This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

REGD . NO . D. L. (N ) 04/0007/200305 रजिस्ट्री सं. डी. एल. ( एन ) 04 /0007/ 2003-05

भारतका राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 43]

नई दिल्ली , अक्तूबर 17 अक्तूबर 23 , 2010 , शनिवार/ आश्विन 25- कार्तिक 1 , 1932 NEW DELHI , OCTOBER 17 -OCTOBER 23 , 2010 , SATURDAY / ASVINA 25- KARTIKA 1,1932 No. 43]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

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

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

वित्त मंत्रालय

(वित्तीय सेवाएं विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 5 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2599.- रुगण औद्योगिक कंपनी ( विशेष उपबंध ) अधिनियम , 1985 की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) के साथ पठित धारा 4 की उप - धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्रीय सरकार, एतद्वारा , औद्योगिक और वित्तीय पुनर्निर्माण बोर्ड के अपीलीय प्राधिकरण ( एएआईएफआर ) में सदस्य के पद पर श्री बादल कुमार दास का कार्यकाल दिनांक 18-01-2011 से 24-10-2012 तक अर्थात् उनकी आयु 65 वर्ष हो जाने तक या एएआईएफआर को बंद किए जाने तक या अगले आदेश होने तक , इनमें से जो भी पहले हो , बढ़ाने का अनुमोदन करती है ।

[फा. सं. 4/4/2010 - आईएफ -11 ] रमण कुमार गौड़ , अवर सचिव

MINISTTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services) New Delhi , the 5th October 2010

S.O. 2599- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 4 read with sub - section ( 2 ) of Section 6 of the Sick Industrial Companies ( Special Provisions ) Act , 1985 , the Central Government hereby approves the extension of the tenure of Shri Badal Kumar Das as Member in Appellate Authority for Industrial & Financial Reconstruction (AAIFR) from 18-01-2011 to 24-10-2012 i.e. upto the age of attaining 65 years or till the abolition of AAIFR or until further orders , whichever event occurs the earliest .

[ F. No. 4/4 /2010 - IF- 11 ]

RAMAN KUMAR GAUR , Under S--cy.

(7107)

3963 G1/ 2010 7108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 /KARTIKA 1 , 1932

[ PART II - SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

( आई एफ- अनुभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 12 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2600-भारतीय निर्यात - आयात बैंक अधिनियम , 1981 ( 1981 का 28 ) की धारा6 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ङ ) के उपखण्ड ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार , एत‌द्वारा , श्री मनबीर सिंह , सचिव ( ईआर ) , विदेश मंत्रालय को, अगले आदेश होने तक , सुश्री पार्वती सेन व्यास , विदेश मंत्रालय के स्थान पर भारतीय निर्यात - आयात बैंक ( एक्जिम बैंक ) के निदेशक मण्डल में निदेशक नामिद करती है ।

[ फा. सं. 24/27/2002- आईएफ -1 ( खंड- III ) ] अमरीक सिंह , अवर सचिव

(IF - I Section)

New Delhi , the 12th October , 2010

S.O.2600- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - clause ( i ) of clause ( e ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the Export Import Bank of India Act , 1981 ( 28 of 1981 ) , the Central Government hereby nominates Shri Manbir Singh , Secretary ( ER) , Ministry of External Affairs , as Director on the Board of Directors of Export Import Bank of India ( Exim Bank) vice Ms. Parbati Sen Vyas , Ministry of External Affairs until further orders .

[ F. No. 24/ 27/ 2002 - IF - 1 ( Part - III ) ]

AMRIK SINGH , Under Secy.

(राजस्व विभाग )

( केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड )

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2601- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-2011 के आगे से संगठन महाराष्ट्र राज्य द्रक्ष बगैटदार संघ , पुणे को निम्नलिखित शतों के अधीन आशिक रूप से अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था ' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

( ग ) पैराग्राफ । के उप - पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

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

[ अधिसूचना सं. 75/2010/फा. सं. 203 / 152/2009- आ.क.नि.- II ]

अजय गोयल , निदेशक ( आ.क.नि.- II ) 7109 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

(Department of Revenue)

( CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES )

New Delhi , the 11th October , 2010

S.O. 2601 - It is hereby notified for general information that the organization M/ s Maharashtra Rajya Draksha Bagaitdar Sangh, Pune has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 ( said Act) , read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income - tax Rules , 1962 ( said Rules ) , from Assessment year 2010-2011 onwards in the category of ' Other Institute ' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely : ---

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

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

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

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

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

( a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or (b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

(c) fails to furnish its statement of the donations received and sums applied for 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. 75 /2010/F . No. 203 / 152/ 2009 - ITA - II ]

AJAY GOYAL , Director ( ITA - II )

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2602- सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5 ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-2011 के आगे से संगठन सिसोदिया एजुकेशनल , मेडिकल एवं चेरिटेबल सोसायटी , कोल्लाकडागू, केरल को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है , अर्थात्: - ( i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा ;

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

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

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

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

( ख ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा 7110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 /KARTIKA 1 , 1932

[ PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ] ( ग ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप - पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

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

[ अधिसूचना सं. 76/2010/फा. सं. 203/09/2010-आ.क.नि. - 11 ]

अजय गोयल , निदेशक ( आ.क.नि.- II )

New Delhi , the 11th October , 2010

S.O. 2602- It is hereby notified for general information that the organization Sisodia Educational , Medical & Charitable Society , Kollakadavu , Kerala has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub- section ( 1 ) of section 35 of the Income- tax Act , 1961 ( said Act ) , read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income- tax Rules , 1962 ( said Rules ) , from Assessment year 2010-2011 onwards in the category of ' Other Institute ' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely :-

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

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

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

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

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or (b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub - paragraph ( iii ) of paragraph 1 ; or

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

[Notification No. 76/ 2010/ F . No. 203 / 09 / 2010 - ITA - II ]

AJAY GOYAL, Director ( ITA - II ) औद्योगिक और वित्तीय पुनर्निर्माण अपीलीय प्राधिकरण

नई दिल्ली , 8 अगस्त, 2010

का.आ. 2603-केन्द्रीय सरकार श्री सी. जे. वर्गीस , श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय में स्थायी रूप से कार्यरत सहायक को इस प्राधिकरण में संशोधित वेतनमान पी बी-2 रु. 9300-34800 + 4800 दिनांक 30 जुलाई 2010 ( पूर्वाह्नन ) से तीन वर्ष की अवधि या अगले आदेश तक या इस कार्यालय के बंद होने तक , जो भी पूर्वघटित / पहले हो , प्रतिनियुक्ति के आधार पर के पद पर नियुक्त करते हैं ।

[फा. सं. 1/5/2010 - प्रशा. ]

दया नन्द , अवर सचिव Appelate Authority for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction

New Delhi , the 8th August , 2010

S.O. 2603- Central Government is please to appoint Shri C. John Varghese , Assistant of Ministry of Labour & Employment/ Shram Aur Rozgar Mantralaya as Section Officer in this Authority on Deputation basis w.e.f. 30-7-2010 ( FN ) inthe revised Pay Band PB - 2 Rs . 9300-34800 + 4800 (GP) initially for a period of three years or till further orders or abolition ofAAIFR whichever is earliest .

[ F. No. 1 / 5 / 2010- Admin. ] DAYA NAND , Under Secy .

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7111 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 31 अगस्त , 2010

का.आ. 2604-इस प्राधिकरण की दिनांक 18 अगस्त 2009 की समसंख्यक अधिसूचना के क्रम में कृषि मंत्रालय में स्थायी निजी सचिव श्री एस चन्द्रशेखर, की पूर्व संशोधित वेतन मान रु. 10000-325-15,200 प्रतिमाह संशोधित वेतन मान रु. 15600-39100 + 6600 ( ग्रेड पे ) के वेतनमान में प्रमुख निजी सचिव के रूप में की गई प्रतिनियुक्ति की अवधि पूर्व निबन्धनों और शतों सहित दिनांक 10-08-2010 पूर्वाह्न से अगले छः महीनों दिनांक09-02-2011 तक या अगले आदेश तक या इस प्राधिकरण की समाप्ति तक , जो भी पूर्व घटित हो , बढ़ा दी गई है ।

[मिसिल सं. - 1 /3/2009- प्रशा. ]

दया नन्द, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 31st August , 2010

S.O.2604- In continuation of this Authority's Notification of even number dated 18-8-2009 , the tenure of deputation- of Shri S. Chandrasekharan , a permanent Private Secretary of the Ministry of Agriculture , Department of Animal Husbandary , Dairying and Fisheries as Principal Private Secretary ( PPS) in this Authority on deputation basis in the Pre- revised scale of Rs . 10,000-325-15,200 ( Revised Pay Band PB - 3 Rs . 15600-39100 +6600 as Grade Pay) is extended for a period of six months w.e.f. 10-8-2009 (F/N ) to 09-02-2011 or till abolition of this Authority or until further order , whichever is earlier , on the same terms and conditions .

[ No. 1 /3 /2009 - Admin . ] DAYA NAND , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 29 सितम्बर , 2010

का. आ. 2605- इस कार्यालय के समसंख्यक अधिसूचना दिनांक 20 अगस्त 2009 के क्रम में कृषि एवं सहकारिता विभाग , कृषि मंत्रालय में स्थायी निजी सचिव श्री एम पी बालाकृष्णन का औद्योगिक और वित्तीय पुनर्निर्माण अपीलीय प्राधिकरण में पूर्व संशोधित वेतनमान रु. 10000-325-15,200 संशोधित वेतन बैंड पीबी. 3 रु. 15600-39100 +6600 ग्रेड पे में प्रमुख निजी सचिव के रूप में की गई प्रतिनियुक्ति की अवधि पूर्व निबन्धनों और शताँ सहित दिनांक 21-08-2010 पूर्वाह्नन से छः महीने दिनांक 20-02-2011 तक या अगले आदेश तक या इस प्राधिकरण की समाप्ति तक, जो भी पूर्व घटित हो , बढ़ा दी गई है ।

[मिसिल सं-1 /3/2007- प्रशा. ]

दया नन्द , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 29th September , 2010

S.O. 2605- In continuation of this Authority's Notification of even number dated 20-8-2009 , the tenure of deputation period of Shri MP Balakrishnan , a permanent PS of Ministry of Agriculture , Department of Agriculture & Cooperation, as Principal Private Secretary in the Pre - revised pay scale of Rs . 10,000-325-15,200 Revised Pay Band PB- 3 Rs . 15600-39100 + 6600 ( Grade Pay ) in this Authority, is extended for further period of six months from 21-08-2010 to 20- 02-2011 or till abolition of this Authority or until further orders , whichever is earlier , on the same terms and conditions .

[ F. No. 1 /3 /2007 - Admin. ]

DAYA NAND , Under Secy.

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सीपीवी प्रभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2606- राजनयिक और कोंसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में , केंद्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा श्री सुशोवन गोस्वामी , सहायक , श्री थोमस मैथ्यू, सहायक और श्रीमति कमल दीप खन्ना , अपर श्रेणी लिपिक को 11-10-2010 से भारत के कौंसलावास, दुबई में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[संटी 4330/1/2006 ]

आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव ( कोंसुलर ) MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPV Division)

New Delhi , the 11th October , 2010

S.O. 2606 In pursuance of the clause ( a ) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers ( Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Sushovan Goswami , Assistant , Shri Thomas 7112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Mathew, Assistant and Smt . Kamal Deep Khanna, UDC in the Consulate General of India, Dubai to perform their duties ofAssistant Consular Officers with effect from 11th October , 2010

[ No. T. 4330/01/2006 ]

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

स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर, 2010

का.आ. 2607-केन्द्रीय सरकार, दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा ( 10 ) की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् के परामर्श से उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, नामतः

2. चौधरी चरणसिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ द्वारा प्रदान की जाने वाली दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता प्रदान करने के संबंध में दंत-चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में आईटीएस दन्त चिकित्सा अध्ययन तथा अनुसंधान केंद्र, मुरादनगर, गाजियाबाद के संदर्भ में क्रम संख्या 56 के सामने कॉलम -2 तथा 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अंतर्विष्ट की जाएंगी :

"( II ) दंत शल्य चिकित्सा में स्नातकोत्तर

एम डी एस (ओरल एंड मेक्सिलोफेसियल पैथोलोजी ) , चौधरी चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ ।

एम डी एस ( पीडोडोंटिक्स) , चौधरी चरण सिंह , विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ । "

-ओरल तथा मेक्सिलोफेसियल पैथोलॉजी (यदिदिनांक 23-4-2010 को अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की जाती है ) । -पीडोडोंटिक्स ( यदि दिनांक 20-4-2010 को अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की जाती है ) ।

[सं. वी. - 12017/71/2005 -डी ई ( खण्ड -1 ) ] अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE New Delhi , the 9th September , 2010

S.O. 2607- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 2) of section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948) , the Central Government , after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby makes the following amendments inPart - I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No.56, in respect of I.T.S. Centre for Dental Studies & Research, Murad Nagar , Ghaziabad, in part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by Ch . Charan Singh University, Meerut, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

"( ii) Master of Dental Surgery

MDS(Oral& Maxillofacial Pathology) , Ch . Charan Singh University, Meerut MDS ( Pedodontics) , Ch . Charan Singh University, Meerut."

-Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology (ifgranted on or after 23-4-2010) -Pedodontics (ifgranted on or after 20-4-2010)

[No.V- 12017/ 1 /2005 - DE (Vol . 1 ) ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 9 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2608-केन्द्रीय सरकार , दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा ( 10 ) की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् के परामर्श से उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, नामतः

2. डा. एन टी आर विश्वविद्यालय स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा , आंध्र प्रदेश द्वारा प्रदान की जाने वाली दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता प्रदान करने के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 की अनुसूची के भाग-1 में क्रम संख्या 50 के सामने दिए गए कॉलम 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अंतर्विष्ट की जाएंगी :-

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

" ( V ) सिबार दंत चिकित्सा विज्ञान संस्थान , गुंटूर " ( i) दंत शल्यचिकित्सा में स्नातकोत्तर

( i ) पीरियोडोंटिक्स

(यदि दिनांक 29-4-2010 ) को अथवा उसके पश्चात प्रदान की जाती है ) ।

( ii ) सामुदायिक दंत चिकित्सा

(यदि दिनांक 29-4-2010 ) को अथवा उसके पश्चात्प्रदान की जाती है ।

( iii ) पीडोडोंटिक्स ( यदि दिनांक 29-4-2010 ) को अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की जाती है ।

( iv ) ओरल तथा मेक्सिलोफेसियल पैथोलॉजी ( यदि दिनांक 29-4-2010 ) को अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की जाती है ।

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

7113 एम डी एस (पीरियोडोंटिक्स ) , डॉ एन टी आर स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश ।

एम डी एस ( सामुदायिक दंत चिकित्सा ) , डॉ. एन टी आर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश ।

एम डी एस ( पीडोडोंटिक्स ) , डॉ. एन टी आर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश ।

एम डी एस ( ओरल एंड मेक्सिलोफेसियल पैथोलोजी ) , डॉ. एन टी आर स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , विजयवाड़ा, आंध्र प्रदेश ।

[ सं. वी -12017/17/2006 - डी ई ] अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 9th September , 2010

S.O. 2608. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) , the Central Government , after consultation with Dental Council of India , hereby makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 50 , in part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948 ) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijaywada , Andhra Pradesh , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

"(V) Sibar Institute of Dental Sciences , Guntur ( i ) Master of Dental Surgery

(i) Periodontics

(ifgranted on or after 29-4-2010) (ii) Community Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 29-4-2010 ) ( ii) Pedodontics

(if granted on or after 29-4-2010 ) ( iv) Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology (if granted on or after 29-4-2010) MDS ( Periodontics ) , Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijaywada , Andhra Pradesh

MDS ( Community Dentistry ) , Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijaywada , Andhra Pradesh

MDS ( Pedodontics ) , Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences , Vijaywada , Andhra Pradesh

MDS ( Oral & Maxillofacial Pathology ) , Dr. NTR University , ofHealth Sciences , Vijaywada , Andhra Pradesh

[No.V - 12017/17 /2006- DE ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy .

नई दिल्ली, 4 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2609.- केन्द्र सरकार , दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा ( 10 ) की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् के परामर्श से अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है , नामतः 2. मनीपाल विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा प्रदान की जाने वाली दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता प्रदान करने के संबंध में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम, 1948 की अनुसूची के भाग । में क्रम संख्या 90 के सामने दिए गए कॉलम 2 और 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् दंत चिकित्सा विज्ञान महाविद्यालय मंगलौर के संबंध में निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियां अंतर्विष्ट की जाएंगी :-- [PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

7114

"दंत- चिकित्सा विज्ञान महाविद्यालय , मंगलौर दंत शल्य चिकित्सा में स्नातकोत्तर

(i ) प्रोस्थोडोंटिक्स (यदि दिनांक 29-4-2010 ) को अथवा उसके पश्चात प्रदान की जाती है ) । एम डी एस ( प्रोस्थोडॉटिक्स ) , मनीपाल विश्वविद्यालय ,

( ii ) पीरियोडोंटिक्स (यदिदिनांक 29-4-2010 ) को अथवा उसके पश्चात् प्रदान की जाती है । एम डी एस ( पीरियोडोंटिक्स ) , मनीपाल विश्वविद्यालय ,

[ संख्या वी -12017/ 45/ 2006 - डी ई ] अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 4th October , 2010

S.O.2609 . In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act , 1948 ( 16 of 1948) , the Central Government , after consultation with Dental Council of India , hereby makes the following amendments in Part - I of the Schedule to the said Act , namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 90 , in part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Manipal University , the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

" College of Dental Sciences , Mangalore

Master of Dental Surgery

MDS ( Prosthodontics ) , Manipal University, (i) Prosthodontics (ifgranted on or after 14-4-2010)

MDS ( Periodontics ) , Manipal University , ( ii) Periodontics (ifgranted on or after 13-4-2010 )

[ No.V - 12017 /45 / 2006 - DE ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secу .

