमार , अपर विधि सलाहकार MINISTRY OF LAW AND JUSTICE (Department of Legal Affairs)

New Delhi , the 26th April , 2010 S.O. 1167.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1A) of Section 25 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby extends the term of appointment of following advocates: - (i ) Shri Ajit Inamdar Witheffect from 22nd day of August, 2009;

(ii ) Shri R.K. Pathak With effectfrom 22nd day of August, 2009;

( iii ) Shri Rajesh Desai With effect from 27th day of May, 2009;

(iv) Shri Devdas A. Aroskar With effect from 12th day of December , 2009 ; and (v) Shri N. Natrajan

With effect from 15th day of April, 2009;

(2341) 2342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 8 , 2010/VAISAKHA 18, 1932

as Assistant Public Prosecutors for the purpose of conducting all criminal cases by or against the Union of India or any Department of Office of the Central Government or any Officer of the Central Government Department acting in his official capacity in the Metropolitan Magistrate Courts and Special Court in Greater Mumbai for a period ofthree years or until further orders , whichever is earlier , subject to the condition that the above mentioned advocates shall not appear in any criminal case in any Metropolitan Magistrate Courts and Special Court in Greater Mumbai against the Central Government or any officer ofthe Central Government or against any Department ofthe Central Government .

[ F. No.23 (3 )/2010 - Judl. ] ASHOK KUMAR, Addl. Legal Adviser कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय ( कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली , 27 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1168.-केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उपधारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए विशेष न्यायाधीश का न्यायालय , इलाहबाद ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) ( गैंगस्टर अधिनियम मामले ) में मामला सं. आरसी एसआईबी 2008 ई 0008 - ईओयू- V, नई दिल्ली के संबंध में तथा विधि द्वारा स्थापित अपीलीय या पुनरीक्षण या कथित मामले में अभियोजन , अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों या मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए श्री ए.के. त्रिपाठी , एडवोकेट को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

[ सं. 225/ 12/2010-ए. वी. डी. - 11 ]

मुकेश चतुर्वेदी, अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL , PUBLIC GRIVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training) New Delhi , the 27th April , 2010

S.O. 1168. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri A. K. Tripathi , Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of case No. RC SIB2008 E 0008 - EOU- V, New Delhi in the Court of Special Judge (Gangster Act Cases ) , Allahbad (Uitar Pradesh ) and appeals / revisions or other matter arising out ofthese cases in revisional or appellate courts established by law.

[No. 225 /12/2010- AVD - II ] MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy .

[PART 11-SFC. 3( i) )

नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1169 केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा अपराध प्रक्रियगा संहिता, 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए राष्ट्रीय राजधानी क्षेत्र दिल्ली में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा संस्थापित मायके संबंध में केन्द्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो द्वारा सौंपे गए कार्य के संबंध में शिंध द्वारा स्थापित पुनरीक्षण अथवा अपीलीय न्यायात्त्रयों में इन मामलों के परीक्षण न्यायालयों तथा अपील पुनरीक्षण यादलों से उद्भु अन्य मामलों के अभियोजन का करने के सिंह, एडवोकेट को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के

[ सं. 225/24/2000 एत्रीठी- मुकेश अदा भवित New Delhi, the 27th Apr ,

S.O. 1169. - In exercise of the power conferred by sub - section (8 ) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974 ), the Central Government hereby appoints Ms. Shilpa Singh , Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases instituted by the Delhi Special Police Establishment (CB!) in the National Capital Territory of Delhi as entrusted to thern by the Central Bureau of Investigation in the trail courts and appeals / revisions or other matter arising out of these cases in revisional or appellate courts established bylaw.

[No. 225 /24/2009 -AVD - II ( Pt.1 ) MUKESH CHATURVEDI , Under Secy .

कार्यालय , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त जोधपुर, 26 अप्रैल, 2010

का. आ. 1170.-आयकर अधिनियम 1961 ( 196) का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 ( 237 ) के खण्ड ( vi ) के साथ पठित आयकर नियमावली, 1962 के नियम 2 ग ए द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जोधपुर एतद्‌द्वारा सेक्रेड हर्ट एज्यूकेशन एण्ड चेरिटेबल सोसायटी , श्रीगंगानगर को उक्त धारा के प्रयोजनार्थ निर्धारण वर्ष 2008-09 से आगे तक निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुमोदित करते हैं :--

1. कर निर्धारिती उसकी आय का प्रयोग अथवा उसकी आय का प्रयोग करने के लिए उसका संचयन पूर्णतः तथा अनन्यतः उन उद्देश्यों के लिए करेगा जिनके लिए इसकी स्थापना की गई । 2. कर निर्धारिती उपर्युक्त कर निर्धारण वर्षों से संगत पूर्ववर्ती वर्षों की किसी भी अवधि के दौरान धारा ।। की उपधारा ( 5 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट किसी एक अथवा एक से अधिक ढंग अथवा तरीकों से भिन्न तरीकों से उसकी निधि ( जेवर- जवाहिरात , फर्नीचर आदि के रूप में प्राप्त तथा अनुरक्षित स्वैच्छिक अंशदान से भिन्न ) का निवेश नहीं करेगा अथवा उसे जमा नहीं करवा सकेगा । 2343

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8, 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

3. यह आदेश किसी ऐसी आय के संबंध में लागू नहीं होगा , जो कि कारोबार से प्राप्त लाभ तथा अभिलाभ हो जब तक ऐसा कारोबार उक्त कर निर्धारिती के उद्देश्यों की प्राप्ति के लिए प्रासंगिक नहीं हो तथा ऐसे कारोबार के संबंध में अलग से लेखा पुस्तिकाएं नहीं रखी जाती हों ।

4. कर निर्धारिती आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 के प्रावधानों के अनुसार अपनी आय विवरणी नियमित रूप से आयकर प्राधिकारी के समक्ष फाइल करेगा ।

5. विघटन की स्थिति में इसकी अतिरिक्त रााशियां और परिसंपत्तियां समान उद्देश्यों वाले धर्मार्थ संगठन को दे दी जाएंगी और उसका कोई भी भाग संस्थान के किसी सदस्य को नहीं दिया जाएगा ।

6. यह अधिसूचना तब तक जारी रहेगी जब तक इसे वापस न लिया जाय ।

[ अधिसूचना सं. 01 / 2010-2011 संदर्भ सं. मु.आ.आ./आ.अ. ( तक. )/जोध/2010-11 / 324 ]

दिलीप शिवपुरी , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX

Jodhpur , the 26th April , 2010

S.O. 1170. - In exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause ( vi ) of Section 10 ( 23C ) ofthe Income- tax Act , 1961 (43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the Income - tax Rules , 1962 , 1 , the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax , Jodhpur hereby approve " SACRED HEART EDUCATION & CHARITABLE SOCIETY, SRIGANGANAGAR " for the purpose of the said Section for the assesment year 2008-09 onward, Subject to the following conditions :-

1. the assessee will apply its income, or accumulate for application wholly and exclusively to the objects for which it is established ;

2. the assessee will not invest or deposit its funds (other than voluntary contribution received and maintained in the form ofjewellery, furniture etc. ) for any period during the previous years relevant to the assessment years mentioned above otherwise than in any one or more of the forms or modes specified in sub- section ( 5 ) of Section 11 ;

3. this order will not apply in relation to any income being profits and gain of business , unless the business is incidental to the attainment of the objectives of the assessee and separate books of accounts are maintained in respect of such business ;

4. the assessee will regularly file its return of income before the income-tax authority in accordance with the provisions of Income- tax Act , 1961 ;

5. that in the event of dissolution , its surplus and the assets will be given to a charitable organization with similar objectives and no part ofthe same will go to any of the members of the Institution.

6. This notification will remain in force until it is withdrawn .

[Notification No. 01 /2010-11 Ref. No. CCIT/ITO/( Tech. )/ Ju/2010-11 /324] DILEEP SHIVPURI , Chief Commissioner of IncomeTax

वित्त मंत्रालय

(राजस्व विभाग )

( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली 27 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1171.-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 नियमावली ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2009-2010 बॉन फॉउंडेशन ट्रस्ट ( बॉन फाउंडेशन मेडिकल रिसर्च सेन्टर ) , मुम्बई को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन आंशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगे ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है नामतः-

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

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

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त धनराशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि को उसमें दर्शाएगा तथा उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से ऐसी 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 वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त दान तथा प्रयुक्त राशि का अलग विवरण रखेगा और उपर्युक्त लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट के साथ परीक्षक द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित ऐसे विवरण की पति प्रस्तुत करेगा । केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले लेगी यदि अनुमोदित संगठन:-- 2.

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

(ख) पैराग्राफ । उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा 2344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

(ग ) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त छात्र एवं प्रयुक्त राशि का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य कलाप करन , नंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य कलाप को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा

(ड. ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5ड. के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा (1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहीं करेगा ।

[अधिसूचनः में. 31 :2010/फा. सं. 203/147/2009- आ.क.नि. - 11 ]

अजय गोयल , निदेशक ( आ.क.नि.- II ) MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Revenue) (Central Board of Direct Taxes )

New Delhi , the 27th April , 2010

S.O. 1171-It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Baun Foundation Trust (Baun Foundation Medical Research Centre) , Mumbai has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose ofclause ( ii ) ofsub- section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 ( said Act ) , read with Rules 5C and 5E of the ncome-tax Rules , 1962 ( said Rules) , from Assessment year 2009- wards in the category of other Institution' partly engag . research activities subject to the following conditions , nam.

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

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

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of 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 incom under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the said Act;

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement of donations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditor shali 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 peregrenh (iii ) ofparagraph 1 ; or

PART II St.30 ) ] (b) fails to furnish its audit report to in sub- paragraph (iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

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

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

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

[Notification No. 31 /2019/F. No. 203 / 147.2009 /TTA -II ! AJAY GOYAL , Director ( 11A - 1 ; नई दिल्ली 27 अप्रैल, 2010

का.आ. 1172. सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्‌द्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केंद्र सरकार द्वारा आयका नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और १ ड. वा साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम की धा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( iii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निधारण अथ 2007-2008 से आगे जैन विश्व भारती , लाडनूं, नागौर को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थातः- (i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयाग सामाजिक विज्ञान में अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा;

(३) अनुमोदित संगठन अपने संकाय सदस्यों अथवा अपने नामांकित छात्रों के माध्यम से सामाजिक विज्ञान अनुसंधान अथवा सांख्यिकीय अनुसंधान करेगा :

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेंना जिसमें अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त रााशि दर्शाई गई हो , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से ऐसी 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 सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

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

2. केंद्र सरकार यह अनुमोदन वापस ले चंगी यदि अनुमादित संगठन:-

(क) पैराग्राफ । के उप- पैराग्रा ( iii ) में उल्लिखित लेखा बही नहीं रखेगा; अथवा भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

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

(ड. ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 5 ग और 5८. 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. 30/2010/फा. सं. 203/66/2009-आ.क. नि. -11 ] अजय गोयल , निदेशक ( आ.क.नि.- II ) New Delhi , the 27th April , 2010 S.O. 1172 It is hereby notified for general nformation that the organization Jain Vishva Bharati , Ladnun , Nagaur has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( iii ) of sub - section (1 ) of Section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 (said Act ) , read with Rules 5C and SE of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules) , from Assessment year 2007-2008 onwards in the category of other Institution ' partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely:--

The sums paid to the approved organization shall he 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;

2345 (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 carring 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 only signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income- tax or the Director c Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case , b the due date of furnishing the return of incom nder sub - sect... ( 1 ) of Section 139 of the sa Act;

(iv) the approved anization shall maintain a separat statement of donations received and amounts applied for reseach in social and a copy of such statement duly certified by the auditer shall accompany the report of audit referred to above.

2. The Central Government shali 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 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 science 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. 30/2010/F . No. 203 / 66 /2009 - ITA - II ] AJAY GOYAL , Director ( ITA - 11 )

( आर्थिक कार्य विभाग )

नई दिल्ली 27 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1173.- वित्त मंत्रालय आर्थिक कार्य विभाग की तारीख 5 जून , 2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना ने आंशिक संशोधन करते हुए , वित्त मंत्रालय , आर्थिक कार्य विभाग के निम्नलिखित अधिकारी को उनके नाम के समक्ष उल्लिखित प्रभाग के केंद्रीय लोक सूचना अधिकारी के रूप में नामित किया जाता है:

पदनाम

क्र. सं.

नाम

श्रीमती नीलम बोहरा

अवर सचिव प्रशा. 1 ( क) 1.

संबंधित विषय निम्नलिखित अधिकारी के स्थान पर

श्री वी. रामकुमार

श्री रामकुमार की अनुपस्थिति के दौरान प्रशा. ।। ( क ) II रोकड़ शाखा, लेखा एवं बजट अनुभाग और वित्त पुस्तकालय

[फा. सं. 1 /1 /2005- आरटीआई ] एस. कनकाम्बरन , अवर सचिव 2346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2016 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

[PART II-SEC 300

(Department of Economic Affairs New Delhi , the 27th April , 2010

S.O. 1173.-In partial modification of Ministry of Finance , Department of Economa. Affair's nouticenion of ever number dated 5th June , 2009 , the following officer of the Ministry of Finance . Department of Taonomic Aftairs is designated as Central Phe formation Officer in respect of Division mentioned against her nanie :

S.No.

Narne

Vice

Designation

Meters relating to 1.

Sint . Neelam Vohra

Sh . V. Ramkumar

Under Secretary Ad.I (A)

Adma 1 , I ( A ) , II , Cash Accounts & Budget Section & Finance Library during the absence of Shri Ramkumar [ F.No. 1: 1 / 2005-1

S. KANALAMBALAR Und secy कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त जयपुर , 28 अप्रैल , 2010

प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार भारताय दंत चिकित्सा परिवद्र परामर्श करने के पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची एतद्‌द्वारा निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है अर्थात् का. आ. 1174, आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्डों 25 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एतद्वारा निधारण वर्ष 2005-2010 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " याज्ञवल्कय एजुकेशन्स सोसायटी , जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं :

बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पानवीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उपखण्ड 22 सी) को उपधारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य

2. डा. बी. आर. अम्बेडकर यूनिवर्सिटी आगरा द्वारा प्रद चिकित्सा अहंताओं की मान्यता देन के संबध में दंत चिकित्सत अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग में सं. 58 के सामने स्तम्भ 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रवि মिায়াবিি प्रविष्टियां उसके अंतर्गत अन्नथपकी आरंगा , अफतः " कांति देवी डेंटल कालेज, मधुग, उत्तर प्रश " दंत शल्य विज्ञान स्लातक

( याद यह 6-6-2006 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई हो।

। अधिसूचना नं. 1 / 2010-11/ क्रमांक: मुआआ/अआआ ( मु. ) /जय/ 10 ( 23 सी ) ( vi ) /10-11/402 ] मुकेश भान्ती, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

[ फा. स. वी -12017 /48/ 2000 डोई ।

आर. शंकरन, अवर सचिव OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE Department of Health and Family Welfare ) Jar, the 28th April , 2010 50 1174 - a exercise of the powers conferred by ab - clause ( vi , of clause ( 230 ) of Section 10 of the income -tax Act, 195 ( 43 of 1961 ) read with rule 2CA of the Incometax Rules , 962 the Chie . Commissioner of Income- tax , Jaipur hereby approves " Yagyavaikya Educational Society , Jaipur " for the purpose of said section for the A Y. 2009-2010 & ouwards .

New Delhi , the 7th Apr 2017 S.O. 1175 in exercise of the powerferrec by sub - section (2 ) of Section 10 of the Deals , 108 ( 16 of 1948 ) , the Central Governnient , after consultation, with the Dental Council of India , hereby , makes the following am : Jments Parts after Schedules estic Act , Nafficiy

Provided tret the society conforms to and complies

with the profaen , ef sub - clause ( vi ) of clause (230 ) of section ofthe home - tax Act , 1961 read with rule ZCA of the income- on Hees 1962 Nolitica 1 /2010-11 /No . CCT/JPR / Addi. CTT (Hyes ) 13 :224 ) 2010-11 /402)

MUKESH sil , Chief Commissioner of Income - tax

स्वास्थन और परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

2. În thị cxisting optron te Serial No. 58 , im Part -1 of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to cognitiot , loved og Guarded Or H.R Amber following entries shall be inserted thereunder Kanti Dev: Leman Conege , Maihara, Unar Pradesh Bachelor of Dental Surger if granted on or after Vovasity, Agra kar नीर परिवर कल्याण विभाग ) नई दिल्ली, 7 अप्रैल, 2010

06-06-2006)

का. आ. 1175 , दंत चिकित्सक अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948

[ F. No. V - 12017.48 /2000 - DE भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 23 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1176.-- केन्द्रीय सरकार, भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् अधिनियम, 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) ( क) के अनुसरण में तमिलनाडु सरकार का प्रतिनिधित्व करने हेतु डॉ. सी. वी. भीरमानंदम को दिनांक 24-03-2005 से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के एक सदस्य के रूप में निर्वाचित किया गया था । जबकि भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् ने सूचना दी है कि आई एम सी अधिनियम , 1956 की धारा 3 ( 1 ) ( क ) के अंतर्गत तमिलनाडु सरकार का प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले डॉ. सी. वी. भीरमानंदम ने केन्द्रीय सरकार का प्रतिनिधित्व करने के लिए आई एम सी अधिनियम , 1956 की धारा 3 ( 1 ) ( ड़ ) के अंतर्गत भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् के सदस्य के रूप में उनके नामांकन के कारण दिनांक 28-2-2010 से भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् की सदस्यता से त्यागपत्र दे दिया था । अतः तमिलनाडु सरकार का प्रतिनिधित्व करने वाले डॉ. सी. वी. भीरमानंदम की भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् की सदस्यता समाप्त हो गई है ।

इसलिए अब, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) के उपबंध के अनुसरण में तमिलनाडु सरकार का प्रतिनिधित्व करने बाले डॉ. सी . वी. भीरमानंदम की भारतीय आयुर्विज्ञान परिषद् की सदस्यता को दिनांक 28-2-2010 से समाप्त हुआ समझा जाएगा ।

[संख्या वी -11013/6/2010 -एमई ( नीति-1 ]

अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 23rd April , 2010

S.O. 1176. Whereas in pursuance of the provision of sub - section ( 1 ) ( a) of Section 3 of the Indian Medical Act, 1956 ( 102 of 1956 ) Dr. C. V. Bhirmanandam was elected as a member of the Medical Council of India representing Government of Tamil Nadu with effect from 24-03-2005.

Whereas the Medical Council of India has informed that Dr. C.V. Bhirmanandam who is representing Government of Tamil Nadu under Section 3 ( 1 ) ( a) of IMC Act , 1956 had resigned from Medical Council of India's membership with effect from 28-02-2010 due to his nomination as member , Medical Council of India under Section 3 ( 1 )( e ) of IMC Act , 1956 representing the Central Government . Therefore , Dr. C.V. Bhirmanandam has ceased to be a member of Medical Council of India representing Government of Tamil Nadu .

Now, therefore, in pursuance ofthe provision of sub- section ( 2 ) of Section 5 of the said Act , Dr. C.V. Bhirmanandam shall be deemed to have ceased to be member of the Medical Council of India representing Government of Tamil Nadu with effect from 28-02-2010.

[No. V- 11013/6/2010 -ME ( Policy - I ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

सूचना और प्रसारण मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 15 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1177.-इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 10-11-2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र ( प्रमाणन ) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधिनियम , 1952

2347 (1952का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केंद्र सरकार श्री केसीरेड्‌डी वेंकट शिव रेड्डी. डी. नं. 4-5-27/5 , तीसरी लेन, दूसरा क्रॉस रोड, विद्यानगर, रिंग रोड, गुंटूर -522 007 को तत्काल प्रभाव से 2 वर्षों की अवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले घटित्त हो , केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के हैदराबाद सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/3/2009- एफ ( सी ) ] अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म) MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BROAD CASTING

New Delhi , the 15th April , 2010

S.O. 1177 In continuation of Ministry's Notification of even number, dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 ( 37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification ) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Kesireddy Venkata Siva Reddy , D, No. 4-5-27 /5 . , 3rd Lane , 2nd Cross Road , Vidyanagar, Ring Road, Guntur - 522007 as a member of the Hyderabad Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders , whichever is earlier .

IF . No. 809/3 /2009 - F ( C ) ] AMITABH KUMAR , Director (Films) नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल , 2010

का, आ. 1178. इस मंत्रालय की दिनांक 10-11-2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में तथा चलचित्र (प्रमाणन ) नियमावली , 1983 के नियम 7 एवं 8 के साथ पठित चलचित्र अधि- नियम, 1952 ( 1952 का 37 ) की धारा 5 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केंद्र सरकार श्री सुरेन्द्र सिंह पंवार , 212, शाहपुर जट , नई दिल्ली -110049 को तत्काल प्रभाव से 2 वर्षों कीअवधि के लिए अथवा अगले आदेश होने तक, इनमें से जो भी पहले घटित हो , केंद्रीय फिल्म प्रमाणन बोर्ड के मुम्बई सलाहकार पैनल का सदस्य नियुक्त करती है ।

[फा. सं. 809/7/2009- एफ ( सी ) ]

अमिताभ कुमार , निदेशक ( फिल्म) New Delhi , the 26th April , 2010

S.O. 1178. In continuation of Ministry's Notification of even number , dated 10-11-2009 and in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 5 ofthe Cinematograph Act , 1952 (37 of 1952 ) read with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph ( Certification ) Rules , 1983 , the Central Government is pleased to appoint Shri Surender Singh Panwar , 212 , Shahpur Jat , New Delhi- 110 049 as a member of the Mumbai Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with immediate effect for a period of two years or until further orders, whichever is earlier .

[F. No. 809/ 7/2009 - F( C) ] AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films) 2348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

[PART II SC . 3 ( )

== ..

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 26 अप्रैल , 2010

का. ग. 1179,- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उपविनियम ( 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 :-

लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता क्रम सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि, वर्ष/माह

(1) (2) (3)

(4)

1. 7995617 01-01-2010 मेसर्स दिपशीला इन्डस्ट्रीज प्लॉट क्र. 29 और 30 अचलपुर को-ऑपरेटिव्ह इन्डस्ट्रीअल इस्टेट , अमरावती रोड, अचलपुर , जिला अमरावती , महाराष्ट्र -444 806

2. 7996215 01-01-2010 मेसर्स प्रोवेस इन्डस्ट्रीज प्लॉट क्र. 134 , अमर ज्योति नगर , नारा रोड , भीम चौक, नागपुर , महाराष्ट्र -440014

अनुसूची

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

भामासं. भाग अनु वर्ष (5)

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

14543

2004 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टी

14543

2004 पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) विशिष्टी

[सं. सी एम डी/ 13 : 1: 1

सी. के. महेश्वरी , वैज्ञानिक ' जी' प्रमाणन MINIST . OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 26th April , 2010

S.0. 1179.-In pursuance of sub - regulation ( 5 ) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are giver . in the following Schedule :-

SCHEDULE

Grant Dated

Licences

SI . No. No.

Name of address of the Licensee

CM/L-

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4)

1. 7995617 01-01-2010 M/ s . Deepsheela Industries , Plot No. 29 & 30 , Achalpur Co- Operative Industrial Estate , Amrawati Road , Achalpur Distt . Amravati Maharashtra - 444 806 2. 7996215 01-01-2010 M/ s. Prowess Industries , PlotNo. 134 , Amar Jyoti Nagar, Nara Road , Bhim Chowk , Nagpur , Maharashtra - 440 014 Title of the Standard

IS No. Part Sec Year (5)

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

14543

2004 Packaged Drinking Water

( Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

14543 2004 Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

[No. CMD / 13 : 11 ] C. K. MAHESHWARI , Sc . " G " ( Certification ) 2349 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ] .

नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1180.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

भामासं. भाग अनुभाग वर्ष लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

क्रम सं.

लाइसेंस संख्या

स्वीकृत करने कीतिथि, वर्ष/माह

( 7) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

(1) ( 2)

1999

1417 1. 3602245 29-01-2010

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/शिल्पकारी - शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स नितिन ज्वैलर्स, 230 , मेन बाजार , देहू रोड, जिला पुणे -412 101 महाराष्ट्र ।

1417 1999 2. 3602346 29-01-2010

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं,

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैसर्स नैन चंद देवचंद शाह , 805 , सर्राफ बाजार , मिरज तालुका, जिला सांगली-416 416 महाराष्ट्र ।

05-02-2010

3604148

पैकेजबंद पेय जल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) 14543 2004 मैसर्स सहारा एग्रो प्रा. लि. , गट सं. 481 , एट वालुंजनगर, पीओ लोणी ( धामणी ) , तालुका आम्बेगांव, जिला पुणे -410 510 महाराष्ट्र ।

1990 4.

09-02-2010

3605857

पीवीसी इंशुलेटेड केबल्स 1100 694 वोल्ट तक और सहित

कार्यकारिता

मैसर्स यूनीवर्सल केबल्स एंड वायर इण्डस्ट्रीज , सं. नं. 110/1/1 , राहतानी, कालेवाडी, जिला पुणे -411 017 महाराष्ट्र ।

2003 09-02-2010

5. 3606253

प्रीकास्ट कांक्रीट पाइप्स ( प्रबलन 458 सहित और रहित )

मैसर्स सुमेधा कांक्रीट प्रोडक्ट्स , गट सं. 370, भिलारेवाडी, ए/पी नसरापुर, तालुका भोर , जिला पुणे -412 213 , महाराष्ट्र ।

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद 14543 2004 09-02-2010

6. 7972908

प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

मैसर्स श्रीहरि एग्रो प्रोडक्ट्स, गट सं. 39 ए/पी , लांडेवाडी , पिंगलेवाडी ( नारोडी) , तालुका आम्बेगांव , जिला पुणे -410 503, महाराष्ट्र ।

1547 Gl/10-2 2350

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

(3)

(4)

( 2)

(1)

10-02-2010

7980503

मैसर्स हरिहर इण्डस्ट्रीज, मिलकत नं. 580 , एट पोस्ट तारूख , तालुका कराड , जिला सतारा -415 103 महाराष्ट्र ।

8. 3607962 18-02-2010 मैसर्स फूलचंद ज्वैलर्स , दुकान नं. 9 , अशोक विजय कॉम्पलेक्स , 326 , एम जी रोड , जिला पुणे -411 001 महाराष्ट्र ।

9. 3608358 22-02-2010 मैसर्स सुमित ज्वेलर्स 621 , गणेश पेठ , जिला पुणे -411002 महाराष्ट्र ।

10. 3608964 22-02-2010

डी-2 , एमआईडीसी , मैसर्स ललित पॉलिमर्स एंड इलैक्ट्रानिक्स लिमिटेड , इंडस्ट्रीयल एरिया, जेजुरी गांव , तालुका पुरंदर, जिला पुणे -412 303 महाराष्ट्र ।

24-02-2010

11. 3609360

मैसर्स बोथरा एग्रो इक्युपमेंट्स प्रा. लि. , बी-16 , एमआईडीसी , जिला अहमदनगर -414111 , महाराष्ट्र ।

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

( 7 ) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

( 6)

(5)

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा )

1999 स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं, 1417

आभूषण/शिल्पकारी - शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

स्वर्ण एवं स्वर्ण मिश्रधातुएं , 1417 1999 आभूषण/शिल्पकारी- शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

12709 1994 पीने योग्य जल आपूर्ति के प्रयोग

के लिए प्रबलित प्लास्टिक ग्लास फाइबर के ( जीआरपी ) पाइपा लोड़ और फिटिंग्स

13488 2008 सिंचाई उपकरण- इमीटिंग पाइप सिस्टम

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

New Delhi , the 26th April , 2010

S.O. 1180.- In pursuance of sub - regulation (5 ) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations , 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following Schedule :-

SCHEDULE

GrantDate

Licence No.

Name & address of the Party

Sl . No.

(4)

(3 )

(1) (2)

29-01-2010 M/ s . Nitin Jewellers , 3602245

1 .

230 , Main Bazar , Dehu Road , District Pune-412 101 Maharashtra .

IS No. Part Sec Year Title of the Standard

(6)

(8 ) (9 )

(7)

(5)

1417

1999 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery / artefacts - fineness and marking भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010 /वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग ।। - ग्खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

2. 3602346 29-01-2010 M/ s. Nanchand Devchand Shah, 805 , Saraf Bazar , Miraj ( Tq) , District Sangli -416416 Maharashtra .

3. 3604148 05-02-2010 M/ s . Sahara Agro Pvt . Ltd. , GatNo. 481 , AtWalunjnagar , PO Loni ( Dhamni ) , Taluka Ambegaon , Distt Pune-410 510 , Maharashtra .

4. 3605857 09-02-2010 M / s . Universal Cables & Wire Industries , S. No. 110/1/1 , Rahatani , Kalewadi , Distt Pune- 411017 Maharashtra .

09-02-2010

3606253

M/ s. Sumedha Concrete Products , GatNo. 370 , Bhilarewadi , A/ P Nasrapur , Taluka Bhor, Distt Pune- 412213 Maharashtra .

09-02-2010

7972908

M/ s . Shreehari Agro Products , GatNo. 39 , A/P Landewadi - Pinglewadi (Narodi) , Taluk Ambegaon , Distt Pune- 410 503 Maharashtra .

10-02-2010

7 . 7980503

M/ s . Harihar Industries , Milkat No. 580 , AtPost Tarukh , Taluka Karad , Distt Satara- 415 103 , Maharashtra .

18-02-2010

8. 3607962

M/ s . Fulchand Jewellers , Shop No. 9 , Ashok Vijay Complex , 326 , M.G. Road , Pune-411001 , Maharashtra .

3608358 22-02-2010

M/ s. Sumeet Jewellers , 621, Ganesh Peth , Pune-411002, Maharashtra .

2351

(8) (9)

(6) (7)

(5)

1999

1417

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

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

694 1990 PVC insulated cables for working voltages upto and including 1100 V

2003

458

Precast concrete pipes (with and without reinforcement)

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water )

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

1999

1417

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

1417 1999 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/ artefacts- fineness and marking [ PART II- SEC . 3 ( 1 ) ] 2352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

(5)

(6) (7) (8) (9) (2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

1994 22-02-2010

3608964

10.

12709

Glass fibre reinforced plastic (GRP) pipes joints and fittings for use for potable water supply

M/ s. Lalit Polymers & Electronics Ltd. , D-2, MIDC Indl . Area , Jejuri Village , Taluka Purandar , District Pune-412 303 Maharashtra .

2008

13488 11. 3609360 24-02-2010 M/ s . Bothara Agro

Irrigation equipment- emitting pipe system

Equipments Pvt . Ltd. ,

B - 16, MIDC, District Ahmednagar - 414 111 Maharashtra .

[No. C.M.D./13:1

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

नई दिल्ली , 26 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1181 - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा साधसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :---

अनुसूची

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक भामासं. भाग अनु. वर्ष लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

स्वीकृत करने की

सं.

तिथि, वर्ष/माह

( 7 ) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

(5)

(2)

(4)

(1)

(3)

भामा 01-12-2009

1 .

श्री कांताराम सेट्टी एंड संस

1417

1999 ज्वेलर्स ,

सोएम/ एल- 6992101

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

नं. 940 , बाजार स्ट्रीट , नंजनगूड ,

मैसूर,

कर्नाटक -571 301

भामा सोहम न- 02-12-2009 टी.बी. रेवंकर ज्वेलर्स ,

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं ,

147 600230

आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

ब्रॉडवे ,

रेवंकर कॉर्नर , हुबली,

जिला-धारवाड़,

कर्नाटक -580 020

भामा 02-12-2009

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं.

ए. सोना ज्वेलर्स ,

1417 नं. 32/1 , आर. टी . स्ट्रीट , आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

बेंगलौर अरबन ,

बेंगलौर ,

कर्नाटक-560063 [ भाग II --- खण्ड 3 ( 1)

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010 /वैशाख 18 , 1932

(3)

(4)

(1) ( 2)

4. सीएम/एल- 02-12-2009 महावीरज्वेलर्स , 6992606

नं. 30 , होन्नाप्पा कॉम्प्लेक्स ,

मागडी मेन रोड , जैमुनी राव सर्कल , एदासराहल्ली, बेंगलौर अरबन , बेंगलौर , कर्नाटक-560 079 5.

02-12-2009

सीएम/एल

6992707

चंदन जेवर , 145 / एफ , 5-6 , पहली मौत्रः , रंगनाथ मैंशन , एवेन्यूरोड, बंगलौर , कर्नाटक-560 002 6

02-16-2005

सीएम/एल-

699280

वर्धमान ज्वेलर्स, नं . ३ , एम. जी . एस . रोड , एस.आर.टी.सी. बस स्टैण्ड , नजनगूड , सूर, कर्नाटक -571 301 04-12-2009

7. साधुम/एल-

रत्ना सीमेंट्स ( यादवाड़ ) लिमिटेड ,

6994610

सर्वे नं. 251 ,

दिवाद विलेज गाकाक तालुक , बलगाम, कर्नाटक -591 136 8. सीएम/एल- 04-12-2009 स्पूर्ति इरिगेशन एक्यूपमेंट , 6998820

बी-61 , दूसरा क्रॉस, तीसरी स्टेज , पीन्या इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , बेंगलौर अरबन , बेंगलौर , कर्नाटक -560 058 09-12-2009

सीएम/एल-

6996210

स्पाअक्वाटेक इंडिया प्राइवे लिमिटेड,

नं. 1 , बेगूर हाइट्स बिल्डिंग , बेगूर कोप्पा रोड , नियर नाइस रोड , बेगूर पोस्ट, बेंगलौर -560 068 बेंगलौर अरबन , कर्नाटक

2353 (5)

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

भामा

1417

1999 स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

भामा

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं,

1417

1999 आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता

एवं मार्किंग

भामा

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं ,

1417

1999 आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता

एवं मार्किंग

भामा

पॉर्टलैंड पाजलाना मोनट पार्ट 1

1991 फ्लाईगेश

1489 1

भामा

इरिगेशन एक्यूपमेंट पोलिथिलिन

12780 1989 पाईप्स फॉर इरिगेशन लेट्रेल्स

भामा

पैकेजबंद पगाल ( पैकेजबंद

14543 20 मिनरल जल के अलावा) 2354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

(4)

(3)

(1) ( 2)

11-12-2009

सीएम/एल-

10.

3300936

स्पूर्ति इरिगेशन एक्यूपमेंट , बी-61 , दूसरा क्रॉस , तीसरी स्टेज , पीन्या इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , बेंगलौर अरबन , बेंगलौर, कर्नाटक-560 058 14-12-2009

11. सीएम/एल- 6997515

श्री बालाजी मार्केटिंग , नं. 243 , फॉरेस्ट लेआऊट , आर.वी. कॉलेज पोस्ट, भैयरवानगरा किंगेरी , बेंगलौर -560 059 , कर्नाटक

16-12-2009

12. सीएम /एल- 3300532

बागलकोट सीमेंट एंड इंडस्ट्रिज लिमिटेड , सिमेंट डिवीजन , बागलकोट , कर्नाटक -587 111 17-12-2009

13. सीएम/ एल- 3300330

रत्ना सीमेंट्स ( यादवाड़ ) लिमिटेड , सर्वे नं. 251 , यादवाड़ विलेज , गोकाक तालुक , बेलगाम, कर्नाटक -591 136 17-12-2009

14. सीएम /एल- 6999721

श्रीलेब्स, नं. 173 , चिक्का तोगूर क्रॉस , होसूर मेन रोड , बेंगलौर -560 100 , बेंगलौर अरबन , कर्नाटक

18-12-2009

15. सीएम/एल- 3300027

सम्राट बेवरेज्स, सर्वे नं. 340/2 , बटागेरा ( बी ) , सेडम -585 222 , जिला- गुलबर्गा , कर्नाटक

18-12-2009

16. सीएम/एल- 3301736

पद्मावती इंडस्ट्रीज , डी-33 , गंजम इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , श्रीरंगपट्ना, मानड्या-571 438 , कर्नाटक

22-12-2009

17. सीएम /एल- 3300431

स्वर्णाकृति आभरण , निरंजन मैंशन , विक्टोरिया रोड , हुबली , धारवाड़

[PART II -SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

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

(6)

भामा

इरिगेशन एक्यूपमेंट - एमिटर्स

1992

13487

भामा

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा )

भामा

1991

1489 1

पॉर्टलैंड पोजलाना सीमेंट पार्ट 1 फ्लाईऐश

53 ग्रेड ऑर्डिनरी पॉर्टलैंड सीमेंट भामा

12269

1987

भामा

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा )

भामा

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा )

भामा

694 1990 पीवीसी इंसुलेटेड केबल्स फॉर वर्किंग वोल्टेज्स अपटू एंड

इंक्लुडिंग 1100 वोल्ट

भामा

1999

1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं , आभूषण /कार्यकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2355 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010 /वैशाख 18 , 1932

( 1) ( 2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

( 6) ( 7) ( 8 ) ( 9 ) 18.

22-12-2009

भामा सीएम/एल- 3300633

1417

1999

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

जोस्कोज्वेलर्स, ए यूनिट ऑफ जोस्को गोल्ड कार्पोरेशन प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , सूरज गंगा आरकेड , 332/7 , ग्राऊंड फ्लोर , 14वां क्रॉस , दूसरा ब्लॉक , जयनगर , बेंगलौर अरबन , बेंगलौर , कर्नाटक-560 011

19.

22-12-2009

भामा सीएम/एल- 3300835

1417 1999

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

एस.आर.एस. ज्वेल क्राफ्ट , नं. 5/5 , टी.आर.एस. लेन , नरसिंहाकॉम्प्लेक्स, नागर्थपेट क्रॉस , बेंगलौर , बेंगलौर अरबन , कर्नाटक -560 002

23-12-2009

20.