वाणिज्य एवं उद्योग मंत्रालय

(वाणिज्य विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 12 अक्तूबर , 2010

का. आ. 2610.-केन्द्र सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उपनियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में वाणिज्य विभाग के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन भारतीय निर्यात निरीक्षण परिषद्, नई दिल्ली के अधीन निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण, कोच्ची के निम्नलिखित उप - कार्यालय को एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है , जिसके 80 प्रतिशत से अधिक कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिन्दी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है : --

निर्यात निरीक्षण अभिकरण , कोच्ची उप कार्यालय , बंगलौर , खेनी बिल्डिंग नं. 3 , फस्ट क्रॉस , गांधीनगर , बंगलौर -560009

[सं. ई -11013 / 1 /2008- हिन्दी] श्रीमती देवकी , निदेशक ( राजभाषा ) MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY

(Department of Commerce)

New Delhi , the 12th October , 2010

S.O. 2610.- In pursuance of Sub - Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Language ( Use for official purposes of the union) Rules , 1976, the Central Govt . hereby notifies the following sub office of Export Inspection Agency , Kochi under Export Inspection Council of India, New Delhi , which is under administrative control of Department of Commerce , whereof more than 80 % staff have acquired a working knowledge of Hindi :-

Export Inspection Agency - Kochi Sub Office- Bangalore Kheni Building No.3 , First Cross , Gandhinagar , Bangalore- 560009

[No. E - 11013 / 1 / 2008 - Hindi ] SMT . DEVKI , Director ( O. L. ) [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

71.15 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , .1932

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

( उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2611.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मात्रक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाद और मात्र सातत ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदाम करता रहेगा,

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स बैंगलोर आटोमोबाइल , नं. 238 , मंजूनाथ निलया , ऽवां क्रास , छठा फेज, महागणपतिनगर , राजाजी नगर, बैंगलोर -560010 विनिर्मित अंकक सूचन ' 8129 ' सहित टैक्सीमीटर के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ब्राइट "" ब्राइट " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 / 09 / 313 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाप्य - पत्र जारी करती है । elidonon ಬಾಡಿಗೆಗಾಗಿ

FOR HIRE

Scrow

Screw

Sealing of the Meter

आकृति -2 उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

सील और स्टाम्प के सत्यापन के लिए मीटर की रियर बॉटम साइड में दिए दो स्क्रू के छेदों में सी लीड वायर निकाला गया है । सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना मीटर को खोला नहीं जा सकता । ::

उक्त मॉडल " टैक्सी मीटर " अंकक सूचन सहित , दूरी और समय मापन उपकरण है जो लगातार योग करता जाता है और यात्री द्वारा देय भाड़े को यात्रा के दौरान किसी भी समय दर्शाता है । सार्वजनिक वाहन के यात्रियों द्वारा देय भाड़ा , तय की गई दूरी और निर्धारित स्पीड से कम पर व्यतीत किए गए समय का फलन है । मीटर की रीडिंग प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) द्वारा दर्शायी जाती है । मॉडल का' के' फेक्टर 1750/कि.मी . है ।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 181 ) / 2009 ]

बी. एन . दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3963 GJ / 10-21 [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1, 1932

7116

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2010

S.O. 2611 - Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issued and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of a Tazi Meter with digital indication of ' 8129 ' with brand name "BRIGHT" (hereinreferred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s.Bangalore Automobiles , No. 238, Manjunatha Nilya, 5th Cross , 6th Phase ; Mahaganpathinagar, Rajai Nagar , Bangalore- 560 0105 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/313 .

బాడిగీగాగి

FOR HIRE

Screw

Sealing of the Meter

Figure-2- Sealing arrangements

Onthe rear bottom side of the meter , two screw with holes are through which the leaded wire will be passed to receive the verification seal and stamp . The meter can not be opened without tempering the seal .

The said model is a ' Taxi Meter ' with digital indication incorporated with a distance and time measuring device . It totalizes continuously and indicates at any moment of thejourney, the charges payable by the passenger . The "fare to pay " is a function of the distance traveled above a certain speed and the length of the time occupied below that speed . The reading of the meter is indicated by the Light Emitting Display. The "k" factor of the model is 1750/km .

[F. No. WM- 21 ( 181 )/2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 7117 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 11 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2612.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा ;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स अंशिका इंटरप्राइज , बी बी गंज ( आनंद पुरी ) , नियर नार्थ बिहार स्कूल , जिला मुजफ्फरपुर ( बिहार ) द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एजीजे " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एमको गोल्ड " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09 / 508 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ;

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

Seal with

lead

Weighing pan

Stamping plate

2612

CO AMCO GOLD

आकृति-2 मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायाग्राम

कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए वेइंग इंडीकेटर को खोल जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग की जाती है । स्टाम्पिंग के लिए लीड सील के साथ स्केल की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड / मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 293 ) /2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

[PART II-Shc . 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 11th October , 2010

S.O. 2612.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( See the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of norn - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class - II) of series " AGJ " and with brand name "AMCO GOLD" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Anshika Enterprises, B.B. Ganj (Anand Puri ) , Nr . North Bihar School , Distt . , Muzaffarpur (Bihar) which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09 /09/508 .

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

Seal with lead

Weighing pan

Stamping plate

2612

AMCO GOLD

Figure- 2 Schematic diagram of Sealing provision of the model

Lealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the body of scale with the lead seal , to get the stamping . A typical schematic diagram of lealing provision of the model is given above .

The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/ D card/ mother board to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg. and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 1 mg . to 50mg. and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in teh range of5000 to 50,000 for 'e ' value of 100mg . or more and with ' e ' value 1 × 10%, 2 × 10kor 5 × 10* , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 293 )/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 7119 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 11 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2613.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स अंशिका इंटरप्राइज , बी बी गंज ( आनंद पुरी ) , नियर नार्थ बिहार स्कूल , जिला मुजफ्फरपुर ( बिहार ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एजीपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एमको गोल्ड " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /09/ 509 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 500 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा . है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 50 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 बोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

weighing indicator

2613

Seal with lead

Stamping plate

2.Back Side

Forpower supply

ON/ OFF

Stamping Plate

Sealing with

Lead

Seal wire

आकृति-2 मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायाग्राम

कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों के लिए वेइंग इंडीकेटर को खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग की जाती है । स्टाम्पिंग के लिए लीड सील के साथ स्केल की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 293 )/ 2009 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7120

[PART II- SEC. 3 (in) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

New Delhi , the 11th October, 2010

S.O. 2613. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Plateform type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " AGP " and with brand name " AMCO GOLD " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Anshika Enterprises , B.B. Ganj (Anand Puri) , Nr . North Bihar Scool , Dist . , Muzaffarpur ( Bihar ) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09 /509 .

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Plateform type ) with a maximum capacity of500 kg and minimum capacity of 1kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 50g . It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

weighing Indicator

413

Seal with lead

Stamping plate

2.Back Side

Гог power supply

Stamping Plate

Sealingwith Lead

Seal wire/

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

Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the body of the indicator with the lead seal , to get the stamping . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/ D card/mother board to disable access to external calibration .

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

[ F. No. WM - 21 (293 )/2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 7121 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2614.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी एनडब्ल्यूएमएल. , मिडलसैक्स , यूनाइटिड किंगडम द्वारा जारी माडल अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स एनसीआर कोरपोरेशन , 2651 , सटेलाइट बीवड , दुलुथ जोर्जिया 30096 , यूएसए द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) के " रीएलसकान 78.78-2000 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एनसीआर " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे मैसर्स एनसीआर कोरपोरेशन इंडिया प्रा.लि. , फेयरमोंट लेवल 5 , हाई स्ट्रीट , हीरानन्दानी बिजनेस पार्क पोवई मुंबई -400093 महाराष्ट्र द्वारा भारत में विपणीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 09 / 535 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 15 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टलयोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

Seal

Calibration Whebi

2614

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

सीलिंग के लिए दो पिन होल्स दिए गए हैं , एक स्टील कवर पर जो केलिब्रेशन व्हील को कवर करता है और दूसरा फिक्सड प्लेट पर । इन दोनों छेदों में से वायर निकाला जाता है और सील लगाई जाती है ताकि व्हील कवर को खोला ना जा सके । माडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड / मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 248 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 11th October, 2010

S.O. 2614. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is alongwith the Model approval certificate issued by the NWML. , Middlesex, United Kingdom is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7 ) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non- automatic weighing instrument ( Tabletop type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) and series " REALSCAN 7878-2000 " with brand name "NCR" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . NCR Corporations , 2651 , Satellite Bivd, Duluth, Georgia, 30096, USA . and marketed in India by M/ s . NCR Corporations India Pvt. Ltd. Fairmont Level 5, High Street , Hiranandani Business Park Powai Mumbai - 400093 Maharashtra which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/535 .

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop type ) with a maximum capacity of 15kg and minimum capacity of 100kg . The verification scale interval ( e) is 5kg . It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The liquid crystal diode ( LCD ) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply .

Seal

Calibration Wheel

Figure- 2-Schematic diagram of Sealing provision ofthe model .

Forsealing there are two pin holes one is at the steel cover, covering calibration wheel and the other is on the fixed plate . A wire is passed through both of these holes and a seal is applied to it , so that the steel cover can not be opened. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/D card/mother board to disable access to external calibration .

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

[ F. No. WM - 21 ( 248) /2009]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 7123 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 11 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2615.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स स्माइल यूनिवर्सल , 1843 फेज 5 , सेक्टर -59 , एस ए एस नगर , मोहाली-160059 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " एसएमटी-13 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम स्माइल है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09 /09 / 513 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है;

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा . और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

615

THER SIDE SEALING

MAL SIAM

आकृति-2 मॉडल के इंडीकेटर को सीलिंग करने का प्रावधान

बेइंग मशीन का कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग की जाती है । इंडीकेटर की टॉप बाडी के बायीं और दायों तरफ ड्रिल किए भार होल्स में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टॉपिंगप्लेट को जोड़ा गया है और स्टाम्पिंग के लिए लीड सील लगायी गई है । पॉडल को सीलबंद करने हे उपबंधक एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/ डी कार्ड/ सदर बोर्ड में . प स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण - पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो ३ मि. ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्राम तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा.या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1 × 10* , 2 × 10* , 5 × 10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 297 ) /2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 3963 65/ 10-3 [PART II-SEC. 3 (10) ] 7124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/ KARTIKA 1 , 1932

New Delhi , the 11th October, 2010

S.O. 2615. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automate weighing instrument (Table top type ) with digital indication of High Accuracy ( Accuracy class -If ) of series "SMT- 13 " and with brand name " SMILE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufacturexl by M/s . Smule Gaiversal , 1843 Phase- 5, Sector - 59 , S.A.S Nagar , Mohali- 160059, which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/513.

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type) with a maximum capacity of 20 kg . and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e ) is 2g . It has a tare deve with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED ) display indicates the weighing result The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

SMILE

2615

OTHER SIDE SEALING

SHAL STAN

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

Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice.Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the holes drilled to top body to left side and right side of the body of the scale with the lead seal to get the stamping . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

The instrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been provided m A/D card/moke board to disable access to external calibration .

Further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 12 ) of Section 36 of the sand Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg , and with number of verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg . to 50 mg . and with number of verification scale anterval ( 0 ) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100mg . or more and with ' e ' value 1 × 10 % , 2 × 10 % or 5 × 10 , k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same primciple , design and with the same materials with which, the approved Model has been manufactured.

[F. No. WM-210297-2009]

B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 7125 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii)]

नई दिल्ली , 11 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2616.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स स्माइल यूनिवर्सल , 1843 फेज 5 , सेक्टर -59 , एस ए एस नगर , मोहाली -160059 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एस एम पी -7 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्माइल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/09/ 514 सामनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

ONER SIDE SEALING

SEAL WITH STAMPING PLATF

आकृति -2 मॉडल के इंडीकेटर को सीलिंग करने का प्रावधान

वेइंग मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग की जाती है । इंडीकेटर की टॉप बाडी के बायीं और दायीं तरफ ड्रिल किए गए होल्स में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टॉपिंग प्लेट को जोड़ा गया है और स्टाम्पिंग के लिए लीड सील लगायी गई है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

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

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 297 ) /2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 /KARTIKA 1 , 1932

[PART II- SEX. 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 11th October , 2010

S.O. 2616. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now , therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type ) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy ( Accuracy class - III ) of series " SMP - 7 " and with brand name " SMILE " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M / s . Smile Universal , 1843 Phase - 5 , Sector - 59 S.A.S Nagar , Mohali - 160059 , which is assigned the approval mark IND / 09/09 / 514 .

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

OTHER SIDE SEALING

SEAL WITH SIAMPING PLATE

GALL

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

Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice.Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the holes drilled to top body to left side and right side of the body of the indicator with the lead seal , to get the stamping . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A / D card/ mother board to disable access to external calibration .

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

[ F. No. WM - 21 : 2971.2009 ]

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

7127 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 11 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2617.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी नीदरलैंड मीटिनस्टिटूट ( एनएमआई ) , नीदरलैंड द्वारा जारी माडल अनुमोदन प्रणाम पत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स कास बिल्डिंग # 19 कनाप - री क्वांग्जुक म्यून, यांग्जू- गन , क्यूंग की- डू, साउथ कोरिया द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) वाले " सी यू डब्ल्यू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " कास " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे भारत में मैसर्स कास वेइंग इंडिया प्रा.लि. नं. 568 , उद्योग विहार , फेज -5 , गुडगांव -122016 , हरियाणा द्वारा बिक्री से पूर्व या बाद में बिना किसी बदलाव के विपणीत किया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13/ 09 / 510 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

KALLING PLATS

SEALING LEAD

उक्त माडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वाचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप टाइप ) है जिसकी अधिकतम क्षमता रेंज 620 ग्रा. ≤ मैक्स ≤ 6200 ग्रा. सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 0.01 ग्रा. से 0.1 ग्रा. तक और मापमान अंतराल एन≤ 62000 । यह विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) से संबंधित है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50/60 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है या 12 वोल्ट डीसी की आंतरिक या बाह्य बैटरी से चलते हैं ।

वेइंग स्केल के बॉटम में दो हैड होल स्क्रू हैं । इन हैड होल स्क्रू में से सील वायर निकाल कर सील प्लग और स्टाम्प की जाती है । कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों से वेइंग मशीन को खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सील की जाती है । माडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपर दिया गया है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 190 ) / 2009 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान (PAR . I St.31) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 /KARTIKA 1 , 1932

7128

New Delhi , the 11th October, 2010

S.O. 2617. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by die prescribed authority, alongwith the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut ( NMI ) , Netherlands is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) , is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of the non- automatic weighing instrument ( table top type ) with digital indication of Special Accuracy ( Accuracy class - 1 ) of series ' CUV' with brand name ' CAS ' and manufactured by M/s . CAS Bldg . # 19 Kanap- ri , Kwangjuk- Myun, Yangju- Gun , Kyung i-Do , South Korea and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/s . CAS Weighing India Pvt. Ltd. 568 , Udyog Vihar . Phase V, Gurgaon Haryana 122016 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 /09 /510 .

SCALMA LEAR

The said model is a load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top type ) with a maximamo apacity in the range of 620g≤ Max ≤ 6200g , the verification scale interval ( c) is (0.01g to 0.1g and the number of scale interval n≤ 62000. It belongs to for special accuracy (accuracy class - 1 ). The instrument operates on 230Volts , 50/60Hertz alternative current power supply or with battery of 12V DC internally or externally.

The weighing scale has two head hole screws in its bottom. Through this head hole of the screws the scal wire can pass through and can be plugged and stamped . Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the modeal is given above .

[F. No. WM- 21 (190 )/2009) B. N. DIXIT , Director of Legal Metrology 7129 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 11 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2618.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी नीदरलैंड मीटिनस्टिटूट ( एनएमआई ) , नीदरलैंड द्वारा जारी मॉडल अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा; अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियां का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स कास बिल्डिंग # 19 कनाप - री , क्वांग्जुक म्यून , यांग्जू- गन , क्यूंग की - डू, साउथ कोरिया द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) वाले " सीएयू" श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " कास " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे भारत में मैसर्स कास वेइंग इंडिया प्रा.लि. नं. 568 , उद्योग विहार , फफेज -5 , गुडगांव -122016 , हरियाणा द्वारा बिक्री से पूर्व या बाद में बिना किसी बदलाव के विपणीत किया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13 / 09 / 511 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

HALJINA PLAJE

SEALIKO UENO

CAS

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वाचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप टाइप ) है जिसकी अधिकतम क्षमता रेंज. 120 ग्रा. ≤ मैक्स≤ 220 ग्रा. और सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) ≤ 0.001 ग्रा. और मापमान अंतराल एन≤ 220000। यह विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) से संबंधित है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50/60 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है या 12 वोल्ट डीसी की आंतरकि या बाह्य 6 बैटरियों से चलते हैं ।

वेइंग स्केल के बॉटम में दो हैड होल स्क्रू हैं । इन हैड होल स्क्रू में से सील वायर निकाल कर सील प्लग और स्टाम्प की जाती है । कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों से वेइंग मशीन को खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सील की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपर दिया गया है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 190 )/ 2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 7130

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( 1 ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

New Delhi , the 11th October, 2010

S.O. 2618. Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority , alongwith the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut ( NMI ) , Netherlands is satisfied that the Model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures ( Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non - automatic weighing instrument ( table top type ) with digital indication of Special Accuracy (Accuracy class - I ) of series ' CAU ' with brand name ' CAS ' and manufactured by M/ s . CAS Bldg . # 19 Kanap - ri , Kwangjuk - Myun ,Yangju - Gun , Kyung Ki - Do , South Korea and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/ s . CAS Weighing India Pvt.Ltd . 568 , Udyog Vihar , Phase V , Gurgaon Haryana 122016 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 / 09 / 511 .

SEALING VLAD

CAB

The said model is a load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top type ) with a nеоритарад in the range of 120g Max≤220g , the verification scale interval ( c ) is e≤ 0.001 g and the number of scale inte ale $ 220000 , It belongs to for special accuracy ( accuracy class - 1 ) . The instrument operates on 230Volts , 50 / 60Hertz desativecumul power supply or with battery of 12V DC internally or externally .

The weighing scale has two head hole screws in its bottom. Through this head hole of the screw's the wate can pass through and can be plugged and stamped . Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . A typical schemate diagram of sealing provision of the modeal is given above .

[F. No. WAM- 2194-12

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal viettelge 7131 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 11 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2619.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी नीदरलैंड मीटिमस्टिटूट ( एमएमआई ) , नीदरलैंड द्वारा जारी मॉडल अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदम ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल मथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, मैसर्स कास बिल्डिंग # 19 कनाप - री क्वांग्जुक म्यून, यांग्जू- गन , क्यूंग की - डू, साउथ कोरिया द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) वाले " सी यू एक्स " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " कास " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे भारत में मैसर्स कास वेइंग इंडिया प्रा.लि. नं. 568 , उद्योग विहार , फेज -5 , गुडगांव-122016 , हरियाणा द्वारा बिक्री से पूर्व या बाद में बिना किसी बदलाव के विपणीत किया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/13/ 09 / 512 सममुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ;

उक्त मोडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वाचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप टाइप ) है जिसकी अधिकता क्षमता रेंज 620 ग्रा. ≤ मैक्स ≤ 6200 ग्रा.और सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) ≤ 0.01 ग्रा. से 0.1 ग्रा. तक और मापमान अंतराल एन≤ 620001 यह विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग -1 ) से संबंधित है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50/60 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है या 12 वोल्ट डीसी की आंतरकि या बाह्य बैटरी से चलते हैं ।

वेइंग स्केल के बॉटम में दो हैड होल स्क्रू हैं । इन हैड होल स्क्रू में से सील वायर निकाल कर सील प्लग और स्टाम्प की जाती है । कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों से वेइंग मशीन को खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सील की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपर दिया गया है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 190 )/ 2009 ]

बी. एन . दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 3963 GI / 10-4 7132

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 11th October, 2010

S.O. 2619.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, alongwith the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMI ) , Netherlands is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (seethe figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of the non - automatic weighing instrument (tabletop type) with digital indication of Special Accuracy ( Accuracy class - I ) of series ' CUX' with brand name 'CAS' and manufactured by M/ s . CAS Bldg. # 19 Kanap - ri Kwangjuk - Myun , Yangju - Gun , Kyung Ki - Do , South Korea and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/s . CAS Weighing India Pvt . Ltd. 568 , Udyog Vihar , Phase- V, Gurgaon Haryana - 122016 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13 /09/512.