भामा सीएम/एल- 3301635

1417

1999

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

अलुक्कासज्वेलरी , ए यूनिट ऑफ अलुक्कास एंटरप्राइजेज प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , XIII/टी.एस. नं. 215/आई.ए. 1 , 213 , 215/आई.ए. 2 , एक्सल माल , के.एस. राव रोड , दक्षिण कनाडा, मंगलौर , कर्नाटक-575 001

29-12-2009

21.

भामा

सीएम/एल- 3301938

1417 1999

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

वी.वी. शिरोडकर एंड संस , दुकान नं. 1328/3 , मेन रोड , कारवार , उत्तर कनाडा, कर्नाटक -581 301

22.

29-12-2009

सीएम/एल- 3302132

1417 1999

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं , आभूषण/कार्यकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग भामा

शा अशोक कुमार गणेशमल राठौड़ , 2528 , भगवान महावीर रोड , गोकाक, बेलगाम , कर्नाटक -591 307

31-12-2009

23.

भामा

सीएम /एल- 3302738

1417 1999

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

डायमंड गोल्ड पेलेस , बालगी कॉम्प्लेक्स, देवी टैम्पल रोड , येल्लापुर , उत्तर कनाडा , येल्लापुर , कर्नाटक-581 359 2356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

(4)

(3)

( 2)

(1)

31-12-2009 मेघा इंडस्ट्रीज

सीएम/एल

24.

3303033

दूपदकट्टे

निटे विलेज, कारकाला तालुक, उडपि-574110 कर्नाटक

भीमा अक्वा मिनदहास 31-12-2009

25. सीएम/ एल

3302637

नं. 84, भीमेनाहल्लो मंचनायकनाहल्ली पोस्ट, बिड़दी होब्ली, रामनगरा तालुक एंड मिला, कर्नाटक-562109

PART 11

( 6 ) ( 8 ) (5)

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद વિશ્વં

14543

मिनरल जल के अलावा )

भामा

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद

2004

14543

मिनरल जल के अलावा)

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

New Delhi , the 26th April , 2010

S.O. 1181. Ia pursuance of sub- regulation (5 ) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification ) Regulation 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licence particular ofwhich are given in the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

Grant Date

Licences

No.

Name & address of the Party

SI . No.

(4)

(2)

(3)

(1)

01-12-2009

Sri Kantarama Setty & Sons

Jewellers

CM/L- 6942101

No. 940 , Bazar Street , Nanjangud Mysore Karnataka - 571301 02-12-2009 T.B. Revenkar Jewellers CM/L-

6992303

Revankar Corner , Broadway, Hubli Dharwad Karnataka - 580020 02-12-2009 A. Sona Jewellers 3. CM/L- 6992505

No. 32/1 , R.T. Street Bangalore Urban Bangalore Karnataka- 560063

Mahaveer Jeweller 02-12-2009

4. CM/L- 6992606

No. 30, Honnappa Complex Magadi Main Road, Jaimuni Rao Circle , ADasarahalli Bangalore Urban Bangalore Karnataka- 560079

Sec . Year

IS No. Part

Title of the Standard

(9)

(8)

(7)

(6)

(5)

1999

1417

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

1999

1417

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

IS 1999 Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/ artefacts - fineness 1417 andmarking

1999 Gold and gold alloys , 1417 jewellery/ artefacts - fineness and marking [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(1) (2)

(4)

(3)

02-12-2009

CM/L- 6992707

Chandan Zaver 145 /F , 5-6, Ist Floor Ranganatha Mansion , Avenue Road , Bangalore Bangalore Urban Bangalore amataka- 560002 6.

02-12-2009

CM/L- 6992808

Vardhaman Jewellers No.3 , M.G.S. Road, KSRTC Bus Stand, Nanjangud, Mysore Karnataka- 571301 7.

04-12-2009

CM/L- 6994510

Ratna Cements (Yadwad) Limited SurveyNo.251 , YadwadVillage, Gokak Taluk Belgaum Karnataka-591136 8.

04-12-2009

CM/L- 6998820

Spoorthy Irrigation Equipments B -61 , 2nd Cross , 3rd Stage , Peenya Industrial Estate , Bangalore Urban Bangalore Karnataka- 560058 9.

09-12-2009

CM/L- 6996210

SPA Aquatech India Pvt. Ltd. No. 1 , Begur Heights Building, Begur Koppa Road, NearNice Road , BegurPost, Bangalore-560068 Bangalore Urban Karnataka

11-12-2009

10. CML- 3300936

Spoorthy Irrigation Equipments B -61 , 2nd Cross , 3rd Stage , Peenya Industrial Estate , Bangalore Urban Bangalore Karnataka - 560058 14-12-2009

11. CM/ L- 6997515

Sri Balaji Marketing No. 243 , Forest Layout, R. V. College Post , Byravanagara Kengeri , Bangalore - 560059 , Bangalore Urban Karnataka- 560059 1547 G1/10-3

2357

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

(5)

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

1999

1417

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

1999

1417

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

1991

IS 1489

Portland Pozzolana Cement part i flyash

1989

12786

Irrigation equipment - polyethylene pipes for irrigation laterals

IS 2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

1992

13487

Irrigation equipment - emitters

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water) [PART II-SEC. 3 ( 1) ]

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 8 , 2010/VAISAKHA 18, 1932

2358

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

16-12-2009

12. CM/L-

3300532

Bagalkot Cement & Industries Limited Cement Division, Bagalkot Karnataka- 587111 17-12-2009

13. CM/L- 3300330

Ratna Cements (Yadwad) Limited Survey No. 251 , YadwadVillage, GokakTaluk Belgaum Karnataka- 591136 17-12-2009

14. CM/L- 6999721

Sree Labs No.173 , Chikka Thogur Cross , Hosur Main Road, Bangalore-560100. Bangalore Urban Karnataka- 560100 18-12-2009

15. CM/L- 3300027

Samrat Beverages Sy No. 340/7 , Balagera (B ) Sedam-48.5222, Gulbarga District . Gulbarga Sedam Karnataka - 585222 18-12-2009

16. CM/L- 3301736

Padmavathi Industries D-33 , Ganjam Indusu al Estate Srirangapatna Mandya Karnataka- 5714385. 22-12-2009

17. CM/L- 3300431

Swarnakruti Abharan Viranjan Mansion, Victoria Road, Hubli Dharwad

18. CM/L- 3300633

losco Jewellers Unit of Josco Gold orporation Pvt . Ltd.

Curaj Ganga Arcade , 32/7 , Ground Floor , 4th Cross , 2nd Block , ayangar Bangalore Urban , Bangalore Karnataka - 560011 22-12-2009

19. CM/L- 3300835

SRS Jewel Craft # 5 / 5 , TRS Lane , Narasinha Complex , Nagarthpet Cross , Bangalore

Bangalore Urban Bangalore Karnataka- 560002

(9)

(8)

(7)

(6)

(5)

1991

IS 1489

Portland pozzolana cement part 1 flyash

1987

IS 12269

53 grade ordinary portland cement

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water )

1990

IS 694

PVC insulated cables for working voltages upto and including 1100 V

1999

IS 1-417

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

1999

IS 1417

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/artefacts - fineness andmarking

1999

IS 1417

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/ artefacts - fineness andmarking भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

23-12-2009

20. CM/L- 3301635

Alukkas Jewellery A Unit of Alukkas Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. XIII / T. S. No. 215 / IA1 , 213,215 /1A2 Excell Mall K. S. Rao Road , Dakshin Kannada Mangalore Karnataka - 575001 29-12-2009

21. CM/L- 3301938

V.V. Shirodkar & Sons Shop No. 1328/3 Main Road, Karwar , Uttar Kannada Karnataka- 581301 9-12-2009

22. CMI-

3302132

Sha Ashok Kumar Ganeshmal Rathod , 2528 , Bhagwan Mahavir Road , Gokak Belgaur Karnataka- 591307 31-12-2009

23. CM/L- 3302738

Diamond Gold Palace Balagi Complex , Devi Temple Road, Yellapur, Uttar Kannada Karnataka - 581359 31-12-2009

24. CM/L- 3303033

Megha Industries Deopadakatte , Nitte Village, Karkala Taluk , Udupi -574110 , Karkala Karnataka

31-12-2009

25. CM/L- 3302637

Bheemaa Aqua Minerals No. 84 , Bheemenahalli , Manchanaya Kanahalli Post , Bidadi Hobli , kamanagara Taluk & District, Bangalore Urban Ramanagara Karnataka- 562109

2359

(8) (9)

(6)

(5)

1999

IS 1417

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

1999

IS 1417

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

1999

S1417

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

1999

IS 1417

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

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

2004

14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water )

「No. C. M. D./13:11 ] C. K. MAHESHWARI Scientist - GCertification ) [PART II SLC . 3 ( i ) ] 2360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 26 अप्रैल , 2010

का... 1182-भारर्त मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियमन , 1988 के विनियमन-5 के उप-विनियमन ( 6 ) के तहत भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो यह अधिसूचित करता है कि निम्नलिखित ब्यौरे वाले लाइसेन्स उनके आगे दी गई तारीखों से रद्द कर दिया गया है ।

अनुसूची

समयबाधित तारीख लाइसेंस वाले का नाम व पता

लाइसेस

समयबाधित लाइसेन्स द्वारा आव्रत वस्तुः प्रक्रिया के साथ संगत भारतीय मानक

क्रम संख्या

(5 )

(4)

(3)

(2)

(0)

16-12-2009 सीएमएल

भाभा 12933- पार्ट 1 : 2003 सोलार फ्लैट प्लंट कॉलेक्टर - पार्ट । रिक्वायरमेंट्स

न्यूसीफेरा रिनग्बल एनर्जी सिस्टम रागवेन्द्रानगर , बिहाइंड देवनुर चर्च नालंदा कोन्वेंट पर रोड़ तुमकुर -572102 कनों क

[नं. सी लड़ी 13:13 )

सी. के. महेश्वरी , वैज्ञक'जी' ना

New Delhi , the 26th April , 2010

S.0. 1182. In pursuance of sub - regulati ( 6 ) of regulation 5 of the Bureau of India Standaru: ( Certificati Regulation 1988 , the Bureau of Indian Standards , her notifies that the licences particular which are given below ha been cancelled with effect from the date indicated again. each:

Arte ingessorta dian Date of Care ati .....

Name and Address of the Licensee

Licence No.

St. No.

SCHEDULE Standar day tha cancelled/ suspensio

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

-2009 CA..

6372572

IS: 12933: Part 1: 2003 solar flat plate collector-: part i requirements.

Nucifera Renewable Energy System Raghavendranagar , Benind Devanur Church Nalanda Convent Parallel Road , Tunkur - 572102 , Karnataka

[No. CMD 13:13

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

नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1183. - भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूर एतद्द्वारा अभिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं , वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

भामा सं भाग अनु वर्ष लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

क्रम लाइसेंस संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि वर्ष/माह

(5) ( 7) ( )

(5)

(4)

(1) (2) (3)

2347

डॉपेस्टिक प्रेशर कुकर

1-02-2010

1 . सीएम. एल 3315242

मेट्रो अप्लाइनसेस नं. 79/8 , 8वां क्रॉस , शंकरप्पा गार्डन , मागडी रोड़ , बेंगलौर कर्नाटक-560023 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010. वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- गुण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

सीएम/एल 02-02-2010 2. 3319553

युनाइटेड इंजिनियरिंग वर्क्स नं. 235/1 , होंगासंद्रा बेगुर रोड़ , पहला मेन चौथा क्रॉस बेंगलौर कर्नाटक -560068 3. सीएम/एल 03-02-2010 3315848

जे. के. सीमेंट वर्क्स मुद्दापुर विलेज , मुधोल तालुक मुधोल बागलकोट कर्नाटक-587122 4. सीएम / एल 03-02-2010 3316042

एसएलएन मिनेरल्स नं. 119/2 एसएलवी रु. राउट , आल्लूर विलेज , दासनापुरा होब्ली, बेंगलौर नार्थ बेंगलौर-562123 , कर्नाटक 5. मोग्म/एल - 02-2010 आशिर्वाद पाइप्स प्राईवेट लिमिटेड 4-बी , अतिबेले इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , होसूर रोड , बेंगलोर -562107 कर्नाटक

सीएम/ एन 04-02-2016 17 7:49

श्री मुकाम्बिका ज्वेलर्स, नं. 503/3 , सूर्य किरण कॉम्लेक्स 50 फिट रोड़ , हनुमंतनगर बेंगलौर कर्नाटक-560050 7. सीएम/एल 05-02-2010 3318551

पोटेबल मिनरल्स 78: 5 , 78/6 , 15 वां मेन जे. सी. नगर , कुरबरहल्ली महालक्ष्मीप्रम , बेंगलौर -560086 कर्नाटक

8. पीएम.एल 08-2-2010 3:8450

विग्नेश ज्वेल एम्पायर 1747, 9वांक्रॉस, 18वां मेन II , फेस . ज. पी. नगर बेंगलौर , कर्नाटक -560078 9.

जमीला वुड इंडस्ट्रिज , सीएम/एल 09-02-2010 3319452

डेरेबैल कोन्चाडी, अशोका नगर पोस्ट मंगलौर, जिला दक्षिण कन्नडा, कर्नाटक-575006

2361

( 7 ) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

(5)

1995

भामा

9283

मोटार्स फॉर सबमरसिबल पम्पसेट्स

भामा 1991

1489

पोर्टलैंड पॉजलाना सिमेंट पार्ट -1 फ्लाईएश

भामा 2001

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल (पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा)

भामा 2007

15778

क्लोरिनेटेड पीवीसी पाइप्स फॉर पोटेबल हॉट एंड कोल्ड वाटर डिस्ट्रिब्युशन सप्लाईज

भामा 1999 1417

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण मिश्र धातुएं, आभूषण /शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

भामा 2004 पैंकेजबंद पेयजल

14543

( पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के

भामा 1009 स्वर्ण तथ मिश्र धातुएं ,

1417

अग /शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मार्किंग

भामा

प्लाईवुड फॉर जनरल परपजेस

303 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

2362

(4)

(3)

( 2)

( 1)

10. सीएम/ एल 10-02-2010 3318854

शेरवानीज्वेर्ल्स, सीटीएस नं. , 2530 , रविवार पेथ,, गोकाक बेलगांव , कर्नाटक-591307 11. सीएम/एल 15-02-2010 3320134

श्री गणेश ज्वेलर्स नं. 3/1 , एम . एन. कॉम्प्लेक्स , ज्यानभारती मेन रोड, नागरभावी बेंगलौर , कर्नाटक-560072 12. सीएम/ एल 15-02-2010 3326045

मैत्री इरिगेशन सिस्टम्स ( इंडिया ) प्राइवेट लिमिटेड , वी -3 , इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , के. एस. एस. आई.डी.सी. होसकोटे , बेंगलौर -562114 बेंगलौर , अरबन , कर्नाटक-562114 13. सोएम/ एल 16-02-2010 3326146

मिल्क प्रोजेक्ट प्लान्ट (ए युनिट ऑफ केएमएफ ) शीट्टीहल्ली विलेज , जनिवारा पोस्ट चन्नरायपट्टना तालुक हासन कर्नाटक-571116 14. सीएम/एल 16-02-2010 3330339

जेएसडब्ल्यूस्टील लिमिटेड , तोरानगल्ल पी. ओ. विद्यानगर बेल्लारी -583275 कर्नाटक

15. सीएम/एल 19-02-2010 3325144

पी. जी. स्टेशनरी प्राइवेट लिमिटेड नं. एफ-51 , राजाजीनगर इंडस्ट्रि‌गल एस्टेट , बेंगलोर -560044 बेंगलोर अरबन कर्नाटक

16. सीएम / एल 24-02-2010 3334445

शांताराम अमृत इंडस्ट्रिज ए. टी. पोस्ट, भंगासुली , अथणी तालुक जिला : बेलगांव कर्नाटक

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

( 7 ) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

(5)

भामा

1999

1417

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

भाभा 1999

1417

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

भामा 1992 इरिगेशन एक्युपमेंट्स- एमिटर्स

13487

भामा भाग । 1998

13334

स्किम्ड मिल्क पाउडर भाग -1 स्टैंडर्ड ग्रेड

भामा 1994

513

कोल्ड रोल्ड लो कारबन स्टील शीट एंड स्ट्रीप्स

भामा 1991 फाउनटेन पेन इंक - डाई बेस्ड

1221

पैकेज बंट पेयजल ( पैकंजबंद भामा 2004 मिनरल जल के अलावा ) 14543 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(4)

(3)

( 2)

( 1)

राजसन्स भाविक

17. सीएम/एल 26-02-2010

3329051

इंक्लेव , आर 5 , के. एस. एस . आई डी. सी डेम रोड, होसपेट -583202 बेल्लारी , कर्नाटक सीएम/एल 26-02-2010

18.

3329859

जे. अक्वासर्वे नं. 238 /2 बी माइको लेआउट , बेगूर विलेज बेंगलौर-560068 बेंगलौर अरबन कर्नाटक

2363

( 9 )

( 7 ) ( 8 )

(6)

(5)

2004

भामा

14543

पैकेजबन्द पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा

2004

भामा

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल ( पैकेजबंद मिनरल जल के अलावा )

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

New Delhi , the 27th April , 2010

S.O. 1183. - In pursuance of sub -regulation (5 ) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licence particular of which are given in the following Schedule :

SCHEDULE

Grant Date Name and address of the Party

Licences No.

Sl . No.

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

01-02-2010 Metro Appliances No. 79/8 ,

1 .

8th Cross Shankar Appa .

CM/L- 3315242

GardenMagadi Road , Bangalore , Urban Bangalore Karnataka - 560023 02-02-2010 United Engineering Works 2. CM/L- 3319553

No. 235/1 , Hongasandra . Begur Road, 1st Main 4th Cross Bangalore Karnataka - 560068 03-02-2010

3. CM/L- 3315848

J. K. Cement Works MuddapurVillage Mudhol Taluk Bangalkot , Mudhol , Karnataka - 587122 03-02-2010 Sl . N. Minerals No. 119/2, 4. CM/L- 3316042

Slv . Layout Allur Village Dasanapura Hobli Bangalore North , Bangalore - 562123 AllurBangalore Rural Karnataka - 562123

Year

Part Sec .

IS No.

Title or the Standard

(9 )

(7) ( 8 )

(6)

(5)

2006

IS 2347 -

Domestic pressure cookers

IS 9283- 1995 Motors for submersible pumpsets

IS1489 Part - 1- 1991 Portland pozzolana cement Part I flyash

2004

IS 14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water ) 2364

[PART II--SEC 303 ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 8 , 2010, VAISAKIA 18 , 1932

(5)

(6) (7) (8) (9) (2)

(3)

04-02-2010

5778 3023019

Chlorinated pvc pipes for IS potable hot andoid water distribution supplies

Ashirvad Pipes Ltd. -B . Attibele dustrial Area, Hosur Road, Bangalore Urban Ban ore Karnataka- 52107

1000 04-02-2010

IS 1417-- CML- 3317549

Gold and gold alloys , jewellers / artefacts fineness and marking

Sri Mookambica Jewellers #503 / 3 , urya Kiran Complex,. 50 Feet Road , Hanumanth- nagar , Bangalore Urban Banga ore Farnataka - 560050

2004

IS 14543- 05-02-2010

7 CMWL- 3318551

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water )

Potab : Minerals 78/5.78 / 6 , 15th Main ,. JC. Nagar , Kurubarahalli Mahal akshmiperam , Bangalore - 560086 Bangalore Urban Karnataka

6061

IS 1417- 08-02-2010

8. CM/L 3318450

Gold and gold alloys , jewellery/ artefacts fineness and marking

Vignesh Jewel Empire 1747 , 9th Cross 18th Main II Phase J. P. Nagar , Bangalore Bangalore Urban Bangalore Karnataka- 560078

1989 9

09-02-2010

Plywood for general purposes IS303 CM/L- 3319452

Jameela Wood Industries Derebil conchady Ashoka Nagar Post . Mangalore Dakshin Kannada , Karnataka - 575006

1090

IS 1417 10-02-2010

10. CM/ L 3318854

Gold and gold alloys jewellery/ artefacts fineness and marking

Sharvani Jewellers CTS No. 2530 ,. Raviwarpeth Gokak Belgaum Karnataka - 591307

1009

IS 1417 15-02-2010

11. CM1 3320134

Gold and gold alloys jewellery/ artefacts fineness andmarking

Sri Ganesh Jewellers #3/ 1, M. N. Complex , Jnanabharathı Main Road , Nagarbhavi Bangalore Urban Bangalore Karnataka - 560072

IS 13487-

1002 15-02-2010

Irrigation equipment- emitters

12. CiM/L- 33260-15

Mythri Irrigation Systems (India) Pvt. Ltd. , V. 3 , Industrial Estate , K. S. S. I. D.C. Hoskote , Bangalore - 562114 Bangalore Urban Karnataka - 562114 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

(3)

(4)

(1) (2)

16-02-2010

13. CM/L- 3326146

Milk Product Plant (A Unit of KMF)

Shettihally Village Janivara Post Channaray apatna Taluk Hassan Karnataka- 571116 16-02-2010

14. CM/L- 3330339

JSW Steel Ltd. , Toranagallu P.Ο. Vidyanagar Bellary-583275 Karnataka

19-02-2010

15. CM/L- 3325144

P.G. Stationery Private Limited no . F. 51 , Rajarinagar Indl . Estate, Bangalore - 560044 Bangalore Urban Karnataka

24-02-2010

16. CM/L- 3324445

Shantaram Amrut Industries AtPost, Mangasuli , Athani Taluk Belgaum District Belgaum Karnataka

17. CM/L- 26-02-2010 3329051

Rajsons Bhavik Enclave, R-5 , KSSIDC, Dam Road, Hospet-583203 Bellary Karnataka

18. CM/L- 26-02-2010 3329859

Jay Aqua SY No. 238/2B, Mico layout , Begur Village, Bangalore -560068 , Bangalore Urban , Karnataka

2365 (5)

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

13334 Part 1

1998 Skimmed milk powder part I standard grade

IS 513

1994 Cold-rolled low carbon steel sheets and strips

IS 1221-

1991 Fountain pen ink - dye based

2004

IS 14543

Packaged drinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

2004

IS 14543

Packageddrinking water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

IS 14543

2004 Packageddrinkingwater (other than packaged natural mineral water)

[No. C.M.D./13:11 ] C. K. MAHESHWARI , Sc . " G " ( Certification)

नई दिल्ली, 27 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1184.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम , 1988 के विनियम् ( 4 ) के उप- नियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक 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

लाइसेंस

संख्या

क्रम सं.

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि

(4)

(2)

(1)

(3)

25-1-2010

1. 3602144

हनुमान प्रसाद कोस्तुभ बेवरेजेज

गट संख्या 96,99,103 पोस्ट सास्ने तोंदली फाटा के सामने मुरबाड- कर्जत रोड मुरबाड जिला : थाने-421 401 1547 GI /10-4

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

भामा सं. भाग/खण्ड वर्ष (5)

(6)

14543 : 2004 पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी ( पैकेजबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा ) 2366

[PART I-St . 3( 1)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 8 , 2010/VAISAKHA 18, 1932

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

02-02-2010

2. 3602952

देवकी बेबरेजेज, हाउस सं. 529 , मानस वाडा, कुन्देम, गोवा-403115 05-2-2010

3. 3604653

बालाजी इन्टरप्राईजेज , हाउस संख्या 1597 , भामरे कंपाउण्ड, मुकुंद होटल के पीछे , विलेज वाल , मनकोसी- अंजर फाटा रोड भिवंडी, जिला थाणे

05-2-2010

3604754

वेवर अक्वाएवरफ्लो, गला सं. 1 और 2 तल मंजिल टीका हाउस 84 , विजयकर वाड़ी, एस.वी. रोड, मलाड ( पश्चिम) मुंबई-400064 08-2-2010

3605655

जयपॉलीतार इण्डस्ट्रीज , प्लॉट संख्या 15 , सर्वे संख्या 46/1 -पी, दमन गंगा इण्डस्ट्रियल इस्टेट , अथल सिलवासा-नवेली रोड, सिलवासा-396230 6. 7994817 22-2-2010

पिंच बोटलिंग कंपनी , एन-57 , एमआईडीसो जलगांव-425003

(6)

(5)

14543:2004 प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलावा)

14543 : 2004 पैकेजनंद पीने का पानी (पैबंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जहा के अलावा)

पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी (पैद प्राकृतिक मिनरल बल के अलावा )

15351: 2003 यस्तादि-कंजल अस्तर को लिए लेभिनित उच्च घनत्व पॉलीथितांन ( एचडीपीई ) कपड़ा

14543 :2004 पैकेजबंद पीने का पानी (पैकोनंद प्राकृतिक मिनरल जल के अलाम्य)

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

New Delhi , the 27th April, 2010

S.O. 1184.-In pursuance of sub - regulation (5) of regulation 4 ofthe Bureau of Indian Standards ( Certification ) Regulations 1988 , of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are given in the following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

Name and address Grant Date

SI. Licence

No. No.

(factory) of the Party

(4)

(3)

(1) (2)

25-1-2010

1. 3602144

Hanuman Prasad Kaustubh Beverages, Gut. No.96 , 99 , 103 at Post Sasne , Opp . Tondali Phata Murbad-Karjat Road, Murbad Distt. Thane-421401

Product

IS No./Part Sec . Year

(6)

(5)

14543.2004 Packaged Drinking Water (other than packaged natural mineral walet) [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) 2. 3602952 2-2-2010

Devki Beverages , H. No. 529 , Manaswada , Kundaim Goa-403115 3. 3604653 5-2-2010

Balaji Enterprises , H. No. 1597 , Bhamare Compound , Behind Mukund Hotel , Village Val ,.Mankoli -Anjur PhataRoad , Bhiwindi , Distt. Thave 4. 3604754 5-2-2010

Weaver Aqua Everflo , Gala No. I and 2 , Ground Floor , Teeka House 84 Vijaykar Wadi , S. V. Road , Malad (W) Mumbai -400064 5. 3605655 8-2-2010

Jay Polytarp industries , Plot No. 15 , Survey No. 46/ 1 -P, Damanganga Indl . Estate , Athal Silvassa Naroli Road, Silvassa -396230 6. 7994817 22-2-2010

Pinch Bottling Co. , N - 57, MIDC, Jalgaon -425003

2367 (5)

(6)

14543 : 2004 Packaged Drinking Water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

14543 : 2004 Packaged Drinking Water (Other than Packaged natural mineral Water)

14543 : 2004 Packaged Drinking Water (other than packaged natural mineral water )

15351 : 2003 Taxtiles-Laminated High Density Polyethylene ( HDPE ) Fabric for Canal Lining

14543 : 2004 Packaged Drinking Water (other than packaged natural mineral water)

[No. C.M.D./13:11 ] C. K. MAHESHWARI , Sc . " G " ( Certification)

नई दिल्ली , 27 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1185.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उप-नियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानक का विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिया गया हैं वह स्थापित हो गया है :-

अनुसूची

क्रम. स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों ) की संख्या

संख्या वर्ष और शीर्षक

( 1)

(2)

1 .

आईएस 1969 ( भाग 1 ) 2009/ आई एस ओ 13934-1 : 1999 वस्त्रादि वस्त्रों के तनन गुणधर्म- अधिकतम बल एवं अधिकतम बल पर दीर्घिकरण ज्ञात करना - भाग 1 - पट्टीवाली विधि ( तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

स्थापित तिथि

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

(3)

(4)

कोई नहीं

दिसम्बर , 2009

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

[ संदर्भः टी एक्स डी/जी -25 ] पी. भटनागर , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ ' एवं प्रमुख ( टीएक्सडी ) PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 2368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

New Delhi , the 27th April , 2010

S.O. 1185.- In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rules ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standard particulars of which is given in the Schedule hereto annexed has been established on the date indicated against it :

SCHEDULE

Date of No. & Year of the Indian Standards

SI .

Established Established

No.

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

Nil

December , 2009 18 1969 ( Part 1 ) : 2009/ ISO 13934-1 : 1999 Textiles - Tensile Properties of Fabrics- Determination of Maximum Force and Elongation at Maximum Force Part 1 , Strip Method ( Third Revision)

Henceforth , this standards will be available for sale .

Copy of this Standard is available for sale with the HQ . at Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan , 9 , Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg , New Delhi - 110002 and its 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: TXD/G - 25 ]

P. BHATNAGAR , Sc . ' F ' and Head ( Textiles )

नई दिल्ली, 30 अप्रैल, 2010

रकर, अरु. 1186.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो ( प्रमाणन ) विनियम 1988 के नियम 4 के उपनियम ( 5 ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन लाइसेंसों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं, वे स्वीकृत कर दिए गए हैं :-

अनुसूची

भारतीय मानक का शीर्षक

अनु. वर्ष

भामासं. भाग लाइसेंसधारी का नाम व पता

लाइसेंस

क्रम

सं संख्या

स्वीकृत करने की तिथि वर्ष/माह

( 7) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

( 5)

(4)

( 2) (3)

(1 )

2046

1995 01-01-2010

i . 7996013

टैकोरेटिव थर्मोसैटिंग सिथैटिक रेसिन बांडिड लैमिनेटिड शीट

मैसर्स टाईमक्स आर्ट डैकोर प्रा. लिमिटेड , सर्वे नंबर 1 /पी. , एन. एच. नंबर 8 , गांव टलवाडा , वलसाद -396105

2004

14543

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

07-01-2010

7006017

मैसर्स मारूति वाटर प्लॉट , नंबर 198 , पटेल फालियाख प्राथमिक स्कूल के पास , गांव अमरोली , सूरत 2369 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010 /वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

(5)

(4)

(6) ( 7) ( 8 ) ( 9 ) (3)

( 2)

(1)

2004

14543 13-01-2010

पैकेजबंद पेयजल

3. 7998421

मैसर्स नीलकंठवरनी हैल्थ केयर, शैड नंबर 7 , ग्राउंड फ्लोर , गिरिराज काम्पलैक्स के पीछे , पंचममाल के सामने , निकोल गाम रोड , निकोल , अहमदाबाद

2000

अनप्लास्टिसाइड पी. वी. सी. पाईप 4985 7998825 13-01-2010

फॉर पोटेबाल वाटर सप्लाईस

मैसर्स डयूक प्लास्टो टैक्नीक प्रा. लिमिटेड , एन एच 14 , डीसा हाइवे , ग्रीन वुड होटल के सामने , बदरपुरा , पालनपुर (उत्तर गुजरात) बनसकांटा

1978 13-01-2010

5. 7999524

डायकलोरवास इमलसीफाईएबल 5277

कंसंट्रेट

मैसर्स कैमैंट वैट्स तथा फ्लोस प्रा. लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर 129/सी /2 , जीआईडीसी एस्टेट , अंकलेश्वर भारूच

1978 6. 7999625 13-01-2010

कलोरपाईरीफास इमलसीफाईएबल 8944 कंसंट्रेट

मैसर्स कैमैंट वैट्स तथा फ्लोस प्रा. लिमिटेड , प्लाट नंबर 129/सी/ 2 , जीआईडीसी एस्टेट , अंकलेश्वर भारूच

7834 1978 7.

19-01-2010

3600746

इंजैक्शन मोलडेड पी.वी.सी फिटिंग विद सोलवेंट सीमेंट

ज्वाएंट्स फार वाटर सप्लाई जनरल रिक्वायरमेंट

मैंसर्स एसट्राल पालिटैक्नीक लिमिटेड , ब्लाक नंबर 1253 तथा 1264 , गांव सांतेज , शाह एलोयेस के पास ता कलोल , डिस्ट्रिक्ट गांधीनगर -382 721

1417 1999 25-01-2010

8. 3601041

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शिल्पकारी शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

मैंसर्स मंगलम ज्वैलर्स, 15/87 , अरिहत चैम्बर्स , मेन बाजार , किम ( वैस्ट) , ताल्लुका ओलपाड , सूरत -394 110

1417 1999 25-01-2010

9. 3600948

राजस्थान ज्वैलर्स प्रा लिमिटेड , 135/06 , स्टेशन रोड , मणीनगर , अहमदाबाद -380 008

स्वर्ण तथा स्वर्ण धातुओं के आभूषणों शुद्धता एवं मुहरांकन

12709 1994 28-01-2010

10. 3601748

ग्लास फाइबर रेनिफोर्सड प्लास्टिक जी लार पी पाई ज्वाएंट तथा फिटिंग फार दूस फार पोटेबल वाटर सप्लाई

मैसर्स पैसिफिक पाईप सिस्टम प्रा. लिमिटेड , प्लांट नंबर 36-43पी , गांव नारायणपुरा , पोस्ट चंद्रासन , ता. सानंद , डिस्ट्रिक्ट अहमदाबाद

टैक्सटाईल तारपोलिन 7903 2005 11. 3601849 28-01-2010

मेड फ्राम हाई डेंसिटी पोलिथिलीन वोवन फैबरिक

मैसर्स गुजरात क्राफ्ट इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड , 431 , सांतेज वडसर रोड , सांतेज , अहमदाबाद -382 721 2370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010/VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

(4)

(2) (3)

(1)

28-01-2010

12. 3602043

मैसर्स महाराजा इंटरनेशनल, यूनिट आफ पवन सीमेंट कम्पनी ( प्रा) लिमिटेड , सेल्स टैक्स चैक पोस्टके पास, अमीरगढ सिटी, बनसकांटा -385 130

23-01-2010

13. 3601950

मैसर्स महाराजा इंटरनेशनल , यनिट आफ पवन सीमेंट कम्पनी (प्रा) लिमिटेड, सेल्स टैक्स चैक पोस्टके पास, अमीरगढ़ सिटी, बनसकांटा-385 130

18-01-2010

14. 7998522

मैसर्स हीमा सेल्स कार्पोरेशन, 4 ए 10 , लक्ष्मी इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , पालड़ी तीन रास्ता, विसनगर , उत्तर गुजरात , मेहसाना 25-01-2010

15. 3603247

मैसर्स प्राईमा पम्प प्रा. लिमिटेड , 34 , गुज वी एम एयू वसाइट लिमिटेड, ओढव , अहमदाबाद 28-01-2010

16 3603853

मैसर्स विश्वनाथ पष्प प्रा. लिमिटेड , सबमर्सिबल पम्पसैट केरला, जी आई डी सी, प्लाट 1401/1 , एट एन एच -3 , बावला के पास , अहमदाबाद 21-01-2010

3601552

मैसर्स गुजरात पैस्टीसाइड्स, एफ 15 , फेस 2 , जी आई डी एस्टेट, नरोडा, अहमदाबाद -382 330

[PART 11-3C. 30 ))

(7) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

(5)

1987

12269

53 ग्रेड आर्डिनरी 'पोर्टलैंड सीमेंट

1993

1489 1

पोर्टलैंड पोजोलाना सीमेंट पार्ट । फलाई एश बेस्ड

1983

9537 3

कन्डयूट्स फार इलैक्ट्रिकल इंस्टालेशन

1994

14220

ओपनवैल सबमर्सिबल पम्पसेंट

2002

8034

5277

डायकलोरवास इमल्सीफायथल कसंट्रेट

[सं. सी.एम.डी./13: 11 ]

सो. के. महेश्वरी , वैज्ञानिक- जी ( प्रमाणन)

New Delhi , the 30th April , 2010

8.0. 1186.-In pursuance of sub -regulation (5) of the regulation 4 of the Bureau of Indian Standards (Certification) Regulations , 1983 of the Bureau of Indian Standards , hereby notifies the grant of licences particulars of which are giver inthe following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

Grant Date Name & address ofthe Party

Licences No.

Sl No.

(2)

(4)

(3)

(1)

01-01-2010

1 . 7996013

Timex Art Decor Pvt . Ltd. , Survey No. 1 /P, N.H. No. 8 , Village Talwada, Valsad- 396105

IS No. Part Sne Yeer Title ofthe Standard

(5)

(7) (8) (9)

(6)

2046

1995 Decorative Thermosetting Synthetic Resin Bonded Laminated Sheets भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख, 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( 11) ]

(4)

(3)

( 2)

(1)

7996922

07-01-2010 Maruti Water , Plot No. 198 , Patel Faliya Near Prathmik School , Village Amroli , Surat 13-01-2010

3. 7998421

Nilkanthvarni Healthcare , Shed No.7 , Ground Floor , B/H Giriraj Complex, Opp . Pancham Mall , Nikol Garn Road , Nikol , Ahmedabad

13-01-2010

4. 7998825

Duke Plasto Technique Pvt . Ltd. N.H. 14 , Deesa Highway , Opp .Hotel Green Wood , Badarpura , Palanpur , (N. Gujarat) , Banaskantha 13-01-2010

7999524

Chemet Wets & Flows Pvt . Ltd. Plot No. 129 /C/2 , GIDC Estate , Ankleshwar , Bharuch 7999625 13-01-2010

Chemet Wets & Flows Pvt. Ltd. , Plot No. 129 / C /2 , GIDC Estate , Ankleshwar , Bharuch 3600746 19-01-2010

Astral Polytechnik Limited , Block No. 1253 & 1264 , Village Santej , Near Shah Alloys , Taluka Kalol , Dist . Gandhinagar- 382721 8. 3601041 25-01-2010 Mangalam Jewellers , 15/87 , Arihant Chambers , Main Bazar , Kim (West ) , Tal : Olpad , Surat-394 110

3600948 25-01-2010

Rajashan Jewellers Pvt . Ltd. 135/06 , Station Road, Maninagar , Ahmedabad - 380 008 10. 3601748 28-01-2010 Pacific Pipe Systems Pvt . Ltd. Plot No. 36-43P, Village Naranpura , Post Chandrasan , Ta! Sanad , Dist . Ahmedabad

2371

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

(6)

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

2004

14543

Packaged Drinking Water (other than Packaged Natural Mineral Water)

2000

4985

Unplasticized PVC Pipes for Potable Water Supplies

5277

1978 Dichlorvos Emulsifiable Concentrates

1978

8944

Chlorpyrifos Emulsifiable Concentrates

1987

7834 1

Injection Moulded PVC fittings with solvent cement joints for water supplies ; Part 1 General requirements

1417

1999 Gold and gold alloys jewellery/ artefacts fineness and marking

1417

1999 Gold and gold alloys jewellery/ artefacts fineness andmarking

1994

12709

Glass - fibre reinforced plastic ( GRP) pipes , joints and fittings for use for potable water supply [PART 11 - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 / VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

2372

( 7 ) ( 8 ) ( 9 )

(6)

(5)

(4)

(3)

( 2 )

(1)

2005

7903

28-01-2010 Gujarat Craft Industries

3601849

11.