Figure

The said model is a load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table Top type ) with a maximum capacity in the range of 620g ≤ Max ≤ 6200g , the verification scale interval ( e) is 0.01g . to 0-1g . and the number of scale mterval n≤ 62000. It belongs to for special accuracy ( accuracy class - I ) . The instrument operates on 230Volts , 50 /60Hertz alternative current power supply or with battery of 12V DC internally or externally.

The weighing scale has two head hole screws in its bottom. Through this head hole of the screws the seal wire can pass through and can be plugged and stamped. Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 190 )/2009 ]

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

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

7133

नई दिल्ली , 12 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2620.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( मीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , मैसर्स वे - स्टार , 10/359/1 , सर्वोदय नगर , आइचलकरंजी -416115 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थतां वर्ग -11 ) वाले " डब्ल्यूएस 2 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित , अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " वे - स्टार " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/09 / 216 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण - पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और म्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमाम अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें आधेयतुलत युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रर्दश तोलन परिणाम उपर्दित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय कार्य करता है ।

10000

स्टाम्प और सीलिंग के सत्यापन के लिए तुला के बायीं तरफ आउटर कवर और तल प्लेट में काट कर छेदों में से लीडिड सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर दो बोरेड स्क्रू से कसा गया है । उपकरण को सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना नहीं खोला जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में केलिब्रेशन के लिए बाहरी पहुंच है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/ मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

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

[ फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 102 ) / 2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान [ PART II - SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

7134

New Delhi , the 12th October , 2010

S.O. 2620.- Whereas the Central Government , after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribel authority , is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below ) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 ( 60 of 1976 ) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval ofModels ) Rules , 1987 and the said Model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7 ) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non - automatic weighing instrument ( Table top type ) with digital indication of High Accuracy ( Accuracy class - II ) of series "WS2 " and with brand name " Weigh - Star " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/ s . Weigh - Star , 10/359/1 , Sarvoday Nagar , Ichalkaranji - 416115, Dist : Kolhapur ( M.S. ) Which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09 /216 .

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

SALING PORTS

Figure- 2- Schematic diagram of Sealing provision of the model

On the left side of the balance two bored screws are fastened by a leaded sealing , wire passing under the outer cover and bottom plate, for receiving stamp and seal . The instrument can not be opend without tampering the scal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

The instrument has external control to calibration . A dip switch has also been provided in A/ D card/ mother board to disable access to external calibration .

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

[F. No. WM - 21 ( 102 ) / 2009 ]

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

7135 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो

नई दिल्ली , 6 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 2621.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खण्ड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानकों के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे रद्द कर दिये गये हैं और वापिस ले लिये गये हैं :

अनुसूची

क्रम संख्या

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

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

( 1)

(2)

(3)

(4) 1 .

संख्या 0510 तिथि23-02-1974

आई एस6331 : 1987- मोटरवाहन के लिये भूरे लौहे की ढलाईयाँ- विशिष्टि (पहला पुनरीक्षण)

[ संदर्भ : एमटीडी 6/टी -43 ]

पी. घोष , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख ( एमटीडी ) BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi , the 6th October , 2010

S.O. 2621.- In pursuance of clause (b ) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987 , the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards , particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been cancelled and stand withdrawn :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

Remarks No. & Year of the Indian Standards Cancellod

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

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) 1 .

IS 6331 : 1987- Automotive

S.No. 0510

Date 23-02-1974

grey iron castings (first revision)

[ Ref: MTD 6/T -43 ]

P. GHOSH , Scientist ' F ' & Head ( MTD) 3963 GJ /10-5 7136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

1 पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 19 अक्तूबर , 2010

पाटपुर का.आ. 2622.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 100 तारीख 5 जनवरी , 2010 , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उड़ीसा राज्य की तहसीलः बांकी, जिला : कटक की भूमि में, पारादीप - सम्बलपुर- रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना के कार्यान्वयन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) एवं रांची झारखण्ड तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने हेतु उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 8 फरवरी , 2010 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त हो कर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची जिला-कटक

तहसील-बांकी

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

3 4

(0) (B

2911

(X)

46 2909

2912

(12

(00) 12

18 2913

() 01

2918

11 2916

29 2917

(X) 03

(0)

20 2915

00 05

29 2925

(0) 00

40 2928

2927

(X)

38 2929

(0) (00

85 2926

00 (12

00 01

2930

10 2931

00 01

08 2932

(0)

35 10566

(0)

10563

(X) 12

13 10562

(0)

10 10559

08 10560

(X) 22

00 01

97 10556

(0) 04

51 10554

10555

(1) 01

10553

(1)

43 10339

10338

00 01

12 10340

(00 (16

52 10341

00 (B

10342

राज्य- उड़ीसा

क्षेत्रफल

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

5 1

00 08

2939

51 पाटपुर

38 2938

00 03

2937

00 15

2907

00 01

2910

(1)

36 10333

(0)

10302

(0)

60 10301

00 117

10287

10285

(X) 00

(0)

67 10258

58 10257

( X)

(X) 00

10256

(0) (1)

15 10286

20 10252

00 (0)

(1)

10255

X3 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

7139 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

और उक्त अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को तारीख 8 फरवरी , 2010 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

1200

00 02 20.

Similipur

1203

00 02

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

1120

00 08

1111

1208

00 21

और केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात्, इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है ;

1438

1209

00 18

1307

00 10

1309

00 06

1301

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

1300

1312

00 04

1313

00 02

1296

00 00

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से केन्द्रीय सरकार में निहित होने की बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त होकर इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 1311

00 01

1314

00 06

अनुसूची

1315

00 01

जिला-कटक

तहसील -डमपड़ा

राज्य- उड़ीसा 1316

00 05

गांव का नाम

प्लाट नं.

क्षेत्रफल 1319

1320

00 15

एयर

हेक्टेयर 1323

00 12

वर्ग मीटर 1322

00 00

5 1324

00 06

तालबस्त

4678

00 (0)

33 1327

00 02

9682

00 00

10 1326

00 00

9890

00 (B

60 1246

00 04

4673

00 (12

97 [No. R- 25011 /23 /2009 - OR - 1 ]

4675

00 00

33 B. K. DATTA , Under Secy.

4670

00 01 नई दिल्ली , 19 अक्तूबर, 2010

4674

4662

00 01

4643

(00

4645

4646

4647

(00

4648

4644

00 05

4642

(07

(X)

4641

00 (12

00 20

464)

4611

(0) 05

15 का.आ. 2623.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 101 तारीख 5 जनवरी , 2010 , द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट उड़ीसा राज्य की तहसील डमपड़ा, जिला : कटक की भूमि में , पारादीप- सम्बलपुर- रायपुर- राँची पाइपलाइन परियोजना के कार्यान्वयन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा उड़ीसा राज्य में पारादीप से रायपुर ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) तक एवं राँची ( झारखण्ड ) तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन विछाने हेतु उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

7140

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

तालबस्त

4601

00 00

पदनपुर 4604

00 01

4602

4603

00 06

9272

4373

00 21

4285

00 04

4284

(12

4283

4288

4281

4289

4290

00 04

4291

4292

00 02

4293

4277

00 00

4276

4294

(00 07

(1)

4192

4191

4193

00 00

4188

00 04

4184

4187

4186

4300

(0)

4185

(0 02

4183

4182

बिलपडासरघापुर

4173

4174

4129

4119

4120

4121

(0) 07

4030

00 00

4022

4025

4024

00 04

4023

00 06

00 ΟΙ

4032

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

5 2

00 (1)

35 33

(X) (1)

903

62 32

00 04

10 29

00 12

49 28

117

63 21

(0)

00 04

64 18

(X) 04

55 17

(0)

15 16

(0)

00 (1)

10 12

( ) 08

(0)

90 X3

(X)

이

97. %

(1)

112

אא

(X)

111

(12

110

(X)

109

(1)

108

107

(X)

(1)

892

891

(60 106

00 12

(2 1

(3)

4715

(X)

(0)

4709

55 4520

27 4519

4518

X2 4517

4516

(X) 112

4515

00 12

4514

(00 02

(X)

4513

66 4512

00 02

04 4511

(0) 03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

1 4510

बिलपडासरघापुर

बिलपडासरघापुर 4509

00 02

4508

00 02 44

4507

00 02

4506

00 03

4505

00 03

4504

00 02

4503

4501

00 02

4500

00 00

4497

4498

00 02

4486

00 00

4927

00 06

4383

00 05

4467

4469

00 01

4468

00 10

4461

00 02

4462

00 01

4407

00 06

4406

00 01

4408

00 04

4405

4410

00 03

4411

00 02

4409

4412

00 01

4413

4415

00 06

4930

00 05

4021

00 07

4022

4028

00 06

4016

00 06

4030

4031

4032

00 06

4033

4035

00 04

4034

00 03

7141 2

5 4037

00 00

54 4041

88 4058

00 18

08 4059

00 (2

29 4065

00 03

14 3918

00 (3

07 4071

00 00

73 3917

00 05

57 4070

00 00

82 4066

00 04

26 3916

00 004

27 4068

(00

10 4067

00 04

32 3766

00 06

83 3763

30 3767

00 02

71 3762

00 00

40 3747

38 3746

(1)

(0) 3745

00 (04

54 3737

(00 16

(1)

3736

10 3740

(X ) 00

71 3510

(0)

38 3462

00 00

10 3461

47 3443

(0) 06

37 3444

(X)

117

26 3445

(0) (B

64 3446

00 06

43 3438

00 00

10 3434

( )

32 3435

(0) ( 17

97 3404

(00 01

50 3417

00 01

63 3416

00 ( 12

3405

( X) 01

62 3415

00 01

80 3406

00 (B

61 3414

00 01

3411

(1)

93 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

7142

बिलपडासरघापुर

00 01

3410

बिलपडासरघापुर

(0)

3327

3326

(0)

3329

00 00

3330

3332

00 00

3312

00 05

3311

00 03

3310

(00

3308

00 01

4252

4253

3303

(X)

3302

3301

1435

(1)

(X) 00

1436

(0)

1437

1440

( X)

1439

1438

(X)

(00 (0

1441

(1) 이

1408

(0)

1384

(0)

1383

(0) 03

1338

1313

1310

(0) 00

1311

(05

(X)

1312

1305

(0)

1307

1306

00 09

1298

(X)

1299

(X) 00

1274

00 (00

1279

1275

00 07

(X)

1276

(0) 01

1264

[ PART I- SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

5 2

10 1277

(X) (X)

(X)

(1)

1262

(0)

1263

(0)

1259

(0)

1260

1254

(1)

1256

10 1255

(X)

(05

4906

(0)

(04

(1)

1684

(0)

1694

(0)

20 1693

(X)

1692

(X)

78 1786

(X)

1785

30 1795

(1)

1794

1799

(16

(1)

1797

1798

(f)

( 1)

1828

005

)א

(X)

1824

1822

16 1836

(1)

( 1)

(X)

1902

(1)

(X)

1903

(01

1900

( X)

1901

(1)

91 1909

(1)

10 1907

( X )

(X)

1908

112

(1)

1889

(1)

104

1980

1981

이

(1)

1982

(1)

1987

117

1883

(X)

15 1882

(1)

2045

(1) (17

97 2046

(1)

67 2047 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23, 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

1 2044

00 01

बिलपडासरघापुर

7143 2

5 1314

0 ]

गोबिन्दपुर

2041

00 01

2063

00 10

2064

00 09

4840

00 06

2080

00 18

2070

00 00

2065

00 04

2073

00 00

2069

00 04

4924

00 04

557

बरपदनपुर

558

00 04

559

00 08

561

00 00

560

00 12

215

00 10

214

00 03

213

00 04

298

00 00

दुलणापुर

गोबिन्दपुर

00 03

319

00 04

321

00 00

320

00 00

324

00 07

323

00 00

330

00 18

328

00 12

1328

1327

00 07

1330

1331

00 02

1332

00 04

1333

1334

00 04

1335

1337

गडजित

00 06

1338

00 00

1326

00 06

1315

3963 GJ / 10-6

72 1313

(0) 09

88 1312

26 1810

(X)

96 1311

00 06

89 1309

(0) 01

16 1293

(X) 01

72 1308

00 13

52 1307

000 00

27 1366

(X)

46 1526

(X)

10 1524

42 1523

(0)

12 1522

(0) 09

87 1520

(0) 06

(04 1613

82 1553

30 1541

(0) 01

20 1542

(X) (0)

200 1545

50 1546

00 01

41 1547

(X)

1552

00 04

82 1685

00 12

19 1687

94 1688

81 1690

(0) 01

35 786

(1) 90

59 785

76 784

(X)

767

768

(1) 01

29 769

00 (01

89 770

00 01

38 772

00 ()]

47 771

00 25

51 543

(X) X3 544

(0) 00

95 545

(1)

(0) 742

(0)

53 7144

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

00 25

गडजित गडजित

741

597

00 02

601

00 01

600

599

00 01

568

566

00 07

567

00 13

602

686

00 06

685

682

683

00 01

684

3116

969

00 01

968

959

958

957

956

00 06

954

कुसुपंगी

00 08

2983

952

00 01

951

950

32 947

(00

949

948

46 942

943

00 08

46 3430

00 06

938

(00 02

1337

00 25

53 1338

09 1339

00 08

00 16

1340

00 1330

60 1327

00 02

1328

[PART 11-Stc. 3 ( ii )]

5 2

(0)

(8 1325

(12

1326

(0)

(1)

30 1320

00 06

19 1319

(X)

1318

(0) 02

44 3482

(0)

62 1317

(X)

1314

73 1299

(X)

(1)

71 1298

(X)

1300

(X)

(0) (X)

91 1302

(X) (12

1294

55 1293

(0)

() ]

(X)

31 1288

(X)

700 1286

(X)

(1)

1289

112

(0) 04 72 3474

(X)

3473

1276

(1)

1280

(1)

10 3955

(X)

3956

51 3953

00 112

(0)

3950

(X)

28 3949

(X)

36 3948

(08

7) 4148

(1)

3941

4217

(1) 14

(00

11 3600

3618

(X) 15 44

(0) (X) 37 3602

3619

(X)

3617

(01)

61 3616

(X)

(X ) (1)

3621

72 3623

(1) 02

(1)

117 3624

3625

(1)

01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

3630

10 कुसुपंगी -जारी कुसुपंगी-जारी

3641

3631

3632

3633

3634

00 01

3636

3635

00 00

3637

00 00

3649

3650

00 02

3651

00 01

00 02

3653

3656

00 01

3657

00 00

3652

00 02

3661

00 00

3685

3537

00 00

3535

3539

3534

3532

00 10

3516

3692

00 01

3693

3694

00 (3

3695

3843

3711

00 01

3712

3713

3399

00 11

3412

3398

00 03

3391

00 03

3390

3389

00 02

3388

3387

00 03

3386

00 02

7145

00 00

3385

00 00

10 3384

00 00

10 3351

06 3352

00 12

3353

32 3354

00 02

57 3355

3356

3347

14 3357

3346

57 3345

00 07

00 00

10 3331

3333

3334

00 00

64 3335

(17 3344

00 00

86 3336

3337

10 3343

00 12

00 07

60 3338

3332

10 2785

00 01

2774

84 2778

00 00

12 2779

72 2784

2783

2782

2781

(0)

42 2771

2770

2790

43 2791

00 02

2792

41 2793

(X)

2767

2766

(1)

00 01

63 2765

2685

2684

00 7146

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/ KARTIKA 1 , 1932

1 2764

00 00

कुसुपंगी -जारी

कुसुपंगी -जारी 2686

00 02

2687

00 04

2688

2576

00 00

2577

00 01

2578

4294

00 00

2581

00 01

2582

ΟΙ

2589

00 00

2587

2588

00 01

2590

00 00

2591

00 00

2592

00 01

2593

00 02

2594

2598

00 01

2535

00 01

2599

00 02

2533

2534

2543

2532

2530

00 01

2529

ΟΙ

2531

00 00

2528

2526

00 03

2522

00 02

2521

00 01

2520

00 01

2519

00 ΟΙ

2518

2516

00 01

(0)

4206

2544

2489

2515

00 01

2511

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

5 4409

00 00

7 ) 2509

00 01

88 2504

50 2503

43 2500

2499

00 01

53 2496

00 01

88 2495

00 (0)

95 2494

00 (00)

98 2490

00 (04

81 2491

00 (12

(04 2488

00 01

2487

(61 2486

2485

(1)

2473

00 (2

63 2484

(0)

(1)

2483

(0)

13 2436

00 (1)

20 2463

00 (1)

59 2464

33 2465

(00

2469

112

(1)

92 2470

(0)

10 2471

(12

2472

13 1694

00 06

( 1)

1695

(0)

(1)

1670

4158

4184

(0) (1 )

61 1669

37 1668

00 04

17 1681

(1) 06

2 1667

10 1684

1519

00 06

XS 1518

( X)

(1)

19 1517

(1)

19 1516

21 1525

(X) 00

10 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

1515

10 कुसुपंगी -जारी

7147

5 1216

000

कुसुपंगी - समाप्त

1520

1521

1522

00 00

1523

1524

1532

47 1390

00 00

46 1533

00 02

26 1534

78 1535

00 01

47 1536

00 01

48 1389

1388

00 01

67 1387

00 01

38 1396

1397

00 (B

37 1398

00 03

1404

00 03

04 1403

00 00

10 1408

00 03

83 1409

1271

93 1252

00 00

10 1251

00 04

59 1250

00 05

13 1249

00 00

76 1247

1248

00 00

1209

1246

10 1244

00 00

1233

1232

09 1220

00 04

93 1219

00 01

चकुलेस्वर 1212

00 00

76 1211

00 00

32 1213

00 (2

96 1214

00 (2

97 1215

00 01

1199

00 00

10 1201

00 03

1202

76 1203

00 00

1204

1430

31 1431

00 00

25 4105

00 03

55 975

00 14

4110

(0)

4114

00 05

60 970

(0)

961

(00 (B

4153

(0)

82 957

117

(1)

84 956

(1)

10 955

(0) 02

62 953

00 09

13 82

(X )

28 83

(0)

(1)

(X)

(X) 01

(1) 14

(04 80

(1)

90 4160

00 01

76 4084

(X)

56 7)

67 4022

(1) (1)

(1)

(1) (04

84 76

(0 )

(α) 27

34 277

278

289

(X)

61 290

(0) (B

291

(1)

17 297

14 7148

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

714

(X)

चकुलेस्वर -समाप्त

296

चकुलेस्वर-जारी

713

(X) 01

32 00

302

717

24 00

304

716

00 01

23 319

720

(1) (B

43 00

318

721

(1)

0 317

724

00 (12 11 316

00 00

725

(B 66 315

728

(X) 01

61 314

729

(0) (12 331

00 00

732

(12 00

313

733

(01

(α)

75 342

736

(X)

53 332

737

12 341

00 01

744

01 343

00 04

745

(1 )

20 344

08-

746

(0) 02

52 347

00 01

748

00 01

46 00

1439

749

00 01

12 346

00 05

751

(X)

112

(00 583

752

(X) 02

18 582

00 03

753

(0)

70 581

809

)א

9% 587

00 00

810

(X) 06

64 588

808

(X)

105 612

00 01

818

10 611

00 07

807

(1) 10 613

00 03

819

(1) 00

68 00

1336

820

37 1326

00 02

1292

(0)

62 614

00 01

1291

(X)

12 615

00 01

1290

(X)

06 628

00 01

1289

(0)

71 617

00 01

1287

87 604

405

(0) (B

पाथपुर

618

00 02

403

(X)

21 619

00 00

416

(1) ( X)

99 620

00 02

417

01 621

418

00 01 706

00 02

488

(X)

(1) 705

489

72 7149 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

478

(X)

(0)

1097

81 पाथपुर-जारी

पाथपुर - समाप्त

490

00 22

1096

639

65 00

1095

(17

641

00 00

1125

(00

20 00 02

1131

642

1130

(0) 643

1127

00 00

45 647

00 06

1128

648

1129

( X )

(0)

25 649

00 06

1136

(α) 01

83 650

00 01

1137

00 01

(07 651

00 01

1173

00 04

63 652

00 00

1169

21 654

00 08

1170

00 (12

80 655

00 00

( X) 01

1171

03 402

00 01

1165

(00 18

( X) 401

1166

04 400

1163

(X) 117

89 00

381

3148

00 15

65 382

(X )

3112

(0)

10 383

00 04

01 008

महानदी

384

00 03

385

00 07

[सं. आर-25011/22/2009- ओ. आर. - 1 ] 386

00 03

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव 387

New Delhi , the 19th October , 2010 389

00 00

388

00 01

391

00 00

390

396

00 05

397

395

394

S.O. 2623. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 101 dated 05-01-2010 issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act , 1962 (50 of 1962) the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land in Tehsil- Damapada , District - Cuttack , in Orissa State , specified in the schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum products from Paradip ( Orissa) to Raipur ( Chhattisgarh) and Ranchi (Jharkhand) by Indian Oil Corporation Limited ;

00 04

1090

1100

And whereas , copies of the said notification were made available to the public on 8th February , 2010 ;

1101

1102

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

1093

00 04

1094

00 00

1099

And whereas , the Central Government has after considering the said report , decided to acquire the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification;

1098 7150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 /KARTIKA 1 , 1932

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

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

SCHEDULE

State: Orissa

Tehsil: Damapada District : Cuttack

Name of the Plot No.

Area

Hectore Are Sq . mtr .

Village

4678

(X) 00

Talabasta

9682

9890

(03

4673

(00 (2

4675

4670

4674

00 05

4662

00 01

4643

4645

(0) (12

(0) 01

4646

4647

(1)

(0)

(00

4648

4644

(0 ) (5

( X)

( 17

4642

(0)

4641

(0)

4640

4611

(0)

4601

(0)

4604

Padanpur

4602

(0)

4603

(X) 03

9272

(1)

4373

4285

4284

102

[ PART II- St . 3 ( ii ) ] 2

5 4283

(1) 04

(X ) 06

4288

(X )

4281

4289

(1)

4290

64 4291

00 04

13 4292

(0)

(0) 04

4293

95 4277

(0)

55 4276

( X)

4294

(X)

46 4192

( X)

13 4191

10 4193

4188

(0)

81 4184

( 1)

4187

(1)

4186

( X)

61 4300

(0)

4185

75 4183

(1 )

(0)

4182

38 4173

(X) 12

4174

(1)

83 4129

(X) 02

(1) 04

4119

4120

(X)

107

4121

( X)

(1)

4030

(1)

(0)

4022

( X )

4025

(1)

10 4024

4023

( X)

4032

( X)

(X)

(0)

( X )

64 903

(X)

(1)

(2 32

( X )

10 20

(X) 112

(1) (14

4) 28

(0) 117

63 7151 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

5 21

00 02 Padanpur

4501

Biliparasaradhapur

00 04

4500

61 18

00 04

4497

00 07

99 17

00 08

4498

00 02

4486

60 16

4927

00 06

4383

00 06

63 12

00 08

4467

00 00 00

4469

00 01

08 00

4468

00 10

16 96

00 16

4461

00 02

98 112

00 08

4462

00 01

96 00

111

4407

06 110

00 07

4406

00 01

93 00 06

109

4408

00 04

108

4405

(0)

00 107

4410

52 00

892

4411

02 891

00 01

4409

00 02

22 00 02

106

4412

00 01

43 1

00 03

4413

00 00

10 00

4415

00 06

66 4715

Biliparasaradhapur

4709

4930

00 05

67 4520

00 04

4021

38 4519

4022

00 4518

00 03

4028

82 4517

00 02

4016

78 00

4516

4030

00 00

4515

4031

00 4514

00 02

4032

37 4513

00 02

(X)

4033

30 4512

00 02

4035

63 4511

00 03

00 (B

4034

4510

4037

00 (00

54 4509

00 02

4041

17 4508

00 02

4058

00 18 08 4507

00 02

4059

(X) (12 4506

(0)

14 00 03

4065

(X) 4505

00 03

117

3918

(B 4504

00 (2

(0)

(1)

4071

4503

00 01

3917

963 GJ / 10-7 [ PART II- SEC . 3 (ii)] 7152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 23, 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

00 03

00 00

3310

Biliparasaradhapur

4070

Biliparasaradhapur

(1)

(1) 01

3308

00 04

4066

(X)

4252

01 00

3916

4253

( X) (1)

$4068

(1 )

(0)

3303

00 06

4067

3302

(1) 00 04

3766

00 02

3301

(0) 00

3763

1435

00 02

3767

(00

1436

3762

1437

(1)

(X)

73 00

3747

(1)

( X)

144()

3746

(0)

1439

3745

00 04

1438

(1) 00

3737

(1)

1441

3736

(X)

(01

1408

3740

(1) 004

1384

3510

(X)

1383

3462

(0) 03

00 05

1338

3461

3443

(X) 06

1313

(X)

(1)

(00 07

1310

3444

(X)

(1)

1311

#00

3445

(1) 05

1312

3446

00 06

( X)

אן

1305

00 (0)

3438

()

1307

3434

(1)

1306

(X) 3435

(0) 07

(1)

1298

(00

3404

(0)

18 00 01

129

3417

(1)

1274

(1)

3416

00 (12

(X)

1279

3405

60 01

(X)

1275

3415

1276

( X)

3406

(1)

1264

06 (0 01

3414

1277

(1)

(X)

(0)

3411

(X)

( 1)

1262

3410

1263

3327

(13

1259

(1)

3326

( 1) 01

1260

(0 00

3329

( X) 01

1254

64 00

3330

1256

(1) 11

3332

(1)

1255

(X) 00 00

3312

4906

(1)

94 00 05

3311 7153 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/ कार्तिक 1 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

5 3

(X )

557

00 04

Barapadanpur

Biliparasaradhapur 1684

(0)

558-

1694

08 00

1693

559

00 01

00 1692

561

00 08

1786

(X)

560

1785

215

१;

1795

(00

214

ン

00 00

1794

(04

213

1799

३

(1)

298:

(X)

Dulanapur

1797

(0)

Gobindpur

1798

(0) (4

319

1828

(0)

321

1824

(X)

320

00 02

1822

( .

00 ( 17

324

00 04

1836

(0)

323

00 00

1902

٢٠

330

(0) 00 00

1903

(0) 12

328

1900

:٢:

1328

00 02

1901

00 107

1327

1909

(04

(0)

(17

1330

00 00

1907

12 00

1331

1908

(04

1332

1889

12.

1980

(X)

000

1333

00 01

1981

00 (04

1334

شود 00

1982

1335

1987

(0)

1337

00 07

1883

(0)

1338

00 14

1882

1326

00 10

2045

(0)

1315

00 07

2046

00 01

1314

2047

1313

00 01

2044

00 06

1312

00 01

2041

1810

2063

1311

00 09

2064

(0 01

1309

4840

1293

00 18

2080

1308

2070

(1)

1307

00 04

2065

1366

00 00

2073

12:

(0) (0)

1526

2069

00 17

1524.

4924 7154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 /KARTIKA 1 , 1932

1523

00 07

Garajit Gobindpur

1522

00 09

1520

00 06

1613

00 00

1553

00 14

1541

1542

1545

00 06

00 01

1546

1547

1552

1685

00 02

1687

1688

00 09

1690

786

00 90

785

784

00 04

767

00 44

768

00 01

769

00 01

770

00 01

772

771

00 25

543

Garajit

544

545

742

00 25

741

00 25

597

601

600

00 01

599

568

00 01

566

00 02

00 07

567

602

686

00 15

685

00 06

682

00 01

683

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

5 684

() ]

02 3116

(0)

969

(1)

34 968

( X)

71 959

(X)

68 958

00 06

[()

957

71 956

10 954

( X) 06

(0)

2983

952

(0)

66 951

74 950

00 05

23 947

(0) (2

32 949

(1)

13 948

(0) 15

51 942

( X) 06

46 943

(X) 08

19 3430

(X ) 06

46 938

64 1337

( X) 12

1338

(0)

1339

(1)

09 1340

00 16

43 1330

00 29

(0 ) 1327

(0)

60 1328

(00 02

400 1325

(1) (12

1326

(00

82 1320

(1)

30 1319

(0)

1318

3482

00 12

44 1317

(0 ) 12

(X)

1314

98 1299

(X) 10

73 1298

( X) (1)

71 1300

(1) ( X)

13 1302

(0)

91 1294

(10 (12

43 1293

(B [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

1 1288

00 01

Garajit

Kusupangi 1286

00 00

1289

00 02

3474

00 04

3473

1276

00 00

00 08

1280

3955

Kusupangi

3956

00 07

3953

3950

00 03

3949

00 11

3948

4148

00 08

3941

4217

3600

00 13

3618

00 00

3602

3619

00 02

3617

3616

3621

00 00

3623

3624

00 01

3625

00 01

3630

3641

00 02

3631

00 00

3632

3633

00 02

3634

00 01

3636

00 03

3635

00 00

3637

3649

3650

3651

00 01

3653

00 02

00 01

3656

3657

3652

00 02

3661

3685

3537

7155

5 2

3535

00 00

3539

13 3534

00 05

3532

08 3516

(0) 00

3692

3693

46 3694

3695

31 3843

54 3711

00 01

3712

(00

39 3713

3399

00 11

29 3412

00 00

10 3398

26 3391

3390

3389

00 02

3388

15 3387

34 3386

3385

3384

00 (1)

10 3351

00 00

10 3352

06 3353

00 02

(3 3354

00 02

32 3355

00 12

48 3356

3347

3357

3346

(07

3345

() ] 3331

00 00

10 3333

(X)

3334

3335

3344

00 03

07 3336

10 3337

00 01

3343

51 3338

3332

10 2785

00 01

60 7156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

2774

00 00

Kusupangi Kusupangi

2778

00 00

2779

2784

2783

2782

00 01

2781

2771

2770

00 05

00 00

2790

2791

00 (2

2792

2793

2767

(0)

00 01

2766

2765

(α)

2685

(0) 00

2684

00 00

2764

2686

00 02

2687

(00

2688

2576

2577

00 01

2578

4294

00 00

(0) 01

2581

2582

2589

2587

(00 01

2588

2590

2591

00 01

2592

2593

2594

(00 01

2598

000 01

2535

2599

2533

2534

00 03

2543

00 01

(0 00

2532

00 01

2530

2529

00 01

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

(1)

2531

10 2528

112

(0)

80 2526

2522

(۲)

(1 ) 112

2521

(0)

38 2520

(1) 01

(0) 01

2519

38 2518

( 1)

06 2516

(1)

4206

() (1)

2544

(1) (0)

(1)

2489

(1)

94 2515

(1) 2511

(0)

(X) (X)

70 4409

2509

2504

(X)

(X) Ot

2503

2500

(X)

24 2499

(X)

88 2496

2495

(X)

2494

(X) (X)

98 2490

(X)

81 2491

(X) (12

(4 2488

2487

(X)

14 2486

2485

(X)

92 2473

(X)

112

2484

(X)

13 2483

20 2436

( )

(1)

2463

(1)

33 2464

(0) 01

2465

(X)

2469

(X) 12

(X)

2470

(X )

2471

56 2472

1694

20 1695

( X)

10 1670

(X)

43 4158

(1)

4184

(1)

(1) भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1669

Kusupangi Kusupangi

00 04

1668

1681

1667

00 00

00 01

1684

1519

00 00

1518

1517

1516

00 00

1525

00 00

1515

1520

1521

1522

1523

1524

00 00

1532

1390

00 02

1533

1534

1535

00 01

1536

1389

(0)

1388

1387

00 01

1396

1397

00 03

1398

1404

1403

1408

00 02

1409

1271

1252

00 04

1251

00 05

1250

1249

1247

1248

00 06

1209

00 00

1246

Chakuleswar 1244

1233

00 01

1232

1220

7157

5 2

00 01

01 1219

76 1212

00 00

1211

00 02

1213

(12

97 1214

00 01

1215

1216

00 00

10 1199

00 03

11 1201

00 05

76 1202

19 1203

(1)

10 1204

1430

(X )

25 1431

(0)

55 4105

03 .

20 975

00 14

49 4110

4114

66 970

00 18

00 (3

66 961

00 (X)

82 4153

957

( 0) 07

00 (X)

10 956

(0)

955

953

(0)

(0) (B

(1)

40 88

00 01

(04 90

00 50

76 4160

56 4084

00 11

( X)

67 79

08 4022

(00 09

10 78

(0)

47 76

(2 75

00 27

00 11

277

(04

(2 278

(0)

61 289

99 290

(0) 7158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/ KARTIKA 1 , 1932

Chakuleswar

291

Chakuleswar 297

296

00 03

302

00 01

304

00 15

319

00 01

318

00 02

317

00 05

316

00 00

315

314

00 00

331

00 00

313

00 00

342

332

00 00

341

00 01

343

00 04

344

347

00 01

1439

346

583

(00

582.

581

587

588

612

611

00 07

613

1336

1326

00 01

614

Pathapur 615

00 01

628

00 01

617

00 01

604

00 01

618

619

620

00 02

621

00 01

706

00 02

705

714

713

00 01

717

00 01

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

716

(0)

720

(0)

(003

721

00 01

724

(1) 12

11 725

(0)

66 728

729

א)

(0) 12

732

(0) 12

(X)

75 733

736

53 737

(04

12 744

(00

745

21 746

(1)

102

748

00 01

46 749

12 751

00 12

( 1 ) 752

00 102

18 753

70 800

96 810

(1) 06

64 808

(X) 005

71 818

00 (X)

10 807

(0) 01

26 819

(0)

(X)

37 820

1292

(0) 06

62 1291

(X) 12

55 1290

(0) 05

56 1289

(X)

71 1287

(0)

87 405

22 403

00 06

21 416

00 (0)

99 417

00 01

03 418

(α) 01

43 488

(1)

35 489

(0) 06

72 478

(X)

10 490

00 22

51 639

641

(X)

642

18 643

00 ( 12

(1) 647

10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

7159 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23, 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

5 648

00 00

Pathapur

1129

00 00

Pathapur

649

00 06

1136

01 650

00 01

1137

00 0107 651

00 01

1173

00 0463 652

00 00

1169

00. 0221 654

00 08

1170

00 0280 655

00 00

1171

00 402

00 01

1165

00 18 401

00 02

1166

.00 00

400

1163

00 07

89 381

00 00

3148

00 15

65 382

00 04

3112

(X)

10 00

383

Mahanadi

08 384

[No. R- 25011 /22/2009 - OR- 1 ] 385

00 07

B. K.. DATTA , Under Secy .

386

नई दिल्ली, 20 अक्तूबर , 2010 387

00 03

389

00 00

388

00 01

391

00 00

390

396

00 00

397

395

00 05

394

1090

00 04

का.आ. 2624. पेट्रोलियम एवं खनिज पाइप ( भू उपयोग अधिकार अधिग्रहण ) अधिनियम 1962 1962 का 50 ) के खण्ड 2 की धारा ( क ) के अनुसार केन्द्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री सी. एच. प्रभाकर राव स्पेशल डिप्टी कलेक्टर , आंध्रप्रदेश सरकार को आंध्र- प्रदेश राज्य की सीमा में हिन्दुस्तान पेट्रोलियम कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड की विशाख-विजयवाडा- सिकन्द्राबाद पाइपलाइन में श्री के. नागेश्वर राव , जिन्हें पेट्रोलियम एवम् प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय में भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना संख्या 3134 के द्वारा दिनांक 25 नवम्बर, 2008 को प्राधिकृत किया गया था , के स्थान पर उक्त अधिनियम के तहत सक्षम प्राधिकारी के रूप में कार्य निष्पादन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

1100

[फाइल सं. आर-31015/ 11/ 2003-ओ आर-11 ] 00

1101

ए. गोस्वामी , अवर सचिव 1102

1093

00 00

New Delhi , the 20th October, 2010 1094

1099

00 00

1098

1097

1096

1095

00 07

1125

1131

1130

S.O. 2624. In pursuance ofclause ( a) of Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines ( Acquisition Right of User in land) Act , 1962 ( 50 of 1962 ) , the Centrai Government hereby authorizes Shri Ch . Prabhakara Rao , Special Grade Deputy Collector , Government of Andhra Pradesh to perform the function of Competent Authority under the said Act within the territory ofthe Sate of Andhra Pradesh for Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited , Visakha -Vijaywada- Secunderabad Pipeline in place of Shri K. Nageswara Rao authorized vide notification of Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas , number S.O. 3134 dated 25 November , 2008 .

1127

00 00

1128

[F. No. R - 31015/ 11/2003 -OR- F A GOSWAMI Under Se 7160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/ KARTIKΑ 1 , 1932

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2625.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार चेन्नई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं.एल-33011/2/08- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

पुष्पेन्दर कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 24th September , 2010 S.O. 2625. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/ 2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Chennai Port Trust and their workman , which was receivd by the Central Government on 22-9-10.

[No. L- 33011/2/08 - IR (B - II) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday, the 16th September , 2010 Present : A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No. 31/2009

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Chennai Port Trust and their Workmen )

Between

[PART II - SEC . 3 ( ⅱ) ]

For the 2nd Party/Management

M/sM. R.

Dharanichander , Advocate

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 33011 /2/ 2008 - IR ( B - II ) dated 16-2-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication ..

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the action of the management of Chennai Port Trust to substantially reduce Tea Allowance which the employees in Dredger Crew ( Engineering Department) were enjoying at enhanced rates from time to time and further whether the recovery of the Tea Allowance is justified or not ? What relief the workman are entitled to ?"

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as I.D. 31/2009 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed Claim and Counter Statement as the case may be .

3. The contentions raised by the Petitioner Union in the Claim Statement are as follows:

The Management of Chennai Port Trust had withdrawn the enhanced Tea Allowance for the crew of Dredger in the Engineering Department from 2006 and deducted every month Rs- 500/- cach from the employees monthly salary violating agreement and code of discipline.

Petitioner/

The General Secretary

1stParty

Madras Port Trust Employees

Union SCC Anthony ,

Pillai Bhavan, 34, 2nd Line Beach,

Chennai - 600001

Vs.