Textiles- Tarpaulins made from high density

polyethylene woven fabric

Limited, 431, Santej - Vadsar Road , Santel , Ahmedabad - 382721

1987

12269 28-01-2010

12. 3602043

53 grade ordinary Portland cement

Maharaja International , Unit of Pawan Cement Co.

Pvt. Ltd. , Near Sales Tax Check Post , Amirgadh City , Banaskantha - 385 130

1999

1489 28-01-2010

13. 3601950

Portland pozzolana cement part I Flyash based

Maharaja International , Unit of Pawan Cement Co. Pvt. Ltd. , Near Sales Tax Check Post , Amirgadh City , Banaskantha - 385 130

1983

9537 13-01-2010

7998522

14.

Conduits for electrical installation

Hima Sales Corporation , 4/A/ 10 , Laxmi Ind . Estate , Paldi , Three Rasta , Visnagar (N.G. ) , Mehshana

14220

1994 25-01-2010

15. 3603247

Openwell Submersible Pump Sets

Prima Pumps Pvt . Ltd. , 34 , Guj . V. M. AU . Vasahat Ltd. , Odhav , Ahmedabad

2002

8034 3603853 28-01-2010

Submersible Pump Sets

16.

Vishwanath Pumps Pvt . Ltd. , Kerala GIDC , Plot 1401/1 , At N H -8 , Near Bavla , Ahmedabad

5227

1978

Dichlorvos Emulsifiable

21-01-2010 Gujarat Pesticides ,

17. 3604552

Concentrates

F.15 , Phase 2 , GIDC Estate , Naroda , Ahmedabad - 382 330

[No. CMD/13: 11 ]

C. K. MAHESHWARI , Scientist G ( Certification) भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 12 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1187.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सालगोनकर माइनिंग इन्डस्ट्रीज प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 73/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-29011/4/2009- आई आर ( एम) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 12th April , 2010

S.O. 1187. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 73/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court- 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Salgaoncor Mining Industries Pvt . Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-4-2010.

[No. L - 29011 /4 /2009 - IR ( M) ] KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 2 , MUMBAI

PRESENT :

A. A. Lad, Presiding Officer .

Reference No. CGIT- 2 /73 of 2009

Employers in relation to the management of M/ s . Salgaoncar Mining Industries Pvt . Ltd. 1. The Managing Dircetor , M/s . Salgaoncar Mining Industries Pvt . Ltd. , Salgaoncar Chambers , Margao , Goa

2. M/ s . Sova ,

Salgaoncar Chambers , P.O. Box No. 114 , Margao , Goa-403 601

3. The Managing Director , M/ s . Marzook Cadar Pvt . Ltd. , Salgaoncar Chambers , P.O. Box No. 35 , Margo , Goa-403 601

IstParty

Vs.

1547 Gl/10-5

2373 Their Workmen The General Secretary, United Mine Workers Union, G-5, Macado Appt. , Tisk- Ponda , Goa. Second Party APPEARANCE :

FOR THE EMPLOYERS : Mr.Oswald Fernandes , Advocate

FOR THE WORKMEN : Mr.P. Gaonkar, Representative of the Union

Date of reserving the Award: 27-1-2010

Date of passing the Award : 8-3-2010

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 - 29011 /4/2009 - IR( M ) dated 31st July, 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 (1) M/ s . Salgaoncar Mining Industries Pvt . Ltd. (2) M/ s . Sova (3 ) Marzook and Cadar Pvt . Ltd. In closing their Mine and Beneficiation Plant at Tatodi, Sanguem , Goa and teminating the employment of 140 workmen as stated by the United Mine Workers Union vide their representation dated 19-2-2009 (Annexure 1) is legal and justified ? To what relief the workmen are entitled for ? "

2. Claim statement is filed by the Union at Exhibit 5 making out the case that , the said Union is a registered Union and was formed for the welfare of the employees working with 1st party. Ist Party is running 3 mines by name M/s . Bagaler Mines , M / s . Sova and Mis . Marzook Cadar Private Limited . According to Union workers involved in the Reference were working with the Ist party in the above 3 mines and beneficiation plant at Tatodi . According to Union operation of the above named 3 mines and the other beneficiation Plant were and are carried out by M/ s . Salgaoncar Mining Industries Pvt . Ltd. and the orewhich is extracted from the said 3 mines is exportedby M/s . Salgaoncar Mining Industries Pvt. Ltd. According to Union M/ s . Sova is a mining establishment having leased mine at Tatodi , Sanguem- Goa having its office at Salgaoncar Chambers , Margao-Goa .It is statedby the union that , M/ s . Marzook Cadar Pvt . Ltd. is the mining establishment having Mining Lease at Tatodi - Sanguem- 2374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

5. In view of the above position following points arise for my determination which I answer as under :

Points

Findings

Yes to some extent

1. Whether 2nd Party is entitled for the reliefs sought ?

2. What order ?

As per the Order passed below

REASONS :

6. Case of the 2nd Party is that , Ist party is engaged in unfair labour practice , without following the procedure of a law as it decided to terminate them . It is case of the Union that , even it stopped workers in reporting on duty with effect from 5-1-2009 . According to Union decision taken by 1st party of closing its mines is nothing but unfair labour practice . It is case of the Union that . It learnt ist party has now started its business with the help of new employees . So it is prayed , by filing interim rehet application , to direct 1st party to take these employees first.

7. To support that , 2nd Party filed affidavits of Prakash Morajkarat Exhibit 14 and Govind Gaonkar at Exhibit 15 in the form of their examination - in - chief .

Goa and having its office at Salgaoncar Chambers , Margao -Goa . According to 2nd Party these Mining lease are operated by M / s . Salgaoncar Mining and the ore is being extracted from the said mining lease and exported directly by M / s . Salgaoncar Mining Industries Pvt . Ltd. According to Union it has engaged more than 140 employees and most of the workers involved in the reference were working for more than 19 years continuously. It is case if the Union that , they have not been paid properly and no facilities were offered to them . It is case of the Union that , Ist Party has violated the provisons of Payment of Wages Act . It is case of the Union that , no bonus is paid , nor incentive given and unfair labour practice is followed by the employers . So it is case of the 2nd Party Union that , for the benefit of the employees it was formed and most of the employees working with 1st Party became members of the 2nd party Union. It is case of the Union that , Ist Party started harassing the workers and decided to terminate their services and they were terminated without following due process of law . It is case ofthe Union that , management did not allow them to work from 5-1-2009 . It is case of the Union that , so the members through Union took up the matter with the Assistant Labour Commissioner ( Central ) Vasco da - gama- Goa for conciliation . It is case of the Union that , as no response was given by the Management failure report was submitted by Assistant Labour Commissioner and reference sent for adjudication by Government of India , Labour Ministry . According to 2nd Party Union closing down of Mines and depriving the workers who are more than 140 is nothing but unfair labour practice adopted by the 1st party. The decision taken by 1st party of closure of the Mines and/ or discontinuing the operations and not allowing the workers to report on duty require to declare as illegal . According to 2nd party Union , now 1st party has started functioning with new employees . So it is prayed that , Ist party be directed to employ the workers who are members of the 2nd Party Union who are working with it and declare closure was illegal and the decision of the 1st Party in terminating the services of these workers under the guise of closure not legal , proper. It also request to direct 1st Party to take them in the employment with benefits of continuity of service and payment of full back wages .

3. Even 2nd Party filed interim relief application at Exhbit 10 praying to direct 1st Party to take its members in the employment and estop it from engaging new employees.

8. 1st party by letter dated 12-1-2010 , at Exhibit 13 , addressed to this Tribunal , by sending postal correspondence , contending that it , want to express strong protest for wasting their time and the time of this Tribunal to deal withthe dead and cremated dispute . According to M/ s. Sova and Marzook and Cadar Pvt . Ltd. the workers who are members of the Union started disorder in the working of the mine and created unrest in the operation of the mine who ultimately decided to go on strike to bring the operations to the stand still causing heavy loss to the Management . It is further stated in the said letter that . realizing this plan of the workers , Management took preventive and counter measures by putting lock - gate and each and every worker was paid their full dues , wages . etc. as per the list attached with the said letter . It is further contended that , this Tribunal should take cognizance of the said letter as well as letter addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner , Vasco -da- Gama . It is also informed by the said letter that , for the mining machinery which valued several crores , the Management sought Police protection by writing letter to the Police Inspector. It is also informed that , having made full payment to each and every worker to their entire satisfaction , their is no more cause of action of grievance of the workers . It is further stated that , Union has collected large amount of money from the workers for the settlement payments and they have made payment of more than Rs . 141 lakhs to the workers . It is stated that , in this background there is ne any point remain to decide and dispute raised by the Union be treated as not in existence .

4. 1st Party was served vide Exhibit 6 to 9 and Advocate for 1st party appeared and filed his appearance at Exhibit 11. He also applied for adjournment vide Exhibit 12. Even then written statement was not filed . the order to proceed ex -parte against the Management was passed permitting 2nd Party to lead ex - parte evidence .

2375 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

9. On that , 2nd Party gave reply to it .

विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय , कोचीन के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30011/34/2007 - आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 12th April , 2010

S.O. 1188. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court , Cochin now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Cochin Refinery Employees Canteen Coop. Society and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-4-2010 .

[No. L -30011 /34/ 2007 - IR( M ) | KAMAL BAKHRU , Desk Officer

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

PRESENT : Shri P.L. Norbert , B.A. , LLB . , Presiding Officer (Friday the 25th day of February , 2010/6th Falgunam , 1931)

10. Here the way in which the Reference is going on and the way in which the parties are appearing , that too by postal correspondence , I feel that , they have taken subject matter in wrong way . The Claim Statement is filed by the 2nd Party under the signature of one ' P. Gaonkar ' . His designation is not mentioned under his signature what is his status , designation and who is he though in the verification column he mentioned as General Secretary of the Union . Even interim application , is filed with the signature of " Puti Gaonkar " without disclosing his identity, position and status in signing the same . The said is replied by one of the 1st Party who is in the name of M/ s . Sova and Marzook and Cadar Pvt . Ltd. by letter dated 12-1-2010 pointing out that , the matter is settled . compensation paid and nothing remains to be paid to the workers . Even list of the benefited submitted . However . no supporting evidence is lead on that point . When the matter was fixed for recording the evidence , or leading evidence by both , here Union filed affidavit in support of their reply . In the Claim statement Union prayed to direct the employer to reemploy those workers . They also prayed to refrain 1st party in engaging contract workers . Whereas subject matter of the Schedule is " whether action of the Management in closing Mine and other Beneficiation Plant and terminating the employment of 140 workers is legal and just ? " As far as claim of the Union prayed in the Claim Statement and the subject matter of the Reference is concerned they are quite different .

I.D. 23/2007

Union : The General Secretary, Cochin Refinery Employees Canteen , Co-op . Society Canteen Employees Union , Ambalamughal , (Kerala )-682 302

By Adv. Sri . C. Anil Kumar 11. Anyway affidavit to that effect is made out. Said affidavit is not challenged by Ist party . There is no cross on that affidavit nor prayer prayed in the Claim Statement is challenged . However, prayer of the Union to restrain Ist Party in not engaging contract workers cannot be considered unless and until contract employees are prohibited by Government of Inida . so I reply this point to that effect and passes the following order:

ORDER

Management The President, Cochin Refinery Employees , Canteen Co - op . Society, Ambalamughal ( Kerala ) -682 302 ( a) Reference is partly allowed directing 1st party to give priority to the members of the Union in the employment while continuing its activities .

By Advs . M/ s . Menon & Pai (b) No order as to its costs .

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

This case coming up for hearing on 24-2-2010 , this Tribunal- cum- Labour Court on 25-2-2010 passed the following. AWARD

Mumbai , 8th March , 2010

नई दिल्ली , 12 अप्रैल , 2010

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

"Whether the action of the management of Kochi Refinery Employees Canteen Co - operative Society in extending the training period from the year 2000 to 2003 and delaying their regularisation till then is का. आ. 1188.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कोचीन रिफाइनरी इम्पलाइज केन्टीन को. ओ. सोसाईटी के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक 2570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010/VAISAKΗΛ 18 , 1932

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

management society. Ext . W2 is the paper advertisement .

fair and just ? If not, to what relief they are entitled to ?

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows : 25 persons were selected and appointed as Canteen Trainees in the Kochin Refineries Employees CanteenCo- operative Society in 1999. The canteen is run by the Society onbehalf ofCochi Refineries Limited . The members of the society are the employees of Kochi Refineries Limited. The training was initially for a period of 12 months . It was extended 3 times . After 4 years training they were appointed as Probationary Canteen Boys in 2003. On completion of the probation ( one year) they were confirmed in service of the Society as Canteen Boys . The grievance of the union which has espoused the cause of 25 canteen boys is that the normal period of training being one year the management went on extending the training without any reason , despite the fact there were sufficient vacancies to absorb all of them . It is also pointed out that one of the terms in the notification, calling for applications for the post of canteen trainees , was that on completion oftraining, the candidates would be absorbed in future vacancies . But the management did not do so .As a result they had to be content with stipends alone for a period of 4 years and suffered great monetary loss . They are entitled for absorption on completion of training for one year.

3. It is the case of the management that though the initial period of training was one year it was extended at the request of trainees . The vacancies of canteen boys arose only in 2003 and all the trainees were absorbed then . There was no promise to absorb the trainees on completion oftraining for one year. The trainees have no right to claim absorption . They have no right to get their pay fixed before their regular appointment. The period of training at any rate cannot be treated as regular service . The stipend was increased from time to time . After having requested for extension of training they cannot question it after absorption. There is nothing illegal in extending the training.

4. In the light ofthe above contentions the following points arise for consideration :

( 1 ) Whether the extension of training beyond one year is fair and legal ?

(2) Are the Trainees entitled for absorption on completion of 12 months' training ?

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of WW1 ( CanteenBoy ) and documentary evidence of Exts . W1 to W-32 on the side of union and MWI and Exts . MI to M -9 on the side of management and Court Exts . ExtX- 1 to X -3 .

The educational qualification , age etc. were mentioned in the advertisement . The period oftraining was fixed as one year and the remuneration was Rs . 1,500 per month as stipend . It was also mentioned in the notification that the trainees may be considered for absorption as canteen boys against future vacancies subject to recruitment rules of the society. The workmen were called for written test . One of such letters calling for the test is Ext. W3 dated 30-9-1999 . Ext. W- 15 is one of the orders of appointment as canteen trainee dated 19-11-1999 . The order mentions that the period of training will be 12 months . It is also mentioned that on successful completion of the training suitable candidates will be consideredfor regular employment as canteen boys subject to availability of vacancy. It is further stated that training does not create any obligation for regular employment. The training as per Ext. W- 15 order completed by 19-11-2000 . But the management extended the period of training by another one year. It is the case of the union that there were sufficient vacancies of canteen boys to absob all the trainees on completion of training for one year. But the management with a view to extract work on payment of nominal remuneration extended the period of training after getting requests from a few of the workmen . It is contended by the union that the workmen were not in a position to refuse to give request letters for extension of training , for fear of denial of regular appointment . In the similar manner the management extended the training again for a further period of one year. Lastly even without getting a request the training was further extended for another one year ( a third time) . Thus the training period was altogether four years from 1999 to 2003. Exts . W8 , 9 and 10 are orders of extension of training issued to one of the workmen (WW1 ) . Accordingto WW1 he had not given any request for extension of training. The management obtained requests from a few workmen and on the basis of that , the training period of all were extended fromtime to time. However for the last period of extension there were no requests from anyone . It is pointed out by the union that for the previous batch the training period was only one year. Ext . W14 appointment order dated 1-11-1999 is produced to support the contention. It is an appointment order issued to one Shibu K. Joseph as canteen boy. Ext. W14 refers to the letter dated 29-10-1998 appointing him as trainee . It is thus evident that Shri Shibu K. Joseph underwent training only for a period of one year. In the case of another canteen trainee of the previous batch . Sri P. O. Joy his training periodwas one year initially and was extended by 6 months. Ext. W16 is the order of extension of training issued to Sri P. O. Joy. The reason stated for extension is that his training was not satisfactory and the extension was given for improvement and that his performance will be closely watched. Ext. W17 is a letter issued to another candidate ofthe previous batch calling him to submit application to 6. Point Nos . 1 and 2 : 25 workmen involved in this case had appplied for the post of canteen trainees in pursuance to paper advertisement made by the the post of canteen trainee if he was interested. A copy of [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

the paper advertisement was also attached to the letter. The training period mentioned in the advertisement is one year.

7. The documents referred above reveal that the period of training intended by the management for canteen trainees is one year . If the management is not satisfied with the performance of a trainee he will be asked to undergo a further period of training and that period has to be fixed by the management . Whether training should be extended or not is to be decided by the management . The trainees have no say in the matter . Normally when the performance is not satisfactory training is extended . The perid of one year is fixed by the management knowing fully well that period is sufficient to prepare a trainee for endertaking the regular work of a canteen boy. The deviation from such an existing practice can be justified only if management is not satisfied with the performance of any particular or a few named trainees , but not trainees an masse . Nowhere the management has a case that the performance of trainees was not satisfactory, the management is not supposed to act on the wish and will of a trainee for extending the training . The trainees never agreed to undergo further training without stipend . On the other hand the management increased their stipend in the second year. When the training was further extended a 3rd time again stipend was increased to Rs . 5,000 per month. Thus the training was extended at the cost of management , assuming it was done at the request of trainees . After one year of training the management could have relieved them and asked them to wait until they are called back for regular appointment. Instead the training was extended for a period of four years .

Itis contended in the claim statement that in fact no training was imparted by the management . On the other hand the trainees were made to work along with permanent workers . WWI the Joint Secretary of the Union and one of the workmen has stated in the chief examination ( by proof affidavit ) , para 3 and 4 that no training was imparted to the trainees . All the 25 trainees had already undergone one year certificate course in food craft and six months ' course of job training which are rocognised by Government of Kerala . The trainees were deputed to do the work along with permanent canteen workers . They were doing the same work as that the permanent workers . Their work was serving food , cleaning , washing , assisting cooks , store keeping etc. These are not skilled work and no much time is required for learning the work . To prove the nature of work they were doing during the period of training , Ext . W4 , 5 , 6 and 7 duty schedules are produced . MWI the President of the Society has admitted in the cross examination ( page - 4 ) that in respect of prior batch of trainees the period of training was one year and on completion ofthat period of training they were absorbed. He has further deposed that the duties of canteen boys are cleaning of canteen and its surroundings , cutting of

2377

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

vegetables , washing plates and vessels etc. except cooking . He also admits that the trainees were working along with the permanent workers . He says that after regulation in 2003 there was no change in the duties of these trainees ( page 5 of cross - examination ) . The witness also says that there is no gudieline regarding the period of training . It is also stated that sometimes training for more than one year is required ( page 8 of cross - examination) and that, as part of work the trainees are trained and no separate training is required ( page 9 ) . There is no dispute thatthe stipend of trainees initially was Rs . 1,500 per month and was enhanced to Rs . 3,000 and then to Rs . 5,000. Considering the nature of the work that the canteen boys have to do as deposed by MW1 and WW1 I fail to understand why such a long period of four years is required for training. The management give no reason for extension of training other than that the trainees wanted it . The contention carries no conviction . Whereas the case of the union , that the trainees had no other way than to succumb to the demand of management for request letters for extension of training , appears to be more probable .

9. The union had made a representation to the management in 2005 wherein it is stated that in the history of the canteen the training had never been extended to a period of 4 years . Ext . W29 and 30 are representations of the workmen to the President of the Society regarding extension of training and deliberate delay in absorbing them . Ext . W31 is another representation of the union to the management . It is to be noted that during the period of training the trainees could not have raised their voice against extension of training for fear of non absorption . Their silence does not amount to concurrence . It was argued by the learned counsel for the management that having accepted the appointment order as canteen boys in 2003 , they are estopped from questioning the training . The learned counsel relies on two decisions to support his contention , reported in State of Punjab & Ors . V. Krishan Niwas , 1997 1 CLR 855 and Union of India & Anr. V. N. M. Dhobi , 2006 1 CLR 587. Both are not applicable in the facts of this case because in both cases the affected employees were heard by concerned authorities and a considered order was passed . But in the instant case no authority has passed any order regarding the extension of training in order to debar from challenging it under I.D. Act . It is the case of the union that the trainees were made to work over time during training and they were given overtime allowance besides stipend . the Acquittance Rolls , Exts . W18 and 19 series reveal this . They are produced to support the contention of the union that the trainees were given OT work because there was shortage of regular hands in the canteen . The management , if wanted , could have absorbed the workmen on completion of training of one year .

10. It is contended by the union that regular appointment was delayed purposely to deny benefits 2378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

under settlement . Ext . M9 is a settlement dated 18-12-2003 between the permanent canteen employees ' union and management . The terms of settlement were effective from 06-11-1998 for a period of 10 years . It is pointed out by the union that as per Clause 8.3 of Ext . M9 the workmen who have joined service in the canteen on or after 01-09-2000 are eligible only for mere revised scale of pay and allowances and their pay is to be fixed at the minimum of the revised scale of pay without fitment benefits provided in Clauses 8.1 and 8.2 . Hence the union contends that with a view to deny the fitment benefits under Clause 8.1 and 8.2 the absorption of trainees was deliberately delayed until the signing the settlement on 18-12-2003 . It is submitted by the union that the minutes of the discussions held on 3-08-2003 prior to the signing of Ext . M9 shows that the workmen who had joined service in the canteen on or after 06-11-1998 are eligible for the revised scale of pay and allowances with all fitment benefits . But when Ext . M9 settlement was signed it was stipulated that those who joined service on or after 01-09-2000 are not eligible for fitment benefits .

11. It is to be remembered that neither in the appointment orders as Canteen Trainees not in the extension orders it was mentioned that on completion of training for a period of one year or extended period , they shall be absorbed . But the stipulation in the orders was that the trainees may be considered for absorption subject to recruitment rules and future vacancies . In other words as of right they cannot claim absorption , much less within a certain period . It is for the management to decide who should be absorbed and when . Therefore that contention of the union is unsustainable . The trainees can claim benefits of settlement only on absorption . Before that as they were not parties to the settlement , no terms of settlement are applicable to them .

12. Exts . M3 and M5 are applications of one of the workmen ( Sri Sunil Damodaran) for extension of training. However before extension of training a 3rd time ( for the period 2002-2003 ) there was no request from anyone . Ext . M7 is the order of extension of training dated 12-11-2002 . The trainees were absorbed as canteen boys w.e.f. 15-11-2003 . Nowhere the management has stated that the performance of anyone of the trainees was unsatisfactory. Therefore there is no justification in extending the period of training , and that too for four years . It is unreasonable, unnecessary and an unfair labour practice . The trainees were given stipend and no other benefits during the whole period of four years . No weightage was given to the service rendered during the training while fixing the initial pay . No doubt the trainees cannot claim the scale of pay permanent workers for the period of training . But by protracting the training and extracting the same quantum of work as that of permanent employees the management has benefited , while the trainees have suffered great monetary loss for

[PART 11- SFC . 3 ( ii ) | 3 years of extended training . Since the management has acted fairly it is only proper to give them weightage of service as trainees .

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in extending the training from 2000 to 2003 is unfair and unjust and the management is directed to give weightage to the service rendered by them during extended period of training for 3 years ( 2000 to 2003) while fixing their initial pay. However I hold that the trainees cannot claim absorption from any particular period and it is the prerogative of the management to absorb .

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

Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 25th day of Ferbuary, 2010 .

P. NORBERT , Presiding Officer .

APPENDIX

Witness for the Union :

WW 1 M. T. Mahesh 26-05-2009 .

Witness for the Management :

MW1 Arun Kumar Das 14-10-2009 Exhibits for the Union :

W- 1 Award in I.D. 17/2006 dated 02-08-2006 ofCGIT - cum - Labour Court , Ernakulam W- 2

Copy of the newspaper publication published by the management in Malayala Manorama daily on 23-07-1999 .

W- 3

Copy of the letter dated 30-09-1999 issued by the management to Mahesh Μ.Τ.

W-4

Copy of Work allocation by the management from 30-10-2000 10 5-11-2000 .

W-5

Copy of the duty roster for 09-07-2001 to 15-07-2001.

W-6

Copy of the duty roster for 26-11-2001 to 2-12-2001 .

W- 7

Copy of the duty roster for 11-03-2002 to 17-03-2002.

W-8

Copy of the letter dated 11-01-2001 issued by the management to Mahesh M.T.

W-9

Copy of the letter dated 21-11-2001 issued by the management to Mahesh Μ.Τ.

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

W-10 Copy of the letter dated 12-11-2002 issued by the management to Mahesh Μ.Τ.

W- 11 Copy of the work allocation order issued by the management for DHDS Canteen .

W- 12 Copy of work allocation by the management from 20-10-2003 to 26-10-2003 .

W-13 Copy of the letter dated 27-11-2003 issued by the management to Mahesh Μ. Τ.

W-14 Copy ofthe letter dated 1-11-1999 issued by the management to Shibu K. Joseph .

W- 15 Copy of letter dated 19-11-1999 issued by the management to Mahesh M.T. W- 16 Copy of the training extension order dated 1-11-1999 issued by the management to P.O. Joy.

W- 17 Copy of letter dated 24-07-1998 issued by the management to Indrajith K. P. W-18 Copy of payroll of the management for December , 1999 .

W- 19 (a) Copy of payroll of the management for March , 2001 .

W- 19 (b) Copy of payroll of the management for March , 2002.

W- 19(c) Copy of payroll of the management for September , 2003 .

W- 20( a) Copy of the arrears summary of James Yohannan.

W-20(b ) Copy of the arrears summary of K. A. Kareem .

W-21 ( a) Copy of Wage slit issued to Mahesh M.T. of November , 2003 .

W-21 (b ) Copy of Wage slit issued to Mahesh M.T. for December , 2003.

W- 21 (c) Copy of Wage slit issued to Mahesh M.T. for January, 2004 .

W-22( a) Copy of Wage slit issued to C. Sajeevan forOctober , 2003 .

W- 22(b ) Copy of Wage slit issued to C. Sajeevan forNovember, 2003 .

W-22( c) Copy of Wage slit issued to C. Sajeevan forDecember, 2003 .

W-22(d) Copy of Wage slit issued to C. Sajeevan for January, 2004.

2379 W-23 (a) Copy of Wage slit issued to Bindu C. V. for October , 2003 .

W-23 (b) Copy of Wage slit issued to Bindu C. V. forNovember, 2003 .

W-23 ( c) Copy of Wage slit issued to Bindu C. V. for December , 2003 .

W-23 (d) Copy of Wage slit issued to Bindu C. V. for January, 2004 .

Copy of letter dated 21-11-2005 issued by the union to the management . W-24

Copy of the letter dated 19-11-2002 issued by the management to the Executive Director ( HR ) , KRL . W-25

W-26 Statement regarding medical expenses incurred by the management during July , 2005.

W-27 Copy of minutes of discussions held on 13th August , 2008 between the management and the union.

W-28 Copy of minutes of discussions held on 27-11-2003 between the management and the union .

W-29 Copy of the representation submitted by 26 canteen employees to the management.

W-30 Copy of the representation dated 16-01-2005 submitted by the Canteen Employees to the management .

W-31 Copy of the representation dated 14-03-2005 submitted by the Canteen employees to the Union .

W-32 Copy of Appointment Letter issued to Sri Rajesh P. by the management on 14-06-2008 .

Exhibits for the Management :

M- 1 Copy of the advertisement in Newspaper .

M-2 Copy of the letter of appointment dated 19-11-1999 issued to Sri Sunil Damodaran .

M-3 Copy of the application for training extension dated 16-11-2000 .

M-4 Copy of the letter dated 11-01-2001 issued to Sri Sunil Damodaran .

M- 5 Copy of the application dated 21-11-2001 .

2380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

M-6 Copy of the letter dated 21-11-2001 issued by the management to Sri Sunil Damodaran.

M-7 Copy of the letter dated 12-11-2002 issued by the management to Sri Sunil Damodaran.

M-8 Copy of the letter dated 27-11-2003 issued by the management to Sri Sunil Damodaran .

M-9 Copy of the settlement dated 18-12-2003 issued by the management to Sri Sunil Damodaran .

Court Exhibits :

X-1

Letter sent by C. V. Venu , President of Cochin Refineries Employees ' Consumers Co- op . Society Ltd. No. E-226 dated 29-11-2000 and 30-11-2000 to Ms. Bindu V. G. regarding appointment as Stores Trainee.

X-2 Letter sent by C. V. Venu , President of Cochin Refineries Employees' Consumers Co- op . SocietyLtd. No. E -226 dated 28-05-2002 to Ms. V. G. Bindu regarding appointment as Store Assistant.

X-3 Letter sent by President of Cochin Refineries Employees ' Consumers Co- op. Society Ltd. No. E- 226 dated 09-06- 2003 to Ms. V. G. Bindu regarding Confirmation in Service .

नई दिल्ली , 12 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1189.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय जीवन बीमा निगम के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कोचीन के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-17012/12/2009- आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 12th April, 2010

S.O. 1189. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 10/2010 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court, Cochin now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of L.I.C. of India and their workman,

[PART II--SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] which was receivedby the Central Government on 12-4-2010.

[No. L - 17012 12: 2009 - IR( M) | KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

SriP. L. Norbert , B.A. , LL.B. , Presiding officer. (Wednesday the 19th day of March , 2010/ 28th Falgunam, 1931 )

I. D. 10/2010

Workman :Shri K. K. Thomas . Kannikakonil, Nedunkandom P.O. , Idukki .

Management : The Sr. Divisional Manager, LIC of India , Divisional Office . Jeevan Prakash . P.B. No. 609 , Nagampadom, Kottayam -686 001. By Adv. S. Easwaran

This case coming up for hearing on 19-03-2010 , this Tribunal - cum-Labour Court on the same day passed the following.

AWARD

This is a reference made under Section 10 ( 1 ) ( d ) of Industrial Disputes Act whereby the workman has challenged the action of management ( LIC of India ) in terminating his service .

2. On summons the management alone entered appearance . Though workman accepted summons on 24-02-2010 he did not appear on 8-3-2010 to which date the case was posted for appearance . The case was adjourned again to this day for his appearance . But he is absent and nobody has represented him . Therefore it has to be presumed that there is no existing dispute for adjudication.

In the result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in terminating the service ofthe workman is legal and justified and he is not entitled for any relief.

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

(Dictated to the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her, corrected and passed by me on this the 19th day of March , 2010).

P. L. NORBERT, Presiding Officer Appendix - Nil [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1190.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान पैट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 68/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय प्ररकार को 12-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-30012/12/2009 - आई आर ( एम ) ] कमल बाखरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

S.O. 1190.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 68/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court - 2, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 12-4-2010 .

[No. L- 30012 /12/ 2009 - IR ( M ) ] KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 , MUMBAI PRESENT :

A. A. Lad , Presiding officer

REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 2/68 OF 2009 Employers in relation to the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. The Executive Director , MR, HPCL , Mumbai Refinery, B. D. Patil Marg , Mahul , Mumbai -400 074 Firstparty

AND

Their Workman , Shri Ashok Raghoba Ambre , 4, Yashwant Bhagat Chawl , Vijay Nagar, Ayre Gaon , Dombivali (E) , Distt. Thane-421-201 Second Party APPEARANCE :

Forthe Employer : S/Shri B. D. Birajdar and V. V. Birajdar , Advocates For the Workman : Mr. Μ.Β. Anchan , Advocate

1547 Gl /10-6

2381 Date of Reserving the Award : 26-2-2010

4-3-2010 Date of Passing the Award :

AWARD

The reference is sent to this Tribunal by the Under Secretary of Central Government , The Government of India . Ministry of Labour by its Order No. 1-30012/ 12/2009- (IR-M) dated 28th August, 2009 in exercise of the powers conferred by Clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- sections ( 2A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to decide :

" Whether the action of the Management of M / s . Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. , Mumbai Refinery , Mahul Mumbai , retrenching the services ofShri Ashok Raghoba Ambre w.e.f. 6-2-2008 is legal and justified ? What relief the workman is entitled for ?"

2. Statement of Claim is filed by the 2nd Party concerned Workman at Exhibit 5 stating and contending that , he was appointed as a temporary Compounder - cum- Dresser from 17-10-1984 at the 1st Party's Fuel Refinery Clinic , Mahul , Mumbai . it is his case that , at the relevant time only two permanent Compounder - cum - Dressers were working there in two shifts i.e. morning and evening shifts and the concerned workman was working in the third shift against the permanent and regular post . It is his case that . in July, 1987 1st Party appointed Mr. M. Y. Salvi at the Fuel Refinery Clinic and after Mr. Salvi's joining Mr. Walekar and Mr. Ramdasi were working in the Ist shift and general shift and Mr. Salvi and the concerned workman were working in the second and third shifts . It is contended by the concerned workman that , in Lube Refinery Clinic there were only two Compounder- cum- Dressers and there were two vacancies of Compounder - cum- Dressers . It is contended by the concerned workman that, for those vacancies in 1989 , 1st Party appointed 2 Compounder- cum-Dressers through the Employment Exchange one for regular shift and the other for relieving the permanent Compounder- cum- Dressers , during leave , weekly offs and on holidays . It is further contended by the concerned workman that , in 1989 working hours of the employees were reduced from 48 hours to 42 hours per week . It is further contended by the concerned workman that, since more manpower was required in Fuel Refinery Clinic , two Compounder- cum- Dressers were transferred to fuel Refinery Clinic from Lube Refinery Clinic and Mr. M. Y. Salvi's services have been terminated from 1-5-1990 . Therefore 5 Compounder - cum - Dressers were working in Fuel Refinery Clinic . It is contended by the concerned workman that , due to transfer from Lube Refinery Clinic there were two vacancies in Lube Refinery Clinic . It is contended by the conerned workman that . in November, 1991 Mrs. Geeta Karkhanis and Mr. Rathod resigned and in place of Mrs. Kharkhanis the concened workman was transferred to Lube Refinery Clinic therefore there were [PART II SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

2382

3 vacancies in Lube Refinery Clinic and in Lube Refinery Clinic one Mr. Rajendra Hussure was appointed on temporary basis .It is contended by the concerned workman that , in 1992 on Mr. Mohan K Sawant was appointed on permanent basis as Compounder - cum- Dresser in Fuel Refinery Clinic in his place . It is contended by the concerned workman that , in June , 1992 1st Party advertised 5 posts of Compounder - cum - Dressers . It is his case that Ist Party appointed only 2 Compounder - cum- Dressers in 1993 and one in 1994 and in March , 1993 1st party appointed A. G. Powle and P. K. Bhavsar on permanent basis in Lube Refinery . It is contended by the concerned workman that , in October , 1994 the concerned workman was retransferred to Fuel Refinery Clinic and M. K. Sawant to Lube Refinery Clinic and on 23-12-1994 Mr. M. V. Rane was appointed as Compounder - cum- Dresserat Fuel Refinery Clinic . It is contended by him that , thus there were 6 Compounder - cum- Dressers in Fuel Refinery Clinic and 3 Compounder - cum - Dressers in Lube Refinery . It is his case that , from 1-9-1995 the Compounder - cum- Dressers was redesignated as Pharmacist. It is contended by the concerned workman that , in 1996 all of a sudden the concerned workman was verbally told not to report for work from 1-7-1996 . It is contended by the concerned workman that , subsequently these Clinics were renamed as the " Occupational Health Centres " . It is contended by the concerned workman that , he was appointed as a Compounder - cum- Dresser from 17-10-1984 against permanent post on daily wages . It is contended by the concerned workman that , since he was continuously working against a regular post and paid on daily rates he approached Hon'ble High Court , by filing Writ Petition No. 661 of 1992 in March , 1992 , for regularization of his services and while the Writ Petition was pending Ist party orally terminated his services w.e.f. 1-7-1996 . It is contended by the concerned workman that , he raised in industrial dispute vide Reference No. CGIT- 5 of 1998 where the CGIT - 1 , Mumbai by passing an Award dated 10-4-2003 held that , the Reference is answered by sayng that , the workman stands reinstated in services from 1-7-1996 with back wages of Rs . 55 per day as daily wages and since his Writ Petition for regularization was pending in the High Court Tribunal did not pass any order for regularization . It is contended by the concerned workman that , inspite of the Award for reinstatement , the concerned workman was not reinstated in the service by the Ist party . It is contended by the concerned workman that , 1st Party filed WritPetition being No. 1491 of 2004 which was dismissed by an order dated 8-3-2004 against which 1st Party filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 114 of 2004 which was also dismissed by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 8-6-2004 . It is contendedby the concerned workman that, subsequently vide order dated 28-1-2005 Hon'ble High Court allowed the Writ Petition filed by the workman confirming the workman from the date of filing of the Writ Petition i.e. from 16-3-1992 . It is contended by the

concerned workman that , against the Hon'ble High Court's order Ist Party filed SLP ( Civil ) No. 10819of 2005. It is contended by the concerned workman tha the Apex Court vide order dated 15-1-2008 allowed the SLP and set aside the High Court's order with observations that, " since the workman is working with the Management since 1984 and by now he has completed more than two decades , his case for permanency be consideredby the Corporation sympathetically and that , if there is age bar in considering the case of the Writ Petitoner for permanent appointment . the Appellant Corporation will not treat the Writ Petitioner ineligible on that count in view of the fact that he is already in services of the Corporation since 1984. If there are statutory rules / administrative instructions guidelines which require minimum educational qualification and ot experience , it is open to the Corporation to insist compliance with such rules / instructions of the guidelines . But if there is power of relaxing with the Corporation or any of its officers , the Appellant Corporation will consider that aspect as well as keeping in view the fact that the Writ Petitioner was appointed in 1984 , has completed service of more than twenty years and is having rich experience " Itis contended by the concerned workman that , inspite of Apex Court's order for considering his case for permanency , Ist Party did not consider his case for permanency inspite of repeated requests . It is contended by the concerned workman that , therefore , he filed Contempt Petition No. 181 of 2008 and 1st Party did not reinstate him inspite of Awards and the order confirming the Award by the Apex Court in S.P. It is his case that. without making him permanent ist Party declared him surplus vide order dated 31-5-2008 and by another order of the same date retrenched the concerned worman from services . It is contended by the concerned workman that . against the said termination order he filed Writ Petition No. 1648 of 2008 challenging his termination and since the Ld . Advocate for the Petitioner wanted to raise an industrial dispute the said Writ Ptition was disposed of by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court vide order dated 15-9-2009 with directions that , if the Petitioner approached the Concilliation officer , he may submit his failure report within a period of four weeks from receiving the application from the Petitioner and the Appropriate Government after receiving such failure report from the Conciliation Officer may refer the dispute to the appropriate Court within a period of six weeks from receipt of such failure report from the Conciliation Officer and in case the dispute is referred to the appropriate Courts to whom it may try to adjudicate the dispute within a period of six months from the date of reference . It is contended by the concerned workman that . subsequently Contempt Petition No. 181 of 2008 was disposed of vide order dated 10-11-2008 , clarifying that . if the Petitioner has suffered any monetary loss or has been deprived of any other benefits as a result of the order of reinstatement in services from 1-7-1996 not having been allegedly complied with as per the said order dated 2383 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010 /वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

10-4-2003 , it would be open to the petitioner to claim the same in appropriate proceedings . It is contended by the concerned workman that , subsequently he raised the industrial dispute vide letter dated 30-9-2008 and after holding the Conciliation proceedings , the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report dated 29-1-2009 and the Central Government referred the above dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide order dated 28-8-2009 .

advised the 1st Party to regularise him after relaxing the recruitment rules , if they have powers . It is his case that . 1st Party has powers to relax the recruitment rules and Ist Party has relaxed in the case of Mohan K. Sawant , A.Ci. Powle and P. K. Bhavsar after relaxing the educational qualifications . It is , therefore , contended by the concerned workman that , the action of the Ist Party in terminating his services is illegal , mala fide and not justified . It is contended by the concerned workman that , Ist Party has contravened Section 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and his juniors have been retained in services and he was retrenched on this ground also his retrenchment is illegal and unjustified . It is contended by the concerned workman that , he is unemployed from the date of termination inspite ofhis efforts to get a suitable job . It is , therefore , prayed by the concerned workman that , the action of the Ist Party be declared as illegal and not justified and 1st Party be directed to reinstate him with benefit of full back and continuity of service .