The Chairman

Inthe Engineering Department there are crafts called dredger , F.C. Thangam , Launch and Division callel Marine Survey. The crew working in these are paid Tea Allowance The Management is obliged as per Section - 23 of the Major Port Trust Act , 1963 to prepare schedule of salaries allowances , etc. payable to the employees every year and get it approved from the Port Trust Board . The Tea Allowance was provided as per schedule dated 1-4-1998 Under Item No. 5, Rs . 1.51 per day of attendance subject to amaximum of Rs . 37.70 per month was payable to crew o dredger , launch , Marine Survey and F.C. Vaigai toward : supply of tea, snacks , etc. as per CPT's proceeding : o - IR- 2/ 155574 / 81 / S datexl 7-12-1982 , IR- 3 / 2088/ 81 /S datex 1-3-1983 , IR-3/916/84/S dated 26-8-1984 , IR -2/24142/84/5 dated 30-8-1984 , IR- 3/28928/87/ S dated 21-8-1989 and Wag Settlement dated 6-12-1994 and also covered in schedul of employees of Chennai Port Trust Item No. 6.

Respondent/

2nd Party

Chennai Port Trust, Rajaji Salai Chennai -600001

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

Tea Allowance to the Marine Crew working on floating crafts who do not have fixed recess hours are pai Rs . 7.00 per head per day of attendance from 1-1-1998 a per proceedings dated 23-7-1998 which was also paid to the crew working in Dredger , F.C. Thangam , Launch an Marine Survey under the same proceedings . As pe

Sri G. Muthu ,

Advocate

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

schedule dated 01-04-2007 under Item No. 6 , the rate has been revised to Rs. 10-50 w.e.f. 1-1-1998 as per proceedings dated 17-8-2005 . Arrears of Rs . 5,000 were paid to each workman under Tea Allowance . The said enhancement was abruptly withdrawn without reason and started to deduct Rs . 500 every month from the employees in the Dredger , F.C. Thangam , Marine Survey from 1-1-2006 against principles of natural justice . The same was protested against in strike notice dated 2-3-2006 . The withdrawal of Tea Allowance ofRs . 7.00 per day to the dredger employees at the same time paying the same to the marine crew working in Marine Department is not fair and deduction of Tea Allowance should be stopped . The case of the Chief Engineer is that Tea Allowance to Dredger Crew is Rs . 1.51 per day as against Rs . 7.00 for the Marine Crew- But Dredger Crew was paid Rs . 7.00 per day inadvertently and hence recovery is being made . In the 12 ( 3 ) settlement reached between the relevant parties on 2-8-2000 , the existing benefits were protected . The administration violated Item No. 8 of the 4th Schedule of the I. D. Act by changing conditions without notice thus violating 12 ( 3 ) , 9A and Item No. 8 of 4th Schedule of I. D. Act, 1947 in unfair labour practice . Hence the claim.

4. The Counter Statement contentions bereft of unnecessary details are as follows:-

During 1980 on the demand of 1 st Party Union it was agreed to pay Rs . 0.80 per day of attendance to the Dredger Crew as per proceedings dated 28-8-1980 . In the proceedings dated 7-12-82 the categories of employees under Civil Engineering Department ( Marine Survey and Launch Crew) and Electrical and Mechanical Engineering (F - C- Vaigai ) were eligible for supply of tea and snacks . Under 18 ( 1 ) settlement dated 15-7-1998 it was decided to pay Rs . 7.00 per day of attendance to Marine Crew working on floating crafts as per proceedings dated 23-7-1998 w.e.f. 1-1-1998 which was revised with an upward increase of 50% w.e.f. 1-1-1998 under Wage Settlement dated 02-08-2000 as per proceedings dated 17-8-2005 . The crew of the dredger , launch , Marine survey and F.C. Thangam including two Trainee Train Drivers and Two Greasers whenever utilized on F.C. Thangam become eligible for the amount towards the supply of tea , snacks , etc. as per proceedings dated 28-8-1980 whereas Marine Crew who do not have fixed recess hours are eligible for Tea Allowances as per proceedings dated 23-7-1998 w.e.f. 1-1-1998 . As per schedule under Section - 23 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 , the Dredger Crew comes under Engineering Department and not under the Marine Department . As per the Wage Board Settlement dated 6-12-1994 , the Dredger Crew of Engineering Department is eligible for Tea Allowance of Rs . 1.51 only per day with a maximum of Rs . 37,70 per month w.e.f. 1-1-1993 whereas the Marine Crew who do not have fixed recess hours are granted Rs . 7.00 Tea allowance per day of attendance w.e.f. 1-1-1998 , which rate has been revised upto Rs . 10.50 per

7161 day w.e.f. 1-1-1998 . While implementing the Tea Allowance to the Marine Crew as above inadvertently , the Dredger Crew had been paid this allowance @ Rs . 7.00 per day instead of Rs . 1.51 under a clerical error which was noticed at the time of 50 % upward increase during 2005. The excess isrecovered in instalments from Dredger Crew @ Rs . 500 w.e.f. 1-1-2006 , which is well within the law. Wrongly made payment is not an existing right or privilege . What is paid to Dredger Crew is an allowance towards supply of tea and snacks and not Tea Allowance . In 1980 instead of supply ofTea and snacks , the Dredger Crew had been paid a sum of Rs . 0.80 per day of attendance subject to Rs . 20 per month which later was enhanced from time to time at regular intervals @ Rs. 1.14 , Rs . 1.31 and Rs . 1.51 and to Rs . 2.26 by a 50% enhancement w.e.f. 1-1-1998 . The proceedings dated 23-7-1998 does not apply to Dredger Crew . The two allowances are different in nature . It was paid inadvertently to the Dredger Crew . No protection of existing benefits has been violated . The claim is baseless and is to be dismissed.

5. The evidence consists of the testimony of WWI and EX. W1 to EX - W12 on the petitioner's side and the testimony of MWI and EX . Ml to Ex - M10 on the Respondent's side .

6. Points for consideration are :

(i ) Whether the reduction of Tea Allowance for the Dredger Crew and the recovery of Tea Allowance is justified or not?

To what relief the Dredger Crew are entitled for ?

(ii) Points ( i ) & ( ii )

7. Arguments on behalf of the Petitioner Union advanced by the learned counsel are that though the Marine Crew and the Dredger Crew are under different categories working in different departments the Dredger Crew are entitled to the same right of Rs . 7.00 by way of Tea Allowance per day since all of them are working in floating crafts without fixed recess hours . This is not agreed to by MW1 witness of Respondent according to whom Dredger Crew employees are not Marine Crew employees whodo not have fixed hours of work. The consistent case of MWI is that the two categories are given different rates of Tea Allowance . By clerical error Dredger Crew employees were also happened to be paidat the same rates of Rs . 7.00 per day which having been subsequently noticed is being recovered @ Rs . 500/ . per month . The recovery was not informed by notice to the workmen under the Dredger Crew. The recovery is being assailed as violative of Section - 12 ( 3 ) , 9A and Item 8 of 4th Schedule of ID Act again violative of Item - 36 of Wage Settlement dated 2-8-2000 . What Item - 36 of 12 ( 3 ) settlement says is that merely as a consequence of the implementation of the settlement any facility , privilege , amenity , right , benefit , monetary or otherwise or concession to which an employee or a category of employees might be entitledto by way of any award . practice or usage shall not be 7162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

[ PART I- SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

VS. LABOUR COURT , CHANDIGARH ( 2010-11 - LLJ - 345) it was held that no provision is available to an employer under Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 to recover any amount from the employee .

withdrawn , reduced or curtailed except to the extent and in manner as explicitly provided for in the settlement . It is argued that all floating craft employees have been paid Tea Allowanceat Rs . 7.00 per day of attendance from 1998 to 2006 irrespective of the fact whether they are Dredger Crew or Marine Crew . As per the settlement dated 2-8-2000 the enhancement to Rs . 10.50 is extended to the Dredger Crew employees to whom arrears were paid from 1994, it is further argued . It is denied that payment at the rate to the Dredger Crew is wrong . Under Clause . 36 of the settlement existing benefits cannot be withdrawn . The arguments further proceeded .

11. The claim of the Petitioner Union on behalf ofthe Dredger Crew employees is for Tea Allowance at the rate of Rs . 10.50 per day of attendance on par with the Marine Crew employees which evidently and admittedly was being given to them the same cannot be reduced and no recovery could be made being excess paid to them at the disputed rate . On a scrutiny of the rival contentions on either side it is brought home that the Petitioner Union appears to be carried away by a mistake of fact as to their claim for entitlement for Tea Allowance at the rate of Rs . 7.00 enhanced to Rs . 10.50 w.e.f. 01-01-1998 to the Dredger Crew on par with the Marine Crew employees .

12. The specific case of the Respondent / Management is that the Dredger Crew were eligible for Tea Allowance of Rs . 1.51 under the Wage Board Settlement dated 6-4-1994 . Only the Marine Crew employees were entitled to Rs . 7.00 escalated to Rs . 10.50 per day w.e.f. 1-1-1998 . In the implementation of payment of the two allowances inadvertently the Dredger Crew happened to paid@ Rs . 7.00 per day of attendance instead of Rs . 1.51 under a clerical mistake which was noticed only at the time of 50 % upward increase during 2005. It is the said excess which is duly ordered to be recovered and is being recovered @Rs . 500 w.e.f. 1-1-2006 and which is not illegal . The payment made wrongly which when recovered does not offend any existing right or privilege . Actually what is paid to Dredger Crew is only allowances towards supply of Tea and Snacks and not Tea Allowance . The two specific allowances paid to the two distinct categories of employees are seen periodically revised at regular intervals and as on the time while the allowance for Tea and Snacks paid to the Dredger Crew stands escalated to Rs . 2.26 by an enhancement of 50% w.e.f. 01-01-1998 the Tea Allowance paid to the Marine Crew has been given an upward increase by the same and equal rate of 50 % raising the rate from Rs . 7.00 to Rs . 10.50 .

8. The contra arguments on behalf of the Respondent are that the Dredger Crew become eligible for allowances towards supply of tea, snacks , etc. as per Port Trust Proceedings dated 28-08-1980 whereas Marine Crew who do not have fixed recess hours are eligible for Tea Allowances as per proceedings dated 23-7-1998 . The Dredger Crew employees come under only Engineering . Department and not under Marine Department . As per the Wage Board Settlement dated 6-12-1994 Dredger Crew are entitled to Tea Allowance at Rs . 1.51 with maximum of Rs . 37.70 w.e.f. 1-1-1993 whereas Marine Crew are entitled to Rs . 7.00 as Tea Allowance from 01-01-1998 . Under both categories there has been change to Rs . 2.26 per day with to Dredger Crew maximum of Rs . 56.55 per month whereas Marine Crew are eligible to Rs . 10.50 per day . The erroneous payment at the same rate to the Dredger Crew due to clerical error is well to be recovered which is within the law and offending no provisions of law . It does not amount to curtailment ofexisting right or privilege . It is only recovery of excess payment formerly made . Reliance was placed on Ex . M 5 , Ex . M6 and Ex . M7 in support of the arguments . It is pointed out that Dredger Crew and Marine Crew employees are not one and the same and cannot claim parity mutually Dredger Crew employees cannot claim Tea Allowance but are eligible only for allowances for Snacks and Tea . The 18 ( 1 ) Settlement dated 15-07-1998 is applicable only to Marine Crew under Marine Department . The said settlement is not one in which Petitioner Union is a party. Hence the claim cannot be made as per Ex. M9 letter the excess payment is to be recovered from Dredger Crew employees . Most of the employees gave consent also for recovering the excess .

9. Petitioner's counsel relied on the decisions reported in BUDHRAM AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA ( 2009- IV - LLJ 699 ) wherein it is held by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana that "payment made under erroneous interpretation of any rule cannot be recovered excepting in case of fraud , etc. of employee or in case where acceptance of such payment of employee would be dishonest" .

10. In the decision of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD . , CHANDIGARH

13. It could be seen that it was never an intent to treat both the Marine and Dredger Crew equally at any time with paynment of the same rate of Tea Allowance to the Dredger Crew as well . Both the distinct allowances had their origin from remote point of time in the past and they came to be paid to the respective categories of employees under different orders or authority and were keeping periodical revision from time to time in the respective levels with no differentiation in the mode of treatment of each though the rates are different . But it is pertinent to note that the parity in the difference in regard to the mode , rate , time and period of enhancement or revision has been maintained . Here the payment curtailed is not an approval and existing payment or one in approved practice . Discernibly the proceedings dated 23-07-1998 do not apply 7163 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/ Petitioner :

WW1 , Sri G. M. Krishnamurthy

Forthe 2nd Party Management : MW1 , Sri P. Solaimuthu

Documents Marked:

On the petitioner's side

Date

Ex. No.

Description

01-01-1997

Ex. WI

Ex. W2

Statement on wage revision Salary Bill Statement

May , June 1999 May 2002

Aug. , Sept. 2005

16-08-2007

Ex.W3

Union raised dispute before Dy . Chief Labour Commssioner

01-11-2007

Ex.W4

Chennai Port Trust filed counter to Asstt . Labour Commissioner

13-11-2007

Ex.W5

-Union letter to Chaiman Port

10-12-2007

Ex.W6

28-08-2008

Ex.W7

Trust Chennai Port trust letter to Union President Dy . Chief Labour

Ex.W8 16-02-2009

Commissioner failure report Ministry of Labour refer to adjudication - order

16-03-2009

Ex.W9

Ex. W 10

Industrial Tribunal notice List of employees- reco- vered

18-07-2009

Ex.W11

amount list FC Thangam Dept. Transfer to Marine Dept.

Ex.W12 29-06-2009 Engineering Department who are to be transferred to Marine Department

On the Management's side :

to Dredger Crew. There is no violation of Section - 9A of ID Act, 12( 3 ) Settlement , Item - 36 or Item - 8 of IVth Schedule of ID Act . There is no withdrawal of any right or privilege owing to the reduction of Tea Allowance effected just in order to rectify a slip . There is no violation of protection of an existing right . Hence the claim of the Petitioner Union for restoration of the rate of Tea Allowance , to stop recovery of the amount at Rs . 500 per month from the salary and for the reimbursement of the excess already made is not justified. Though it is canvassed for the contention that there is no provision in the I D Act to recover any amount from the employee in terms of the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court , the same decision cannot be aptly made applicable to the facts of the case on hand since the recovery is strictly not one in terms of the provisions of the ID Act . The recovery is made by the departmental authority of an amount overpaid due to clerical error , to set right which the department is clothed with the authority to do so because in the absence of it errors even clerical will have to be allowed to continue in perpetuity without being remedied to the risk and detriment of all concerned. Another aspect is that while an Industrial Adjudicator may not be able to order recovery of excess paid in the absence of a provision in the ID Act that embargo is not with the executive . The dictum in the decision in 2009. IV . LLJ.699 of the same High Court forbidding recovery of payment made under erroneous interpretation of rule is patently not applicable to the facts of the case in view of the very couching words in the decision as this is not a case of an over payment due to erroneous interpretation of a rule . Hence the Petitioner Union is not entitled to the demands in its entirety . However , I am ofthe view that there shall be an order not to recover the remainder of the excess already paid or drawn by the Dredger Crew employees while they shall not be entitled to continue to receive or be paid at the rates payable to the Marine Crew employees not working in the same department in which the Dredger Crew employees are working . There shall also be an order that the Dredger Crew employees are not to be entitled to the reimbursement of the already recovered allowance as being paid to them excessively . Ordered accordingly.

Ex. No. Date

Description

Trust

Ex.M1 28-08-1980

Chennai Port Proceedings

Ex.M2 07-12-1982

Chennai Port Trust Proceedings

Ex.M3 15-07-1998

18(1) Settlement

ExM4 17-08-2005

14. Resultantly, the action of the management of Chennai Port Trust to substantially reduce Tea allowance which the employees in Dredger Crew ( Engineering Department) were enjoying at enhanced rates from time to time on par with Marine Crew and the recovery ofthe Tea Allowance is justified . It is further ordered that recovery of the already paid excess amount be discontinued and that the Dredger Crew employees are not entitled to the reimbursement of the already recovered excess payments .

Chennai Port Trust Proceedings 15. The reference is answered accordingly .

ExM5

Schedule of employment

Ex. M6

Nature of Work ( Dredger &Marine) (Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 16th September , 2010) .

Ex.M7

Pay-Slips (Dredger & Marine) A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer 7164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

Ex.M8

Dredger Crew Engineering Department eligible Tea Allowances

ExM9 15-03-2006

In recovering the excess payment

Ex.M10 29-05-2007

Letter from the Marine Employees to the Chief Engineer

नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2626. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/229/03- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

पुष्पेन्दर कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th September , 2010 S.O. 2626.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 20/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 22-9-2010 .

[No. L- 12012/229/03 - IR (B - II) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS , PRESIDING OFFICER , CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 20 of2004

Between

Sh . Yad Ram S/o Sh . Amar Chand Village& Post Bhukrari , District- Mathura .

AND

The Dy. General Manager, Syndicate Bank , Zonal Office IRCell , University Road Bhawanipuram, Mathura .

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL New Delhi , vide Notification No. L- 12012 / 229/ 2003 - IR( B - II ) datol 24-03-04 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal .

2 Whether the action of Syndicate Bank in terminating the services of Sri Yad Ram Messenger w.e.f. 29-09-2002 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief . Brief facts are that the claimant Sri Yad Ram has filed his claim statement praying that the order of termination of services by the opposite party be declared as illegal and he be directed to be reinstated in the service of the opposite party .

It is stated that he was engaged in the year 1982 on thepost ofmessenger by Syndicate Bank Bukhrari District Mathura . The work was of permanent nature and he was made permanent on the post of messenger on 1-7-1995. His work was satisfactory . Opposite party has deposited the regularly the amount of bonus . But the opposite party did not regularize him, whereas the claimant has been regularly demanding for his regularization . Thus he continuously worked since 1985 to 29-9-2002 with the opposite party . When he demanded for regularization , getting aggrieval the opposite party terminated his service verbally. After termination of service one Manjeet Singh was engaged. Post of messenger is still in existence and some juniors are still working on the post . Therefore , the action of the opposite party is in violation of section 9 - A, 25F , 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act and Article 14 and 16 of Indian Constitution .

Opposite party has filed written statement . It is alleged by them that the claimant was engaged as a casual labour by Bhukhrari Branch of the bank District Mathura on daily wage basis during the period July, 1995 to 28-9-2002 . He was paid coolie charges on daily basis by debiting to contingency expenses . Work was purely casual in nature. There was no employer and employce relationship between the bank and the claimant .It was need base casual work . Claimant did not hold any regular and permanent post in the bank. He was not appointed on the post of messenger on regular and permanent basis . He was never issued any appointment letter , therefore , question of issuance of termination letter does not arise . His name was never sponsored by employment exchange and he was never interviewed as per laid down procedure ; therefore , there was no question of absorption of the services of the claimant . It is that the claim of Sri Yad Ram is not covered by section 25F , 25G and 25H of the Act and the opposite party has not committed any breach of any of the provisions of the Act . It is also alleged that he has never worked coninuously in the bank for 240 days or more in a year. Other pleadings of the claim statement are denied and contradicted .

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Perused the record carefully and thoroughly. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence . Claimant has adduced himself as W.W.1 and opposite party has adduced Sri S.P. Srivastava , Manager Syndicate Bank as M.W.1 . M.W.1 has specifically stated on oath that Sri Yad Ram was engaged as a casual labour at Bhukhrari branch district Mathura and he was being paid on daily wage basis . He never worked on any regular post . He never marked any attendance of his presence . He never worked on the post of messenger or sub - staff. His name was not sponsored either from employment exchange or any other prescribed agencies . He was never interviewed and he was not issued any appointment letter and there is no provision in the bank rules to appoint a person on a regular post by a bank manager .