4. This is disputed by the 1st Party by filing Written Statement at Exhibit 8 stating and contending that . 1st Party, the Corporation is a Government of India Undertaking under the Administrative jurisdiction of Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and is in the business of Refining and Distribution of Petroleum products having its registered office at Mumbai and two Refineries at Mumbai and Visakhapatnam , Zonal Offices , Terminals , Regional Offices , LPG Plants and Top's etc. spread all over India. It denied that , the concerned workman was appointed as a temporary Compounder - cum- Dressers w.e.f. 17-10-1984 at Fuel Refinery Clinic of the 1st Party . It is admitted by 1st Party that , two Compounders- cum- Dressers were working at the Refinery Clinic but denied thatthe concerned workman was working in the 3rd shift. against the regular post. It is case of the Ist Party that . , engagement of the services of M. Y. Salvi has no relevance in the present reference . It is contended by the 1st Party that, Valekar and Ramdasi were employed on regular basis and as far as the 2 vacancies of Compounders - cum- Dressers are concerned the said vacancies have been tiled in my following the statutory norms and the said candidates were eligible to be employed as Compounders- cum- Dressers . It is contended by the concerned workman that , the claim raised by the concerned workman regarding reduction of working hours from 48 hours to 42 hrs . In Mumbai Refinery of the Corporation has no relevance in the present reference and similarly the issue of engaging the services of Mrs. Geeta Kharkanies and Mr. Rathod has no relevance in the present reference . It is notdisputed by the Ist Party that , Mahesh Sawant was appointed as a Compounders - cum- Dresser on permanent basis and in 1992 it had advertised for 5 posts of Compounder - cum- Dressers and 2 persons were appointed as Compounders- cum-Dressers in 1993. It is denied by the 1st Party that , in October , 1994 the concerned workman was transferred to 3. It is contended by the concened workman that , his retrenchment is with mala fide intention since he had filed the Writ Petitions against the Management for his permanency. It is his case that , as stated hereinabove , in 1984 there were three permanent posts of Compounder- cum - Dressers and the 1st Party filled in only two posts and the concerned workman was regularly working against the third post like the permanent but he was paid wages ondaily rates . It is , therefore , contended by the concerned workman that , he was entitled for permanency from the date of filing of the Writ Petition i.e. 16-3-1992 . It is contended by the concerned workman that , the Apex Court set aside the High Court's order and recommended to Ist party for considering his case for permanency after relaxing the recruitment rules . It is contended by the concerned workman that , instead of respecting the Apex Court's order the Management neither reinstated him in service nor made him permanent but his services were terminated and his juniors were appointed and made permanent . It is contended by the concerned workman that , as stated above in 1984 there were three permanent posts of Compounder - cum- Dressers and the 1st party had filled in 2 posts only for two shifts only and for the third shift no permanent appointment was made and he was working against the said post on regular basis . It is his case that , there was a vacancy of Compounder - cum- Dresser as Mr. Naganna B. , Chincholi was transferred to Jamnagar Petroleum Pump at Gujarat , which was a permanent post and the said is lying vacant till date . It is contended by the concerned workman that , said Chincholi was Junior to him and even Sanjay T. Walekar appointed on 9-12-1985 , N.B. Chincholi appointed on 10-7-1989 , N. K. Hulsure appointed on 11-8-1989 , M. K. Sawant appointed on 24-4-1992 , Powle appointed on 3-3-1993 , P. K. Bhavsar appointed on 22-3-1993 and V. M. Rane appointed w.e.f. 23-12-1994 who were appointed after relaxing the educational qualifications .It is contendedby the concerned workman that, the 1st Party also appointed Dinesh Pawar and Sushil Kamble in 2007 , Prashant Chopde in April , 2008 Vijay Anant in 2009 and Vinod Gothadkar as temporary Compounders - cum- Dressers . It is contended by the concerned workman that , Gothadkar is still working . It is his case that , they were appointed through Bina Nursing Bureau , Sion , Mumbai . It is contended by the concerned workman that , after retaining his juniors he has been terminated with mala fide intention . It is contended by the concerned workman that , the Apex Court has THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

[PART II--SEC . 3 ( ii ) ) Fuel Refinery Clinic and M. K. Sawant was transferred to Lube Refinery Clinic . It is not disputed by the 1st Party that Mr. M. V. Rane was appointed as a Compounders- Can - Dresser and denied that , there were six Compounders- cum - Dresser in Fuel Refinery Clinic and three Compounders - cum- Dresser in Lube Refinery Clinic in 1994. It is also not disputed by the 1st Party that , in 1995 Compounders- cum- Dresser were re - designated as Pharmacists ' . It denied that , the concerned workman was appointed as a Compounder- cum- Dresser from 17-10-1984 against the permanent post . It is contended by the Ist Party that , the concerned workman was not appointed on regular basis . It is contended by the Ist Party that. it is a matter of record that . his alleged dispute was referred to CGIT, being CGIT No. 5 of 1998 and award dated 10-4-2003 was passed in the said inatter and the Corporation complied with the Award dated 10-4-2003 of the CGIT No. 1. It is contended by the Ist Party that , the concerned workman filed Writ Petition No. 661 of 1992 before the Hon'ble High Court , Mumbai for regularisation of his services and the Hon'ble High Courtdirected 1st Party Corporation to make Ist Party Applicant as permanent employee of the Corporation . It is case of the Ist Party that , the Corporation inoved the Apex Court against the said order of the Hon ble Bombay High Court and subsequently the Apex Court decided the matter in favour of the Corporation and has set aside the order of Hon'ble High Court . It is denied by the Corporation that. 2nd Party was working against a regular / permanent post . It is contended by the 1st Party that , it had paid back wages to the concerned workman for the period 1-7-1996 to 10-4-2003 and thereafter he was being paid applicable Minimum wages till 31-5-2008 ( except for the period 10-4- 2003 to 19-11-2003 ) in view of the CGIT Award even though he was not physically engaged since 1-7-1996 as there was no suitable vacancy . It is contended that , the concerned workman raised a dispute vide Application No. I.C - 2.3 of 2006 before this Tribunal stating that , he has not been paid wages for the period 1-4-2003 to 19-11-2003 and was paid less wages for the period July, 2005 to December , 2005 and this Tribunal vide order dated 28-4-2000 came to the conclusion that , 2nd Party is not entitled for any amount from 1st Party Corporation and accordingly disposed of theabove referred case in favour of the Corporation . It is denied by the Ist Party Corporation that , the concerned workman was not reinstated after CGIT Award dated 10-4- 2003. It is denied by the Ist Party that , it declared the concerned workman as surplus vide order dated 31-5-2008. It is contended by the 1st Party Corporation that the concerned workman was retrenched as there was no suitable vacancy It is case of the Corporation that , the concerned workman was never engaged against any permanent post but he was engaged as casual workman during the year 1985 to take care of the work exigency/ leave relief and name of the concerned workman was never sponsored by the Employment Exchange nor was an

advertisement issued for the purpose of filing the post to which he was engaged . It is contended by the 1st Party that , the Apex Court in paragraph 18 of its judgment dated 15-1-2008 has specifically stated that , in Industrial adjudication if an order of termination was quashed as it was not in accordance with law, that did not mean the workman had substantive right to hold the post and the High Court was therefore wrong in directing the Corporation to make the petitioner permanent and to extend him all the benefits on that basis from 1992. It is contended by the Corporation that , it has taken into consideration certain observations made by the Apex Court in paragraph 20 of its judgment dated 15-1-2008 before retrenching the concerned workman vide letter dated 31-5-2008 . 11 S contended by the Ist Party that , it recruit the personnel with observance of statutory compliance such as age . qualification . Presidential Directives as regards to reservation policy, considering Sponsored names from Employment Exchange . Open Advertisements Notifications etc. and accordingly the Corporation has notified and recruited the workman in the cadre of Compounder - cum- Dresser. It is contended by the 1st Party that. the concerned workman never applied against the notified vacancies and was never appointed as an employee of the Corporation , therefore , the question of his claiming seniority over the other Compounders - cum- Dresser who are on the permanent pay roll of the Corporation ( named under Sr. No. 1 to 7 of paragraph 5 of Statement of Claim ) does not arise and there can be no comparison with them as he is not appointed an employee of the Corporation nor he is in the said carol Compounder -cum- Dresser .It is contended the Ist Party that , M. K. Sawant . A. G. Powle and P. K. Diavasar are appointed as Compounder - cum- Dresser following applicable selection norms and after meeting the prescribed criteria . It is submitted by the 1st Party that . engaging the services of Nurses of M's . Bina Nursing Home does not have relevance in the present reference . It is denied by the Ist Party that , such contract workmen from Ms. Bina Nursing Home are engaged as temporary Compounder- cum-Dresser by the Corporation and it is submitted by the Ist Party Corporation that , it has no suitable vacancy to accommodate the concerned workman in its Occupationai Health Centres . It is contended by the 1st Party that , the concerned workman was the casual workman at their Refinery Clinic . the position as given in CGITAward dated 10-4-2003 and the question of his claiming seniority over the other Compounder - cum - Dresser who are on the permanent Pay Roll of the Corporation and consequent violation of Section 25H of Industrial Disputes Act . 19.47 does not arise . It is contended by the 1st Party that , in fact the concerned workman was not physically engaged by the Corporation since 1996 as there is no requirement It is denied by the Corporation that it had indulged in unfain labour practicesby retrenching the concerned workman It is contended by the 1st Party that , the concerned 2385 [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

workman was retrenched w.e.f. 31-5-2008 after paying compensation of Rs . 67,470 towards retrenchment compensation and one month's pay in lieu of notice since there is no work as there is no requirement in addition the concerned workman was also paid Rs . 1,04,042 towards other statutory benefits like Gratuity, Bonus and leave wages and the said payments have been received by the concerned workman . It is contended by the 1st Party that , the concerned workman is trying to get back door entry in the 1st Party's Corporation by filing various frivolous litigations and prayed that , the Reference be rejected.

(5) Rejoinder is filed by the 2nd Party at Exhibit 10 repeating the same story as stated in the Statement of Claim and denying the contentions raised by the 1st Party in the written statement .

(6) In view ofthe above pleadings Issues were framed at Exhibit 12 which I answer as follows:

Issues

Findings

Yes

1. Does second party prove that he was illegally retrench by 1stParty?

Yes

2. Is second party entitled for relief sought ?

3. What order ?

As per the order passed below.

REASONS :

Issue Nos . 1 & 2 :

postof Compounder - cum - Dressers to work during leave , weekly offs and on holidays . He further contends that , in the year 1989 working hours of the HPCL employees were reduced from 48 hours to 42 hours per week . Accordingto him since more manpower was required in Fuel Refinery Clinic two Compounders - cum- Dressers were transferred to Fuel Refinery Clinic from Lube Refinery Clinic and Mr. M. Y. Salvi's services were terminated from 1-5-1990 . He further contends that , 5 Compounders - cum - Dressers were working in Fuel Refinery Clinic . According to him . there were two vacancies in Lube Refinery Clinic . He states that inNovember , 1991 Mrs. Geeta and Mr. Rathod resigned and in their place of Mrs. Karkhanis 2nd Party concerned workman was transferred to Lube Refinery Clinic . He states that, there were 3 vacancies in Lube Refinery and in Lube Refinery Clinic and one Mr. Rajendra Hussure was appointed on temporary basis and in 1992 one Mr. Mohan K. Sawant was appointed on permanent basis as Compounder- cum- Dresser in Fuel Refinery in his place . He states that in June , 1992 Management advertised 5 posts of Compounder - cum- Dressers . According to him Management appointed only 2 Compounders - cum- Dressers against that vacancy in 1993 and one in 1994. He further states that , in March , 1993 Management appointed one Mr. A. G. Powle and Bhavsar on permanent basis in Lube Refinery . He states that , in October , 1994 the concerned workman was retransferred to Lube Refinery Clinic and Mr. Sawant was transferred to Lube Refinery Clinic . He further states that on 23-12-1994 one Mr. Rane was appointed as Compounder- cum- Dresser at Fuel Refinery Clinic . He states that , there were 6 Compounders- cum - Dressers in Fuel Refinery Clinic and 3 Compounders- cum- Dressers in Lube Refinery Clinic were working . He states that , from 1-9-1995 Compounders - cum - Dressers were redesignated as Pharmacist . He states that , in 1996 all of a sudden he was told verbally not to report on duty from 1-6-1996 . He states that , thereafter these Clinics were renamed as Occupational Health Centres .

(8) He states that , he was working there from 17-10-1984 . He was paid on daily wages . He states that , since he was continuously working on regular post and was paid on daily wages he filed Writ Petition No. 661 of 1992 for permanency in Bombay High Court . During pendency of the said Writ Petition he was orally terminated from 1-7-1996 which he challenged by approaching Labour Commissioner who send failure report on which . Said was referred by the Central Government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1 , Mumbai . It is his case that , it which was decided by CGIT- 1 holding his termination illegal and directed Management to reinstate him . Said was challenged by the Management by filing Writ Petition No. 1491 of 2004. Said Writ Petition was dismissed on 8-3-2004 . He further states that , subsequently Management filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 114 of 2004 against the said order of High Court dated 8-3-2004 which (7) By this Reference dispute is raised by 2nd Party Ashok Raghoba Ambre regarding his retrenchment in 2008. Case of Shri Ambre , 2nd Party is that , he joined initially as a temporary Compounder - cum - Dresser on 17-10-1984 at the Fuel Refinery Clinic , Mahul , Mumbai of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. According to him that time there were 2 permanent posts of Compounder- cum- Dressers who were working in two shifts at that Refinery i.c. one is the morning and other one in the evening . According to 2nd Party concerned workman was working in third shift against the permanent and regular post . He states that in July , 1987 Management appointed M. Y. Salvi at Fuel Refinery Clinic . According to him after his joining Mr. Walekar and Mr. Ramdasi were working in the Ist shift and general shift . Mr. Salvi and he himself were working in second and third shift . He further contends that . in Lube Refinery Clinic there were only 2 Compounder - cum- Dressers . He states that . in Lube Refinery Clinic there were 2 vacancies of Compounder- cum -Dressers . He states that , for that vacancy in the year 1989 Management had appointed 2 Compounder - cum- Dressers through Employment Exchange , one for regular shift and other one for relieving the permanent one on the 2386

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

was also dismissed vide order dated 28-1-2005 . He further states that , thereafter High Court allowed the Writ Petition No. 661 of 1992 filed by the concerned workman for permanency from the date of filing of the Writ Petition i.e. from 16-3-1992 and the said was challenged by the Management by filing S.L.P. ( Civil ) No. 10819 of 2005 . According to 2nd Party concerned workman , directions were given by Apex Court to 1st Party to consider his services sympathetically for permanency by waiving the qualifications and age for recruitment . He states that , though said directions were given by Apex Court but they were not considered by the 1st Party . It is his case that , he filed Contempt Petition No. 181 of 2008 still he was not reinstated as per the directions given by Apex Court . He further states that thereafter he was declared surplus by order dated 31-5-2008 and by another order of the even date he was retrenched from the services saying that , there was no work for the concerned workman . So he challenged said act of the Management by filing Writ Petition No. 1648 of 2008 where Hon'ble High Court directed the Conciliation Officer to submit his failure report within a period of four weeks from receiving the application from the concerned workman and directed Central Government to refer the dispute to the appropriate Court within 6 weeks and directed this Tribunal to try and adjudicate the dispute within a period of 6 months from the date of the reference . He states that , the decision taken by 1st Party of retrenching him is not just and proper and require to set aside with directions to Management to take him in the employment with benefits of back wages and continuity of service .

(9 ) This is disputed by the 1st Party Management making out he case that 2nd Party Ambre was not appointed as termporary Compounder - cum - Dresser w.e.f. 17-10-1984 at Fuel Refinery Clinic of the Corporation as alleged. It is denied that , he is qualified to be appointed on that post . It is stated that , he was appointed on daily wages . It is denied that , he was appointed against permanent vacancy. It is case of the 1st Party that , as far as proceedings of the 2nd Party are concerned , it is not disputed by 1st Party and are admitted to it . It is case of the Ist Party that since there was no work he was retrenched and said action was taken by following due process of law by offering compensation as per Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. So it is stated that , the decision taken by the Management against 2nd Party is just and proper and does not require any interference .

( 10 ) 2nd Party is challenging the decision of the Ist Party by which it retrenched him and to support his case , he relied on his affidavit filed at Exhibit 14 in lieu of his examination - in - chief where he reproduces his entire above history and various writs filed as referred above . He also referred to clear and permanent vacancies and persons working on those posts and claims that , he was illegally

[ PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] retrenched . In the cross he admits that , he did not have 3 years qualification of certificate course in nursing conducted by Maharashtra Nursing Service . According to him said was not applicable when he was taken in the employment . He claims that , others who are working are SSC passed and having experience of medical services . He deny that, he was not posted on permanent vacancy. He admits that , he was paid on daily wages . He admits that order of CGIT- 1 in Ref . No. CGIT- 1 / 5 of 1998 was passed where 1st Party was directed to reinstate him and was not directed to post him on permanent post . On that , 2nd Party closed evidence by filing closing purshis at Exhibit 31 . Against that , 1st party examined Gagan S. Samant by filing his affidavit at Exhibit 32 in lieu of his examination - in - chief who denied the claim of the 2nd Party and disputed that, he was appointed on permanent post . In the cross he admits that , 2nd Party was working from 17-3-1984 . He admits the documents produced at pages 111 to 113 produced with Exhibit 11 and pages 122 to 127 of Exhibit 11 are concerned with the appointment of the concerned workman . When he was questioned by the Court how he was retrenched when not taken in the employment to which he replied that , ist Party presume that , he was in the employment. Unable to confirm those documents . On that , evidence was closed by the 1st Party.

( 11) Written arguments are filed by the 2nd Party at Exhibit33 and by the 1st Party at Exhibit 34.

( 12) Gone through the proceedings , evidence on record and the written arguments submitted by both along with citations referred . This 2nd Party is before this Court twice . Initially he was before CGIT- 1 about his grievance when he was terminated which he had challenged and which was referred for adjudication to CGIT - J being Reference No. 5 of 1998. In the said Reference his termination was decided as illegal and CGIT- ! directed Ist Party to reinstate him and give him back wages on daily wages basis @ Rs . 55 per day from 1996 and after his reinstatement it was directed that , he should be paid at current rate applicable to daily wagers . However , it is a matter of record that , he was not reinstated in the employment as per the order passed by CGIT - 1 in Reference No. 5 of 1998. Even witness examined by 1st Party admits to that effect . When query was made by me questioning him when 2nd Party was reinstated as per the orders of the COTT in Keference No. 5 of 1998 how he was retrenched ? On thai , concerned witness deposed that , they presumed that he taken in the employment since his dues were paid as per the order and then he was retrenched . Even it is case of the 1st Party that , retrenchment compensation was given to the concerned workman before taking action of retrenchment . Action taken by Ist Party is taken under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. No doubt Ist Party has paid the retrenchment compensation to the concerned workman as per the provisions and even it offered one month's salary in lieu of the notice as notice भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

2387 by 1st Party against the order of CGIT- 1 . Even he appeared in Apex Court in SLP preferred by 1st Party . Though he travelled from this Court to Apex Court and again came back here for his grievances , it is to be noted that, he was harassed by the 1st Party on number of occasions . It is to be noted that , he is fighting for his job . It is to be noted that , he started working with 1st Party from 1984 and most of his period has gone in fighting with 1st Party for securing his job with 1st Party. He states that , he is 59 plus of age . When action of 1st Party is not legal and justified under any provisions , in my considered view, such action require to quash and set aside with directions to 1st Party to reinstate him on the post from which he was treated as retrenched . So I answer this Issue to that effect and passes thefollowing order :

ORDER

( a) Reference is allowed;

(b) 1st Party is directed to reinstate 2nd Party Shri Ambre on the post on which he was treated as retrenched;

(c) 1st Party is directed to give him benefits of back wages to the concerned workman i.e. Shri Ambre as perdirections given by CGIT- 1 in Reference No. 5 of 1998;

(d) No order as to costs ;

A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer Mumbai ,

4th day of March , 2010

was not given before retrenchment . But it is to be noted that , no seniority list is published, where he is not shown junior or last who has to go first . While retrenching the employees the employer has to publish seniority list and then to follow the seniority list in retrenching junior most . Even he was not shown in any muster roll but simply he was paid as per the directions given by CGIT- 1 in Reference No. 5 of 1998. When 2nd Party workman is not taken in the employment, when seniority list is not prepared and he is not shown in the muster roll question arises , how he can be retrenched on the ground of non - availability of the work ? Nothing is stated on that and no any case is made out. In the evidence his qualification is challenged . However , nowhere it is pleaded by the 1st Party that , qualifications possessed by the concerned workman was not required qualification to post him on the post of Compounder - cum- Dresser . Even all the while 2nd Party states that , alleged qualification was not applicable when he was taken in the employment . According to 1st Party , qualifications for the post of Compounder - cum- Dresser require SSC or equivalent 3 years service course in nursing from Maharashtra Nursing Services . Even on that count , initially he was removed . Even he challenged the said order . Then he was ordered to be reinstated but though payment was made on the basis of daily wages , still it is not shown that Ist Party has paid further payment at current rate of daily wages which was expected as per directions given by CGIT- 1 in 5 of 1998. Even his all dues were not shown paid since stand taken by the Ist Party itself is that , since 2nd Party was not working , they did not offer the said payment.

(13) From evidence brought on record it is revealed that , no seniority list was prepared and published by the 1st Party. Besides all this reveals that , 2nd Party is not shown at last and as such he has to go first while effecting retrenchment against such an employee . Moreover, when he was not taken in the employment as per the order of CGIT - 1 question arises how he can be retrenched as happened in this case ? All these steps taken by 1st Party in treating 2nd Party as retrenched on account of non- availability of work reveals that, illegal action is taken by IstParty. Besides no permission is sought by 1st Party as expected under Section 25F of the appropriate Government as required under Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. As per Section 25 - C notice in prescribed manner is required to be served on a person before making retrenchment . It is to be noted that , no notice was given to that effect and conditions were not complied with by Ist Party before retrenching the employee .

(14) It is to be noted that, 2nd Party is fighting for hisemployment from 1992. Initially he filed Writ Petition No. 661 of 1992. Then he filed Writ Petition No. 1491 of 2004. Then he filed Writ Petition No. 1648 of 2008. Even he appeared before Hon'ble High Court in Writ Petition filed नई दिल्ली , 13 अप्रैल, 2010

का. आ. 1191.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [ सं. एल -22012/ 258/1997- आई आर ( सीएम -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

S.O. 1191.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 15/1998 ) 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 13-4-2010.

[No. L - 22012/ 258 / 1997 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer 2388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010/VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT : Sri Manoranjan Pattnaik , Presiding Officer

Reference No. 15 of 1998

PARTIES :

Industrial Dispute between Manage- ment of Nakrakonda Colliery, ECL .

Vrs.

Their workman .

REPRESENTATIVES :

: P. K. Das , Advocate

For the management

For the union (Workman) :M. Mukherjee

INDUSTRY: Coal

STATE : WEST BENGAL

Dated the 10-3-2010

AWARD

Inexercise of powers 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/ 258 / 97 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 12-6-1998 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudicationby this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

dt . 23/ 30-1-1996 ) was a permanent employee under the Employer i.e. M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , and was posted at Nakrakonda colliery . He was suddenly issued with a charge sheet by the management bearing No. NKR/ PER / 94-95/ 1184 dated 15-7-1994 u / s 17 ( 1 ) ( a ) ( o ) ( u ) of the Model Standing Order with the allegation of theft , fraud or dishonesty in connection with the Employer's business . The specific allegation of misconduct being that the workman fraudulently fabricated papers and documents showing his Transfer from Ajoy - II colliery Sripur Area to Nakrakonda Area though the workman was never posted at Ajoy - II colliery . Further , on the basis of the said fabricated document the workman allegedly managed his posting at Nakrakonda colliery as a transferred employee w.e.f. 2-3-84 as Fitter helper and continued to work there getting usual promotion . The workman was put under suspension with immediate effect and was asked to show cause as to why he ( workman ) will not be liable for the said misconduct . The workman submitted his reply in time and also preferred a writ petition at the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta against the issuance of vague charge sheet which terminated in favour of the workman and the charge sheet was set aside with a liberty to the management to issue fresh charge sheet in accordance with law . The management issued another charge sheet No. ( NKR PER 94-95/1904 dt. 1-10-94 ) on the self same ground and basing on a procured , blemished and tainted enquiry report dismissed the workman from service vide order No. 23 dt . 30-1-96 without giving proper opportunity to the workman to defend and by infringing all his rights . Assailing the enquiry report and the act of dismissal on various grounds , the workman urged for his reinstatement by setting aside the dismissal order with consequential benefit by holding that the action of the Employer is not legal and justified.

" Whether the action of the management of Nakrakonda Colliery in dismissing Sh . G. N. Banerjee from service w.e.f. 23-1-1996 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workmen entitled ? י

On receipt of the Order No. L - 22012/ 258 / 97 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 12-6-1998 of the above mentioned reference from the Govt. of India , Ministry of Labour, New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 15 of 1998 was registered on 25-6-1998 . 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 .

3. Both the parties made their appearance in the Court and filed their pleadings . They also relied on documentary evidence . Learned counsels for the parties have been heard at length .

4. Workman's case in brief as per the averment is that the ( workman) till the dismissal ( vide order

The Employer's case as made out in the written statement and briefly stated is that complaint was received by the Management of Nakrakonda colliery dt . 31-5-1994 and subsequently two other complaints that the workman . Gouri Nath Banerjee by using fake and fabricated documents like LPC , Transfer Order etc. joined in the Nakrakonda colliery as a transferred employee . The management moved the concern authority ( Personnel Manager) of the Ajoy - II colliery for confirmation about the said documents , and getting a negative reply , charge sheeted was issued against the workman on ground of fraud . The charge sheet was revoked following the order of the High Court at Calcutta but fresh charge sheet was issued on the same date . Finding the reply of the workman to the charge sheet unsatisfactory , domestic enquiry was held by the Sr. Personnel Officer , Jhanjra Area . The workman participated in the enquiry proceeding . On termination of the enquiry proceeding the workman was found guilty of the charges . He was dismissed by the order of Chief General Manager , Bankola Area vide Order 2389 [ भाग II- खंड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

in letter dated 23-1-1996. The employer thus urged for an award justifying the dismissal .

5. Parties have not adduced any oral evidence but relied on documentary evidence only. Learned counsel for both the parties have been heard at length .

6. On careful perusal of the pleading of the parties , documents relied on and the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties it is found that the alleged frauds has come to the notice of the management by some anonymous letters received against the workman who had already worked for about more than 10 years in the station where the alleged fraud was detected . From the very outset there is reason to find that neither side has come to the Tribunal with clean hand and with a clear and complete case as their pleadings are found infirmed for absence of material facts which are supposed to be within their knowledge and in their respective domain . The workman is a permanent employee of the ECL as affirmed by both the parties . The service records of an employee of a Public Undertakings are believed to be the permanently preserved documents . Much less about its production in the court even in the pleadings both parties are completely silent about it . They have even not hinted at the material facts like initial appointment of the workman , opening ofService Book, his subsequent posting , pay roll , acquittance roll/ promotion maintained in different stations or place of working. Except claiming that he is a permanent employee , the workman has not even disclosed his grade , designation , place of previous posting etc. He has filed the copy of the L.P.C. but same has been impugned. For whatsoever reason Management has also not discussed all about it and has simply left the court to gather the same from other records .

letter dated 20-8-1997 ( Ext . 16 /W) that the transfer record of the workman was not traceable ? It is seen that the Management has simply acted on the confirmation letter dated 17-7-1994 ofAgent , Grimint (R) colliery under whose administrative control Ajoy - II colliery remained without making any endeavour to probe the allegations or to unearth the fact though police or vigilance deptt. , of the company or by any scientific method . In fact it has been asserted on behalf of the workman during the course of argument that a vigilance investigation was initiated by the Management against him ( the workman) in respect of the charges but the investigation report was not placed at all . The management has no reply to this . As such natural inference definitely shall be against the allegations brought against the workman , Police investigation though is not sinequanon of proving charges of misconduct in disciplinary proceeding , but while inflicting major punishment like dismissal from service such inadequacy and suppression of material facts becomes glaring and significant specially when the company initiated a vigilance enquiry but the report remained in oblivion . To prove a charge of fraud prima facie it is required to be proved that the workman manufactured or got the tainted papers manufactured and made the company's officials to believe the same as genuine and to act on that for his wrongful gain . As seen above the alleged misconduct of fraud has not been proved at all , much less beyond all reasonable doubt even preponderance to the probabilities . The workman'spersisted stand from the very inception is that he has not carried and produced the L.P.C. , transfer certificate etc. , himself but same have been received in Nakrakonda colliery officially which too has not been specifically denied . A look into the enquiry report and proceeding record will reveal that the management has not produced any other better evidence other than the evidence discussed above to prove the facts and circumstances . The enquiry report is otherwise erroneous and impaired for putting burden on the workman to disprove the charges . Arriving on a conclusion on inadequate proof and wrongly shifting burden of proof to the head of. Workman is not proper and fair. Documents believed to be in the domain of the Employer and persons competent to prove those material paper like CMPF Account No. BKR/348 of the workman , the transfer certificate , LPC etc. , have not been proved by the management during the domestic enquiry nor in the court. The proceeding too is otherwise do not appear to be fair and reasonable for the reason that the person who accepted the transfer certificate , LPC etc. , and released the salary on joining of the workman on transfer and subsequently the officer who are connected in giving promotion to the workman and all other official who checked and verified the L.P.C etc. , have not come to the picture at all which is fatal to the Employer's case . The misconduct of fraud has been established in the inquiry 7. However, on appraisal of the evidence laid down bythe parties in the domestic enquiry proceeding it comes to the light that the workman , a fitter helper in category - II was appointed on 22-3-1982 . It appears from the records that on receipt of allegation from anonymous source the management of Nakrakonda colliery instead of seeking any report or explanation from the workman nor verifying the original documents through the Agent of Nakrakonda colliery vide Ext./W simply sent a copy of L.P.C. to the previous station and sought for confirmation on genuineness of the L.P.C. He sought a report as to whether the workman at all worked there prior to his transfer. Surprisingly the reply of the Ajoy - II colliery is not forthcoming , from either side though in a letter (Ext . 15 /W) dt. 5-8-1994 Dy . CME/ Agent has referred about such a letter ofAjoy - II authority holding the L.P.C. in question as not genuine . According to the said letter, their records did not reveal about the release order and the name of the workman.Again vide Ext . 10/W further verification ofpaper was sought and request was made for transmission of connected papers . What is important to find that the said last reply was received from Dy. CME , Bankola Area, vide proceeding on surmisation order concocted facts .

1547 Gl /10-7 2390

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

In view of the above facts and circumstances it becomes clear that the charges against the workman has been proved on suspicion only . It is the settled law that whatever grave the suspicion may be no offence i.e. the misconduct in this case can be established .

8. In the result it is held that the action of the Nakrakonda colliery of M / s . Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , in dismissing the workman Sri G N. Banerjee w.e.f. 23-1-1996 is not legal and sjustified . He is entitled to be reinstated in service from the date of his dismissal along with back wages and all consequential benefits due to him as if in service since then . In view of the lapse of good deal of time it would be proper if the monetary benefits due to flow down from the award be disbursed with the two months ofthe notification pending grant of other relief . Hence it is ordered.

ORDERED

Let an award be and same is passed . Send copies to Govt . of India , for necessary action .

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1192.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012 / 56/2006- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

S.O. 1192. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 83/2006 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of M / s . Eastern Coalfields Limited and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 13-4-2010.

[No. L - 22012 / 56 / 2006 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT:

Sri Manoranjan Pattnaik , Presiding Officer

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) | Reference No. 83 of 2006

PARTIES:

The Industrial Dispute between the management of Parascole Colliery , Kajora Area of ECL .

Vrs.

Their workman .

REPRESENTATIVES :

: None

For the management

: None

For the union (Workman)

INDUSTRY : COAL

STATE : WEST BENGAL.. Dated the 16-3-2010

AWARD

In exercise of powers 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. 1. - 22012 / 56/2006 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 30-10-2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Parascole Colliery of M / s . ECL in dismissing Sh . Lakhu Bouri from services w.e.f. 8-4-2003 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled to ? " Onreceipt of the Order No. L - 22012 / 56 /2006 - IR (CM - II ) dated 30-10-2006 of the above mentioned reference from the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 83 of 2006 was registered on 11-12-2006 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed and to file their written statements along with the relevant documents and a list of witnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notices by the registed post were sent to the parties concerned .

Despite notices issued to the employer and the employee by registered post none of them made their appearance . It appears that they are not interest to proceed with the case and it is apparent that dispute no more exists . Award to the effect need be passed and hence it is ordered.

ORDER

Let an award be and same is passed in terms of the above finding . Copy of the award be sent to the Ministry ofLabour & Employment, Govt . of India, New Delhi .

MANORANJAN PATINAIK , Presiding Officer [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010 /वैशाख 18 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1193.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 42/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -22012/1/2007- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

S.O. 1193. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 42/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Asansol , now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Bankola Area of M / s . Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 13-4-2010 .

[No. L - 22012/1 / 2007 - IR ( CM - 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. 42 of 2007

PARTIES

: The Agent Shankarpur Colliery of M / s . ECL , Bankola , Ukhra , Burdwan

Vrs .

General Secretary , Ukhra Colliery Mazdoor Union ( INTUC ) , Burdwan

Representatives :

P.K. Goswami , Advocate For the management

: None

For the union (Workman)

State : West Bengal

Industry : Coal

Dated: 9-3-2010

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 (A) of Section10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India

2391 through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/ 1/2007 IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-7-2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of the Management of Shankarpur , under Bankola Area of M/ s . E.C.L. in deducting the attendance bonus paid for the period from 17-2-2003 to 4-5-2003 from the monthly wages of Sh . Jalandhar Basantia is legal and justified ? If not to what relief is the workman entitled ? " Having received the Order No. L - 22012 / 1 / 2007 IR (CM - II ) dated 5-7-2007 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 42 of 2007 was registered on 18-7-2007 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 notice by the registered post were to the parties concerned .

Despite notice issued to the employer and the employee by registered post none of them made their appearance . It appears that they are not interested to proceed with the case and it is apparent that dispute no more exists Award to the effect needs be passed and hence itis ordered .

ORDER

Let an " Award " be and same is passed as per above. Send the copies of the Award to the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , for information and needful .

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1194.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -22012 / 227/ 2007- आई आर ( सी एम- II ) | अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

S.O. 1194. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 14/ 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- 2392

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

Labour Court, Asansol now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Under Pandeveshwar Area of M/s . ECL, and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 13-4-2010.

[No. L- 22012/227/2007- IR( CM- 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. 14 of2008

PARTIES

: The Agent Kenda Colliery, Pandaveswar Area ofM/ s . ECL, Burdwan

Vrs.

General Secretary, Ukhra Colliery Mazdoor Union ( INTUC) Burdwan

Representatives :

None

For the management :

: None

For the union (Workman)

Industry : Coal State : West Bengal

Dated: 9-3-2010

AWARD

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 ) , the Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012/227 /2007 - IR (CM - II ) dated 2-4-2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Kenda Colliery, Pandaveswar Area of M/ s . E.C.L. in deleting the name of Sri Sukhdeo Dhangar from Computer Pay Roll is legal and justified ? If not to what relief is the workman entitled ? "

Having received the Order No. L-22012/227/2007 - IR (CM - II) dated 2-4-2008 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Miinistry of Labour, New Delhi , for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 14 of 2008 was registered on 8-4-2008 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

[PART II -SEC . 3 (ii ) a list ofwitnesses in support of their claims . In pursuance of the said order notice by the registered post were to the parties concerned .

ORDER

Let an " Award" be and same is passed as per above . Send the copies of the Award to the Govt . of India . Ministry of Labour, New Delhi , for information and needful .

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1195.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण, आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/91/2005- आई आर ( सी एम -11 ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

S.O. 1195. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref No. 12 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Asansol now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Nimcha Colliery of M/ s . ECLL , and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-4-2010.

[No. L -22012/91 / 2005 - IR ( CM - 11 ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

: Sri Manoranjan Pattnaik , PresidingOfficer

Reference No. 12 of 2006

PARTIES

: The Agent Nimcha Colliery of M/s. ECL , Burdwan

Vrs.

Jt. Secretary, CMC ( HMS ), G.T. Road . Asansol , Burdwan 2393

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Representatives :

For the management P.K. Das , Advocate

: S.K. Pandey, Jt . Secy. CMC (HMS)

For the union (Workman)

State: West Bengal

Industry: Coal

Dated: 17-3-2010

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 ( A ) of Section10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L- 22012 / 91/2005 IR ( CM - II ) dated 13-6-2006 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the Management of Nimcha Colliery of M/ s . ECL in dismissing the services of Sh . Dara Majhi , U.G. Loader , w.e.f. 5-7-2004 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

Having received the Order No. L - 22012 /91 / 2005 - IR (CM - II ) dated 13-6-2006 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 12 of 2006 was registered on 11-7-2006 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing them to appear in the court on the date fixed .

In response to the notice issued from this Tribunal both the parties made their appearance through their Advocate Sri P.K. Goswami and the Office bearer of the concerned union , Sri S.K. Pandey . Form ' H ' has also been filed by the workman , Sri Dara Majhi , showing the amicable settlement of the industrial dispute . Hence , no dispute exists any more . Accordingly , an award needs be passed to that effect . Hence , it is ordered .

ORDER

Let an " Award " be and same is passed as per above . Form ' H ' . containing terms and conditions to form part of the Award . Send the copies of the Award to the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , for information and needful . The reference is accordinlgy disposed of.

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1196 ,- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 46/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -22012/ 4/ 2007- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

S.O. 1196.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 46/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of M / s . ECL, and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 13-4-2010 .

[No. L - 22012 /4/ 2007 - IR( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

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

PRESENT

: Sri Manoranjan Pattnaik , Presiding Officer

PARTIES

: The Agent , 1 & 2 Incline Jhanjra , Jhanjra Area of M / s . ECL , Burdwan . Vrs . Their Workman

Representatives : : None For the Management For the union ( Workman) : None Industry: Coal Dated: 18-3-2010 AWARD State: West Bengal In exercise of powers 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/ 4/2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 05-07-2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal.

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of the Management of 1 & 2 Incline Jhanjra , Jhanjra Area of M / s . ECL in denying idle period wages in respect of Sri Bishnudeo Nunia w.e.f. 17-3-1995 to 3-9-1995 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned entitled ? " 2394

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

Having received the Order No. L - 22012/ 4/ 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 5-7-2007 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 46 of 2007 was registered on 18-7-2007 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.

Despite notice issued to the employer and the employee by registered post none of them made their appearance . It appears that they are not interested to proceed with the case and it is apparent that dispute no more exists . Award to the effect needs be passed and hence itis ordered.

ORDER

Let an " Award " be and same is passed as per above . Send the copies of the order to the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1197.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 36/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -22012 / 7/ 2007- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ]

अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

S.O. 1197. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 36/ 2007 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Asansol as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/ s . Eastern Coalfields Limited , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 13-4-2010 .

[No. L - 22012/ 7 /2007 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

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

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

: Sri Manoranjan Pattnaik, Presiding Officer

Reference No. 36 of 2007

PARTIES

The Agent , Chapui Khas Colliery Satgram Area of M/ s . ECI .. , Burdwan .

: Vrs .

Dy . President , Colliery Mazdoor Union ( INTUC ) G.T. Road , Asansol , Burdwan.

Representatives :

Forthe management : None

For the union : None

(Workman)

Industry : Coal State : West Bengal

Dated : 9-3-2010

AWARD

In exercise of powers conferred by clause ( d ) of Sub- section( 1 ) and Sub - section 2 ( A ) of Section10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L - 22012/ 7/2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 26-06-2007 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

" Whether the action of the Management of Chapui Khas Colliery , Satgram Area of M / s . E.C . ! . in dismissing Sh . Haren Bourie , w.e.f. 28-2-2006 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled?"

Having received the Order No. L - 22012 / 7 / 2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 26-6-2007 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour . New Delhi , for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 36 of 2007 was registered on 11-7-2007 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 to the parties concerned .

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

Despite notice issued to the employer and the employee by registered post none of them made their appearance . It appears that they are not interested to proceed with the case and it is apparent that dispute no more exists . Award to the effect needs be passed and hence it is ordered .

ORDER

Let an " Award " be and same is passed as per above . Send the copies of the Award to the Govt . of India , Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi , for information and needful .

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1198.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 25/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल -22012 / 290/2007- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

S.O. 1198. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 25/ 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Asansol now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/ s. Eastern Coalfields Limited, and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 13-4-2010 .

[No. L - 22012/290 /2007 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

PRESENT

: Sri Manoranjan Pattnaik , PresidingOfficer

Reference No. 25 of 2008

PARTIES

: The Agent , Satgram Project

Satgram Area of

M/ s . ECL , Burdwan

Vrs .

Their Workman

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management P.K. Goswami , Advocate For the union : None

(Workman)

2395

State : West Bengal

Industry : Coal

Dated : 18-3-2010

AWARD

In exercise ofpowers conferred by clause ( d ) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub- section 2 ( A ) of Section10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , Govt . of India through the Ministry of Labour vide its letter No. L - 22012/ 290/2007 IR ( CM - II ) dated 26-5-2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

'Whether the action of the Management of Satgram Project Satgram Area of M / s . ECL by not regularizing Sri Tarapado Roy is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman concerned entitled to ? " Having received the Order No. L - 22012 / 290 / 2007 - IR (CM - II ) dated 26-5-2008 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 25 of 2008 was registered on 2-6-2008 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 .

ORDER

Let an " Award " be and same is passed as per above . Send the copies of the Award to the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MANORANJAN PATTNAIK , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1199.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं ई.सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012 /372/ 2007 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी 2396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010/VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

New Delhi , the 13th April, 2010

S.O. 1199.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 20/ 2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court, Asansol now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of M/s. Eastern Coalfields Limited , and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 13-4-2010.

[No. L- 22012/372/ 2007 - IR( CM - 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. 20 of 2008

PARTIES : The Agent, Bhanora West Block Colliery, Sripur Area of ECL

Vrs .

TheirWorkman

REPRESENTATIVES :

For the management : None

: None

For the union (Workman)

Industry : Coal

State: West Bengal Dated: 09-3-2010

AWARD

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 / 372/2007 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 12-5-2008 has been pleased to refer the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal .

SCHEDULE

Whether the action of the Management of Bhanora WestBlock Colliery of M/s . Eastern Coalfields Ltd. , by not giving employment to the dependent of

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii ) ] Late Sunil Bouri is legal and justified? To what relief is the workman concerned entitled ? "

Having received the Order No. L - 22012 /372 /2007 - IR (CM - II ) dated 12-5-2008 of the above said reference from the Govt . of India , Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , for adjudication of the dispute , a reference case No. 20 of 2008 was registered on 22-5-2008 and accordingly an order to that effect was passed to issue notices through the registered post to the parties concerned directing themto 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 .

Despite notice issued to the employer and the employee by registered post none of them made their appearance . It appears that they are not interested to proceed with the case and it is apparent that dispute no moreexists Award to the effect needs be passed and hence itisordered .

ORDER

Let an " Award" be and same is passed as per above . Send the copies of the Awardto the Govt . of India, Ministry of Labour , New Delhi , for information and needful . The reference is accordingly disposed of.

MANORANJAN PATINAIK , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1200.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं आई.सी.ए.आर. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 43/2006) को प्रकाशित करती है, केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4 2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/101/2005- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) | अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 13th April , 2010

S.O. 1200.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 43 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the management of National Research Centre for Agroforestry , ICAR and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 13-4-2010.

[No. L-42012/ 101 /2005 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR , Desk Officer [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 43 of 2006 Between

Sri Karan Singh , S/ o Shri Pooran , Vill. & Post Bhojla , Jhansi

AND

The Director, National Research Centre for Agroforestry , Gwalior Road , Jhansi

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL, New Delhi vide notification No. L- 42012 / 101 /2005 - IR (CM - II) dated 28-06-06 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal .

2. Whether the action of the management of National Research Centre for Agroforestry in terminating the services of Shri Karan Singh Son of Sri Pooran with effect from 1-12-03 is legal and justified ? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled .

3. In the instant case after the receipt of the reference order, registered notices were issued from the tribunal to the contesting parties for filing of their claim and counter claim. Itmay be pointed out that the reference was received in the office of the tribunal on 10-7-06 and registered notices dated 5-1-06, 21-9-2007 , 12-03-08 , 19-6-08 and 7-5-09 were issued to the claimant still neither he filed any claim statement in support of his claim nor put personal appearance on either date of hearing of the case . Whereas onbehalf ofthe opposite party Sri V.K. Gupta appeared in the case and filed his authorization letter to represent the opposite party in the instant case .

4. Therefore , from the behaviors of the claimant as stated above it is quite obvious that the claimant does not appear to be serious in contesting the case as well as it also appears that he is not interested in prosecuting his case before the tribunal .

5. In the facts and circumstances of the case as given above , the tribunal is bound to conclude that the claimant is not interested to contest the case and therefore , the reference is answered in affirmative holding that the claimant is not entitled to any relief for want of pleadings and proof.

6. Reference is therefore answered against the claimant and in favour of the opposite party.

RAM PARAKSH , Presiding Officer 1547 GI /10-8

2397

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 13 अप्रैल , 2010

का.आ. 1201.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं एफ.सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2007) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/171/2005- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) अजय कुमार गौड़ , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 13th April , 2010

S.O. 1201.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 24/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure , in the industrial dispute between the management of Food Corporation of India, and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 13-4-2010 .

[No. L- 22012/171 / 2005 - IR ( CM - II ) ] AJAY KUMAR GAUR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW Present :

N. K. Purohit, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 24/2007 Ref. No. L-22012 / 171 /2005 -- IR( CM - II ) dated 04-06-2007 Between

The State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh , DC/3V, Vibhuti Khand , Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (Espousing case of Shri Anil Kumar Tarsolia )

AND

1. The Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India , DC/3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow

2. The Zonal Manager (North) , Food Corporation of India , Plot No. 2A , 2B , Sector - 24 , Noida (U.P. ) 2398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010/VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

AWARD

Dated 26-03-2010

1. By order No. L - 22012 / 171 /2005 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 04-06-2007 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 the State Secretary, Bhartiya Khadya Nigam Karmchari Sangh , DC/ 3V, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar , Lucknow ( Espousing case of Shri Anil Kumar Tarsolia ) and the Sr. Regional Manager , Food Corporation of India , DC/3V, Vibhuti Khand , Gomti Nagar , Lucknow & the Zonal Manager (North ) , Food Corporation of India , Plot No. 2A , 2B , Sector 24 , Noida ( U.P. ) for adjudication .

2. The reference under adjudication is :

" ( i ) Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in imposing penalty of recovery of loss @ Rs . 5880 along with the debarring Shri Anil Kumar Tarsolia for 3 years from all important & sensitive jobs is legal and justified ? If not ,to what relief is the workman entitled ?

( ii ) Whether the action of the management of Food Corporation of India in not granting selection grade w.e.f. 01-12-1997 and promotion to the post of Asstt . Grade 1 ( D ) in the year 2000 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief is the workman entitled ? " 3. It is admitted case of the parties that the workman , Anil Kumar Tarsolia , AG II ( Depot ) was served upon a charge sheet dated 22-07-96 under Regulation 60 of Staff Regulations 1971 for alleged failure to maintain absolute integrity and devotion to his duty sincerely and honestly and acting in a manner unbecoming employee of the Corporation and thereby contravening Regulation 31 , 32 and 32 - A of FCI Staff Regulation , 1971. The workman submitted his reply dated 01-08-96 to the said charge sheet and he was imposed a punishment of recovery of Rs. 5880 along with debarring him for three years from all important and sensitive job vide impugned order dated 02-01-97. Aggrieved from impugned order dated 02-01-97, the workman preferred an appeal which was rejected vide order dated 29-01-98 and also , his review petition dated 10-05-98 was rejected vide order dated 22-07-2004 .

4. It has been alleged by the workman's union that the management of FCI passed the impugned order without considering the reply dated 01-08-96 in as much as the appellate order and order on his review petition were passed by the management without considering the facts/ contentions raised by the workman in his appeal and review petition respectively, thus , the same are illegal and arbitrary being unreasoned and non- speaking . Further it

[PART II-- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] has been alleged by the workman's union that the workman was not given any opportunity for personai hearing . Accordingly the workman's union has prayed that the impugned orders of penalty dated 02-01-97, appellate order dated 29-10-98 and review order dated 22-07-2004 may be set aside with consequential benefits to the workman concerned .

5. The workman's union has further submitted that as per Rules the workman was entitled for selection grade after completion of 12 years ' service on 29-11-1996 . As per averments of the workman's union although the workman was granted the same w.e.f. 01-12-1997 but subsequently the opposite party vide order dated 26-0-98 withheld the same for alleged involvement of the workman in vigilance case . Likewise he was granted promotion in the year 2001 instead of year 2000. It is submitted by the workman's union that as per guidelines vide FCI circulars of 1995 , promotion cannot be held up due to penalty of recovery, as such withholding of selection grade and promotion to the workman is totally illegal , arbitrary and malafide ; accordingly , has prayed that the management of FCI be directed to grant selection grade to the workman w.e.f. 01-12-1997 and promotion in the year 2000 instead of2001 with all consequential benefits .

6. The management of FCI has specifically denied the allegations of the workman's union and has submitted thatthe reply submitted by the workman was thoroughly examined by the Disciplinary Authority along with the relevant records of the case , in as much as the Appellate the Reviewing Authorities also gone through the contents of charge sheet penalty order / appellate order and relevant documents before rejecting his appeal and review petition respectively and there is no deficiency with them as they are just and passed as per provisions of FCI ( Staff ) Regulations , 1971. Further, it has been submitted by the management that there is no provision in FCI ( Staff ) Regulations , 1971 for giving the opportunity of personal hearing under minor penalty case before deciding the appeal ; and accordingly, the management of FCI has prayed that the claim of the workman's union be rejected without any relief to the workman concerned.

7. The management of FCI has also refuted the claim ofthe workman's union regarding grant of selection grade to the workman w.e.f. 0-12-1997 and promotion in the year 2001 and has submitted that its action in not releasing the selection grade to the workman vide order dated 26-5-98 and granting promotion in the year 2001 instead of 2000 was just on the ground of indulgence of workman in the vigilance case .In this regard it has specifically been mentioned by the management that the review petition of the workman was disposed of by the competent authority vide their order dated 22-7-2004 which purports that vigilance case against the workman was not clear by the said date ; and accordingly has justified in action in [भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

non - grant of selection grade as well as promotion to the workman and has prayed that request of the workman's union in this regard does not bear any substance and is liable to be rejected .

8. The workman's union has filed rejoinder whereby it has only reiterated its averments in the statement of claim and has not introduced any new facts .

9. The parties filed documentary evidence in support of their respect cases . The workman's union examined the workman whereas the management examined Shri Sudhir Kumar Saxena , Area Manager in support of their respective stands . Both the parties availed opportunity to forward oral as well as written submissions .

10. Heard learned representatives of the both the parties and perused all relevant material on record.

11. Learned representative on behalf of the workman has submitted that the impugned order imposing penalty of recovery of loss of Rs . 5880 along with debarring the workman for three years from all important and sensitive jobs involving financial transaction etc. is illegal and without jurisdiction because under Regulation 54 of Staff Regulation the Disciplinary Authority is not empowered to impose penalty of debarring the workman for such period from important and sensitive jobs . He has further contended that Disciplinary Authority has failed to address the correct issue involved in the matter . The issues raised by the workman in his reply were also not considered and the Disciplinary Authority has imposed penalty on that charge which was not in the charge sheet. He has also submitted that the Reviewing Authority and Appellate Authority both have passed non - reasoned orders and have not dealt with the issues raised by the workman. Opportunity of hearing was also not provided to the workman . As regards denial of selection grade from 01-12-97 , he has submitted that selection grade was granted to the workman vide order dated 26-8-98 w.e.f. 01-12-97 but the said order has not been released on the ground that the workman was under penalty from 21-08-96 to 31-12-98 ; but no such order has been referred nor produced in the adjudication proceedings . He has further contended that Competent Authority vide order dated 08-11-2000 promoted the workman from AG II ( D ) to AG I (D) and the said order was issued after examining the pendency of vigilance case against the workman . The workman was promoted on adhoc basis vide order dated 08-12-2000 and the word adhoc was deleted from the order and it became a regular promotion . Furher the opposite party has cancelled the promotion order vide order dated 19-05-2001 without assigning any reason in the said order orwithout affording any opportunity . Further , on the basis of subsequent charge sheet after consideration of promotion by Zonal Promotion Committee will not debar any employee from promotion , therefore , the workman is entitled for promotion from the date his junior was

2399

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010 /वैशाख 18 , 1932

promoted . In support of his contentions he has placed reliance on following case laws:

(i ) 2009 ( 1 ) SCC L & S 88 Union of India vs. Ram Kumar Thakur .

(ii) 2007 ( 2 ) ALJ 119 ( DB ) Sarwan Kumar Purwar vs. Inspector General of Police .

(iii) 1999 SCC ( L & S ) 429 Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police .

( iv ) 1986 SCC ( L & S ) 383 Ram Chander Vs. Union of India.

(v) 1991 SCC ( L & S ) 525 New Bank of India Vs. N.P. Sigal .

(vi ) 1993 ( 23 ) ATC 322 Union of India Vs. K.V. Jankiraman .

12. Per contra , the learned representative on behalf of the FCI has urged that the order of debarring the workman for three years from all important and sensitive jobs is an administrative action for smooth functioning of the Corporation and which may not be treated as penalty . As regards denial of selection grade to the workman w.e.f. 01-12-97 , he has contended that the workman was under penalty, therefore , the selection grade was not released. He has further contended that the workman has admitted in his statement that he filed an appeal against the order of penalty on 02-01-97 and after rejection of appeal on 29-01-98 , he filed review on 10-05-98 . The review petition was decided then only the vigilance case finally adjudicated and not before as stated by the workman.

13. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions of the parties and perused relevant material on record . In the impugned order , imposing penalty of recovery, the workman has been debarred for three years from the important and sensitive jobs . Admittedly, under Regulation 54 of the Staff Regulation, no such penalty is envisaged ; but debarring from a particular period from all important and sensitive jobs cannot be treated as penalty . The learned representative has referred 2007 ( 2 ) ALF 119 ( DB ) , but the facts of the said case law are distinguishable . In above case law order regarding withholding of integrity certificate or holding integrity of employee doubtful was also passed, therefore , Hon'ble High Court observed that withholding integrity or holding the integrity doubtful or non - issuance of integrity certificate have penal consequence and is very fatal in service career of a government servant particularly in the matter of promotion as well as in according the benefits of higher pay scales depending upon the service rules . But in the present case debarring the workman from important and sensitive jobs is not a hurdle in any way in his promotion or grant of scales . Whether any sensitive or important job is to be assigned or not is an administrative action which is prerogative of administrative authority.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

therefore , contention of learned representative that on this account impugned order deserves to be set aside is not tenable.

14. The contention of the learned counsel that charge sheet does not mention any list of document , therefore , documents mentioned in the charge sheet cannot be relied upon is also not tenable because in his reply the workman has not taken such plea .

15. The learned representative has further submitted that the disciplinary authority has filed to address the issues raised by the workman in his reply . The workman was transferred on 22-11-85 as such it is against the principle of legitimate expectation that he could obtain receipt of stock from dead stock incharge , Shri P.N. Pal and propose recovery of undelivered stock upon the HTC . This issue has not been considered by the disciplinary authority. Further the management witness has stated that the management was expecting that he would come to Orai after 22-11-85 to coordinate with the depot incharge but this was not alleged in the charge sheet .

16. Upon perusal of the order dated 2/6 Jan. , 1997 , passed by disciplinary authority , it is evident that contentions raised by the workman have been considered . He has observed after considering his reply that the workman was incharge rail head , Orai during October , 85 to 22-11-85 and gate pass No. 4420/27 dated 19-11-85 from rail head Orai for FSD Orai for 598 ' A ' class gunnies was issued during his inchargeship and as such the workman was fully responsible to ensure that contents sent by him are got acknowledged in full instead of leaving the issue at the disposal / mercy of HTC ignoring his responsibility and under protection to said HTC . The disciplinary authority has passed impugned order after considering the issues raised and has also given reasons for not accepting the contentions of the workman . It is settled legal position that the Tribunal cannot re - examine or re- appraise the evidence and substitute its own conclusion over the conclusions arrived at by the disciplinary authority . Thus , the contentions of the learned representative in this regard is not tenable .

17. Learned representative on behalf of the workman has also urged that Appellate Authority neither called the appellant for hearing nor dealt the issues raised by the workman in appeal , therefore , the order of the Appellate Authority is illegal and liable to be set aside.

18. Upon perusal of the Appellate order dated 29-01-98 and its revision order dated 19-05-98 , it is evident that order have been passed after considering the contentions raised by the workman . As regards personal hearing, there is no specific provision under rules 67 to 74 pertaining to appeal and revision of FCI ( Staff) Regulation 1971 for providing opportunity of personal hearing . Therefore , contentions of the learned representative are not sustainable .

[PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii ) | 19. As regards action of the management of FCI in not granting the Selection Grade w.e.f. 01-12-97 , the learned representative on behalf of the workman contended that selection grade was granted to the workman by means of order dated 26-08-98 . The name of the workman was at serial No. 01 of the order and he has been granted selection grade from 01-12-97 ; but the order has not been released on the ground that the workman was under penalty as on 21-08-96 to 31-12-98 ; whereas no such penalty order has neither been referred nor produced in this adjudication proceedings a such this embargo is not sustainable nor it can stop the legal right to get selection grade .

20. The learned representative on behalf of the FCI has contended that for grant of selection grade to the postof AG I it is specific condition that selection grade shall be issued to the official subject to vigilance clearance. Since on 01-12-97, the workman was under penalty hence his selection grade was not released .

21. The management witness Shri Sudip Kumar Saxena has stated that the workman was not entitled for selection grade w.e.f. 01-12-97 with consequential benefits as on the said date the workman was under going penalty . The workman in his cross - examination has also admitted that he had filed an appeal on 01-01-57 against the penalty order and the appeal was decided on 29-01-98 . He also filed review petition against appeal order on 10-05-98 . Thus , admittedly the workman was under going penalty on 01-12-97 , therefore , the action of the management in not granting selection grade w.e.f. 01-12-97 cannot be said to be unjustified.

22. As regards promotion to the AGI ( D ) in the year 2000 is concerned the management witness Dilip Kumar Saxena has stated that the workman has already been promoted to AG I ( D ) vide order dated 13-7-2001 and he had already joined the promoted post . Whereas the workman has stated that this order was to be issued in year 2000 as Shri P.N. Lal who was junior to him was given promotion in the same circumstances .

23. The management has filed copy of the order dated 2/ 7-7-2001 ( paper No. 11/5 ) which reveals that disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the workman S.K. Tarsolia under Regulation 60 of FC1 ( Staff ) Regulation 1971 vide memo dated 18-3-99 and reply was submitted by the workman on 12-12-2000 . The plea taken by the workman were found convincing , therefore , Sr. Regional Manager dropped the charges imposed against the workman under Regulation 56 of Regulation 1971 .

24. It is not disputed that the workman was promoted on 08-11-2000 on the ad hoc basis and subsequently vide orderdated 06-02-2001 the word ' ad hoc ' was also deleted . It is also admitted fact that vide order dated 17-05-2001 (page No. 11/3 ) order of promotion was cancelled.

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

25. In the above factual back drop it is evident that earlier despite this fact that disciplinary proceeding vide memo dated 18-03-99 under Regulation 60 of FCI ( Staff) Regulation , 1971 were pending , the FCI promoted the workman on 08-11-2000 ; but subsequently cancelled his promotion without mentioning any reason in the order of cancellation . It is also evident that the workman was exonerated of the charges vide order dated 2 /3-7-2001 and he was promoted subsequently vide order dated 13-7-2001 .

26. It is pertinent to mention that penalty of recovery of Rs . 5880 vide impugned order dated 02-10-97 was imposed on the memo dated 22-07-96 and amount of penalty was deposited by the workman under protest on 17-06-98 . The appeal against penalty order was rejected on 21-01-97 and review petition was also rejected vide order dated 19-05-98 . It is not the case of the FCI that the workman's promotion was cancelled vide order dated 17-05-2001 on account of said penalty of recovery of Rs . 5880 .

27. In above facts and circumstances if promotion was cancelled on the ground of memo dated 18-03-99 , even then after exoneration the workman is entitled to get promotion from the date junior to him was promoted against the penal of year 2000 .

28. Admittedly , vide order dated 17-03-2001 (paper No. 6/38 ) Shri P.N. Pal , AG II ( D) he was promoted to AG I against the panel of 2000 and it is not the case of the FCI that he was not junior to the workman . Therefore , the workman is entitled to get promotion against the penal of 2000 from the date his junior was promoted.

29. In view of the above discussion the reference under adjudication is answered as under :

(i) the action of the management of FCI in imposing penalty of recovery of loss @ Rs . 5880 along with debarring the workman for three years from all important and sensitive job is neither illegal nor unjustified .

(ii) The action of the management of FCI in not granting selection grade w.e.f. 01-12-1997 is also notunjustified .

(iii) The action of the management of FCI in not granting promotion to the post of AG I (D ) in the year 2000 is not justified and the workman is entitled to be promoted from the date his junior was promoted against the panel of 2000.

30. Award as above .

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer Lucknow: 26-03-2010

नई दिल्ली , 19 अप्रैल , 2010 का. आ. 1202.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध

2401 में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , लखनऊ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 178/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. - 41012/ 145/2000- आई आर ( बी. - 1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th April , 2010

S.O. 1202. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref . No. 178 / 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Lucknow now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Railway and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-4-2010 .

[No. L -41012/145 / 2000 - IR( B - 1 ) ] SURENDER SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

Present :

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer I. D. No. 178/2000

Ref. No. L - 41012/ 145/2000 - IR ( B - I ) dated 7-11-2000

BETWEEN

Shri Nand Ram , C/ o 119/74 , Qr . No. 61 Nasimabad , Darshanpurva , Kanpur

AND

1. The Divisional Railway Manager ( P ) , Central Railway, Jhansi - 284001 .

2. The Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager , Central Railway, Jhansi - 284001

AWARD

Dated 30-3-2010

1. By order No. L - 41012 / 145 / 2000 - IR ( B - I ) dated: 7-11-2000 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 ofthe Industrial disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) referred thisindustrial dispute between Sri Nand Ram C / o 119/74 、 Qr . No. 61 , Nasimabad , Darshanpurva , Kanpur and the Divisional Railway Manager ( P ) Central Railway , Jhansi 2402

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

and the Sr. Divisional Commercial Manager , Central Railway, Jhansi for adjudication .

2. The terms of reference under adjudication are as under:

"Whether the action of the management of Divisional Railway Manager / Senior Commercial Manager , Central Railway , Jhansi in termining the services of Shri Nand Ram w.e.f. 14-7-1994 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workmen is entitled to ?"

3. The case of the workman in brief is that he was employed as waterman at Khairad Jn . Railway Station under DRM , Central Railway , Jhansi and worked upto 15-7-1994 and during his period of engagement he performed all duties of class IV staff apart from supplying water to the officers , staff and passengers . It has been submitted by the workman that whenever he was engaged , after intermittent break , he had to undergo a medical test before engagement . He has further submitted that he worked for more than 126 days continuously during years from 1978 to 1989 , and accordingly , as per notifications of Railway Board he became eligible for regularization , but the railway administration instead of regularizing him started paractice of engaging him for less days i.e. for 120 days during years 1990 to 1994 and finally engaged some other person in his place , which amounts to unfair labour practice . It has been alleged by the workman that the action of the management in terminating his services in spite of his working for more than 240 days in every calendar year without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation , retaining junior to him in the employment and making new appontment without intimating him , amounts to violation of provisions ofSection 25 - F , G & H of the I.D. Act , 1947 Accordingly , the workman has prayed that his termination dated 15-7-1994 be held unjustified and illegal and he be reinstated with continuity in service and back wages .

4. Per contra , the management of Central Railway has filed its written statement , disputing the claim of the workman , wherein it has submitted that the workman was engaged as Mobile Casual Seasonal Waterman for intermittent seasonal work during hot weather for less than 3 months each year from 1978 till 1991 and never completed 120 days continuous service during said period , within a year , as such , temporary status was never granted to the workman . It has been categorically denied by the management that any of the junior to the workman has retained by them and has submitted that the practice of engaging hot weather / summer season , Mobile Seasonai Casual Waterman had been discontinued w.e.f. 1992 consequent to Railway Board's circular dated 3-2-1992 which contained that since water coolers have been provided at railway station for providing cool drinking water to the passengers , the Mobile Seasonal Casual

[PART 11-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Watermen should not be engaged during hot weather / summer season . Further, it has been submitted by the management that since engagement of the workman was purely seasonal , intermittent and casual in nature for a fixed terms and also terminable even at earlier dates ifthe mansoons starts early , therefore , the disengagement of theworkman does not amounts to retrenchment as defined in I.D. Act , as such , neither provisions of Section 25 F as well as 2 ( oo ) ( bb ) of the Act are applicable nor the management of railways has violated any of the provisions ofI.D. Act . Accordingly , the management of the railways has prayed that claim of the workman be rejected out rightly.

5. The workman has filed rejoinder whereby it has only reiterated his averments in the statement of claim and has not introduced any new fact .

6. After submission of documentary evidence in support of their respective claims by the parties , the workman filed his affidavit in support of its version . When the management did not turn to cross - examined the workman in spite of ample opportunity being extended to it ; the case was ordered to proceed ex parte against the management and date for management's evidence was fixed . The management filed affidavit of Sh . Preetam Singh , Asstt . Commercial Manager , Central Railway, Jhansi in support of their case and workman cross - examined the management's witness .

7. Perused the written arguments filed by both the sides and scanned entire evidence on record .

8. It has been admitted by the management witness thatthe workman had worked from 1978 to 1994 as seasonal casual waterman and he has also admitted that workman had acquired temporary status . The learned representative also contended that instead of regularizing the workman the railway administration has disengaged the workman from 15-7-1994 without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof or retrenchment compensation and other persons have been engaged in place of the workman . Thus , disengagement of the woman is unjustified and illegal and workman be reinstated with all consequential benefits . The learned representative has relied on the following case laws'

( 1 ) 1982 LAB IC 811 L.Robert D'souza Vs. XEN S. Rly.

( 2) 1992 SCC ( L & S ) 611 COI Vs. Basant Lal and others .

9. Per contra, the learned representative on behalf of the railway administration has urged that the workman was engaged for hot weather seasonal work for providing water to the passengers at railway stations . No other work was taken from him or else . He would not have been disengaged during summer season . The Mobile Seasonal [ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii ) ]

2403 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

hisseniors in the said list , the said list itself was concelled due to administrative reasons thereafter a fresh notification was issued and pursuance to same screening test was conducted in July /August 1994. A candidates does not acquire a prescriptive right over a post even after appearance of his name in the panel . It is pure discretion of the Government to appoint a candidate from the said pannel or not.

Casual Labour got to be disengaged on 15th July or days . the onset of " Mansoon " which ever was earlier . The learned representative has also submitted that under similar and identical case of Seasonal Casual Water Man the disputed was raised under similar grounds by other workman before the CGIT , Kanpur but in that case no claim award was passed : Apart from this the present case is also liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches in raising the present industrial dispute . He has filed uncertified copy of decision dated 28-5-1987 passed in Writ Petition No. 1333/87 N. Rly. Administration Vs. Kushal Kishore and also relied on (2001 ) 1 SCC 424 Indian ron Vs. Prahlad Singh .

10. I have given thoughtful consideration on the rival submission of both the sides and perused the relevant record in light of their submissions .

13. The management witness has also stated that for benefit of hot weather seasonal waterman the Railway Board has already framed a scheme and issued notification (9/12) that those who fulfil the criteria laid down in the said notification may apply to the screening committee and those who would be found suitable , there names may be considered for regularization against future vacancies by giving them preference over fresh candidates and in pursuance of the said notification the workman has also applied and as per terms and conditions his name would also be considered on his term .

11. The workman Nand Ram has stated in his statement on oath that he was engaged as waterman from 1-4-1978 and he had worked upto 14-7-1994 but his services have been disengaged from 15-7-1994 and he was informed that some other person engaged in place of him . He has also stated that apart from working as waterman he was also performing the work of permanent nature like delivery ofdak , duty on cabin and checking signals etc. Vide order dated 11-2-2002 none was present on behalf of the railway. administration , therefore , opportunity to cross examine the workman was closed .

14. The workman has adduced photocopies of service record , railway passes issues to him medical fitness certificate and correspondence pertaining to him for appearance in the screening committee etc. A request was made to summon original record but it was submitted on behalf of the railway administration that the period of preservation of attendance and register and day attendance is for 3 years and all previous record upto 31-12-1993 in the said respect have been weeded out similarly the period for preservation of paid voucher is six years and records beyond six years also weed out in due course .

15. It is not disputed that the workman had worked as seasonal hot weather waterman . The management witness has admitted in his cross - examination that workman had worked as such from 1-4-1978 to 14-7-1994 . The management witness has also admitted in cross- examination that the workman was granted temporary status w.e.f. 2-4-1986 thus , the statement of the workman as regards working as waterman for the period 1978 to 1994 finds support from the evidence of the management witness and it is established from the evidence of the management witness that workman had acquired temporary status w.e.f. 2-4-1986 .

12. The management witness Sh . Preetam Singh , Asstt . Commercial Manager , Central Railway , Jhansi has stated that the workman was considered to be engaged as hotweather waterman and no other work was taken from him . He has also denied that any other person as alleged by the workman was engaged in place of him . He has further stated that vide Railway Board circular dated 3-2-1992 the Railway Board has totally withdrawn the policy of deployment of hot weather waterman and Mobile Waterman during summer season completely. In the light of above directions the workman had worked as hot weather waterman upto 14-7-1994 after that nobody either junior or senior to him was engaged as hot weather waterman in summer season . He has further stated that drinking water arrangement has been strengthened over the years by providing water coolers of verying capacities . He has also stated that the workman was lastly engaged in summer season of 1994 as per terms and conditions as laid down in the official letter dated 5-4-1994 (9/7 ). He has further stated that a panel of screened MRCLs of Commercial department was published on 3-5-1988 with endorsement of conditions for regularization mentioned against the name of each candidate , due to sheer inadvertent mistake and oversight , the name of applicant was wrongly included in the aforesaid list . Even as per his serial position in the said list , much before his name could be considered for regularization and including those of

16. As per Rule 2004 of REM Vol . II except where notice is necessary under any statutory obligation , no notice required for termination of services of casual labour but in case of casual labourers who has obtained temporary status after completion of prescribed period of continuous employment , the period of notice will be determined by the rules applicable to temporary railway servants . Rule 2005 prescribes the entitlement and privilaege admissible to casual labourers who are treated as temporary i.e. given temporary status . The casual labour treated as temporary are entitled to the rights and benefits admissible to temporary railway servant as laid down in Chapter XV of 2404

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

the Manual . the Chapter XV is pertaining to terms and conditions applicable to the railway servant in temporary service . Rule 1502 envisages that services of a temporary railway servant shall be liable to terminate on 14 days notice and lieu of the notice prescribed , it shall be permissible on the part of the railway administration to terminate the services of a railway servant by paying him the pay for period of notice , and in case of railway servant to whom the provision of the I.D. Act , 1947 , apply, he shall be entitled to notice or wages in lieu thereof in accordance with the provision of that Act .