Sufficient opportunity was given to the claimant to cross - examine the management witness but no cross- examination has been made so his statement is uncontroverted .

On the basis of evidence this fact is established that the claimant was never appointed in a regular way on the post ofmessenger or sub staff by Bhukhrari branch whereas he was engaged as a casual labour on daily wage basis according to the need of the work .

Next point of dispute is whether the claimant had worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year with the opposite party . I have examined the documentary is well as oral evidence on this point also . W.W.1 the claimant in his cross - examination clearly admitted that he worked only for 70 to 75 days in a year . He also admitted that he was being paid wages only for days on which he actually workel . He also admitted that he was neither interviewed nor was issued any appointment letter . In documents he has filed three applications which are alleged to have been given by the claimant to the management which are of the period of 2002 , but there is no postal receipt or any receipt or stamp of the opposite party department . The claimant is not entitled to get any relief on the basis of these documents . The claimant has also filed photocopies of pass book alleging that the opposite party has been making payment of the bonus but there is no solid or reliable evidence filed by the claimant on this point . It is true that the initial burden lies on the claimant to prove that he has worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year before preceding his termination but he has failed to prove this fact , whereas he clearly admitted that he had worked for only 70 to 75 days in a year .

Therefore, on this point also the case of the claimant is not found genuine .

7165

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

In the plaint he has alleged that some juniors have been engaged by the opposite party at the post or which he was working but there is no evidence adduced by the claimant therefore , this point is also not found genuine in favour of the claimant . Therefore , considering all the facts and circumstances of the case I am of the view that the claimant has failed to prove his case . Accordingly reference is decided in favour of the opposite party and against the claimant.

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 24 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2627.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण , भावनगर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-09-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12011 /57/ 93- आईआर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th September , 2010 S.O. 2627. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( I.D. No. (01 / 2009 ) as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of India and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 24-09-2010 .

[ No. L- 12011 /57/93 - IR (B- I ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHREE S. S. PANCHAL, INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, CENTRAL, BHAVNAGAR Complaint I.T.C. No. 1 of 2009 [ In Reference I.T.C. (Old) No. 11 of 1993 ] Complainant : Dilipbhai Bhikhabhai Mandaviya , C/ o . Bhavnagar Jilla Mazdoor Sangh , Lal Vavta , Bhavnagar V/ s.

Opponent : ( 1) State Bank of India Nilambaugh , Bhavnagar

(2) President, State Bank of India Employees Consumers Stores Ltd. , Nilambaugh , Bhavnagar .

APPEARANCES :

Mr. Kiran M. Gandhi , Advocate for the Complainant Mr Na 7166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

AWARD

1. The present Complaint has been filed by Mr. Dilipbhai Bhikhabhai Mandaviya against State Bank of India , Bhavnagar and against the President, State Bank of Saurashtra Employees Consumers Stores Ltd. , Bhavnagar under the Section 33 - A of the Industrial Disputes Act , before this Tribunal . The complainant has prayed in his complaint that , the opporient may not restrict to the complainant to perform his duty , and may not any change in his service condition during the pendency of the said complaint .

2.Meanwhile , both the parties have produced their documentary evidences in the present complaint . During this time , complainant Mr. Dilipbhai Mandaviya had given his free consent to put his complaint before the Lok Adalat arranged on the 18-08-2010 by this Tribunal . Therefore , the said complaint had taken on hand for the conciliation proceedings on the 18-08-2010 before the Lok Adalat . Meanwhile , complainant Mr. Dilipbhai Mandaviya has given a purses vide Ex . 26 , and has requested that , after reserving his right to reopen this complaint in future , he withdraw the present complaint filed by him. Looking to the confession in the pursed Ex . 26 , this Tribunal has not todo anything more in the present complaint . Therefore, the permission asked by the present complainant , is necessary to grant . Hence , the present complaint is withdraw by the complainant and therefore , the complaint is disposed off accordingly . Therefore , this Tribunal , order as under :

ORDER

1. The present complaint is withdraw by the complainant vide Ex.26 , and hence permission to withdraw the said complaint is granted , and therefore the present complaint is disposed off accordingly .

2. No order as to cost.

Bhavnagar Dated 25-8-2010 .

S.S. PANCHAL, Industrial Tribunal नई दिल्ली , 24 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2628.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार कॉरपोरेशन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय II , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 09/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -12012 / 81/06- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

पुष्पन्दर व्ययार , डेस्क अधिकारी

[PART II- SEC. 3 ( ii ) ) New Delhi , the 24th September , 2010 S.O. 2628. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No.09/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Corporation Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-9-2010 .

[ No. L - 12012/ 81 / 06 - IR ( B - II ) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE COURT OF SH . SATNAM SINGH , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - L/ C - II, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT, ROOM NO . 33 , BLOCK- A , GF, KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, KARKARDOOMA , DELHI - 110032 I.D. No. 09/2007

Dated : 6-09-2010 In the matter of dispute between :

...Workman Shri Sunil , Son of Shri Suraj Bhan Village Naya Gaon , P.O. Bahadurgarh, Jhajjar (Haryana)

Versus

The Senior Manager , Corporation Bank, Bahadurgarh.

...Management

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 12012/ 81 / 2006 - IR (B - II ) dated 12-02-2007 has referred the following Industrial dispute on this Tribunal for adjudication:

" Whether the action of the management of Corporation Bank in terminating the services of Shri Sunil son of Shri Suraj Bhan Sub- staff w.e.f. 16-12-2005 is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

The workman filed his statement of claim in May , 2007. Written statement to the claim of the workman was filed by the management . After completion of the pleadings , the case was fixed for recording evidence of the workman . Today, i.e. 6-09-2010 when the case was fixed for cross -examination of the workman , the workman appeared in person and moved an application Er [ भाग || - खण्ड ( ii) )

withdrawal of this case . He has submitted in the application that due to settlement with the management , Corporation Bank , be has joined his services in the management bank and so he wants to withdraw this case . Authorized Representative of the workman has submitted that the workman is not interested in the outcome of this reference and he has no dispute left with the management . As per this plea of the workman , a no dispute award is passed in this case.

SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer Dated: 6-09-2010

नई दिल्ली , 24 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2629.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरणः श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 68/98 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[ सं.एल-12012/41 /97- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

पुष्पेन्दर कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Dellt, the 24th September , 2010 S.O. 2629. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref . No. 68/98 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court , Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 22-9-2010 .

[No. L - 12012/41 /97 - IR( B - II ) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH , HJS , PRESDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR Industrial Dispute No. 68 of 98

Between

The Assistant General Secretary, UP Bank Employees Union . 426- W- 2 Vasant Vihar , Kanpur . And

The Zonal Manager , UCO Bank , 23 - Vidhan Sabha Marg , Lucknow .

7167

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

AWARD

1. Central Government , MOL New Delhi , vide Notification No. L - 12012/ 41 / 97 - IR ( B - II ) dated 23-04-98 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2 Whether the action of management of UCO Bank in refusing to allow Sri P. N. Dwivedi , Clerk- cum-typist to officiate in posts carrying special allowance from 6-01-92 to 11-09-95 is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the said workman is entitled?

3. Brief facts are--

4. Claimant Sri Dwivedi has filed his claim statement through the Asstt . General Secretary. U.P. Bank Employees Union , alleging that the action of the management in refusing to officiate in the post carrying special allowance from 5-01-91 to 11-09-95 was illegal and the claimant be allowed the officiating allowance for the post of special assistant . it is alleged that he is a graduate and an ex- serviceman retired from the Indian Air Force . Thereafter he applied for the post of Clerk- cum-typist in UCO Bank and he was appointed as Clerk- cum- typist on 27-11-76.

5. It is an admitted fact ofboth the parties that the opposite party has issued a circular dated 07-12-91 wherein it is providexl- ( i ) Weight - age for defence service will be given at the rate of 5 : 1 i.e. for every five years of service in the armed forces weight - age of one year will be given subject to the maximum of two years ( ii ) This weight -age is also available to ex - servicemen for selection to the post of special assistant which is a special allowance carrying post in clerical cadre , ( iii ) the ex - servicemen nay exercise option for the allowance carrying special post .

6. It is alleged by lum that he submitted his option for the allowance carrying post of special assistant vide his letter dated 06-01-92 , thus exercising the option he became cligible for two years seniority for graduation and two years seniority for ex -servicemen in terms of the promotion policy settlement , thus his notional date of appointment became 27-11-72 . Therefore , on the basis of ex - servicemen and notifications he became eligible for the post of special assistant as from 06-01-92 on permanent basis as also for officiating chances as special assistant .

7. It is stated that the opposite party bank made queries from the head office as to whether the benefit of weight- age two years will be available to the ex - service- men for officiating in temporary vacancies of special assistants . Meanwhile bank promoted Sri S.S. Joshi and Sri R. N. Tiwari who were junior to him to the post of special assistant . The facts regarding this promotion has been 7168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

elaborated in paragraph no . 11 of the statement of claim butduring the arguments the authorized representative for the claimant admitted that this Para has become redundant so I did not need to elaborate these facts . As regards the query made by the bank from the higher officers it was replied that the benefit of weight - age will also be available for officiating as special assistant in temporary vacancies . But due to high handedness of the local management despite repeated requests , the officiating chances were denied to him . This drama of seeking clarification prevailed until 12-09-95 , when the manager of the bank advised to the claimant that officiating chances will be allowed to him from prospective effect . Thus the management has deliberately caused monetary loss to the claimant. Therefore, the claimant has made the aforesaid prayer .

8. The opposite party has filed the written statement .

9. The opposite party bank has admitted the issuance of the aforesaid notifications as mentioned by the claimant . But it is stated that the claimant has not submitted any evidence that when the open notifications for selection for the post of special assistant were issued by the employer for Bhelupura and Hardwar Branches , he had applied for the same and thereafter he was denied . It is stated that after the issuance of the open notification every employee has to be given chance to apply and after receiving the application when it is found that whosoever be the senior then those employees are given chances to officiate . AS such Sri S. S. Joshi and Sri Tiwari were given the post of special assistant . Sri Dwivedi is not entitled to be given any post of special assistant on permanent basis . It is denied that any clerk junior to the claimant has been given and allowed to officiate . It is stated that as per banks promotion policy it is provided entrustment of duties carrying functional special allowance or attracting officiating allowance under BPS on temporary basis shall be made in exigency of bank work and requirement. It is stated that since the bank has already paid the officiating allowance for the impugnod period to some other employees and Sri Dwivedi had not worked in officiating capacity at the branch, he is not eligibleto receive the officiating allowance for the period he had not worked . It is also stated that this is not an industrial dispute , therefore, they have prayed that the claim statement be rejected.

10. Rejoinder has also been filed by the claimant but nothing new has been detailed therein except reiterating the facts already pleaded by him in his claim statement.

11. Both the parties have filed documentary evidence and adduced oral evidence .

12. Claimant has adduced himself as W.W.1 and opposite party has adduced one witness Sri Balbir Singh who is manager as M.W.1 .

13. Heard the arguments and pucai .

14. During arguments

authorized representative for the star" pressing upon a notification dated

W-2 which is in regard to the weight....

service men and reemployed in the cereuse .

notification has also been admitted betw

It is not disputed that the workmar

27-11-76 as Clerk - cum - typist . This to

in December 1991. Claimant is allegim das Career issuane of the notification he gave it's fot application dated 06-01-92 which is paper in

This application has also been filed by the oppo , party which is paper no . 14/1 of the opposite party. Upposite party has not denied the moving of this appiste : Song arguments opposite party contend si inartha

not given any proof regarding that the cutter service man . Whereas claimant has funiseft , alcal that he has disclosed this fact in his applicati

The other particulars were mentioned in the services claimant has drawn my attention towards pape W-11 dated 12-01-92 , this letter has been s

branch of the bank of the concethed complas divisional office of the bank secking opmit tha

ber application given by Sri Dwivedi , seeking andste such two years seniority be given to sa be temporary officiating as special assistant on a day basis . Opposite party has not denied the existe letter . Where after the claimant has beenreping letter to the bank which are paper no . W

15. During arguments the authored n

of the opposite party conceded that angilaste the claimant but that has accrued from prospetes dare and not from any retrospective date in the topect 12-09-95 . This is letter filed by the clamorant is erguts ite attention was drawn by both parties towanis Local bank to the claimant . It stated that the will be given to the claimant from prospes to d from any retrospective date as per informatio from division office Lucknow . and 16. When I put a query before the top for the bank that on one side you are say in , that theficiat was not eligible as he was not filed the proof of my ex service man and secondly by issuing this le de 12-09-95 you are saying that you will get the nouclit of temporary officiating from the prospective daw. When i inquired that both the things are contradictory b . comcded that the claimant was , and then he could not copt the logic behind is and stated that is the charmant be given any allowance that could be only for 4 pand 06-01-92 to 11-09-95 .

(४७ ग -खण्ड ( i ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/ कार्तिक 1 , 1932

17. Thave considered the oral evidence also . Claimant has proved all the documents . This is a case based mainly based on documentary evidence . Morcover , M.W.1 stated the evidence that he was not posted during the relevant menod at the concerned branch . M.W.1 stated that after the issuance of the notification regarding ex - service man , the claimant had applied to claim his seniority but he stated that the claimant was not selected as he was not the senior most and there were other employce , who was senior to Jpn . But I think that the evidence given by M. W.1 is not in regard to the circumstances which have been alleged by he cizimant . The claimant has specifically seeking relief the basis of circular issued by the bank regarding weight age given to the ex - service man in their seniority. This matter has not been dealt with by the opposite party uber in evidence or otherwise . And when the matter was duah by the opposite party it was too late they have issued the letter dated 12-09-95 .It appears to be deliberate 18 Therefore , in my view the evidence given by the laimant that just after issuance of the notification regarding weight age of ex - service men he has moved an application and submitted his option , this evidence is believable and relaole . This application has not been dealt with by the pposne party within a reasonable time and the claimant has been denied the benefits accrued to him on account of ius seniority which has caused monitory loss to him.

19. Claimant has also alleged that one Mr. Gaur who as junior to him has been promotexl . I have examined this peint . Claimant has not mentioned the name of Sri Gaur in pleadings so evidence cannot he given beyond the adings . More this fact has not been proved .

20. Clarmant has discharged his burden by moving lus application dated 06-01-92 . Now it was for the opposite praty to pass a suitable order on the application of the Jarmant. Whereas no such order has been passed and wach tet ontler was passed it was too late .

21. Therefore , considering the facts and cremastances of the case I find that there is a force in the Contention of the charmant and there is no force in the contention of the opposite party management . The action of the opposite management does not appear to be just and bonafide and according to law . In view of foregoing discussions , the refcrence is decided in favor of the leimant and against the opposite party . Reference is swered accordingly.

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer

7169 नई दिल्ली , 24 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2630, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एवं सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , चंडीगढ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 26/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 22-9-10 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/4/06- आईआर ( बी -11 ) ] पुष्पेन्दर कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 24th September , 2010 S.O. 2630. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 26/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court- 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employces in relation to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workman , which was receivd by the Central Government on 22-9-10 .

[ No. L - 12012/ 4 / 06 - IR ( B - II ) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Case I.D. No. 26/2006

Shri Jaspal S /o Shri Fauja Ram , Village PO Panj Goraian, Tehsil Batala , Gurdaspur- Punjab .

...Applicant

Versus

The Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank , Village & P.O. Panj Gorian , Tehsil- Batala , Gurdaspur .

... Respondent

APPEARA NCES

Shri R. P. Rana For the Workman

Shri Sapan Dhir For the Management :

AWARD

Passed on : 25-8-10

Government of India vide notification No. L - 12012/ 4/2006 - IR ( B - II ) , dated 02-06-2006 by exercising its powers 7170

THE GAZPTY OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 /KARTIKΑ 1, 1932

under Seinen 10 of the ladustest the Act in short ) ha roured the Forever , strict dispute for adjudicarmers thes Trituru

of Punjab &

the service of She pat, Bayo

305 wnhout

of the vouchers , Workman has also foota which are the copies of the departmental correspo koue between the Branch Manager in which the work nur das working , to the senior officers of fread office These documents have been marked as A2 management has not even raised my contents of the documents as well . Tae co the

Secten 25F, G

4 st icgal ? If not , to

informed .

Parties appested and find th

Le pleadings , la has bece , Lase

Ihave neard the parties at lengha Chav

reshul, that he

was appeared by thet

mployee in the

vea

2005. His

tissuing him

anyantes Caying from ona enchil

He wa wet in Row of notice .

termi fended by the wor

1. gof by the bank after 11.

ddferding him

the opis fte above lacts , thewe Godtaltotis illegal and wose hong sains t Cote of the Act .

Accorditag : Non setting - aside the terasi

the entire a crials on record. The first se hy management is that the clainy of the werkers barrezi by delas and latches , in this regard lapel...... ww that just after therermination eine sery workman filed a writ before Hon'ble High Com & Haryana . It was on the direction of the leak bgh Court ofPun id & Haryana that an industergicr raised before ALC / Conciliation Office Pand on accotant of faibure of conciliation r Government referred the refereene Tribunal foundandication. Se circumstar.ces of the case there is industrial dispute by the werkturadi .

Anotiter issue raised by the Luthot Alhata

raissating him

with

nd opposed

NEOCE Screment .

the clatin si dhe verkoopi

Prelimina

ans of the workman is had le zlat nd othe

cdmitted by the manage .. innt workhas berked as temporary empione daris eared han minently, in entire

etmes.nanagement that working a net compreted 24 Gays of work in the

Mikation . Moreover,

Decaded by the bank in parase C

potary poon as per

pmpletion of 240 written ser Fermat it is tot that they the requirobenk To

days doceret und Schworkman , it means the manage ... sauteng of the workman for 2.40 Lt the prooding gu thon the date of his Ota bence issue has tentatoaby die management that workman was apporion as taporary daily waged worker which does not afford any ruuit for regularization of his sortes.

repartire.deepenloftheedeponlot the opportunity for addaang sidorce Oral bless.corded . On direction of this Inhabal annaget ... t has filed the copies

: workmar was engaged as a tehesolars his services cannot be regulenzed contended by the manageracts ther Industrial Dierates Act is not cattelis because he is a temporary castudd cott right to post. No doubt , against the solid p pleadings , the management has referral mana of law settled down by Hon 'bie the Apes judicial pronouncements . Whil arguing the c counsel for the management has also adet upon the following two case laws 2008 ( 12, NC 2009 ( 1 ) SCC ( L & S) 263. I have also gene the entire casc laws referred and reliefupoble et and the workman .

It is true that a daily waged work atst post . It is also settied law of sAVICU protection of the provisions of the ladest , is avaitable even to the casual tenpetar Wala recent principle of service jurisprudent that of the provisions of the Act are now av lande part time temporary worker working with the ants Richl even for half an hour . The werkman bus a temporary full time daily waged worker , finis of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Altises , te theworkman .