17. In the present matter the workman has produced the photo copy of the DRM office personal branch dated 15-12-1986 wherein it has been shown that temporary status was granted to him w.e.f. 2-4-86 . Railway administration has not admitted the photo copy and original has not been produced by the railway but management witness himself admitted this fact that the workman was granted temporary status w.e.f. 2-4-1986 . The contention of the railway that temporary status granted only for particular year is not tenable . Even seasonal laborers as per Rule 2006 (2 ) ( a ) casual waterman for summer season shall be eligible for temporary status after completion of 120 days of continuous employment and once temporary status was granted it may be assumed that such status was granted after completion of statutory prescribed period and once seasonal labour acquired temporary railway servant status by operation of law or by order of the railway administration the condition of services would be governed as set out in Chapter XV of IREM , thus , prior to disengagement of the workman compliance of the provision as regard prior notice or wages in lieu of notice was essential . Admittedly, the procedure has not been carried out in the present matter . But termination of the services of the employee who had acquired temporary status after completion of 120 days continuous service , the authority concerned had to comply with Rule 1502 of IREM Vol . I by issuing 14 days notice prior to termination . The learned representative on behalf of the railway has referred the award passed in the matter ofMobile Hot Weather Watermen by CGIT, Kanpur . The facts of that case are different . It was not an admitted fact in the said award that temporary status was granted to the workmen concerned but in the present case it has been established that such status was granted to the workman . In none of the case laws which have been cited by the learned representative , it was under consideration whether a seasonal labourer who had admittedly acquired temporary status under provision of IREM may be disengaged without complying the provisions under 1502 ofthe IREM Vol . I.

18. In view of the above discussion since the workmen had admittedly acquired the temporary status in the year 1986 and notice or wages in lieu of notice has not givenprior to their disengagement , the action of the railway administration in disengaging the workmen w.e.f. 15-7-1994 isnot justified.

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 19. As regarded relief for regularization of the services of the workmen is concerned in rule 2005 of the IREM it has been categorically mentioned that such casual labour who acquired temporary status , will not however , be brought on to the permanent of regular establishment or treated as regular employment in railway untill and unless they are selected through regular selection for group D post in the manner laid down from time to time and subject to such order Railway Board may issue time to time . It further envisages that no temporary post should be created to accommodate such casual labours who acquired temporary status for the conferment of benefits . Thus . such temporary status acquired casual labourer can not calim for regularization as a matter of right . His regularization may be done in terms of railway rules according to his turn keeping inview the practice followed in such cases .

20. As regards engagement of some other workman after disengagement of the workman from services the workman has not adduce any evidence in support of his allegations . He has not mentioned the name of the person who has been allegedly retained or engaged after his disengaged thus , he has failed to prove the violation of Section 25 - G and H of the Act .

21. This contention of the learned representative on behalf of the Railway Administration is not tenable that reference is not maintainable solely on the ground of delay as proviso of Limitation Act are not applicable in the matter of Industrial Dispute Act . The facts of the case law cited by learned representative on behalf of the Railway Administration are distinguishable . However , while considering question of back wages delay in raising industrial dispute may be taken into consideration .

22. In view of the above discussions the workman is entitled for reinstatement as temporary status employee . The workman disengaged in the year 1994 but he has raised the industrial dispute at very belated stage . Moreover, he has not stated that he did not remain in any gainful employment since 1994. Having regards to the entire facts and circumstances of the case , the interest ofjustice would be subserved by reinstating the workman without back wages .

24. Accordingly, the reference under adjudication is answered as under ;

( i ) Since the workman had acquired temporary status the action of the management disengaging the workman w.e.f. 15.7.1994 in violation of provisions of Section 25 - F and IREM is unjustified , the workman Sh . Nand Rain is entitled to be reinstated as Seasonal Labourer having temporary status in service without back wages on available vacancies .

[ भाग - 301) ]

2405

जर यह 8 , 2016 18 , 1932

(P ) The taluway adnodarationto bemer directes to comply the direction to teinstare the workmon against available vacancies as expedkousiy as possible and procrably whhin 3 months frota the late of rere ptocinc erdes of the award.

25. The reference ander adindication is answered accordingly.

26 Award is above LUCT NOW: 30-3-2010

IN K. PUVCHIT , Presinting Officer नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल, 2010

का, आ. 1203, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिरिभ 1047 ( 1947 कर 14 ) की पारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार ईस्टर्न रेलवे क प्रबंधतत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कारों के अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योअिधिकरण , आसनसोल के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/2007 ) का वर्णन करती है, जो केळीय सरकार को 19-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [नं. एल-41012/76/2007 आईआरबी सुरेन्द्र सिंह, जोया अदिकारी New Delhi , the 19th April, 2010

5.0 . 1233.-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Cural Government hereny publiches the award (Ref. No. 12597) of the Central Govemment industrial Tribenal Labour Court . Asansol now as shown in the armeres , in use Industrial Dispute between the management of Eastern Railway and their workman , which receive by the Central Government on 19-4-2010.

[No.10 /70-2005-IR (B-10 ) SURENDRA SINGH , Det Oficer ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF CENTRAL COVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT, ASANSOL

Reference No 6/TTCC: 2007 Management of Eastern Railway, Asansol

Vs.

Vice President, Fastern Raihvay Quasi Employees Union, Asansol

SETTLEMENT IN LOK ADALAT Held on 11th December, 2009 at Kajora Guest House

AWARD

On amicable settlement by both parties the dispute isresolved in the Lok Adalat . The form ' H' containing the 1547 Gl/10

rennt of agreement of this settlement to be executed by tork the perties in due course. Asward is passed and signed accordingly

MANORANJAN PATINAIK, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 19 अप्रैल , 2016

का. आ. 1204.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 143 की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ उडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के जीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्यागिक अधिकरण, श्रम न्यायालय, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 339/2001) कां प्रकाशित करती है, जो कंन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/166/99- आई आर ( जी -1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी NewDelhi , the 19thApril , 2010

S.U. 1204 -in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 339/ 2001 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court- 1. Chandigarh as shown in the annexure in the Indsatmal Dispute between the management of State Bank of india and their workman , which was received by the CenolGovernment on 19-1-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/ 166/ 99 - IR (B - 1 ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

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

Case L.D. No. 339/2001

TheConcral Secretary,

State Bank of India Staff Congress ,

1304, Sector- 23 -B, Chandigarh

... Applicant

Versus

The Regional Manager,

StateBank of india,

Region- UI , Lower Lekkar Bazar, Shimla(LLP)

Respondent APPEARANCES

For the Workman :Shri Raj Kaushik

Shri Ashok Gupta

For the Management

AWARD

Passed on : 6-4-10

Govemment of India vide notification No. L - 12012/ 166/1999 - IR (B - 1) dated 6-12-2001 by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, (the Act MAYN

Weather the serion managerdon Su

orthe Rope Aank of toda ne

And Partie opera and filed her vespa otra plesdicas peros- appwent that workman contended the grown tont was appointed by the Branch Manat Bilespo of Saw Barkodladimas Menenga boy. It vidition to mis hewa M and wrwho the suployees the mak the wa and he was given uests ardon na cartier bry ys for all the wohntes per was denied era remenorристичери до ceployees the back, whers doing the of pernancer group- D employees . On the bash abo.efacts. praman requestra for an order dins equi remunerationis paid to he other perцат group - 1) canrioyees working is the marasement respondent bong ,

of the bar's

Sve m

The clear was contested contested by the margument us fireg vráten statement . The presinemany objections W raned har there was no employer emploves relations in between the sokean and the agencem of yo bank as the workiisa wa , appointed weer boy by i ovar onplersentaion Commuter The Local implementatio Committee has to concern vaste bank . It is a rifare committee approved by the rosagement of respиток bank without legal relationship with the bank ,

Leadarmowed by the navagement of respondent ok that incer workinge hos alseeded as casual worker on daily wages in addition to ke deres as wrer which in wus pend dolly wages

pari v

Panicum offorded the opportunity for adduciar evidence , weirian fred los atiidavit on support of his claim an the cross - exammed by samond comel to theroarayement on 30-7-2008 . Likewee Shri Susht Epnat Negi ar los idavit on behalf of the coron dent bank and he was er mikamined by learned counsel furn workers -2010 Partes were heard er ength. i ave gone through entire materials on record . Admittedi the workmar ha sorked in two capasitics in the capато of a canters y apointed benglementarior Committee ) and as daily casual worker inscrmidendy dailywages ausis

bo far in the working in Bret cepackey is concern , he Local i mentation Corunatre is a welfare mo πουραςά το της rangement of respondent back . Van its women with President Secretar ni Meaner, it is a rependently mned by the offs e beoren Prpedance are other sus faediues to the metters भारत का वलपमेई 8 , 2016 वंसाद्र 18 , 1932

1205, दवदयम 1947 1947 कान केन्द्रीय उरकल स्टेट बैंक ऑफ प्रबंधतंत्रों और उनके कर्मकों के सेक अनुस्व में निदिष्ट औ য়াটিক দিনকে में दोजीय सरकार जागि विडीया 121/2002 ) को मन करते है की कार का 15-4-2010 को प्राप्त NewCon the 10 for 2010

purshance of section in of the hommalapurs A , 1947-141947 ) he deniral Ofereia coolisons the avand Ref No. 12 702 y Comertion commeur ladustrial Tritural- cur 1. Chandigarh now as shown in the Natty on the tocest of Dispute between the ement of State Bank of India and thes workanen , chas received by the Central Govfranicht on

2010 / 8/2002- (RED- GYANENDRE KUMAR SHARMA od nove OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

Applicant

Verse :

APPRARAMES

2407 under Section 13 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( the Act in shorti , referton the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribuna !

"whcher the action of the Asst . General Manager . State Boal of India. Region - I , Punjab , Chandigar in terminating be service of Shri Jagdev Singh , E Messenger is justified ?If not what relief the worker, emitted "

After reconing the aference portios weit suma me 1, parties appeared and filed thew respective picadings Ou perusal of the picadings of the workman the care of the workinan in aut shell is that he was apponied by the management a mersenger. State Bank of hotia Sector ? Madhya Mars , Chandigarh branca . He was paid wages Rs. 1,000 per month from the Welfare Fund and Rs . 40.50 per day fron petty cash and the entire amoum was pato mominly . bhaitialty he was paid Rs . 400 pur sworth hich was released to Rs 1,000 per month , frikat increased to Rs. 1,490 and subsequently was reludio Rs . 1,067 in April 2009 In this capacity he has worked as conteen boy but he was also entrusted other work the bank and he was paid daily wages at the rate elf's 4050 per lev. the performed his Joties sincerely but his services were terminated without notice or paytrent of one to aid wages it : lieu of actice and without payment of resenchenest con- pensabou. fic had completed 240 days in the preording your mos me date of his termination His termonation is vold and legal being against the profisions of the Act.

The management of the bank appearen and neusted the petition by filing writter statomcat . The preliminary objectiona was raised that their had been no employer and amp-toy se relationship beuseen the workman And the management of respondent bank . The vorkaman was appointed Condeen bey by the IC (Lacal Iaplers tatios Comasttect at son is an independent body ard ht , no concars with the bashoing of in bank. As stech ar vas ant carglosce of the bank and he was paid sha Lands of the Local implementation Coromintee . Kestor the comentics of the workman hove been ase dined by the mangement but it is almuted thest ca som , occasias he was an entrusted the work . the bank for which he was ond daily wages from peits cash A duty wegen hane right to post. He has not completed 40 tays in the preceding year from the date of his turmaina.ion as a daily wager wath the tabs

Thet Sandeen laachway

On perasad of the plerings of the parties it is evident that workaran sas ked with the rank in Capacities su river capacity ic as a carteen les appelated 2408

TUS JAZETTE OF INDE WAY 8,2006

of divenne the back, the canteen boy cal

claim porky cannot chen : το αaployees of ice bank and teniu deration of his services on coscunt of his working en rattoon boy.

Act. If thereof the workmas had been torminatu

illegal and von initio e dous not mean that Induscarist

the daily was worker but the Act regulate , the

daily waged worker i acerse that temptation should te

The manage.zen has s'is

По неголи сеpacity in which the workman has worked is to wezen. There is no dispone on this use 280 worked as a daily wager and as was paluwes trom petty cash. His working es z dailywagat de management of the bank is protem under the provit lons of the fodustrial Disputes Art , Ary type of post may be daily wager or casual is protected un se provisions of tire Industrisi ilisports against the lens of the Act , such termination win be Disputed the termination of the savices of terminashe sucosened kom satte of payment of one morto wages f remsachet cative sloug with the payment of pebeasution , if it is not gout the terminuture of my Wared worker shall be void cotne again the procrens of the Act .

bis woren,

fer as dhe or

per has contended that a dady wured worker told love petty cash has no right te we It is true that i waged workm ius no right to post. i am not incited to necept the contention of the managutant their bed workman was wavi wages from the petty case, not entitled for the protection of thr provisions of Ant . Payment from perry east is mode of payment wie en thail be considered direct paymem by ane management 1. 1. the inter se arrangement of the таладеен пyarding the payment of wages . Tha protection and worker is tre illegally remais , wed.. P of first provisions of the Act, ro a daily wago Fon of his ight to work . He cannceb Ve connot be terminated against the Anti dare är sentitled for the ak seth it was working befire bu see mugonant right of the work Just the fear, nis ught to princiy ol ement connot pick and choose in the Muengcinent nas to adouts policy wad it there is any require nent of a dath wwcfter the seonimition of the servic the priorit , stefnt the treaches These , rights are manused abcolure and are not discriminators . Thus , iftucanor love the cartery of the canteca boy has almera 240 day or more in the receir g year from fast fasstermination, He is entitler brit protection of th revisione orheart. The warmen has

soccifically st : that he has completen 240 days of wood.

etheprovets in Porte date of his termination and

2. Saccher at the provisions 01 100

Act. Theworsen has worked for long period w.... f. 19 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ भाग II- खंड 3 ( ii) ]

workman and as per the policy of the management appointment of casual worker are not permitted . The Law also prefers the regular appointments and the reinstatement of the services of a daily waged worker cannot be substituted as his regular appointment . This Tribunal cannot work as a appointing authority of the bank. Regular zppointment has to be made as per the procedure laid down in the rules . Thus, under the circumstances prevailing on this redustrial dispute , I am of the view that grievances of the workman should be remedied by payment of reasonable compensation .

Whenever, the compensation is paid to the workman, it depends on so many factors as compensation should be reasonable and accordingly it is bound to be based on the reasonable criteria . The criteria which are adoptedby the Tribunal for calculating reasonable compensation are the length of service workman has served with the management , amount of wages which he was getting during his services with the management , one month wages at the time of termination , lawfui terminal dues , interest thereon, inflation , variabie index factor etc. I am also of the view that the cost of litigation which the workman incurred to enforce his lawful right before this Tribunal on account of his illegal termination should also be considered. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the factors mentioned above , the compensation ef R.. 2.00,000 (two lakhs only ) will be a reasonable compensation for redressing/redress the grievances of the workman , it will meets the ends of justice . Accordingly, the management is directed to pay the workman an amount ofRs . 2.00,000 ( two lakhs only ) within one month from the date of publication of the award . If the management opted to pay the aforesaid compensation to the workman within one month from the date of publication of the award no interest need to be paid, failing which the workman shall also be entitled for an interest at the rate of 8 per cent per annun from the date of filing claim petition till final payment . Appropriate Government be informed for publication of award , and thereafter , file be consignedto record room .

G. K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 19 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1206, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनयम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ चीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीत, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्यागिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 71.2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-4-2010 को गप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/ 127/2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

2409 New Delhi, the 19th April , 2010

S.O. 1206.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 71/2007 ) ofthe Central Government industrial Tribunal- cum - Labour Court , Delhi as shown in the Annexure , in the ladustrial Dispute between the management of Stare Bank ofBikaner and Jaipur and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 19-4-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/ 127 /2005 - IR( B -10 ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I. D. NO. 71/2007

Workmae Shri Ram Kumar Dube S/ o Shri Ram Dulare , R/ o 108. ESI Hospital Colony, Basai Darapur , New Delhi

Versus

The Manager , State Bank ofBikaner and Jaipur, ESIHospital, Basai Darapur Branch , New Delhi Management

AWARD

1. A tea vender used to supply tea at Extension Counter , State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur. located at E.5.1 Hospital Compiex , Basai Darapur. New Delhi. Casual jobs were taken from him by the Bank ar intermittent period. He was under an impression that performance of casual job at the said extension counter would create a right in his favour for absorption in the services of the bank . When this impression was wiped our by the bank authorities , he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . vide order No. 1-12012 127/2005-18 ( 3-4 ). Now Delni , dated 8-10-2001 , with the following teens "Whether the action of the management of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur . Basai Darapur Branch. New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Ram Kumar Dubey w.e.f. 21-3-2003 is justified ? If not . what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?" 2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Ram Kumar Dube pleading therein that he was employed as peon , in Basai Darapur Branch of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur since July, 1992. He served the bank continuously to their 2410

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8.2010 VAISAKHA

entire soristaoran He was never served with a mere of charge sheet, who was part on daily wages bast . @Rs 100 per day. He ad not given any weekly of, Lobdays or eamed leave one Smartery facilities like ESI . Provident Fund, medical tacities , conveyance and house rent elc not provides to him. Hovaised a Jemand for the facilities and also in regulzation of the services . When he insisted for has deteand, the bank authorities feli annoyea . His services were terminated 21-3-2003, withna assigning any team His pay for the month of Mach 2005 was not caid Actor ofthe management in terrissing , his service was it contravention of the provisions of section 25 , 25-1 and 25-11 of the industrial Disputes Act. 1947- lash the scht. The said acoon is legal and liabre tobe set as it is launs reinstatenient in nervices of the bark with wowhead and full back wages .

3. Chulcst was given to his chain by the management Disa ng that there existed no , pistonstrip of empieyer and enan braveen the partics Kan: Kumar Dube was never as pay toll of the management bank hezur there was an of serving an acto or ohnge sheet when Heil tea in the cotopoine of SSI hospital On selbe used to clean bank premtes and sapply wager, a exigencies . He was never in the employment of the bank , even as a daily wagen, it has bara denied har h . wwe paid his vrages Rs 100 por day There was to que sean of providing tim with the faciliter such as weekly off , holidays ti , casusi leave , hoous and President fund . It is denied that he raised a demas for the aforemend this as well as for rugularisation I his joo . It has turker been denied that the bank fek annu yerd and ter divis serices we f 21-3-2003.1 has been projecia Ova Ram Kumar Dub. filed a m petition hearing No 3-2007 before High Court of Deiku which was disposed of vide order dated 30-4-2007 been claimed : nar Shri Rom Kumar Dube is not emitled to any relief and his charm statemer is devoid of ments . has 4. The claituen examined homself Ww Shri Katherwal ( ww2 ) Shir Mohan Upadhyay ( WW3 ) and Mohan Singa Cw We in support of ins claim Shri A... Mesna was er anden behalf of the riches ement.

Arguments were heard at the bar. Claimant presented facis ir norson . Shri Garish Kumar Verma authorises concreti , raise his submissions on behalf ofthe tormagtocat have given my careful considerations to the arguments elvanced at the bar and coutiverly perused the record sly findings on issues invored make controversy are Flows :

6.Ram Knox... Oube testified that he was working as peoula E Si . Pospital branch , isasal Datapur , blate Bank of Bikaner and falpar since 1992 His duty hours were from AM PM, laitually he was patigRs . 500 PM as his wages in fit year 2001. The cefter , he was paid @Rs . 100 per day . He continuously worked with the pay in hea therasas of the lob in codtory mo nis place . Kronobuen pe han Buused an ind closed as the estrd by the bark , Past wole voucher Ex Mist over the co a lose , pe tod, de admes b saed to hun . H. four , de venstre se back for

working, at watch . Paraps, Dow Ne

50 1975 te beccacc in the extension counter Dr examination heaandsta Jeaving patient unattooed deughs an 2411 भारत का राजपत्र : भई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18, 1932

pu't both we treg 7.30 AM to 3.10 PM. Bank osed to GEAM and 4.00 PM He presents that he rever went to the bank leaving his job unatended. He was going to the back or doing transactions sa kis saving bonk, secount for the inst three years . De had not seen woity card and appointinent inster of Sari Dube . He found Kar Aur Duke Inarlk the bank premises , serving tea to Phaolo toning there. He denied that Ram Kumar Dube 10. ingles stall in the compound of P.5.1. Hospital .

arware that invitation card mark & was received by the claimant at the extension counter of the bank Photo copy of1. Card mark C does not show nexus of the claimant with the bank. Balwant, who is working as peon in Jawala Heri branch of the bank , might have sent invitation card mark Suce the claimant was serving tea is E.S.I. compound as well as at extension counter of the bank , his name maghi have been mentioned on card mark C He could not say whether mark Drusning in 8 leafs were in the band writing oftheworkman or not . Mark E ( running in 3 leafls ) are not on prescribed register of the bank.

4. Muhan Singh deposed that he was working in Kitchen Section of EST Hospital since 1987. la 1991-92 tension coumer of the State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur www.su.ned in ESI Hospital Complex , Basai Darapur , ivew hela. Since then he was maintaining saving bank account the said Fraension Counter. He used to visit Extension Vants often and then . He saw Ram Kumar Dube working peon on daily wage basis in be said Extension Counter . Wher and then he used to hand over his cheques to Rare Kanar Dube soit deposit in his saving bank account . Once ettate Debera , withdrawn money from his bank account at his instance During the course of cross - examination . be admits that he never got any respite froramy duties . He tested Shri Kaw Euren Debe to deposit cheques in his hans accum, since he was working there . Once he Jouch Srora Mr. Meena , who was working in the bank tao be told that Roca Kumar Dube was working as peon on

10302 4. E. viesua swears in his anfidavit that Rom Kumar Debe used to sell tea in ESI Hospital mpound . He was contracted to clean bank premises and supply wager and when regular sweeper was absent. 11. wos never employed by the bark. Relationship of employer and employer never existed between him and Semanagement.No supervision and control was exercised ty le bank on the claimant. There was no question of Laminarun of his services . He was engaged to clean the bank premises and supply water on 1-5-2007 , 22-7-200210 77-2002 and 17-11-2002 to 22-11-2002 He was paid arough vouchere to that period . He rover worked τσελοτουτίν for 740 days . An extension counter of the Nock has the employces only. There never existed any my fo , regular employee to that extension counter arag the course of his cross - examinama be projects She babe worked only for 14 days in the said extension water and war phad @ Rs 100 per day for these days . He arca that verblates Fix. MW / WI , Dx.WI / W2 . Ex . VWG.EY. MW , besides vouchers x . MWI/ WS More issued by the bank . Ex . MWI /W6 is the copy of the reply sers by thit bank to Assist in : Labour Commissioner Common response to the plain of the workman . He futher sevents that the workman opened an accoum No. 1170 at Bose Herz Pur bunch of State Bahk Bikanci and Jaipur . veren heves nown his residential address as 214 ESI Flop Rea Darapur, Delhi . He projects that he is not

11. Whentestimony of the aforesaid witnesses were closely perused, it came to light that the worlanan places reliance on document mark D and E These documents bear stamp of State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur , Extension Counter . CSI Hospital . Basai Darapor, New Delhi - 15 . Except that stamp, one cannot make out that these documents are related to transactions performed at the aforesaid extension counter . The claimant projects that these documents were prepared by him while serving as a peon in the bank when closely perusea mark D and E paгроте be copy of peon book . One cannot say that the said peop book was maintained at the aforesaid extension counter . Neither original of the said peon book has been produced nor mark. D and E are provedby the claimant to be in his ownhand. Mere affixation of stamp of mark D and E would not attribute authenticity to these documents . When genuineness of the documents ars within the ambit of doubt , these documents cannot esponse claim of Shri Dube . Though the claimsant projects that he served at the extension counter of the bank since 1992 , vet excepi Ex . MWUWI to Ex . W5 no other document has been brought over the record to substantiate his claim . Occular ferts deposed by Shri Dube or his witnesses are vague. Though Shri Dube claims to have been serving the bank for a very long period , yet he could not place his appoinment letter or any other document to prove that he was an employee of the bank . His witnesses also detail facts in the same vein . Except a few document , no material has been brought over the record to show that Shri Dube was an employee of the bank. As deposedby Shri Meena Dube worked with the bank as a casual employee that too for a very short period . This conclusion is substantiated out of the documents proved by the claimant . These documents go to discard occular facts projected by him and his witnesses . Ex . MWI / WI projects that Shri Dube served the bank for six days from 22-7-02 19 27-7-02 for which he was paid @ Rs . 100 per day. Ex . MWI / W2 was issued in respect of payment released in his favour for work performed by him on 1-5-2002 . Ex . MWI /W3 is copy of Ex . MWI / W2 . Ex . MWI / W4 relates to the payment released in favour of Shri Dube for work performed by hum from 17-11-02 to 23-11-02 . Ex . MWI / W5 relates to release of Rs. 600 in favour of Dube . Therefore , out of thesc documents it simple emerge over the record that Shri Dube 24

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18. 1932

worker snail with the bank . Facts projected by Shri Meere Wand substantated by these documents .

1. "Colsuous Service " has been defined by section 25e af te Act. Under sub - section ( 1 ) of the said section, antibious service for a period " may comprise of two period vid. ( i ) uninterrupted service , and ( ii) Intercupid service on account of ( a ) sickness , ( b ) authorized wave , (c ) an accidem , ( d ) a strike which is not logid, in ) , mor , and ( f) a cessation of work that is not Jue to ser flat on the part of the workman , shall be included ceainuous service ." sub - section (2) of the strainoduces a fiction to the effect that even if workman is not in " continuous service " within the memogrdanse ( 1) for a period of one year or six months, the shalt is not to in continuous service for that period under ar " варyer if he has actually worked for the days speciiled to ( 3 ) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar Majco C. 1180) it was held that one year's watpated by sub - section ( 2 ) furnished a unit of mens veanded Juring that unit of measure the period of service arrocity tendered by the workman is 240 days , thes he cr, ne considered to have rendered one year's conditions served for the purpose of the section . The idea is thatif within a unit period of one year a person had potso at least 24 days of service , then he must get the benefit countered by the Act . Consequently , an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the workman has actually whed for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 cahrdar months immediately preceding the period redencams

13. Evidence brought over the record through the depositions of Shri Dube and his witnesses does not satisfy litmes tout of ordinary human behaviour and tenets of veracity. How an employee was given employment in the bank without an appointment letters , has not been explained . Why he could not produce any record relating to release of his wages ? Where record of his attendance has gone Why his name was not these amongst the employees at the bank ? These questions remained unanswered Dericiency of facts on these issues make occular testimony of Shri Dube and his witnesses unworthy of credit. Hence their depositions are discarded while counting the water of days for which Shri Dube worked with the hair When theirdepositions are discarded , no material remains over the record to show that the claimant has worked comicuously with the management bank for 240 days in a dendar year . When management bank used to release pas root by way of vouchers in favour ofDube for casual jobs performed by him , he would have placed those vouchers before this Tribunal in case he would have worked widths bant, in the years 92 , 93 , 94 , 95 , 96 , 97 , 98 , 99,2000 and 200 Absence of payment vouchers for these years falls neavily on his claim . On the other hand facts projected by Shri A K. Meena are substantiated by documents Ex MWLWI to Ex . MW1 / W5 . Relying those piece of documentary evidence and testimony Shri Meena it is concluded that Dube had wordce Be period of 14 days only with the management bara fat tow on casuai basis. Consequctily a is evidenc des ciamant has not been able to show that he work continuously with the management bank for a periodi 240 days in a calendar year .

14. Casual employment comes to an end decy casual employce cannot protect that he is not aware abed nature ofhis employment. He accepts casual simplem knowing well about the nature and consequatue of relationship entered into between him and the implora By accepting casual employment , he admits anal employment will come to an end when the job would ro to an end . In such a situation he cannot project the lu a regular/temporary employee whost sorvars cann dispensed with. Shri Dive was also awar that casual employce he cannot expect permanenes 15. A " seasional workman " is engaged int which lasts during a particular season onry , whrh temporary workman may be engaged either for a work temporary or casual nature or temporarily for wath of permanent nature , but a permanent workman is one who in engaged in a work of permanent naame only. The distinti between permanent workman engaged on a work permanent nature and a temporary worxman engaged work of permanent nature is , in fact , that temporary workman is engaged to fill in a temporary need of Ma hands of permanent jobs . Thas when a workinad engaged on a work of permanent nature which tre throughout the year , it is expected that he would cont there permanently unless he is engaged to fill in a temporan need . In other words a workman is entried to expect permanency ef his service. Law to this offer: was led b the Apex Court in Jaswant Sugar Mills ( 1961 ( 1 ) LLIGAS .

16. As per the case of the claimant his not was not called from the Employment Exchange to apposer as a casual umployee . Record tells that for tow days a was engaged for casual jobs by the management and Consequently it is evident that the workman was engaged for a work of casual nature that too for a tew days , casual workman would not acquire permanency пелетите Such proposition was laid in Rohtas Industrie : Linked Vs. Brijnandan Pandey ( 1956 ( 2 ) LLJ 444 ) .

17. Some casual workmen employed in a Cantect .. raised demand of permanency sa service . The Tubon.... directed that from particular date they should be treated as probationer and appointed in permanent vacanc without going into the question as to whether mare Phar permanent workmen were necessary to be appointe the canteen , over and above the existing perin mani strength to justify the making of the casual work : aan a permanent , where they were working . Neither there was any permanent vacancy in existence nor the Triburs.

2413

হলেন ছন জেলছে । मई , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

Red int . Frohomal was douced the Apes Oun a thadurten y wha, le served the bank at a casun!

toe far a very store peresd When his dearmurd porche accrued us favour

Dorm otherwiteit is not Case of Sale was Lounged by me bank in consumidor edument Roles ladavis Latno appeinament Exchange Set the job. Te such a situation csert empayee no right accrue Ion les favour to 17 lathe Den 2008 (4 ) SCC if de Apa Cour pamant г. от роль, o deval regular cos te de posic concerned. Cacna decocious elect were comedeterd and are soare declined Grassosaur den ma to be made posmacaron Joeld work held by them in torps by ad hoe a jairly long sneit. The fourt ruloftetes :

sem, ie bestudis the Stve rruking regular

the d'stustion

was

warpus tears the State,

Petits vaniks and would pur of taste the cost of many

amstational shame of maploynicat Naegered in be scrlier part of the decision , really, 4suono la said that this decision has laid dowa yagra Anteer following 2 nga kar izcruitment maid be madic ратанет .

fefnai ductsiops , the Athi dhe Natos a power to wak apewatments in tres of Atide 102 of the Concinton . The Court quoted its decision in Girish Jyantı Lei Vagnia ( 2006 ( 2 ) SCC 482 ] with approval , wherein it "The appointinent to any post under the State can nly be made after a proper advertisement has been reaus inviting applications from eligible candidates pha heiding of a selection by a body of experts or a specially constituted committee whose mombers are fair and impartial through a written examination or mterview or some other rational criteria for judging the inter se merit of candidates who have applied in rebense to the advertisement made . A regular appointment to the post under the State or Union canna be made without issuing advertisement in the proscribed manner which may in some cases inolade inviting applications from the employment exchange , where eligible candidate get their names registered . Any regular appointment made on a post wer the State or Union without issuing dvertisement inviting applications from eligible condidates and without holding a proper selection where all eligible candidates get a fair chance to c. mpate would violate the guarantee enshrined under Article 16 of the Constitution " .

21. in P. Chandra Shekhara Rao and others [ 2006 ( 7 ) SC438 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 exorcise of statutory powers conferred in Article 102 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 tha: appointinent made without following due proçedure cannot be regularized . Reference can also be made to the preconent in Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2007 (1 ) S.C.C.408 ] .

22. In view of the aforesaid reasons it is concluded eat Shri Dube nas failed to establish that he worked contincovaly for a portod of 240 days with the management bank and his services were dispensed with in violations of the provisions of the Act . He has no case for reinstatement in the services of the management . His claim statement is fiable te be rejected . Same is , therefore , rejected. An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Governmem for publication ,

Dated: 18-3-2010

DR . R. K. YADAV, Fresiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 19 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1207 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के करती है, जा घोन्दीगो 19-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ १७:

procce tings fr

【 -12012/13 / 2002 - आईआर ( १ ) ।

lev bells, the 19 April , 2010

articularis Dini besrue by in : Migh refervest the disser to

S.C. 1207. -in pursuance of Soution 17 of the Industriai Dapatos Act , 1937 ( 14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ret No. 820001 of the Central Government Indusmal Tribunal - cum- Laboxe Cour . Delbrow as shown in the Annexure the industriai dispute antween the management of State Park of india and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 19-4-2010.

: Na . L. 12012/ 133 /2002-123-1 SURENDRA SINGH Desk Catiour

ANNEXURE

یار

BEFORE DR. K. K. VADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO I KARKAROUMA COURTS COMPLEX, DOCHI

cone !

L. D. No. 8/2005

The General Neeretary All India Bork Staff Association . 33 34. Dank Loclave , Ring Road.

Rajouri Garden

New Deito- ID : 27

Workmau

Versus

1 .

The Assistant General Manager . State Bard of ladis ,

Nehru la New Delhi .

Маладетел

AMARD

joined Naomi Bank ora in Shoe Maric Arabrana... ro Dana Dan . Dein: in Natural Bons in February from . UP Board of shee ' ; was entered inte faster reper by tan that record posted at Mod berries a mamirut Conversar or cashier-empes service av r- cord keeper sea in all in cadre and keep ofsente to have been curverni allowance 1984 ad PERR 201 dated 24-12-9 he was promotionto clear cadre which deska- ation 42 .

promotiin tos lencalcane

Nanocal Book of 1 shore was jomed by Bag Singh as a peon on -8-1959 The said bank merged with Stare Bank of India in corary, 1970. At that time claimant was serving at Darya long branch of the amalgamated bank Consequera upar the merger , the claimant became ar employee of State Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the management . Siore the claimant was 8th standard pass , he sought permession for his employer and passed High School Examination from U.P. Seard of School Examination 1978 He was promoted as record keeper by the managemera on 15th of September , 1951 and posred atits Modi Nagar brauch , U.P. In 1983 he was transferred to Nehru Place branch of the bank . He represented to the bank to be pe dia a zierk. On his representanon , he was promoved asatiel w.ef 3-1-2001. He retired from the services on the bork on 31st March , 2001 After his superannuate approached All ludia Bank Staff Association dersiraite referred to as the clamantunion ) and agitated wat he was to be proinoted as clerk on भात का राज्यत्र : मई 8. 2010/वैशा७ 18, 1932

2412

Officiating power in a higher post is merely stop gep arrangement for discharge of duties of that post The ciarmant was not entitled for any in - cadre or out- cadre promouen

dat naire position , arter completion of four years e . Han banka. Ramesh Dewan. Sant Lal , R. K. Mgai core schre of the persons who were officiating in 10000rcut- caure poets . About 25 employees , promoted shie - cun record keeper and were mutricuinte, wne won moriatug poisously for the last 10303 valy persca who was duded such officiating matted He bad bermepresenting his to the is the 1937 hur to no avait Bank tuck a AT WAS LOS Convemed to clerical cadre , ed na ho considered in in cadre Promotiony

4. AC Pub Poleg sasprepared by the bank

ps who had pan in 17 veurs service on the

1-4-1969 Scatos Assistants were to draw

15. He made represervion Chief General Manager

こった a ire , were to be corrected as Senior by slow an eff : 185D.A. , besides their wages . weus of service in clerical cache on 12 E 2nd was entitled to be converted automatically an Thuan , ban , case was not countered by the האישי the ampement played a mischier aad ertoed 1-5001 , on the streapth of which he Forane that he was foned suitable for in-cadre slencar cadren af. 3-1-2001 . This mischief loveth a view to depti him of his legal rights . dengan wait be made shfative from foctober, uyt he was entired is officiating allowance from 2009 daломе эповдигy unior part 57 of Sastry Lord Clock test et consered He claims that ece the fect that he is decrned to have 1350025 clerk nem 13-9-81 entitted to officiating

www.000d /tusace 1-9-85 and be prometed a

who . Assistant Heat a ciamis that heavy

datinget on amanded to sun , besides interest

اوه mefits who would accrue to han

.ow officiating powers and promotion from the

Camas semurred the slains pleading that

rial disente which corld be referred for

Aght Hole Aore he served be a orkman on reaching

47 age of prematch was pleaded that assuming

10000 % of the carabusoarea of the management bank .

6. Appointinent of claimant with National Bank of Labora as peon on 4-8-1959 was not dispared . His transter to Darya Ganj , Delhi branch of the Bank in 1909 was also not a matter of dispute . Merger ofNational Bank of Lahore with the management bank in February, 1970 , has been admitted , it is also not disputed that the claimant passed High School Examination from UP. Board of School Education in 1978 , which fact was emered into his service records . His promotion as a record keeper on 15-9-81 and posting at Modi Nagar branch were also not disputed . His transfer to Nehru Place branch of the back in 1993 is an adinitred fact. It has been pleaded that cashiers, godown Leepers , coord keepers and bill collecters , prometed from sabordinate cadre , who were matriculate and put in four years service as such , could be considered for working in cierical department at their option without extra paymeni of aliowance , as detailed in circalan No. PER : IR 18 of 1984 and PER: IR: 27 of 1987. After working for two years in clerical deparment , those employees , if found suitable in an interview by the concerned Assistant General Manager, can be considered for conversion as clerks Accordingly an employee was eligible for promotional officiating opportunity in in - cadre and out - cadre after putting in 7 years service, out ofwhich four years service should be la existing position , two years service in clerical cadre and one year period as cushioning on conversion as clerk. Therefore , it is evident that an option is to be exercised by an employee and he cannot be converted to clorical cadre in an automatic manner. The claiment had not made any representation exceps representation , dated 26-11-99 which was suitably replied and he was informea that since length of his remaining service was less than wo years , his conversion to clerical Jepartment was not possible at that stage He did not exercise lits option for conversion to clerical department for 13 long year. Prior to 26-11-99 he never exercised option for conversion and when he excrcised his option , the management converted him as clerk and designated as Assistant we f. 3-1-2001 Since the claimant failed to exercise his option fos conversion to clerical cadre , ne officiating allowance can be granted in him without doing any work of higher position . Issuance of Career Path Pobey is not disputed. However since, the claimant has not exercised option fer conversion to cierical cadre , the same was not applicable to him. It has been denied that the management bank resorted to unfair labour practice or victimization of the clamant He is not entitled to any relief and les claim statement is liable to be dismissed , being devoid of merits.

Auswemen . Tray Hưngh on 31st March , 2001, there Miga sol Fishing the bisere was an industrial dispure , Inpete was tot espoused by a trade umon of ytes of the assbrehtment of the wanegutoont varik Smart Dion is ne , a representative unior of the was espoucal no me dispute , as required under babica Awazed that rificiating power cannot be 3. 《 ghty athy coployee . Asking an со стаффен Puesta Ligher post cannot be notice the clamant continued to hold d0106 of an issuant tcastrer - com -resond Aceper F - 1-2001 and was not asked to officiate in any higlar

7. WS PL entity to any officiating allowance .

7. Bag Singh has examined himself in supoort of hi ciaan . He had relied documents Ex. WWI tot 、 wWid THE BAZRED TSOFINDIA LAYS 3010

2916

which do entre not dispaud by du var .

Uval Its was chawined on bhon of tin matagenes or No other with wis evarited by

eithet M

& Armaturvave heard at the ber Slati N.F

authoriseurope creative, advanced arguments serbhli

of the elstion . Shri Pravie Sonнли зафоњe

ised his sakinissions on bel

represanterin

manages

have given wureté commercia

atunced at the Far and caobousty pores o

the Monster

inding on issers involved in the

the reed

оголоса сольоanion raised en behand

the sweet . bank is thn sin to spor

tized to be a enamor and were 775

claim

au tack tispute , which could be referred t

adjudices pletas vppropriate Government with tissu

ad that despite superannuation of bey

Sari Capcar

workman and dispure releung to teone of

Singh

hie employers meanied to an aciestriai dir

zal submissions would be eredu

take Onition of wordinan " and

disputed by the Trouabla Cispoes A

(in short the which are extrudeau .

Aman' means a mploys in any indusy to day

Pupervisors work for live on হেনস

the thr the purposes edam procendi , ac in relmior to at industrial dispr

pow . 10

rech persor who has been din isso .

Arterononed in connection with ... s oof , mai depate , or whost disims.c planchnieni ras led to that diya le have am sach person

bjrer to the Air Force Ac . Crew Amyna. 1950 ( 46ο 1956

sampoyd relax a managerint n

a supervis

as, draws avaing orm भारत का राजपत्र : पई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

observerons made by the Apex Court are to be Ts sit the dispute have's dire , t or substantial 9 aso agree with the expression " any person " is Ne with any wodanan , particular or Ennis , aqu i with ciher, that the cracial rest is dox commands of stores and the person raag whet me dupure is rarnod must be one in vera amplayment , non employment serms of 2. cat lurers of labour (as the case nay bo Whether sich diren e soustantial interest beer's shinhol in a particula case will depond whose Convruction Company (Pvt. ) Ltd. 11958 nila . Cuen tuled tout an industrial dispute wa " spire between the employer and his seeman dal last the actumtion of the expression 21s wide enough to carer a dispute bused by the copilover's workman with regard to non weer of shots, who pray the be employed as readmerevant time in Southern Textiles Limited LI 1435 ; Madias High Court ruled dsome other g to fixation of a ratio between the in Jepancents ofthe worten ane the outsider. Later of ronierent would constitute an pite " aecause the workinson as a class have frey in the employment of their heirs 12. The coun, farther heint that theirs and the Ha vorsanca world fe'l within the ainbit of ansexi an , cetan " and, therefore , the dispute is Mun. Epal Workers Union , 1999 TV AD Hope toph Coon of Delhi war sorred with a sr.tebetreabagor MLD hed expired and bawine bed appted for sppointment of her son on puso to prounds . The claim was rejected by the din pactice wos taken to by the Municipal hot no the question arose as to whether Temac all, wieien se definition of industrial dispute .

pen rievi thet a dude relating to compassionate du soinment puoi in the son of a decersed employ.co sw " industrial dispose Keterence can also be made ne preces to Senduse Kesar [ 2009 111 , A .. ) . ( De'hi ) There is the dust . the clairiant union was win condimentof ser ice of the clainant , who адамнm of March , 2001. Whether The Nang Martined for automatic conversion timet 2640 Luca remarea fota year's service 3 Japer and tad tandering twe years service in Are we we yeuccesioning peried would entitle The Candid Pay opportunity in a code and on - cadr wat were the wopashicas agrated by the menbas the carcatalos. Thay Buchar entertained a beliet

2417 that on rendering 17 years continuous service in clerical cadre Bag Singh was entitled for automatic promocion to the position of Sr. Assistant. These questions , relating to the terms of employment of Bag Singh were raised by the members of the claimant union . Despite the fact that Dag Singh superannuated on 31-2-2001 , yet he fel ' within the ambit of " eny person " as contained in clause (k ) of section 2 of the Act. Therefore, the dispute raised by the claimant union answers the definition of an industrial dispute as contained in clause ( 3) of section of the Act. issue is , thereit re , answered accordingly

16. Next prong of stack was made by the management pleading that the claim was not espoused by sebstantial number of workmen or a trade union of the employees of the establishement of the management . Os that count Shri Kapur argued that All Partia Bans. Staff Association has raised the dispute before the Conciliation Officer. He contends that the sard Association is a trace union of the employees of the establishment of the management . However no evidence was led to the effort that Bag Singh was a member of All Indie Bank Start Association . He argued that the Association had espoused the claun and it does not lie in the mouth of the management to say that it is an individual dispute and not an industrial disente.

17. Provisions of section 10 of the Act. make it clear that the appropriate Government may refer an existing or apprehended dispute to the Industrial Tubadet for adjudication The Act is a legislation relating to tis known as " collective bargaining in the economis field . This policy of the legislature is implicit in the definition of the industrial dispute . The Apex Court in Bombay Union. of Journalist [ 1961 ( 11 ) LJ 436 ] has observed that werch case in ascertaining whether an individual cuspute has acquired the character of an industrial dispute, the test is whether at the date of reference , the dispute was taken up as submitted by the union of the workman of the employer against whom the dispos, is raised hy an individual workman or by av appreciable number of weaknen . In που , therefore , to convert an individual dispute into an industrial dispute, it has to be established that it has been taken up by the umon of employees of the establishment or by an appreciable nutaba of the comployees of the corablishment . As far as union of the worksen of establishment melf is concerned, the problem of espousal by them generally prenents little difficusty , since such sortzen who are meinbers of such unions generally have coatinamy of interest with an individual employee who is one of their fellow workman . But duficulty arise witen the cause of a werkman , in a particular establishment is sponsored by a anion which is not of the workmen of tha estabrishine : bur is one of włach membership is open to workmen of their establishment as well as in that industry. In such a a union which has eniy microscopic number of the workmen as its member , cannot sponsor any dispute arising 1

LADY

い

Naj woramen or majority of the wremen como sprer and cumpert toc dupure All 10 tet the dispute , in order to become an scarpe dispute acid have the support of substantial Ned in the establishment .

2015

भारत का अलपत्र ४ 2010/वेशावर 15, 192

the tondu slunefits beitig

pure is raised The unions d yeuthiermons ar wo kawn of もしないし establishment becere members the probles of espanal by then general pesan , tante diftanity and sach mothoes who are

industral umber of recharger , hy have Mial staplever , who is one ofth Hutche difficulty arise de case of Nu- ar estabi shaver is sponsored " va 10 the wordson of an establishingut Vous voche , hership is open to the workman ash of sems as well to that tos styf such a hah has crly microscope sake of the Her the rise a lispue wat eserred by Ad be BantsuffAssuestion Norvidenceitas corne Out :

on who is projecting graveme

netle Zonea.c

Marion Bon Marcus erwave of the S ere its nevérers and it was ope of Sms Pra Singh . Mur wiedereenie The wokoch, heing binge of the chinnast vagace the record slowin de

7ed diserate a cereor of indesuai

taocined over the recitat ore , reisung in arétion of employ rent of The der Togh has been retuned for anzaion .

a quyet gis ius advance by the 1042ageman

that co

act that it has there cante . The presents Shi Bag

blanded permisom imm tos Sagh devesa 16

enclover and assed raatriculative cantinson 1978 He was trommed as record keeper September , 1981 . which jest fatis in clerical cadre On 2601 August , 198 , bank seed orcular regarding an ice conditions of recoru keepers , which circuler ile. Ex wwint , as per instructhes containedin the seid circular a round fandering Tom years servies our mattoarly becomes a clerk After becoming clerk the said to and des per is entided to offione as in officer in the bud. He is also entitled in peperonin cadre as well as our - cu- me posts, though he rendered costiquess four years service after his prometer as record keeper, cat he was not convuon to dv position of a clerk tic made representation la bout egards 21-17 , copy - whice is F. WW2, tade ola expresentaions which are Ex WW130 Whis her cucsideration at his representaton Donk.conventodiacales 0018-1-2001 . He retirados tot Mar. 2001 Batirenght to save made amacha arcies act and aste k , he lost addsting Jewro . He would have been promenied to the post of a Teller He would has , teen eligible for promotionmo enticers grade 1, et case he wrtid have been convite - las Gek Fine. He could have buen entities to allowance et R. COU PM from 1-4-90 , His pay was fired on taver side. bace he is looking k . 306 FM towai parsюд 45. Shn Shwar Kumar Mishra denosed that he th waed record as Nobru Place branch of the bank Entire cord has asallabie there in the bank pataming to the vear 1987 , except representius.copy of which is hy WWI 2. it merges that the representation C. WWI want proac by tat workman. During the course of ros Motration, la pagetis that as per guidelines , bens nreizende tot 30 years . Howeverыhаussenal tora de marotated for a long- periol, scorelatio Copy of whice i waste in astial category. Fue fe clerical starf is mamaiced in tire branch and fer uffon it is nearmained in Regional Offices fles office .

26.When tact projected by the Jaimani and thos Contained neslocamento WWiolzPWI9 are perused name to light that in 1979 a circular meme PER 167 of Swissued for conem sonofradhapers/ godown keementele celerical cadre. Ar par the aid circular, recund Ecoper godewe keeper, bill collector and promoted at hier , who were maricalate hau to work for a period of nve vears for beme eligible for conversior as clerks . After working as merks for two years they were to be interviewed by the Regional Manager concerned and if found scitabre . were to be converted as clerks . On rendering two years onportunities in im - cadre or outcadre postions. Thus they have to put in nine years cortitutous service before thay could get an onperturits for efficionog promotion for incntemurade pusitors.

27. Stati Federation ofemployees mad 2 demand for relasation services to get an opportunity for officintuong promicandre or out cudre positions . The sold Inca sepedby the bank and cucur proro No. 1144 was issued, it provides the costiers.

gdowsacre cand keepers , biti collectors , promoted hova muhamadre , who are matriculate and have pin

as such can be considered for werkins

was their ophon, winom any cara Lek. After working for wo years in 4, if found suitable in ar interview by sistant General Manager they can be Version as clerks . An employce was factional/ oltacianas, yportunities in aire positions after puring in seven year's ?

service in the existing positior-- che in ciencal cadre -2 years and ( 1 ) version as chork one year .

Evor top promotiwaai/ officiating ah department it was not necersary foc emplatestipulated service of seven years .

dered on the basis of seniority in cash having put in initial service of four years , provided matriculate. The employee co converted as dark the her one year service in clerical cadre , coula a od biz for in- cadru out cadre promotions alcongestanical caure employees . The service pu by their sinsd keepers , godown kespers etc. were to be codes purposes of seniority.

2 Savrote ofthe said circular is the option , which is to be campade the cashiers , yodown.record keepers . or buat aksler , 200, for their conversion to clerical carre The south the uses the word , at their option " , whr ": makeit be any cashier , godown keeper , record keeper . or a bll coll or would be considered for working in clerical lent , it ne exercise such an opti s According to cattary canons of interpectation the words "st the " must be given their proper and plain meanme . Thwendend option has been defined as an act or an ensure choosing deciding the power or libency prchousap king chosen, an alternative , a possibility , a cholte trip option . In commercial matters " option " expressesamt affect a certain dealing or not in shares or goodtainted price , ar a certain date , at the option ofthe esta gaining who pay a premium for the right . For auto a yearly hiring being within " opinion " to onc of the poles to require its continuance for a stared Fas does not enable that party to determine thể hưng acteuing for the stated time or to determine ( probably, by piring a reasonable notice ) at the end of a your of the bang

32. Nits widest interpretation means simply choic ve de. Jear of choice . An obligation in a contract cat firquently in performed in a large number of ways and the vony vader obligation can choose anyone of the ways he go flume is , however, a narrower sonse in which the word cna te used and that is to confer a right ofchoice woning it clericsa can be excrci.d oh auld traves

atle work c

32. When sach p rusperts to have DOUR dy Singl in recetra Melt According to L

cergined of it wi management bank Stars Sherrca claring.cstis : document

upon to consider is

circnaesturtes , Resteemdeeth which is Ex. WWahab

issue socoon . In when he t was intermed that is repu

and Caski , sizce spe request that he may be undo 2421 [ भाग II-- खंड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : पई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18, 1932

affirmed as Assistant (Record and Cash ) since the date of his promotion . He projects therein that he worked on saving bank account , clearing and transfer scheme sheets . However, he has not clarified that as to when those jobs were performed by him. Assuming that such job were performed by him in 1998 , then the said representation may be taken as an option exercised by the claimant for working in clerical department . After exercise of option , he was supposed to work in clerical cadre for two years . Thereafter he could be converted as a clerk. Consequently his conversion as clerk was to be made by the bank somewhere in May, 2000. After spending one year as cushioning period he is entitled to officiating allowance in 2001. Such an allowance was granted to him in January, 2001. Therefore, the claimant could not project anything which may denounce the action of the management in denying officiating allowance to him and promotion to in cadre post . The action of the management is found to be justified. The claimant is not entitled to any relief on factual matrixalso.

35. In view of the foregoing reasons claim put forward by the claimant union is liable to be dismissed . Claimant Bag Singh is not entitled for any relief. An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: 25-3-2010 Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 अप्रैल , 2010

का, आ. 1208.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंदौर के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 76/89 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/ 123/89- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] सुरेन्द्र सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th April , 2010

S.O. 1208 .--In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 76/89 ) ofthe Central Governinent Industrial Tribunal - cum - Labour Court, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between management of State Bank of Indore and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 19-04-2010 .

position , since his juniors were getting officiating allowance . In this representation he has not exercised his eption to work in clerical cadre , but asks for a change to officiate in higher position . Representation dated 10-5-99 which is Ex. WW6 was made by Bag Singh wherein he requested that he may be deemed to have been converted as cierk since 1985 and be given officiating allowance at the earliest. Representation dated 4-8-99 which is Ex . WW7 projects that Bag Singh claimed to have been promoted in clerical cadre since 15-9-81 . Representation dated 13-8-99 , which is Ex. WW8 projects that he requested that he may be converted as clerk and officiating allowance may be given to him . Representation dated 2-9-99 which is Ex. WW9 makes it clear that he made a request for this conversion as a clerk and grant of officiating allowance to him . Representation dated 26-11-99 which is Ex . WW10 was made by him wherein he made reference to his representations made in July, 99 , August , 99 and September, 99 and asked the bank authorities to expedite the reply. Representation dated 20-12-99 which is Ex. WW11 makes it clear that he talks of his conversion as clerk and release of officiating allowance in his favour. Representation dated 14-2-2000 highlights that he made a request for his conversion as a clerk and release of officiating allowance and promotion on the basis of Career Path Policy. All these representations were delivered by Shri Bag Singh in receipt and issue section of the bank. None of these representations purports to have been handed over to the branch manager. These representations are available with bank authorities . While representation Ex . WW 1/2 is not available in the bank record . Ex . WW 1/2 was not delivered in receipt and issue section . It has not been explained as to under what circumstances the claimant opted not to deliver it in reciept and issue section of the bank . When genuineness of Ex . WW 1/2 was disputed, claimant opted not to produce original copy of Ex . WW 1/2 . Ex . WW 1/2 is a photo copy, original of which, on which a stamp was allegedly fixed by the branch manager , was in possession of the claimant . He opted not to produce that document . It raised various serious questions as to genuineness of the document . The claimant was well aware that documents are to be delivered in receipt and issue sections of the bank. This document was not so delivered by him . Hence this document does not satisfy the standards of veracity, authenticity and genuineness . Consequently, I am constrained to discard thisdocument from consideration of the claim put forward by the claimant . When this document goes off the record, it cannot be said that the claimant exercised his option for working in clerical department in 1987. When the claimant has not exercised his option , he could not be deputed to work in clerical side automatically on completion of four years service as a record keeper.

[No. L - 12012/ 123/ 89 - IR( B - I ) ] SURENDRA SINGH , Desk Officer 34. Ex . WW5 , which is dated 13-5-98 , makes it clear that the claimant made a request to grant him officiating allowance , projecting that his designation has been

1547 GI/10-11 THE GAZETE OF INDIA: MAY 8. 2010 / AISAKHA

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO 1. KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I. D. No. 76-89

Shri Raja- de : Singh , Sio Sari Movi Ro 90 - V- 1.1 . North Pitampura, Deim-110033

Workman

of his services . Chipeteres claim was set the management bank eternaћнарече Chian Chowk Branch ofthe bank. He toomat berpadur He went on to nanote da alen lés p Jule. 84 was released subscription was dedi od strafen besda lodgen protest 的路。 he wa force 1 to toy (2 ) of Seceon 33t de temasanal Bo the short the Attard to the mee d his eptire auscunt of sun ... tatur.add s.

The Regional Manager , Region 'V State Bank of Incore , Zonal Office , 193 Kanchan Bagh . Indore - 4

Management

AWARD

Lewd dehaviour of the claimant towards a female colleague made him accountable for a domestic action . Hence a char, esheet was served upon him in September. 1985. When he reply was found unsatisfactory , a domestic enquiry was intiated against him . He associated himself in the domestic enquiry and tried to defend himself. However, the anquiry officer recorded a finding that charges stands proved against him. Vide order dated 7-5-1988 . his ices were terminated Aggrieved by the said order he raised an industrial dispute Since conciliation proceedings toiled , the appropriate Government referred the dispare to this I ribunal for sujudication , vide order No. L- 12012-123-89 - IR ( B - B ) , New Delhi dated 7th of August, 1980 Store the order of reference was found to be detective , the claimant made a representation to the Government of in Jia and ultimately a corrigendum was issued on 9th of January , 1992 wherein terms of reference were mod. tres , which are as follows

Whole the action of the State Bank of Indore in tereersting the services of Shri Rajinder Singh so Chandni Chowk Branch. Delht w.e.i Sex without issuing any notice is legal and junieds to what ritet the workman concerned

3. He pleads that the ta mang September. 1985 , a nage wherein false allegations 4. tel reply dated 2-10-85, which wa rejected was appointed . He rrale written request that bo unawareof legal technicalities , herce engage ar Advocate to defend samsett b Officer His request selected. He parmee te te enquiry.The Enquirs Officer had for allas Hom examine the witnesses as assi by se hart toe be allowed to examine witnesses in his rich inche coure of enquiry procreameas , stateracefs recorded preliminary enquiry were produced and pol. Th ofthewimess wassapiied to han Encens submitted his repon . A show cause notse along . enquiry report was sert d upon him . He sitenitel detailed explanation which was not considered personal hearing which oprematy was ges to bim He was damard from the communication of "th of St another charge slagt stw wtvedtponing get rid of bim. Appeal p. ferred by abe me to dismissed . His dismi sal is illegal nå anvall.cts.tod be made a victim bs hauching a conspirasa - amst siner be made protest agamst de t since.phot tren bts , clary He was no d Enquiry Officer that he con crevamin the agresse or produre his own withe sa te delund unset the ne that bus Jismissal is they thence it may be sut be be reinstated in serves wut continus wege

4 Clare was dowered by dhe managed pine that an employee had no right be appr particular station . Ifis umchaguess to fole at beve Branch of the bank was tensified Cosidreng repeated requests , the bank allowed him to jor Chandni Chowk Branch, Beths Apion sub deducted from bis sala , since all authorization is that regard Set. Sure Ba responsible for preparation of samry shot & tak ma subscription from the salary was brought to the not crot t deducted was refunded to the man c movedam annieating belu

2. Vigo steement was filed by the workinan pleading then that he was an employee - of the District & Sessiors Indye Tis Hazarı , Delhi , when he read an advertisement te a leading newspaper in July/August, 82. in respect of ne vacancies in cierical cadre in the managecek He submitted an appication and took overtir compeiieve ex unination , in which he was declared successial Hewsoffered an appointment at Dabra (MP ) bbranch of the iget , which offer was not accepted by hum Subscurettered a post at Chandm Chash Brand, of which appointment letter was also questi poder since there was a stipulation of traester भाग : खंड 3 (0))

It has been pleaded that contention of the workman , to the effect that the bank employees as well as office bearers of the anion got annoyed with him on that account , is false. It has been pleaded that his conduct qua Smt . Sunita Jain was not proper. He misbehaved with her . A charge Sheet was issued to him . Since the claimant was employed with the office of the District & Sessions ludge , Delhi for Fairt long period , be was aware of the procedure relating to conduct of deparumental enquiry An Advocate cannot be allowed to participate in domestic enquiry , hence his equest was declined . Due opponunities were given to him to cross examine all the witnesses . Copies of the statements made by the witnesses were supplied to him, besides other docements preduced in the enquiry proceedings . It has been desied that the Enquiry Officer wa biased against him . No illegality was conunitted in conduct of the enquiry Wher Enquiry Officer submitted the report , his comments were called on that report . It has been denied that the management was determined to get rid of hou. However , services of second charge sheet has not been disputed R has been projected that on molduration of the repon, the Disciplinary Authority swarded paristament of dismissal , which was expedient in the matter fhis appeal also came to be dismissed . There me he reason to grans relief of reinstatement to the Indmelt . His clarm petition may be dismissed.

5. On pleadings ofthe parues following issues were ( Whether thedomesus enquiry held against the workman was fan and proper?

(2) As in terms of reference ?

e Vorkman tandered its affidavit as evidence . He Massalsheed on behalf of the management . Shri Shansat La ! Pawar and Ashok Mishra tengered their affidas its on heivalf of the managemem They were cross dermed on behalf of the workman . No other witness was sanured by ether of the part.es.

7 it would be pertinent to mention here that on 20-9-97 du award was passed by ilus Tribunal , discarding a claim out forward by the claimant . Aggrieved by the stad zward, a writ pention was preferred before High Court ef Delhi, which came to be adjudicated on 8-9-98 . The High Court of Delhi set aside the award and commanded this. Tribunal to near the roader atresh for adjudication .

X. In persuance of command given by the High Court , the part were called upon to advance their submissions uver the matter. Though the issue No I was not treated as preliminary issue , yet it was thought expedient to hear the patres over it. Arguments on the virus of the enquiry vere heard in detail Shri Mohd . Farsk , authorized representanve , advanced arguments on behalf of the workman . Shri Pramod Sharma , authorized representin raised his submissions benalf of the management .

2423

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

Written submissions were already there on the record. filed by the parties .

9. Issue No. I was answered in favour of the workman and against the management vide onder dated 6-1-2010.

10. Smt . Sunita Jain ( MW3 ) and Shri Arun Verma (MW4 ) were examined by the management to prove misconduct of the claimant . Claimant has examined himself in rebuttal to the evidence adduced by the management .

11. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Mohd . Faruk , authorized representative , advanced a guments on behalf of the claimant . Shri Pramod Kumar , authorized representative, raised his submissions on behalf of the management i have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

12. Smt. Sunita Jain deposed that in April , 84 she joined Chandni Chowk branch of the State Bank of Indore , on her transfer froin Gwalior to Delhi, in rainy season of 1984 she was pregnant . Rajinder Singh gave her a letter wherein it was mentioned that she should meet him outside the branch for a tea as well as for outing . She returned that letter to Rajinder Singh and outrightly resected his request . She wamed him not to behave in that fashion in future . During that very year, on one day she atighted a bus at Red Fort . Rajinder Singh met her outside Red Fort near the Temple . He was sitting on a two wheeler scooter . He offered her lift saying that he will leave her in the bank She turned down his request and came to the branch on foot After a few days , he again insisted that she shoula go alongwith him for outing . She declined his request. At thatjuncture , he told her that he will give protection to her in the branch . She told him that she does not need any protection from him . One day while sitting in his cabin he called her through a peon. When she declined his request . Rajinder Singh became aggressive . Since she was pregnant those days , hence she became disturbed. She told those facts to her husband. He came to the branch with some family members . At that juncture Rajinder Singh tendered an apology in writing . Said apology was watten in Hindi . He assured that in future he will not repeat such incident. In November , 84 she went on maternity leave. When she joined duties after her leave , Rajinder Singh passed comments on her . Rajinder Singh tried to threaten her. At that time, he was of mature age , while she was ef tender age. He tried to put her in fear. She was recently married and apprehensive of her married life . At that juncture she felt that her character was being attacked . During the course of her cross examination , she admits that as per instructions receivedfrom higher authorities , she used to prepare salary bills ofemployees . She used to deduct subscription from salary of employees , which was to be paid to the umon , on instructions to reeced . She 2424

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: MAY 8,2010/VAISAKHA 18. 1932

used to receive instructions from the authorities for preparation of salary bills . Her officer (Grade - I Officer) used to take salary bills and issue instructions to her. Grade- 1 Officer is a member of officers ' union , which union is different and distinct than the employees union . Letter was handed over to her by the claimant in the premises of the bank . She informed Smt . Sarla Gupta and Rekha Singh about that incident , who were performing clerical job in the bank in those days . She made complaint to higher authorities when Rajinder Singh repeated the incident . She could not recollect the exact words of the comments passed over by Rajinder Singh on her .

Augusi , 85 was deducted scroneously and it was refunded to hím vide communication Ex . WW Lité . On 16-10-25 hi wrote a letter against deduction of union subscription , copy ofwhich is Ex . WW 1:17 . On 1-11-85 letter Ex . WW 1/18 was served calling upon him to joining endurv proceedings . When union subscription, deducted... an his salary, was not refunded , he filed a pention buiget Labour Court , making Shri PC Shamand Suria Jens a parity to it. On 19-11-8 anina subscripting was retoodud by the bank vide commumcarton, which is Fr Wally On 23-1-85 he wrote a foster to the Ragsocal Magecopy of which is Ex . WW 120 Thereafter bank wrote a ivi questioning him as to why he made PT . Shara Joshi and Smt. Sunita las as parties before the labor Court , which letter is La Why 121. Ar sidtional chea sheet was served upon him . Which is t ; WW L22 He replied that charge sheet , copy of which is Es . W41 13. Rajinder Singh deposed that P.C. Joshi issued appointment letter in his favour, copy of which is Ex . WWI/ 1 . He refused to accept the said appoiniment letter , claiming that he had applied for a post in Delhi Region and post offered was for Dabra , Madhya Pradesh . When he could not get appointment letter for Delhi for certain time , he made a complaint against P.C. Joshi to higher authorities . Shri M.L. Raheja had sent a letter to him calling upon him to join at Dabra branch of the bank, which is Ex . WW 1/2 . Self addressed envelope was also sent by Shri M.L. Raheja so that he may sent his reply to him , which envelope is Ex . MMW 1/4. He made complaint to Regional Recruitment Board, State Bank of Indore , detailing therein that bank wants to post A.P. Sharma clerk in Delhi , in his place , copy of which complaint is Ex . WW 1/5 . He made other complaints in that regard , which are Ex. WW 1/6 and Ex . WW 1/7 respectively. Regional Recruitment Board wrote a letter to him , copy of which he is Ex . WW 1/8 . Appointment letter , which is Ex . WW 1/9 was sent to him . He joined his services at Chandni Chowk branch of the pank on 6-7-84 . He accepted salary of July, 84 under protest , since union subscription was deducted despite his objection . When management did not stop deducting union subscription he wrote letter to the Managing Director, copy of which is Ex. WW1 / 10 . Shri P.C. Sharma , and Smt . Sunita felt annoyed and they conspired against him . On 6-7-89 they called some vagabonds in the bank and forced him to right apology letter , copy of which is Ex. WW 1/4 . He lodged a report in P.S. Lahori Gate , copy of which is Ex. WW 1/12 . Union subscription was deducted from his salary till May, 85. It was not refunded despite his request and demands . On 8-7-85 he wrote a letter to the Managing Director , copy of which is Ex . WW1 / 13 . They stopped deducting union subscription in June , 85. Again in August , 85 union subscription was deducted from his salary . When he opposed that act , the management asked him to move an application for union membership , which request was declined by him .

15. He unfolds that or 21-1-87 there w All India Strike in the it aк. Ов 20-1-87 de winte copy of which is Ex . WW124 Shri J.P. Gunta acting bransh manager affixed hills on waits in Caanid Chowk Jord photo copy of which bill is. Ex . WW1-25 . Shos caus notice alongwita copy of findings of the Faqarry Offer was served upon him , which Ex WW 1/26 . Copy of the Enquiry report is Ex WW12 " . He replied said show case notice, copy of which reply is Fx WW128 On 4-3-88 there was a call ofAll India: Strike in the bans . Ou 14-125 he wrote a comunicarion to the branch sanager seeking permission to work in the bank on 15 3-08 , copy wes is Ex . WW 129. On 12-5-88 a charge sicer vas servei upon him which is Fx WW 136. On that very da suspension letter was served apon him at 12PM is Ex. WW1 /31 . Un that vers day at 12.20 PM Le dismissed from service , opy of which orda isks wel 32. He replied the charge sheet on 19-5-88 , copy of wirkl reply is Ex . W'W 2/33 . Sum . Sunito Jain have vellee f allegations agamst him . Sac had deducted subsecaption from his salary despite aus objections . Dering the course of his crees examination , he admits the amo subscriptions , deducted from this sat ny , were recad him He admits that he fired a criminal compitist unda section 500 of the Penal Code against Smi Sunita Jon.. P.C. Joshi and P.C. Seans in the count of Metroperito Magistrate , which complaint was discrissed fi adas that appeal , revision and special i we pentions were also dismissed. He feigned ignorance that husband on Sim , Sunita Jain alongwito cet or wo of her relations And present before the bram a manager . He adams talent of the claimed himself so be husbard of Sat. Stant min . According to ben husband of Sanita Its came in th branch to force him to write an apology,

16. Shri Pramod Kamar arguea that facts projected by Sunita Jain bring it ove. th. record that the comman attempted to sexually exploit her and made adst that regard. He wrote letterns to die lady seeking desact 14. He went on to depose that on 23-9-85 a charge sheet was served upon him on false allegation , copy of which is Ex . WW 1/14 . He replied the charge sheet on 2-10-85 , copy of which is Ex . WW 1/15 . On 15-10-85 management bank admitted that union subscription for 2425 भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8, 2010/वैशाख 18, 1932

[ भाग 1]-खंड 3 ( ii) ]

faveurs. When Smt . Jain spurned his advances , he threatened her . Stat . Jain informed her husband , who visited the branch in that regard. In his presence claimant rendered a written apology. He went on to argue that these facts did not desist the claimant from his nefarious activities . He repeatedly misbehaved with the lady inside bank premises and outside. Contra to it Shri Faruk argued thac Smt . Jain was instrumental in deduction of union subscripten from his salary. When claimant objected to such deductions and tiled a petution against her, she conspired against him . According to Shri Farul . Smt . Jain had deposed facts against the claimant with an oblique motive . He went on to argue that the claimant has been made a scapegoat , when he opted not to join Dabra branch of the bank He presents that the claimant has been victimized for no fault of his .

ostracized or being looked down by the society . Her not informing the incident to anyone else till the person m whom she can repose confidence , under encumstances cannot detract from her reliability . In normal course of human conduct. a young girl would not like to give publicity to the traumatic experience she had undergone andwould feel terribly embrassed in relationto the incident to narrate it to anyone else , overpowered by a feeling of shame and her natural inclination would be to avoid talking about it to anyone , lest the family name and honour is brought into controversy . The Courts must, while evaluating evidence , remam alive to the fact that in a case of rape , no self- respecting woman world come forward in a court just to make a humilating statement against her honour such as is involved in the commission of rape on her in cases involving sexual molestation supposed considerations , which have no material effect on the veracity of the prosecution case or even discrepancies in the statemem of the prosecutrix , should not, unless the discrepancies are such which are of fatal nasure be allowed to throw out an otherwise reliable prosecution case . The inherent bashfulness and tendency to conceal outrage on sexual aggression are factors which the court should noi overlook . The testimony of the victon in such case is vital and unless there are compelling reasons which . necessitate looking for corroboration of her statement, the court shouid find no difficulty to act on the testimony of a victin of sexual assault alone to convict an accused where her testimony inspires confidence and is found to be reliable . These principies will guide this Tribunal in appreciating depositions of Smt . Sunita Jair .

17. Testimonial potency of version of a victim of sexual assault cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime . The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars . She is undoubtedly a competent witness under section 118 of the Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence . The same degree of care and caution must be attached in evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complaint or a witness and no more . What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the out come of the charge levelled by her. If the Court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix , there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act, which requires it to look for corroboration . If for some reason the Court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required is to lead assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case . But if a Prosecutrix is an adult and of fuli understanding the court is entitled to base his findings on her evidence unlessthe same is shown to be intirin and not trustworthy . If the totality of the circumstances appearing on record of the cases disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged,the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence . Lawto this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Chander Prakash Kevel Chand Jain [ 1990 ( 1 ) SCC 550 ] .

19 As deposed by her , Smt sam used to prepare salary bills , under the instructions of her officers . When she prepared salary bills for the month of July, 84 , she deducted union subscription from salary of the claimant for that month. Claimant projects that he accepted the salary for that month urder protest . Despite his protest Smt . Jain had not stopped deducting, anion subscription from his salary . He was forced to file an application before the Labour Court seeking computation of his benefits in that regard . He admits that subscription Jeducted from his salary were refunded to him by the bank. Smt Jain projects that she used to prepare salary or instructions of her seniors . No evidence worth name has some over the record to suggest that in Juty, 84 , Smt . Jain waz having any feelings of ill willer ammosity agumst the clamant 1: is not the case of the claimant that with such a feeling , she started deducting union subscription from ius salat Claimant had failed to project that Sr. Jain has deducted union subscription from aus salary out of malice. Theretve. mere fact that Smt . Suni a Jain stared deduction of union subscription iron his salary would not go to show that she was having any il - wall or animosity against the claimant.

18. The Apex Court in Gurmeet Singh [ 1996 (2 ) SCC 3841 has held that Trial Court should take into consideration the fact that a grit, in a tradition- bound non - permissive society in india, would be extremely reluctant even to admit zuat any incident which is likely to reflect upon her chastity had occurred , being conscious of the danger of being 2426

SHE CAZE ITS OR INDIA : MAY &.201WADAKNA 18 , Γ

20 See Narita Jain was reccorly married , wied incident wasalad rexual sasapit was marta on her the age , while the laitaani was a matered man butasoffice of the District & Sessious , Delhi for more dramatie , prior to hra jening Crandn. Chowt branch off bool . Such a matured man ried to sedace a gai who notoned hus niamied his recently doi univ that he and ancer against vor in the premise, of the bank , he stilised her outside . The lady projects , vid Jesemption of the tunees , without densing dates WAKA she was humitat and abjected to outageous agadas She pres prie ster a long gap she is unableto revcilect the exact does the incidents . Facts projected by the lady are one with ordinary fleuran behaviour . suace she casespened wroomoct those dates after along gap at ta

23 Cream proses vert he polic Don Region of the oonk toe op He wored for the competition of vis declared successted. 17 walcrap staat the fhoto ат бовта статh . Rugt Pradesh. Arconien Luzech of deat.De in fivat nonspiracy . Aunind VI was istar calling sportistamment approdma. but in the

of the chose bills, ind deducted ofobiectione by the 20 : ১০ :

demean Shark Cem stered the winess box hot Med. The dryos. d fiets against the chaivaani huvangt whore worte When alady enters the witness box to mold facts relating to or atack on her chastity and costacrer , she is apprehensive of being astracieel to be near and dear ones , besides the community on terg She would not puus nermaarried life to stake, what any substance in her complaint , she is stigmariser of the swiety , which stigma reusin for whole of the lif, withom, zny obliteration Henceburcocision to taise à vou : zgaret such an instance is based not only on buc moral aems , but on other consideration which rules tarbie toe w normally does not dare to narrate a wrong incident that regard. Her bashful tendency tay tiso reasted in that regard . Consequently, la: testimony came he throuded with doubts at the very inception Herepositions are accepted or tar ves standards on whirt testimony of a victim of physical assaults cnter med. Claimant could not acack ner testimony, le trays that tacts unfolded by the lady wer not in cormoran with veracity and nuthfoiness. I am ut the considered that facts unfolded by Sad Sarco Jain Award credible it world save to rely on these facre o awerden so to whether manageutum has been able to prove Puch of the clatant.

on de tien , proposti ne la branch wi enied to attack testinors of Sau , Jaik aspired weh Shri PC Josbrand Aginst him . Hir case is cared on the P. C. Joshi hed sent nim to Dotra accormmodate A P. Shermain Delo: breach of in . De C. Joshi was fegiomi Manager Regional , Henpat. He could not refinct any evidcece over the tend this effect that Shri Joshi ever raire Deih and csptain Sunita & un in the month of July sa sarnanere not been now. tha Smt . Suna had any next P. Shere , nom Joshi warted to post in Chan bri chowk branch of the tank . Therefore, contention Jamant in that regard are cound to he antensble

Dicent be apology Later eloman.p い be was charge scandalur in chai danh hát against the elem un be said igat dology 17:10一 30 )

was received by husband of Smt . Jain wha a view to substantiate her allegation in the domestic enquiry . Consequently these aliegations no where espouse the slam pu furwed by the claimant.