In my view the issue of regularizattocolha of the workman is quite different the theis ateofchen 7171 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

[ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( in ) ]

In this case , the workman has worked 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination and his services were terminated without notice or without payment of lawful terminal dues against the provisions of the Act which makes his termination void and illegal .

of provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . There are certain protections which are available to a temporary daily waged worker . Two protections have been mentioned by the workmen in his claim. The first is that his services were terminated by the management without issuing notice or payment of one month wages in lieu of notice and without payment of lawful terminal dues . The second issue raised by the workman in his claim is that new hands were engaged after termination of his services without providing him the opportunityto work. The second issue regarding the engagement of fresh workers has been proved to be in garlanding words . No evidence was adduced by the workman on this issue . So the second issue raised by the workman regarding the violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act has not been provizi .

When the services of a workman have been terminated against the provisions of the Act and the same has been declared to be void and illegal by the Tribunal , there are two possible remedies available to the workman . The first remedy is the reinstatement of the workman on the place he was previously working with the bank . At the cost of repetition this reinstatement has no concern with the regularization of the services because the decision on the regularization of the services is to be taken by the management strictly as per the rules . The management has mentioned a scheme in the written statement but cut off year in the scheme was not available to the workman. Workman was engaged in the year 1995 and the cut off year in the scheme was 1989. I am unable to understand under what circumstances and for what purpose the management has mentioned this scheme. One thing is clear in the scheme that there has been an understanding between the management of the bank and the workers union to regularize the services of those temporary workers who have completed 240 days of work by the cut off year . As there is no scheme for the period in question , this Tribunal is unable to express view on the regularization of the services of the workman . But this Tribunal is also of the view that management shall deal with the issue strictly as per provisions of the law.

So far as the first issue , that his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of the Act , instead of the fact that he has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination is well proved . It is not denied that workman has not worked 240days in the preceding year from the date of his termination . The management has stated that he has intermittently workal . But in spite of the directions of the Tribunal , the management failed to file relevant original register to prove that workman has worked intermittently. On 30-03-2010, the cross - examination of management witness Shri B.S. Grover was recorded and this Tribunal directed the management to place on record the original perial charges register . On next date of hearing i.e. 05-05-2010 the witness of the management and the wmanagement informed this Tribunal that register after 30-01-2002 is not available . No reasons were mentioned by the management for non - production and non - availability of the register . Accordingly , adverse inference shall be taken against the management . The adverse inference shall be tirat the contention of the management that workman has intermittently worked is not acceptable .

The second remedy may be the payment of reasonable compensation . In my view, the Tribunal should prefer the remexly of reinstatement of the workman and in exceptional circumstances the remedy of payment of reasonable compensation should be provided with. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case , and entire departmental proceedings relating to the services of the workman , I am of the view that workman is entitled for the reinstatement of the services with 50 per cent back wages . The management of the bank is directed to reinstate of the workman into the services on the same position he was working prior to his termination along with 50 per cent of the back wages within one month from the date of publication of the award. Let Central Government be approached for publication of Award and , thereafter , file be consigned to record room .

GK . SHARMA , Presiding Officer The Industrial Disputes Actdoes not barred the termmation of any daily waged worker . It regulates the termination. The termination of a daily waged worker is regulated in the sense that if the services of the daily waged worker are no more required and he has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination , the services can be terminated as per the provisions of the Act after giving one month notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and after payment of lawful terminal dues . If it is not done , the termination will be void and illegal .

7172

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA OCTOBER 23 201RKAR INA LP732

नई दिल्ली, 24 सिनर

का.आ. 2631 国, 1547 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसार ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतीः क संशय काटा पार्ट अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ण औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कालकाला 12/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो प्राप्त हुआ था ।

New Delhi, the theme

S.O. 2631 -in Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 1 Alma 17 of the 47 , the Coatrai ( Ref. No. Government hereby publishe in.Az 02/2009 ) of the Comral Gogul Tribunal Labour Court . Kolkata nove aste the Industrial Deepare between teed their to the management of Kolks workman, which was receivuletea Сампили on22-09-2010.

IN. 1-3081-78- IR ( B - U) ]

PUSHPENDER

ANSENTA

ERAL COVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL TEOLANTA

Reference No. 8g Patry

Parties: Employers in relations Kolkata Port Trus ! La Magali- suit of AND TheirWorkmen

Present: Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Jarkar, PresidingOfficer

Appearance:

Mt. G. Mekhopadovav, Industrial Relations Officer, On behalf of the Management

On behalfof the Workmece None

State : West Bengal

Industry Pan K Dated : 15th September , 2010

AWARD

By Order No. 1-320117200 - IR( B - 11) , dated 10-2-2009 the Government of India, inostry of Labour in exercise of its powers weder Section tk 1) ( d) and ( 2A) of the Industrial Disputes A , 1947 robust the following dispute to this Tribunal Sucijadian

ce 4, in filling

CoperDivis

Post with A D Panaitot opt observateta passing any od The The Sun date that t agter the date and the who was wapper but the Imbunaitha today none is tapton behalf of the g so it care sa sviken that the werke interesto a preced with the рубцги was mitiated at tager instan

4 ميديا constance, it : conduct of de arah union that ther any industreet repete at present and is disposed . Adward is accordeeve JUSTICE MANIA JOHANSARKAR का.आ 2032, এনিমেল । का 14 ) को बैंक के वध के नवाजको एक अनुबंध में विनिवार अधिकरण से । को प्रकाशित बनी हुआ था । New Dein , the 24th September , 2010 5.0 . 2632 -in pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 1 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No 3/2007 ) ofthe Cutral Govemment Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Chandigarh No. 1 , es shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of State Bank of india, Region - 11 , Zonal Offire,and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 24-09-2010.

[No.1 1701256/2006 - IR( B - 1 ) ]

RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA , PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.CUM- LABOUR COURTL COTANDIGARH .

Case No. 1.D. 3/2007

Snd. Pooja wife of Shn Miakhan Singh

Block A - 17 , Sector - 23 . SDA Colony, Vikash Nagar, Shimla - 9 HP.

गरत क्य राजपत्र अक्तूबर 23. 2010 कालिंक :, 1932

7173 the workman was also entrusted other mise work of the bank for which she was paid Rs . 50 as daily wages . Her termination is illegal and void being against the provisions ofthe 1.D. Act. 1947. On the basis of above , the workman has prayed for setting aside her termination and for her reinstatement in the service of the bank with all the consequential benefits including back wages .

The management appeared and opposed the claim of the workman by filing written statement . The management has challenged the employer and employee relationship between the workman and the management with the contention that she was engaged through a contractor on payment of Rs . 700 per month for operating the generator and submitted the documentary evidence relating to payment of Rs . 700 per month by cheques to the workman on behalf of the contractor.

Case was fixed for hearing in Camp Court at Shimla . Evidence of the workman was recorded and on behalf of the management one Shri P.C. Heer was cross - examinal by the workman and the Tribunal .

.....Applicant

VERSUS

The Assistant General Manag State Bank of India , Region -ti .

Zonat Office, Shuoia ( HP ) ,

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman Workman in person.

For the management Shri P.C.Heer Branch Manager SBI

AWARD

Passcxion 7-9-2010 at Shimla Camp.

Central Govt , vide notification No.L - 12012/ 56/2006- IR( B - 1 ) , dated 22nd of Jannery , 2007 has referred the Followingdispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India . Shimla in terminating the services of Smt . Pooja , Parttimeswaxporw.e.f 29-7-2005 is illegal and unjustified ? If so , to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date ? " Parties appearod and filexi their respective pleadings . Partes were also afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . Evidence of all the witnesses was recorded in Camp Court at Shimla. Management also filed photocopies of all the cheques receivedby the workman ,

The case of the workman in nut shell is that she was employri by the respondent management on the post of sweeper on 9-6-2000 in New Shimla Branch of the State Bank of India. Her services were terminated on 29-7-2005 without notice or one month pay in lieu of notice and retrenchment compensation . Apart from sweeping work , There is no dispute regarding the period of the work of the workman with the management . The dispute is relating to employer and employee relationship . The contention of the workman is that she worked on daily wages and was entrusted with the sweeping work and other mise work for which she was paid Rs . 50 per day . This contention of the workman was admitted by the witness of the management . It is specifically stated by the witness of the management that Rs . 50 per day was paid to her from petty cash for the work she was discharging for the bank . On the work , workman was entrusted by the bank , the witness of the management has stated that she was doing all the misc . work such as preparation of tea , distribution of dak etc. Thereafter the witness bas specifically stated that sweeping work was also included the mise , work which was entrusted to the workman and Rs . 50 per day was paid to her from petty cash . It is further stated by the witness of the management that Rs . 700 per monthly was also paid to the workman for operating generator . Workman has also admitted, this that apart from working as sweeper and other misc . work entrusted by the bank , she was also operating generator for which she was getting Rs . 700 per month through the contractor .

li is not disputed that workman has worked continuously for 240 days in preceding year from the date of her termination . The cumulative effect of the evidence ofboth the parties is that the workman was working in two capacities . In first capacity she was getting daily wages @ Rs . 50 per day from petty cash from the bank . On the other hand she was also entrusted the work of operating the generator through contractor for which she was getting Rs . 700 per month . Therefore, for capacity No. 1 , she was working for the bank for sweeping work and other misc . work like preparing of tea , distribution of dak etc. In such 7174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIΚΑ 1 , 1932

( संदर्भ संख्या 16/2009 ) कां प्रकाशित करती है जादा को 27-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

position , as she was working for the management and was paidwages by the bank itself, and there existed master and servant relationship between the two .

[ सं. एल- 42011-49200 দাম ।

जाहन तपनाचित

New Delhi , the 27th September, 2010 Thus the termination of workman as sweeper and other misc . work she was entrusted by the bank was bad in law and void as no notice, one month pay in heu ofnotice and retrenchment compensation was paid before terminating her services . Workman almost served for five years and one fine moming she was informed that ber services were no more required. It is violative of principle ofnatural justice and provisions of the industrial Disputes Act 1947.

S.O. 2633. -In pursuance of Section " et the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 16289 ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cute- tabour Court No. I. New Delhi as shown in the Annexure as the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of C.P.W.D. and their workman, who , awas received by the Central Government on 27-09-2 !!!

Accordingly , there existed master and servant relationship between the workman and the management and this Tribunal is of the view that termination of the workman was illegal and void being against the provisions ofthe l.D. Act, 1947.

[No. L- 42011-49/2004- RDU JOHAN TOPNO , Uplays

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEN, DELHI

1.D , No. 16/2009 .

Workman

Shri Om Parkash So Shri Sohan Lal, C/ o CPWD Mazdoor Union , Room No. 9.5. Barracks No. 1/10 , Jam Nagar House. Shahjahan Road , New Delhi - 110011 ,

VERSUS

The Director General of Works , Central Public Works Department. Nirman Bhawan, New Delhi - 110001 .

Wherever, termination of any workman is declared illegal and void on account of being against the provisions ofthe 1.D. Act , 1947 , there are two options to remedied the violation of rights of workman . The first option is reinstatement of the workman on the same post from which she was terminated and another is reasonable compensation. It is settled principle of service jurisprudence that the order of reinstatement should not be casual but priority should be given for reinstatement of the workman. If the conduct of the management in this reference is to be seen , it is apparently clear that management refused to have any relation with the workman and to prove its wrong and illegal contention, the management has tried to take the benefits of the cheques which were given to the workman through a contractor . The workman has served for more than five years and I am of the view that reinstatement of the workman on the position she was working immediately prior to her termmation is the only appropriate remedy.

AWARD Accordingly, the management is corected to reinstate the workman with all consequenttal benefits within one month from the date of publication of the workman . Central Government be approached for publication of the award, and thereafter, file be consign to record room .

GK . SHARMA , Presiding Officer

Chandigarh 7-9-2010

नई दिल्ली , 27 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2633.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी.पी.डब्ल्यू.डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं.1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट

A contract labour was employed by Central Polic Works Department (hereinafter referred as the management) in its ' B ' Division to perform www of sewerman . Assistant Engineers and Head Clerk , kong in the office of Executive Engineer, ' B ' Divisi certificates , projecting that contract employee bean employee of the management . On 31st of July, 2012 the appropriate Government prohibited employment attract labours by the management in fifteen categories , ser erman was one of those categories . Since the contract fafour was not treated as its employee by the management , he raised a demand for payinent of wages at mamma of the time scale , applicable to a skilled employee , besides Ins regularization in service of the management . When his demand was not conceded to . he raised an industrial dispute betete the Conciliation Officer . In the conciliation proceedings a stand [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

was taken that the claimant was an employee of the contractor , who was never engage by the management in its service . Conciliation proceedings failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report to the appropriate Government under sub- section ( 4) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short the Act ) . When failure report was under consideration with the appropriate Government, services of the said employee were allegedly terminated on 1st of January, 2009. On consideration of the failure report , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. L - 42011 / 49 / 2008 - IR(DU ) , New Delhi , dated 17-2-2009 , with following terms:

"Whether the demand of CPWD Mazdoor Union for regularization of services of Shri Om Parkash and payment of minimum time scale as skilled workman w.e.f. 11-1-86 by the management of CPWD , is legal and justitied ? If yes , to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri Om Parkash , pleading therein that he was initially employed as sewerman in ' B ' Division of the management w.e.f. 7-11-86 thorugh some fake contractor . He was paid directly by the management w.e.f. 1-6-99 , as an unskilled workman . Appropriate Government abolished employment of sewerman through contractor w.e.f. 31st of July , 2002 . Though claimant was paid minimum wages , fixed for an unskilled workman , yet he was entitled to payment of skilled worker , as per orders issued by the Dirctor General (Works) . As per judgement of the Apex Court in Surinder Singh [1986 ( 1 ) S.C.C. 639 ] , the management had issued orders for payment of equal pay for equal work to its daily rated workers . The claimant has been working with the management since long and non- regularisation of his services amounts to unfair labour practice . As per policy of the management , services of daily rated workers working on muster roll /hand receipt basis have been regularized in accordance with their seniority . However services of the claimant have not been regularized . 127 posts of Sewerman were sanctioned for regularisation of the services of daily wager workers , as per directions of the Apex Court . Work ofmaintances of building etc. is covered under the Payment of Wages Act and the claimant is to be treated as permanent employee of the management . It has been claimed that Om Parkash is entitled for wages similar to sewerman of skilled category w.e.f. 11-1-86 , besides regularisation in services with all consequential benefits .

3. Claim was demurred by the management pleading that the clainant is not a workman within the meaning of clause ( s ) of Section 2 of the Act . I Approriate Government has failed to take the said fact into account , while making reference of the dispute for adjudication. In Uma Devi [2006 ( 4 ) S.C.C. 1 ] Apex Court ruled that engagement of employees dehors recruitment rules cannot be used to defeat very scheme of public employment . Direct

7175

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

absorption of the claimant , without engaging him in accordance with due process of selection , would amount to violation of constitutional scheme of public employment . Appointment on daily wage basis is not an appointment to a post which may confer a right for regularization The management disputes that the claimant was employed by it on the post of sewerman . Since he was never appointed nor he ever worked with the management, he is not entitled to any payment as alleged. No appointment letter was ever issued to him . He was never engaged as hand receipt/work order employee . Since he is not an employee of the management , there is no claim in his favour for payment of wages equal to that of a skilled employee , not to talk of regularization in service . The claim statement being devoid ofmerits , may be dismissed , pleads the management .

4. Om Parkash (WW1 ) and Shri B.K. Prasad ( WW2) were examined in support of the claim . Shri C.N. Suresh , Executive Engineer , was exanimined on behalf of the management . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .

5. Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri B.K. Prasad , authoirsed representaive , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant . Shri A.K. Pandey , authorised representative , raised his submissions on behalf of the management . Written submissions were filed on behalf of the management 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 :---

6. Shri Om Parkash swears in affidavit Ex . WWIA that he was initally employed as sewerman w.e.f. 7-11-86 in ' B ' Division through fake contractor , whose name is not known to him , He was paid wages directly w.e.f. 1-6-99 , as an unskilled workman . Wages were paid to him by the management , but in intervening period his wages were paid through the contractor . During pendency of his dispute before the Labour Ministry , his services were terminated w.e.f. Ist of January , 2009 , without prior permission of the Conciliation Officer . He was performing his duties under director control and supervision of Junior Engineer , Assistant Engineer and Executive Engineer of the management . During course of his corss examination , he concedes that no appointment letter was issued to him . He projects that his wages were being paid by the Junior Engineer . He further unfolds that he workedat Enquiry Office , Krishna Menan Lane for a peiod ofone year, workal at Enquiry Office, Kushak Road , New Delhi from 1986 to 1992, worked at Enquiry Office Sunchri Bag Lane for about one year , worked at Enquiry Office , Chankya Puri , New Delhi , in the year 1995 , worked at Enquiry Office, Curzon Road , New Delhi from 2002 till 31st of December , 2008 , worked for a Enquiry Office Bharti Nagar , New Delhi in March , 2009 , where he worked for a period of of threc months only . He presents that originals of Ex.WW1 / 3 .

7176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

employed by the management aut Ms survice were

terminated . There was no relationship of empleyur and Ex.WW1/ 4 Ex.WW1 / 16 , Ex.WWI / 17 , Ex.WW1 / 18 , Ex.WW1 /25 , Ex . WW1 /26 , Ex.WW 1/27 , Ex.WW 1/28 . Ex, WW1 / 29 and Ex. WW1 / 32 are not available with him. He explains that he used to keep originals in his house , which was made of mud and thatched roof. His house had fallen, hence originals of the aforesaid documents were lost. He admits that there is a cutting on Ex.WW1/13 , Ex.WW 1/26 , Ex . WW1 /27 , Ex. WW1 / 28 and Ex . WW1 /29 . He further admits that in Ex.WW 1/26 his designation has been shown as that of a sweeper and not as a sewerman and is Ex . WW1 /27 his designation has been recorded as beldar.

the employee between the parties . He was nearmuted by the management, which fact was confirmed vide inter department communication dated 20-3-2008 , winch is Ex. MW1/ 1 . Since the claimant was never engage management there was no occasion to terataate his services . During course of his cross examematuhan , he concedes that the claimant has reaised dispute mare the Conciliation Officer, before whom he hd chairs MWIW W1 . It was replied vide Ex. MWI /W ?. He conccoes that notification Ex.WWI / I was issued by the ppropriate Government . He further concedes that daily rated employees are being paid minimum of scale bewales other allowances as their wages , in pursuance of order Ex. W W2/ 2 and Ex . WW2/3 . Maintenance work is beibe carried through contractors . Theydo not supply contrac labours , but get maintenance work compicted the employces . He had not engaged any contracer ronfer services in job , which are prohibited on the secagin of notification Ex .WW2 / 1 . Payments are made to contractors , inpresenceof Junior Engineers .

9. When facts testified by rival parties are appreciated , contradictory stands taken by then emerge over the record. Claimant and his witness prois that he was initially employed as sewerman in ' B ' Divisionw.e.t. 7-11-86 through alive contractor. The management Mariol paying his wages directly w.e.f. 1-6-99 . On the other hand Shri Suresh highlights that claimant was never comploved recruited by the management . According to harm there is no relationship of employer and employce bety, .een the parties . In reply filed before the Conciliation Ofiica witch is Ex . MW1 /W2 , management projects that the Joumant was engaged and paid by a contracter . Thereton , out of facts unfoldedby Shri Suresh and those placed la, bare the Concihation Officer , it crystalises that managerieta projects that the claimant was an employee ofa contractor whom maintenance work was awarded .