26. Facts projected by Snit. Jain are in consonance wih ordinary human behaviour. When our testimony was Nucloudly assessed on and test of natural course of cwnts and tenets of veracity, it came to light that facis onteided by her are toue . It is evident that the claimant ande sexual advawes and tried to sexually explon her at bor work place and even ourside . Sole testimony of Smt . Jai: is found to be sufficient to conclude that the claimint tied to exploit her . Itis a seated proposition that it is the qualits of endeme that mariers . Evidence of wholly celiable witness will Gutnuzaber unreliable evidence . Considering extrinsic worth of her testimony, it is Conciaded that Sint . Jain is a witness , who had unearthed the real instauves .

27 Facis unfolded by Smt . Jain bring it over the record that the claimant attempted to sexually assault her . When she did not oblige him , be criminally interminated her the claimant repeated those acts and tried to seck sexual favours from her even outside bank premises . She Coformed her husnand , who came to the bank, promises and projected his stand before the claimant . Claimant gave an upology letter , but to no avais . He repeated the incident again . Ali these aspects make it clear that the management has beat able prove misconduct of the claimant within the meaning af paragraph 19.5 ( c ) and ( i ) of the Bipartite Seulement dated 19-19-66

28 What should be the appropriate punishment wi nifi can be awarded to the claimant . Right of an employeı to which punishment of discharge or disinissal is not onfatrerat . The punishment iroposed must commensurate with gravity of the misconduct proved against the achoquet workman Prior to enactment of Section 11 -A ofthe Act, it was not open to the industrial adjudicator to vary the order of punishment on finding that the order of dismissal was too severe and was not commensurative with the act of misconduct . In other words , the industriai adjudicator could not interfere with the preishment as it was not required to consider propriety or adequacy of punisament or whether it war excessive or too suvere . Aper Court, in this connection, had, however, laid down in Bengal Ilhadee Coal Company | 1963 ( 1 ) 1.1.J 2911 that where order of punishment was shockingly disproportionate with the act of the misconduct włuch no reasonable employer would impose in like circumstances , that i elf could lead to the infcreme of victimization or cefai : labour- ractice which would vitiate order of dismissai or discharge But by pacting the provisions of section 11-4 of the Act , the Iegistaene has transferred the discretion of the employer , a unposing punishenent, to the industrial adjudicator. It is now the satisfaction ofibe ndustrial adjudicator to finally decide the quantum of

2427

भारत का राजपत्र : मई ४. 2010 /वैशाख 18 , 1932

punishment for proved acts of misconduct , in cases of discharge or dismissal if the Tribunal is satisfied that the coder of discharge or dismissal is not justified in any circumstances on the facts of a case, it has the power not only to set aside order of punishment and direct reinstatement with back wages , but it has aiso the power to imposed certain conditions as it may decm fit and also to give relief to the workman , including award ef lessor punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal .

29. It is established law that imposing punishment for a proved act of misconduct is a matter for the punishing authority to decide a normally it should not be interfered with by the Industrial Tribunals The Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of punishment . But where the punishment is shockingly dispropertionate , regard being had to the particular conduct and past record , or is such as no reasonable ermployer would ever impose in like circumstance , the Tribunal may treat the impositon of such punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair labour practice . Law to this effect was laid by the Apex Court in Hind Construction and Engineering Company Labour | 1965 ( 1 ) LUJ 462 ) . Likewise in Management of the Federation of India Chambers of Commerce and Industry [ 1971 ( II ) LLJ 630] the Apex Court ruled that the employer made a mountain out of a mole hill and bad blown a trivial matte into one involving loss of presuge and reputation and as such punishment of dismissal was held to be unwarranted in Kam Kishan ( 1996 ( 1 ) LLJ982 ) the delinquent employee was dismissed from service for using abusive language against a superior officer . On the facts and in the circumstances of the case , the Apes Court held that the punishment of dismissal was harsh and disproportionate to the gravity of the charge imputed to the delinquent . It was ruled therein , " when abusive language is used by anybody against a superior , it must be understood in the environment in which that person is situated and the circumstances surrounding the event that led to the use of abusive language . No straight -jacket formula could be evolved in adjudicating whether the abusive language in de given circumstances would warrant dismissal from service . Each case has to be considered on its own facts 30 In B.M. Patil ( 1996 ( 11 ) LILJ536 ) , Justice Mohan Kumar ofKarnataka High Court observed that in exercise of discretion , the disciplinary authority should not act like a robot and justice should be moulded with humanism and understanding . It was assess each case on its own merit and each set of fact should be decided wah reference to the evidence recording the allegation , which should be basis of thedecision . The past conduct of the worker may be a ground for assuming that he might have a propensity to commit the misconduct and to assess the quantum of punishineni to be imposed in that case a conductor of the bus was dismissed from service for causing revenue loss of 50p to the employer by irregular 2428

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : MAY 8 , 2010 /VAISAKHA 18 , 1932

sale of tekes . was held that the punishment was too harsh and disryoportionate to the act of misconduct.

[PART II -SPL. 3 misappropriation of ecoployers fund, theft of public property etc. & reference cannot be made to the precedent inBhagirath Mal Rainwa i 1995 ( 1 ) LL ) 960).

33. Conduct of the claimant towards Smt . Sunita Jain , was inherently mean and depraved . Wickedness of his character has been brought on the record . When an employee commits an offence involving moral topitude , there are two ways of looking at the matter , ( 1 ) considering nature of the act done (2 ) andto consider it from the poist of view of nature of offence Here in the matter, the nature of the acts perpetrated by the claimant was alanning . He not only triedto sexually exploit a female collegue but put the discipline at his work place to stake . When she resisted his acts , he criminally intimidated her In case husbandof Smt. Jain would have approached the police authorities . then it would have reflected on the institution to , Therefore , his acts in respect of nature of offence also shows an alarming complexion . He not only cotomitted depraved acts in the premises of the branch but at pubhe place also . All these aspects are sufficient to show that the misconduct committed by the claimant was very grave . if such a person is retained in service of an institution , then possibility of bringing disrepute to the institution and causing damage to its business and good will cannot be ruled out . Such person cannot be retained in joh Therefore , no punishment less than the punishment of dismissal can be appropriate for such an employee . Consequently ! impose punishment of dymissal on the claínar.. , which would relate to the date when purushment was imposed on him by the management bank . His stair is, accordingly, dismissed . An award is passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication Dated 12-3-2010

31 Alte insertion of section 11 - A of the Act , the jurisdicunto theerfere with the punishment is there with the Inbursal, who has to see whether punishment imposed by the employer is commensurative with the gravity of the actof misconduct. If it comes to the conclusion that the misconduct is proved , it may stili hold that the punishment is not justified because misconduct alleged and proved is ruch as it does not warrant punishment of discharge or diamissal and where necessary , set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement with or without any terins or conditions as it thinks fit or give any other relief, including the award of lessor punishment , in lieu of discharge or dismissal , as the circumstance of the case may warrant . Reference can be made to a precedent in Sanatak Singh ( 1984 Lab . I.C. 817) . The discret'on to award punishment lessor than the punislocent of discharge or dismisal has to be judiciously exercised and the Tribunal can interfere only when it is satisfied cut the punishment imposed by the management is highly disproportionate to the decree of the guilt of the workman Reference can be made to the precedent in Kachraja Motiji Farmar ( 1994 ( 11 ) LLJ 332 ) . Thus it is evident that the Tribut has now jurisdiction and power of substincting as on measure of punishment in place of the managerial wisdom , once it is satisfied that the order ofdischarge of dismissal is nor justified. On facts and in the circumstances of a case. Section 1A of the Act specifically gives two folds powers to the Industrial Thibanal, first is virtually the power of appeal against tindings of tart made by the Enquiry Officer in his report with regard to the adequacy of the evidence and the conclusion on Lauts and secondly of foremost importance , is the power of reappraisai of quantum of punishment .

32. Power to set aside order of discharge or dismissal and grant relief or reinstatement or lesser punishment is not untramaled power. This power has to be exercised only when (ribunal is satisfied that the order of discharge ordismissai was not justified. This satisfaction of the Tribunal is objective satisfaction and not subjective one . It involves application of the mind by the Tribunal to various circanistances like nature of deliquency omitted by the workman Dis past conduct , impact of delinquency on employer's business , besides length of service rendered by him . Further more the Tribunal has to consider whether the decision taken by the employer is just or not . Onty after taking into consideration these aspects , the Tribunal can upset the punishment imposed by the employer The Quantum of punishment cannot be interfered withwithout recording specific findings on points referred above . Na mdnigence is to be granted to a person , who is guilty of grave misconduct like cheating , fraud ,

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Other नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल , 2010

का. आ. 1209,- राष्ट्रपति श्री मनिक मोहन सरकार को 19-04-2010 से केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक न्यायाधीकरण मह श्रम न्यायालय , कोलकाता , के पीठासीन अधिकारी के रूप में 65 वर्ष को आयु पूरी होने अर्थात्26-02-2012 तक अथवा अगले आदेशों तक , जो भी पहले हो , नियुक्त करती है ।

[सं. ए-19011/5/2008 -औप्लस ।।। पी. के. ताम्रकर , अग्य रात्चित New Delhi , the 21st April , 2016

S.O. 1209. The President is pleased to app Shri Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar as Presiding Officer of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum - i abow Court , Kolkata w.e.f. 19-04-2010 ( F N. ) for a period upto 26-02-2012 i.e. till attaining the age of 65 years or until further orders , whichever is carijer .

[No.A- 19011/5 / 2008 - CLS - 181 P.K. TAMRAKAR , Under Secy भारत का राजपत्र मई 8, 2010 /वैशाख 18 , 1932

253( 10) )

नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2000

२० उम, 1210 - औद्योगिक दिवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का ( 4 ) श्री धारा 17 को अनुसरण में लेन्द्रीय सरकार हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉरपोरेशन लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध नियोजकों और जनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केंद्रीय सरकार औद्योनिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय, इनाकुलम के ( संदर्भ संख्या 220/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 41-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[नं. एल -30012/1/3006 आई आर ( एम) ] कमल जाखरू, संरक अधिकारी Now Delhi , the 21st April , 2010

5.0. 1210.In pursuance of Secuon 17 of the Ind striat Disputes Act , 1947 (14 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 220/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Fnakulam, now as shown in the Annexure in the indartial Dispute berween the employers in relation to the Arbragement ofHindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Govemencer on 21-4-2010.

[No. L-30012/ 1-2006-18 ( M ) ; KAMAL BAKHRU, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IA THE LENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS KIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT. ERNAKULAM VRESENT :

Shri P. L.. Norbert , B.A , LL.B .. Presiding Officer (Friday the 24th day of February. 2010/ 5th Faiguna, 1931 )

LD. No. 220/2006

Workman

Shri N. S. Suresh , Pullaraalavi House, Vadavukode PO.. Emakulam -682310

By Adv. Sri C. Anil Kumar Management : The Sr. HR Manager, HPCL, Cochin Regional Office , Tatapuram, PO IB No. 1602 , Ernakulam , Cochin - 682014

By Adv. M/ s . Menon & Pai This case coming up for hearing on 19-02-2010, this Tribunal- com- Labour Court on 24-02-2010 passed the foliowing.

1547 GU10-12

2429 This is a reference roade under Section 10 ( 1) ( d ) of Inciuscial Disputes Act . The referenceis.

Whether the action of the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited in discharging Shri N. S. Suresh, workman from the service we.f. 10-10-2004 is fair and just ? If not to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?" 2. The facts ofthe case in brief are as follows: The werkman Sti N S. Suresh was appomted as General Workrzan (Cr. M - 01 ) ar Cochin plant of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation. Limited in 1993.He was promoted to Gr . M-04 1998. Dueto certain misconduct disciplinary action was taken and he was demoted from Gr. M -04to the post of LPG Operater in GM- 63 and transferredto Nindurai LPG Plant in 2000. In 2002 he was charge sheeted for unauthorised habitual absence which sometimes exceeded 21 consecutive days . A domestic enquiry was conducted and it was found that he was a habitual absentee , but his absence had not exceeded 21 consecutive days . However the Disciplinary Authority did not fully agree with the findings of Enquiry Officer and concluded that his unauthorised absence exceeded 21 consecutive days, bestdes being habitual . Hence he was discharged from service by the disciplinary authority. Though the workman filed appeal he did not succeed . Therefore the dispute .

3 According to the workman the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles ofnatural justice . Itwas due to medical reasons that the workman remained absent. But whenever he was absent he hać applied for leave with medical certificates . The disciplinary authority differred with the findings of Enquiry Officer without application of mind. Pending domestic enquiry the workmanwas subjected to medical examination and a report was obtained by the management . But the medical report and, connected records are not produced by the management . The punishment is harsh . The workman cannot be discharged from service in view of the provisions of ( The ) Persons with Disabilities ( Equal opportanides , Protection ofRights and Full Participation ) Act, 1995. There is no alternate employment since the termination of service

4. According to the management the workinan was given every opportunity to adduce evidence in support of his defence . He was given a copy of the report and a notice regarding the proposal of disciplinary authorityto differ with the findings of Enquiry Officer and called for hisrepresentation . The workman submited representation and it was considered by the disciprinary authority before disagreeing with the findings of enquiry officer. The punishment imposed is fair and just . The workman was in the habit of absenting without intimation and used to report for duty as and when he liked . He had not applied 2430

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA , MAY 8 , 2010/ VAISAKHA 18. 1932

for leave with medical records at all times he remained absent. It is not correct to say that at the instance of the managerment medical examination was conducted . The workman look treatment in the Medical Trust Hospital in 2004 as seen from his letter. But he has not furnished any medical documents from that hospital . The contineous absence ofthe workman has affected the working sche sule of the plant . He is not entitled to be reinstated .

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

( 1) Are the findings of Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authonty sustainable ?

(2) Is the punishment proper ?

5. The evidence consists of the oral testimony of MWI ( Enquiry Officer ) and documentary evidence ofExt . Mi ( Enquiry File ) .

Deceraber 2001. Fee penod in question is 200 Ext. it is details or leave token during 2002, 20 , ка thar during 2001 the maxistrar connois vas in Fohromy 2001 fer 20 d . He resnice 21-12-2001 and agsir iemand 28-02-2001 7day : During the maunas continuous absence were 20, in November Pun December " 00 " , 26 days Berta were matis. op Loss of Pay. At po pora of slave the uneUNE NE absence exceedea 21 consemmive das either it 2002. The finding of depinary author.e unauthorised absence esteerd 2. Jowcam th going by the very tecords of nподетель. П after 2002 is not the subjee matern of feuplies The discipimary author , hes referred te naabri dbsence curing the subsequent parod in 2005 iso The relevant porten of de order of Der Authority ( page ) reads

"Hence , I concur Ath the findings of hermes Officer holding, Sri . S. Susah is notes by all for moore than 21 days but has honor absent for more than 110 days and has tot give proper and fotisiactory куришанот absence and found inn guilty of the atare against him vide charge Sheet SZ RTP He d May30, 2002

7. Point No. Though a contention is raised in the claim statement that the workman was not given opportunity to defend the charges and there is violation ofthe principles of materal justice , at the time of hearing it was not seriously pursued. That apart it is seen from Ext. Mi enquiry file that the workman had participated in the enquiry and availed opportunity to defend . He had produced 32 documents and they were marked as Exts . DI and D32 . One witness was examined on management side in the enquiry (Plant Manager) . He was cross examinedby the workman. No oral evidence was adduced on defence side . He was given opportunity to submit his remarks regarding findings of enquiry Officer as well as the proposal of the disciplinary authority to differ from the findings of Enquiry Officer . The representation of the workman was considered by the disciplinary authority. He was heard regarding proposed punishment . Thus the workman had every opportunity to defend . There is no violation of the principles of natural justice .

8. The charge against the workman is that he was remaining absent for more than 1 consecutive days , that his absence was habitual and unauthorised and he was overstaying the sanctioned leave without sufficient ground . As per the charge sheet the unauthorised absence is:

January to December 2001

88 days

January to May 2002

24 days

Total

112days

The Enquiry Officer found that though his absence was habitual at no point of time the unauthorised absence exceeded 2! consecutive days . The Disciplinary Authority didnot agree with this finding of Enquiry Officer . He found that the absence sometimes exceeded 21 consecutive days . Ext M3 is the details of leave taken during August 200010

The tindings of the disciplinary auriuits correct. Whereas the findings of Inquiry officrthst a habitual absentee is supportedby the lease tedd Arendance Registers Ext . M - 40 M - 18 . The word dimakas produced copies of icave applications as well ts meheal and fitness certificates submitted to the mar agent al different interyals . Thevart Evts . D - 1 10 D - 10DDDD andD- 16 to D -32 Some of the applications were approved by the santioning authority and some were not approved . He had applied for leave on many occasions on HACK ground and other times for personal reasons. Ext . Das a photograph of his leg . According to hinde is alfering from edema and cellulites liu letter to the Enquiry Officer dated 08-02-2004 which is centained in the eingin les shows that at the instance of the management he had appeared before the medical office of the manmen who referred him . to Medicat Tra Hospital , Ernakulas during the pendency of enquiry and he was trean inpatient for about one cionth and was ademed tu toks rest for six mom'ss . The medical records are with the management and he was treaica for wisma and a wres . The Enquiry Officer when besar examined admitted that the worthman bad made a adottat in suramoning medical records on ine catat e . de haupai from the management . But he did not allow it for the mur that the period of treatnient was subsequunt to the sheet It is also admitted by him that the phearet examination in the Medical Frost Hocpital was conte at the instance of the management . The leave applicat. n .

भाग - खंड 3 ( 1 ) ]

leave accounts and attendance registers reveal that the workman was in the habit of availing leave off and on , on several occasions during 2001 , 2002 and prior and after. However the management has no case that he is medically unfitto work. As per the evidence on record though the finding of Enquiry Officer does not suffer from any vice the dissenting indings of the disciplinary authority to the extent that the unauthorised absence exceeded 21 consecutive days , cannot be accepted as it is not supported by evidence and hence perverse . However the finding that the absence is habitual is sustainable .

9 Point No. 2: The punishment imposed is discharge from service as per SO 32 of the Standing Orders of the managemem company. The misconduct is mentioned in SO 31. The punishments are :

32. Punishment for misconduct :

1. A workman found guilty of misconduer may be awarded one of the following punishments :

( a ) Warned or censured in writing (b) Suspended on loss of pay by an order in writing signed by the competent authority for a period not exceeding 4 days

( c) Stoppage of increments not exceeding 3 increments with or without cumulative effect

(d) Reduction to a lower stage in the scale (2 ) Demotion to a lower grade without reduction in salary

(f) Discharged from service

(g ) Dismissed from service

Thus for misconduct coming within SC 31 anyone of the punishunents in SO 32 can be imposed . No doubt the workinan was remaining absent off and on and it would have affected the smooth functioning of the section he was working . But according to the workman it is due to medical reasons that he remained absent. Since the management had directed the worker to the medical officer of the management even if it is during the pendency of enquiry, the medical records could have been produced by the management to know the actual reason for absenteeism . Even now the managerment has no case that the workman is medically unfit . The workman has a contention the illness was contracted from company premises due to the environmental pollution . In the reply to charge sheet dated 24-06-2002 . He has stated that the disease is subsisting without coming down. He also expresses his willingness to go before a medical board for amedical opinion . In the additional reply statement dated 10-10-2002 he says that the prime reason for taking leave during 2001 and 2002 is illness . In the submission made to the Enquiry Officer on 08-02-2004 it is stated that he had

2431

भारत का राजपत्र : मई 8, 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

taken leave on genuine grounds . He suffers from edema and cellulites . On many occasions due to various sicknesses caused by the said disease he had taken leave and on all such occasions he had submitted leave applications . At the instance of the management he had appeared before medical officer of the management company who referred him to Medical Trust Hospital , Ernakulam for expert opinion . He was treated as an inpatient in the hospital for about a month and on discharge he was advised by the doctors to take rest for six months and those medical records are to be called for .

10. Ext. D - 11 is a photograph of the leg affected by the disease of edema and cellulites . MW1 the Enquiry Oficer has stated that during enquiry he had noticed the affected leg of the workman . But he says that at that time his leg was not in such a bad condition as in Ext . D - 11 photograph . The medical certificates produced along with some applications go to show that he was applying for leave on medical grounds on many occasions . The enquiry officer has also observed that from the medical certificates submitted by the charge sheeted employee as exhibits it is seen that the employee's absence was due to medical reasons in some cases and in other cases the employee has not been able to give proper and satisfactory explanation for his absence . The evidence reveals that the workman remained absent mainly on the ground of illness . Yet he was not sent to a medical board . In the circumstances I don't think a punishment of termination from service is warranted in this case as it would amount to harsh punishment . Since the workman is claiming disability to do the same type of work he was doing . he can also seek protection under ( The ) persons with Disabilities ( Equal Opportunities , Protection of Rights and Full Participation ) Act , 1995. The management falls within the definition of establishment a/ s . 2 ( k ) of the Act , S - 47 says:

47. Non -discrimination in Government employment ( 1 ) No establishment shall dispense with or reduce in rank , an employee who acquires a disability during his service:

Provided that , if an employce , after acquiring disability is not suitable for the post he was holding could be shifted to some other post with the same pay scale and service benefits .

Provided further that if it is not possible to adjust the employee against any post , he may be kept on a supernumerary post until a suitable post is available or he attains the age of superannuation , whichever is earlier .

(2) No promotion shall be denied to a person merely on the round of his disability :

Provided that the appropriate Government may, having regard to the type of work carried on in any establishment , by notification and subject to such conditions , if any , as may be specified in THE GALETTE OF INDIA: MAY 8,2019/ VAISAXLA 18, 1932

Scatior , exempt any establish.nerifrom Na vions of this section

watered service of managsument in 1993 .

allegori Arina 2001 and 2002. If he has acquired disabilayton ervice he canner he terminated from servire , ali be accommodated suitably, in the light of the aro cnconstances and reasons i bole thet discharg , fana service is too harsh a punishment . The ends of ill be served by reducing the punishment The nagorno case that prior to 2000 he was in the hab leave aamatborisedly. The absenteeism to stoppage of increments without comulative effect under SO 32 , int

hot an award is passed finding that the actions stagnarent is discharging the workman from NART and just and he entitled to be reinstoved thout back wages and continuity of Service Auto stoppage of three increments without TRATE A cose inn force one month after its publicate official garete .

Lead the Personal Assistunt , transcribed and typed by a mected and passed by me on " mit dhe 24th day of Felman 2016.

P.L. NORSERT, Prosidisay Cicar Witness Summe Workman :

Watar- s ist management :

12-11-2009 the cavagement of Airport Action workman, weich was received by the c ( 2 )-4-2010

In the seawor of disutras of so

Sat Shants Nov noaga Genral Seemory 1. Howe RafiMeg.

The DusFor New bethi

Order No. 1-12TIMEST refened the following must disewe for artjou , o

When the

का हुआ कर

Delhi the 21st Apni, 10.0

apraszance of Section 17 of the andusiras Ps. 197 114 of 1917 ), the Central Government publisits the award ( Ref. No. 129.

war provts mund be Cust longer wers.ed ath cove

Geder dase c

exeep to passaporw amartin Accordingly, and and tele- ences भारत का राजपत्र : भई 8 , 2010/वैशाख 18 , 1932

[ बाग - खंड 300 )

Governucent vide order No. L - 11012 / 13 / 2003 - IR (M ) dated 28.34-003 stands disposed of accordingly . Parties will bear her ser cost.

Dod 19-02-2010

SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer .

नई दिल्ली, 21 अप्रैल, 2010

1012, औद्योगिक विताद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 १७ ) की कार 17 का अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय रसकार भारत पैट्रोलियम আমবাতেন দিদিরে प्रबंधतंत्र के सम्बद्ध निजको करन अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय বাংলার আনাদিক अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय 2 दिल्ली के पंगर सर्व पंथ ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार 2. 2014 का हुआ था।

[स. एल -30012/32/2000 - आई आर ( एन ) । कमल वाखरू , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st April , 2010

soana pursuance of Section 17 of the Ferdustrial Disputes Act. 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Colecamy heruby publishes the sward ( Ref. No. 11/2003) the Code Governinent Industrial Tribunal Labour Court Dith now es shown in the Annexure in the bacaria Menuse between the employers in relation to Lait on Bharat Perrolean Corp. Lamined and sten verkrun which was received by the Central A : 2. 1-2010.

No. L-30022/33/2000 - R(CM)] ΚΑΜΑΙ ΒΑΚHRU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CEPTUAL COVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL CUM - LABOUR COURT- KARKARDOOMA, DELHI - 10632 1. Г. 06. 11/2003

be materet dispute octиеет .

Workinen Sari Kishan Kumar and others . Varech RS. and S.S. W. Employees Union 34 Nehru Skia Colony. Sector Vit B. K. Purani , New Deini

Versus

The St. Station VManager, M. Uharas Perretum Corporation f. td . , CIAnjort , Terminal II, scar shotabac, Mohammadpu

Management

AWARD

TheCeutral Government , Ministry of Labour vide Under No. 1-30012/32 / 2000-180 dated 24-1-2003 has

2433 referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribuna ! foradjudication :

"Whesher the action of the managernent of Mis. BPCL in terminating the services of S /Sh . Krishan Kuriar S/ o Sh . Nanag Ram , Moti kam 8/0 Sh. Lala Ram, Karan Singh S /o Sh . Bhagwan Singh , Surendra Kumar S/o Sh . Shivdhan and Raj Kumar Se Sh . Munni Singh justified ? If not , to what relief the workmenjustified ?"

2 The statement of claim was filed by the workmen . Avisten statement to the same was filed by the managemori Thereafter, the workmen/ claimants filed a rejoinder on 30-5-2006. The issues were settled and the case was fixed for evidence of the workmen. On 18-2-2008 the case was transferred from CGIT- curm - LC -I to this Tribunal , ie . CGIT- cam-LC-II . Terms were settled on 30-5-2006 and the case was fixed for workmen evidence. Before the evidence of the workmen could conclude the parties started negotiating the matter for final settlement . Ultimately, the negotiations materialized and the parties entered into a settlement . The terms of settlement catered into between the parties were recorded and the same was filed in the court ar the time of recording of the settlement As per the settlernent , the workmen did not claint reinstatement in service and instead they accepted a sum of Rs. 25 000 (Rupees twenty five thousand only) each as fall and final settlement of all their ciaims including the claim for reinstatement in service, back wages , gratuity, leave encashment and other statutory and non - statutory curs . According to the workmen , they have now lett ansorely ne dispute with the management . The compromise entered into berween the parties was accepted and the present 1.D. No. 11/2003 stands disposed of as fully satisfied.

Parties will bear their own cost .

Dazed: 25-2-2010 SATNAM SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली 23 अप्रैल , 2010

रडा, आ. 1.213.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनिवार , 1047 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय विमानपत्तन प्राधिकरण के प्रबंधतंत्र के कद्ध नियाजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औधोगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यालय-2, दिल्ली के पंताट (संदर्भ संख्या 112/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार का21-4-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं. एल-110 : 1 / 8 / 2003 - आईआर ( एम ) । कमत बाधरू, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 21st April , 2010

S.O. 1213.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Contral Government hereby publishes the award (Ref . No. 112/ 2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunai/ Labour Court-2 , Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the 2434

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA MAY 8 , 2010/ VAISAKHA 18, 195.2

Industial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Air Ports Authority of india and their workman , which was received by the Central Governme on23-4-2010

[ No. L- 11011 / 8 /2003 - IR( 24 ) KAMAL BAKTERU , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL COVERNMENT INIWISTRIAL TRIBUNAL-COM- LABOUR COURT KARAARDOOMA , DELAI- 110032 1. D. No. 111/2003

Data : 19-1-2010 In the martes of dispute betwe

Shri Pra eLal

Through Барол Employees Union ( Regd ..

Sto Sevi Bhacri Singh and 15 Others , 3 V. P. House , Kafi Marg , New Delta-110001

Workmen Airpon Anthority of India , Through General Manager ( Personnel ) FalateAirporn . Ner Della - 110037

Managenient

AWARD

The Cevral Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order Siu 111611 / 8 / 2003 - IR( vt ) dated 29-7-2003 has referred the following industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudicatio

Whethe the action of the management of AirpOTL Authority ofhidia , New Delhi in not regularizing the servves of concerned 16 workmen ( Shri Pyare Lal sad 15 others ) from the date of their inimal potter is just , fair and legal ? if act , to wh reher the resockmen are crotled to and from which The vormen have fited their statement of clains . Written strement has been tiled by the management Rejomder was also filza by the woramen on 27-7-2004 However, none ass appeared from the side of ine workmen for a very long run . In fact, over since the case wes translened ir GC Geum - LC -CoCGT- cam-LA - H vide order dated 11-2-3008 , the workmen have never appeared in the coure li evident that time warkmen are no longer interested in the percome of this reference , in these circumstances, due is no way out except to passado dispute wward ta this case , which is passed accorrlingly. The reference sent by the Central Government stands disposed of accordingly.

Dated: 19-3-2010 SATNAM SINGLI , Presiding Officut नई दिल्ली, 1 अप्रैल, 2010

का आ. 1214 का की धारा औद्योगिक विवाद अभिলিসা , कार्यनगरों को बीच , अनु निरिऔद्योगिक विकत में होत सरकार औद्योगिक आधारमा 27-4-2000 को हुआ था।

5.0. 1274. Portance of Sec

award the Industrial Disputes Act , Leniment bereby publishes of the Central Gorecocitat darth ! Toast Coun-2. Delht in the Amesse to the Indesrial Dispu . the management Authority ada arat workinan which wer ов 2-4-2010 .

KAMAL BARRO CENTRAL COVERAMMEND INDUS TRIBUNAL CUM- LABOUR COURON KARKARODOMA , DEI HI

1. B. de 53 2003

in the moner of dispare briweER . Shri Brain Prakash apo 15 Others Co The Preslenm Delhi Mazdoor Nangethan ( Regi PterNo. duam Mandir Arun Sagh , Palit Gal Now Deki

The Che me Airport Authoris elata Rajiv Garaiki Браман New Delhi- 1

The Central como Mo Chdai No Li referred the toilang ndustrial dispare this v In adjudication

"Waether the una of the Delbi a nor reparizing the serviksoo . So griftus Prakash and 15 others that enclosca eagles d through Mis'nited refrigeratimes . Mis MEC bagame sundial is justified If not what relief the workmen are entire- d 2435 भारत का राजपत्र गई 8. 2010/ वैशाख 18 , 1932

77, 78 79 and 81 which havs atready been brought inte force ] ofthe said Act shali come into force in the following areas in the State of West Bengal namely The statement of clains was filed by the workmen in. August 2005. Written statement to the same was fited by the management in February 2006. When the case was beed for ling e documents and ceasideration of framing of issues, this case was Lansferred to this Tribunal from COUT- cua - Labour Court -Ion 18-2-2008 in thict , ever since the rase was transferred from CGIT- cum - LCI to CGIT- cum- LC - Im February 2008, sone has appeared from the side of the workmen . It is evident that the workmen are no longer interested in the outcone of this reference .

"Areas comprising mouzas of Pankirpur (31 No. 25) . Burdwan ( JI. No. 30 ) , ( Alamgunge ( Jl . No 31 Berypur ( JI No. 32 ) . Mirchhaba ( Ji . No. 33 ) , Jagatberh ( IL No 34) , Balidanga ( IL No 35). Bailykhaje Anwarbe ( JL No. 36 ) . Bhatchhala Ul. No. 371 , Shankharipukar ( II . No. 38 ) , Radhanagar ( Ji . No. 39 , Baburt ug ( JL. No. 40 ), Goda ( JL. No. 41 ) . Bahu Sarha Mangala ( JL No. 42 ) , Bamchandaipur ( 11 No. 74 ) , Ichhiabad ( JL. No 75 ) Kanainath Shal ( JL . No. 761 . Alisha ( JL No. 77 ), and Gopal Nagar ( JL. No. 78 ) under P. S. Burdwan in the district of Burdwan " Under those circumstances , there is no way oat except to pass a no - disputi award in this case . Accordingly, a no dispute award is passed in this case and reference 1.D. No. 88/2003 sent by the Central Government vide order No. 1. - 11011-2 /2003 - IR (M ) dated 4-6-2003 stands disposed of accordingly . Parties will bear their own cost.

[No. S -38013/ 15/2010 - SS.11 S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy. नई दिल्ली , 26 अप्रैल , 2010 Dated 19-2-2010 SATNAM SINGH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल 2010

का. आ. 1216, कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) को धारा -1 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त सक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा । मई, 2010 का उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करनी है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय-4 ( 44 3 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है । अध्याय -5 और 6 । बारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है । तो उपबंध आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

का. आ. 1215. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 1948 का 341 की धारा की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , कंन्द्रीय सरकार साद्‌द्वारा । पई , 2010 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको तवन अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय- और धारा -16 की उपधारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 74 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है । के उपबंध शिवम चंगाल राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अथर्थाद :

" आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य के महबूबनगर जिले में कल्वकुर्ती ( ता ) के महजिल मण्डल के उरुकोण्डापेट के सीमा में स्थित सभो क्षेत्र ।"

[संख्या अस -38013 /17/2010 - एस. एस. - 1 एस. डी जेवियर, अवा सचिव

New Delhi , the 26th April . 2010 " बयंकन जिला में भाषा वर्धवान के अंतर्गत फांकीरपूर (जे. एन. सं. 23 ) , बर्थवान जे . एल. सं-30 ) , आलमगंज (जे. एल सं -31 ) , बेरीपुर ( जे. एल. सं -32 ) , मिरछाबा ( जे, एल सं. - 33 ) , जगतवेद (जे. एल सं 34 ) , बालीडांगा ( जे. एल सं-35 ) , डेलीखानअनवर जे. अन सं.-36 ) , भातळाला जे. एल नं. - 37 ) , शंखरीपुकूर जे. एल सं. 38 ) , राक्षागर जे. एल से -39 ) , बाबूराग ( जे. एल सं -40 ) , गोडा ( जे. एल से-4 ) , पाहिर सर्व सगला ( जे. एल 1-42 ) , बामचंदाईपूर ( एल सं /4 ) , ईछलाबाद ( जे. एल -75 ) , कानाईनाथ भारत ( २. एल सं -76 ) , अलिशा ( जे. एल सं-77 ) , और गोपालनगर ( जे. एल सं -78 ) , के मौजा के क्षेत्रों को सम्मिलित

S.O. 1216.--- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 3 ) of Section of the Employees ' State InsuranceAct, 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the ist May, 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter VandVI [ except sub- section ( i) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Andhra Pradesh namely :---

[संख्या एस -38013 / 15/2010 - एस.एम. - 1 ] एस. डी. जंतिदर , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 26th April , 2010

"All the areas falling within the limits of Urukondapet in Madjil Mandai , Kalwakurthy ( TQ ) in Mahaboobnagar District of Andhra Pradesh . "

[No. S-38013/17/2010 - SS.1 ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रैल, 2010 S.O. 1215.-in exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act , 1948 ( 34 of 1948 ) the Central Governn'ent hereby appoints the 1st May , 2010 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already tren brought into force ) and Chapter and Vijexcept sub - section ( i) of Section 76 and Sections

का. आ. 1217 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 की उप धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों ORIGAMIDOFINDIA SPY 200

संग

पहले ही पतजार है । उपबंध

এর५ १७. में जहां , अधात् ।

पिचोया और स्पेनपुर क्षेत्रों के सोनापूर S

कसी और के अंतर्गत

चीनसो, आमेरीगोग " पो.।"

पं एस 304 / 16/ 2010 - एम्.एम. - 1 उस दो, जेवियर , अदर सचित 5.

4Phi. the 26th Aμπά, 2010

cven ise of the pou ers confe red by

subses

New Delhi to Aped Inswara

seeder I of the Employees' State Ad of 1948 the Central Govertheen hereby wreaths The 1st May, 2010 as the date on which the prostilata e't hapter IV ( exceps Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought inte force, and Chapter sugas stosection ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections and which have already been brought inve forcel ord erarlet shall come into force in the following areas in the Steak of Assam namely :

Made Serabat ( Aseam side , fepesia and

wgetaler the revenue v Hage Boron , Ambher ,

areas in the State of Baueris is Sarutanı N. C. in Sorapur Mouza and

tub - section có ) of So the Enric Insurance Act , 1948 ( 54 of 15 an the Venthal hereby appuieta the fat Al be a the dee die provisions of Ch wer which have already been brought the terre V and VI ( except sub - seutu ( of ser " ame 77, 78, 79 and 381 which have read benh forcej on the sall Acushal prad Came of terene tamage Kamarkuchi , Kamarkuci N. C

Name of

Aeragegaad Amerigog NC in Panbari Mouza

No. 5-38013-16-2010 SS1 )

Villige

S.D.XAVIER. Under Secy .

Hana

नई दिल्ली, 26 अप्रेल 2010

1. OASAM

12.2. कर्मचारी गला अधिनियम, 1948

BALANI

JAIRAJU D ( 19३५ . ३,७ को उपा (3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों

3. UCCHARING M

का प्रयाण कार्य द्वाः कन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा । मई , 2010 को उस

4. SALYA

द करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के

अध्याय 15 शाम के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत हो चुकी है )

18 FITRATO अध्यषी धाग -76 की उप धारा ) और धारा -77, 78.

7. SAKUL 2! PATRA FLC योगको पहले ही प्रदत की जा चुकी है । को उपबंध

8. PATRATL

আলালের ২৯ বি लखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत होंगे अर्थात्

9 JAINAGAR

যানা अचल जिला

10 BALKUDRA

नं

PATRATE ЧАСОВ PIRATU

(5)

(3) (4)

13. LADDI

11 पतरातू हजारीबाग

? हज्जरीताग

3 . 4 पतरातू हजारीबाग

Proned by the Manager . Govt of India Press , Ray Read Mesa Pen, see I e and hablished by the Controller of Purinatione de 2