10. To reconcile conflict in aforesaid Jams , a is

4/B Sub Divisions , wherein he certifies that fo rankash

expedient to scan documents , relied and pros su be the parties , Ex. WW 1/2 is a certificatetsstued by Junisa Foepeer, was present on duty for whole of the month of Fire Ex . WW1 / 3 is a certifleate issueci by Assuta Fuco , B Division, wherein he confirms that Gm Par employee of the management , who was working a Paquiry Office, Kushak Road, New Delhi . His duty hours and tusorted to be from 2.00 PM to 10,00 PM . This certificate.ssual on 23-2-93 . Ex . WW 1/4 is a certificate issued by assistant Engineer, " B " Division , wherein it has been prejected that the claimant works as sewerman on contract basis u V.V.I.Ps bunglows , maintained by C.P.M.D. Thus, anticate 7. Shri B.K. Prasad ( WW2 ) swears in his affidavit Ex.WW2 / A that Om Parkash was initially employed as sewerman w.e.f. 7-11-86 in ' B ' Division through some fake contractor . He was paid his wages directly with by management w.e.f. 1-6-99 as unskilled employee . The appropriate Government prohibited employment of sewerman as contract labour w.e.f. 31-7-2002 . Orn Parkash was paid minimum wages fixed for unskilled employee while he was entitled for payment as of skilled worker , as per orders of Director General ( Works ) . In pursuance of judgment handed down by the Apex Court in Surinder Singh's case , the management issued orders for payment of equal pay for equal work to its daily rated workers , copy ofwhich orders are Ex . WW2/2 and Ex.WW2/ 3 . As per policy of the management , a daily rated worker is entitled for equal pay for equal work form the date ofhis initial employment till his services are regularised . Om Parkash was working as daily rated worker on work order and entitled to wages as per orders Ex.WW2/ 2 and Ex.WW2/3 . The management has regularized services of its employees working on muster roll hand receipt basis in accordance with their seniority, but services of the claimant has not been regularized . 127 posts of sewerman were created for regularization of services et daily rated workers , in pursuance ofdirections issuedby the Apex Court . Work of maintenance of building is covered under Payment of Wages Act and the claimant is to be treated as permanent employee . 91 posts were again created by the management to regularize services of daily rated workers , in pursuance of a decision of the Apex Court . Even workers engaged through contractors are also entitled to sante wages as are paid to employees of the management . A settlement was arrived at on 2nd of December , 2002 , wherein the management has agreed to exame demand regarding regularisation of daily rated workers by way of filing of all resultant vacancies of workers working in its establishment . The said settlement is binding on the management , which is Ex . WW2/ 7 . Services of the claimant were terminated without taking prior permission as the matter was pending before the Ministry of Labour , Government of India . His termination is non - est and he may be treated on duty, in accordance with the provisions of section 33 of the Act. was issued on 20th ofMarch , 93 , Ex. WW 1/27 is accenficate issued by Head Clerk B ' Division , wherem hi projets 8. Shri C.N. Suresh . Executive Engineer , swears in his affidavit Ex . MWI /A that the claimant was neither that claimant , besides others , was on duty for whole onth भारत का राजपत्र अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1, 1932

May, 99 His designation is mentioned as that of a nedar. Ex , WW1/ 28 is a certificate issued by Head Clerk , wherein it has been projected that the claimant , besides others , was on duty for whole month of June , 99. Ex . WW1 / 26 is a certificate issued by the same Head Clerk wherein he saentions that the claimaru , besides others , was on duty for whole mouth of July , 99. except Sundays . His Resignation is meatoned as that of a sweerer . Ex.WWI / 2 contains photo copies of two cortificates , one issued by Junior Engineer , namely , D.K. Bhattacharya on 25-10- 64 wherem he projects that the claimant may be allowed to naintain sewertine during function time at 12 Janpath, New Debi and the other issued by Vinod Kumar Goel , Funion Engmeer on 28-10-07 wherein it has been detailed at the claimant was deputedby him to clean sewerline 4.1g towards 10) Janpath , New Delhi .

11. The management projects that there are over Artting on certificates Ex . WW1 / 26 , Ex.WW1 / 27 and WW1/28. When thesedocuments are scanned , it came Eight that in seal impression word " B " Division has been remiten Except the said over writing , contents of Coresaid certificates were not disputed . It was not porcion that signatures of Assistant Engineers as well as Hen of the Head Clerk were not genuine . Therefore , it is vious that contents of these documents were not a water of dispate .

12. Undoubtedly originals of these certificates were produced by the claimant . He offered an explanation Hat originals of these locuments were kept by him at his sewinch was made of mud and thatched roof. His house ad fallen and originals were lost . Photo copies were kept Pehlot here at Delhi which were produced by him in Ariorce. Explanation offered by the chairmant appear to be Probable. He is a man of a lower strata , living in a house of and and thatched roof, at his native village . Loss of is on fall of his house cannot be said to be far Under these circumstances production of photo copies of certificates , referred above , nowhere cast any aspersions . On the other hand , contents of these documents sere not dispelled by the management . Out of these lecuments it emerge over the record that the claimant was performing duties of sewerman with the management .

B. Management projects that the claimant was an counioyce of a contractor which stand was taken in its reply FMW1 /W2 , filed before the Conciliation Officer . Whether cument , referred above gives support to the stands of the management Ex.W W 1/2 presents that Om Parkash , weeper was present for his duties for full month of February , 1992. This document is silent as to whether he as an employee of the contractor or of the management . However, Ex.WW 1/3 provides an answer to the said proposition . Ex.WW1 / 3 categorically lays emphasis that me claimant ( emergency sewerman ) is an employee of the management , who works at Enquiry Office , Koshak Road ,

7177 New Delhi from 2.00 PM to 10.00 PM. Author of this document was an Assistant Engineer posted , at 2 - B Division of the management . Authoritative assertion made in that document wipes out the deference of the management that the claimant was an employee of a contractor . Again Ex . WW1 / 4 projects that the claimant was working as sewerman on contract basis in VVIP bunglows maintained by the CPWD . This document projects the claimant to be a contract employee . It nowhere spells that he was an employee of a contractor . Ex.WW1 / 27 , Ex.WW1 /28 and Ex.WW1 / 26 speak about number of days on which the claimant and others worked with the management for May , June and July , 99. These documents present attendance records of employees , namely, Vijay Pal Singh , Brij Pal , Pramod Kumar and the claimant . Certificate dated 25-10-04 projects that the claimant was working as seweman who was deputed to maintain sewerline during function time at 12 Janpath , New Delhi . In the same fashion certificate dated 28-12-07 projects that Om Parkash was deputed to clean sewerline going towards 10 Janpath , New Delhi . None of these documents highlight that the claimant was an employee of a contractor .

14. Relationship of employer and employee is constituted by a contract , express or implied between employer and employee . A contract of service is one in which a person undertakes to serve another and to obey his reasonable orders within the scope of the duty undertaken. A contract of employment may be inferred from the conduct which goes to show that such a contract was intended although never expressed and when there has , in fact , been employment of the kind usually performel by the employees . Any such inference , however , is open to rebuttal as by showing that the relation between the parties encerned was of a charitable footing or the parties were relations or partners or were directors of a limited company which employed no staff . While the employee, at the time, when his services were engaged , need not have known the identity of his employer there must have been some act or contract by which the parties recognized one another as master or servant .

15. Ex . WW1 / 2 , Ex . WW1 / 3 , Ex . WW1 / 4 , Ex.WW1 / 27 , Ex. WW1 / 28 and Ex.WW1 / 26 make it implicit that the claimant was employed by the management to perform functions of a sewerman . Undoubtedly in Ex . WW1 / 2 and Ex . WW1 / 26 his designation has been projected as that of a sweeper and in Ex. WW 1/27 he is reported to be a beldar , but that seems to be an accidental slip . In other documents it has been mentioned in unequivocal words that the claimant was working as a sewerman with the management . Though no appointment letter was issued to the claimant , yet documents , referred above , make it clear that there was an intention on the part of the management to employ him as sewerman , which intention was put into action . Relationship of employer and employee between the parties stands established, when claimant was engaged as a 7178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23, 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

sewerman . Stand taken by the murage mem that he was an employce of the contractor is nothing but an alter thought .

16. When clamant was engaged an employee by the management ? For an answer to this preposition facts are to be scanned again , in affidavit fix WWWA claimant presents that initially he was ' B Division on 7-11-86 through a fake contracosc . In her same wanner Shri E.K. Prasad swears in affidavit Ex. WY. 2 / A that the claimant was initially engaged through a fake contractor . No documentary evidence is there over the record to establish relationship of employer and emplover between the parties prior to February, 1992. Ex . WW1 / ? goes to project that in February, 1992, Om Parkash was present for his duty for whole of the month . Through this document Om Parkash brings it over the record that there were Grec relationship of employer and employee between him and the management . Consequently it is crmerging over the record that in February, 1992 , direct relationship of employer and employee were established between him and the Imanagement , who marginalized the contractor. When contractor was put out of scene, the claimant acquired, status of an employee of the management . Out of these facts I am constrained to conclude that the claimant had been able to establish creation of direct relationship between the parties from 1st of Feburary , 1992 .

17. The management has agitated that the claimant is not a workman within the meaning of clanse ( s ) of Section 2 of theAct. For an answer. definition of " workman " is to be taken into account , which definition is extracted thus- ( s) " workman " means any person ( including an apprentice ) employed in any industry to do any manual , unskilled, skilled , technical , operational , clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward , whether the terms of employment be express or implied, and for the purposes of any proceeding under this Act in relation to an industrial dispute , includes any such person who has been dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with , or as a consequence of, that dispute , or whose dismissal, discharge or retrenchment has led to that dispute , but does not include any such person-- ( 1) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950 ( 45 of 1950) , or the Army Act , 1950 ( 46 of 1950 ) or the Navy Act , 1957 ( 62 of 1957 ): or (ii) who is employed in the police service or as an officer or other employee of a prison ; or (ii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or administrative capacity , or

( iv) who , being employed in a supervy capacity , draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundrad rupees per increscises , either by the battre of the cades attached to the office or by reason of the power used in bim, finctions mainly of a man igated hafire .

18. Definition of workman contatus three, fo ( including an apprentice ) employed in at mas any manual , unskilled, skilled , tov linted operam or supervisory work for hire or reward . The second frohes designed to include a person --fi) who bare noell dismissed barged or retrenched in connect with an industrial dispute , or ( ii ) whose dismissal , discharge or retrenchiment has led to an industrial dispute, wear the ambit of werknman . However , the third parts file

11 : excludes the categories of persons specified imm

( iv ) from the expression " workman " . Find detinas adres not state that a person , in order to be a workitan sonki have been employed in a substantive apa temporary basts in the first imstance or she bet suitable for the job , after a period of probaton words , every person employed in an indest vide of his status --temporary , permanent or protate would be a workpian . The expression: " etodas a least two known connotations , that is , a rela ship brought by express or implied contrat of serva employee renders service, for which he is anga employer and the latter agrees to pay the casta sticl as agreed between them or statutorily provided . des a relationship of command and obedience Refere be made to the precedent in Ford C poranon or fas limb of the definition gives statutory meaning of Beword and determines a worknian by referen Parson case [ 1985 ( 2 ) LLJ4 ) .

19. Rubric ofdesignation of the cam

that he was performing duties which were manual Istir stretch of imagination the management on preje duties of a sewerman do not fall within the natur enlisted in the definition of workman , as provided in Lous ( s) Section 2 of the Act . Manual work , whether studied of unskilled , would quality the definition of word "workin Admittedly, the clamant was performing duites postres reward and his employment was expres , as depatoi hy documents referred above . Therefore, it is fastaislad the claimant falls within the ambit of "workaran ", as drained by clause ( s ) of Section 2 of the Act. Hopechon LAM the management that he is not a workman is dilomatal The objection is therefore , discarded.

20. Claimant unfolds in his affidava in VB :

he was paid wages of an unskilled worktaan Sur la K. Prasad swears in bus affidavit Ex.WW2 dather abeant was paid wages of an unskilled employee under th Minimum Wages Act . He was entitied to West accordance with orders Ex . W W 2 : 2 and Ex W respectively . Shri C. N. Suresh adnits that datis employees of the management are being pasd at pau 4 time scale, besides other allowances , in pursue Ex . WW / 2 and Ex . WW2 / 3 . Ex . WW 2/2 was issti भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010 /कार्तिक 1 , 1932

[ भाग 1 ] - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

management on 29-10-1990, relating to method of computing daily rates payable to daily rated worker of the management , on the concept of ' equal pay for work ' . A formula was devised to compute wages of a daily rated workman which is as follows :

"The total monthly emoluments admissible to regular counter parts of the daily rated workers at the minimam of the respective scale of pay may be multiplied by number of days in a particular month after deducting therefrom the days of absence plus the days of rest falling in the weck/ wecks in which the worker remained absent and the result may be divided by number of days in the month. The figure so arrived will be the daily rate of wages of the worker. "

21. In Ex. WW2/3 certain points of doubt were clarified and it was mentioned that a daily rated worker is not entitled to get any kind of leaves . If he remains absent even for one day in a week, he is not entitled to get rest day as diso wages for the rest day . Formula formulated in Ex . WW2/ 2 was confirmed in Ex. WW2/ 3 . Therefore , out of contents of these two documents it is emerging over the record that a daily rated employee of the management is to be paid at minimum of time scale , applicable to a regular employee , besides other benefits . Claimant was paid minimum wages , as projected by him and his witness . His Jam for payment at minimum of pay scale as of a skilled workman w.e.f. Ist of February , 1992 stands established. The management is under an obligation to pay wages to the claimant in pursuance of circular Ex . WW2 / 2 and Ex WW2 /3 . His difference of wages shall be paid within a period of one month from the date the award becomes operative .

22. Regularisation in service has been claimed by Shn Om Parkash . However , he admits that his services weredispensed with on 1-1-2009 . It has been projected that his services were dispensed with by the management when matter was pending consideration before the Ministry of Labour , Government of India , New Delhi . Claimant agitates that this action of the managernent is violative of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act . I am afraid that his contention has any weight .

23. Section 33 of the Act bars alteration in conditions of service "prejudicial " to the workman concerned in the dispute and punishment of discharge or dismissal when either is connected with pendentelite industrial dispute "save with the permission of the authorities before which the proceedings is pending " or where the discharge or dismissal is for any misconduct not connected with the pendentelite industrial dispute without the " approval of such authority" . Prohibition contained in section 33 ofthe Act is twe fold. On one hand, they are designed to protect the workman concerned during the course of industrial conciliation , arbitration and adjudication , against

7179 employers ' harassment and victimization , on account of their having raised the industrial dispute or their continuing the pending proceedings and on the other , they seek to maintain status quo by prescribing management conduct which may give rise to " fresh dispute " which further exacerbate the already strained relations between employer and the workman . Where industrial disputes are pendentelite before an authority mentioned in the section , it was thought necessary that such disputes should be conciliated or adjudicated upon by the authority in a peaceful atmosphere , undisturbed by any subsequent causes for bitterness or unpleasantness . To achieve this object , a ban has been imposed upon the employer exercising his common law, statutory or contractual right to terminate services of his employees , according to contract or provisions of law governing such service . The ordinary right of the employer to alter the terms of his employees ' services to their prejudice or to terminate their services under the general law governing contract of employment , has been banned subject to certain conditions . This ban , therefore , is designed to restrict the interference of the general rights and Habilities of the parties under the ordinary law within the limits truly necessary for accomplishing the object of those provisions . Anxiety to know about ban on the right of the employer , persuades me to reproduce the provisions of section 33 of the Act thus :

"33. Conditions of service , etc. , to remain unchanged under certain circumstances during pendency of proceedings . ( 1 ) During the pendency of any conciliation proceeding before a conciliation officer or a Board or of any proceeding before an arbitrator or a Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal in respect of an industrial dispute , no employer shall:-

(a) in regard to any matter connected with the dispute , alter , to the prejudice of the workmen concerned in such dispute , the conditions of service applicable to them immediately before the commencement of such proceeding ; or

(b) for any misconduct connected with the dispute , discharge or punish , whether by dismissal or otherwise . any workman concerned in such dispute .

Save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending .

(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute , the employer may , in accordance with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute or , where there are no such standing orders , in accordance with the 7180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: OCTOBER 23 , 201H/ KARTOR

terms of the contract , whether express or implied , between him and the workm

(a) alter , in regard to any matter not contcctal with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workaan inmuliately before the commencement of such proceeding; or

(b) for any miscondnet connected with the dispute , discharge or pumsh , whether by dismissal or otherwise , pat workman :

Provided that na saharkman shall be discharged or distmised, nless be has been paid wages for one runt ; and an application has been made by the employ to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer .

(3 ) Notwithstanding anythingataised in sub- section ( 2 ) , no employer shall , C. ang the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of as industrial dispute , take any action against any protected workman concerned in such dispute

(a) by altering , to the prejudice of such protected workman , the conditions of service appho able to hirtatumediately before the commencemem of sac a proceeding; or by discharging or panshing , whether any dismissal or otherwise , such protected workman.

Save with the express permission in writing of the authority before which the proceeding is pending .

Explanation. For the purposes et tlus sub - section , a " protected workman " , in relation to an establishment , means a workman who , being a member of the executive or other office - bearer of a registered trade union connected with the establishment , is recognized as such in accordance with rules made in this behalf.

(4 ) In every establishment , the mumber of workmen to be recognized as protected workmen for the purposes of sub - section ( 3 ) shall be one per cent of the total number of workmen employed therein subject to a minimum number of five protected workmen and a maximum number of one hundred protected workmen and for the aforesaid purpose, the appropriate Government may make rules providing for the distribution of such protected workmen among various trade unions , if any , connected with the establishment and the manner in which the workmen may be chosen and recognized as protected workmen .

(5) Winere an choplover 4

concibution ofhcert, Board

Coort , mtai on Nation,

delay bum coreopplatenta

Applian

necessary expediem se o to be rich , writing , evo

by perdsrecificou in thes than without za proceedings bhs to pekt d 24 A

designed for u .

applies to them to what it

alter service pesh sesofthe woring

regard to avera

nusconduct o

with the nat

he is obliga , ak pror pero

20th the dispi

authority beter

case whereftether wants alr

ofavorkea

dispate or Set

dispute, to

the order ob

When an cool colates the nices

( 1 ) or sabesge Zor Section 35 ofthe

remely is provide the working is

Section 33A,

has contray 20 provistons of

aggrieved wer Ihas been give lig antara complaint abs, to the authome betoon Ah '; f mdustrial dis peading, with winch the ag workman Lacred . The

by made to t

authorities tae the conciliatze auto

a cono complaint ishte

Conciliation Offici a Board ofComibea

of Section 14 Acfner Jauthores 4 Co

or the Board tetik , ahcomplained into accUSEPP about a sticmem of the compleme

Concihatoon Offer at the Bozol is not

adjudicate upon he dispute, which is

adjudicatory bus . When a comples

adjudicatory anemiy viz Abtatos , Labour Tribunal or Nahotel inbural will adodendeng dispute as it is de ruwe referad tom nerton , bee 25. To Aurat the provision of s Act , followinglitions precedem atelie [भाग ।। - खण्ड

1. that there should have been a contravention by the managerment of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act ,

2. that the contravention should have been during the pendency of the proceedings before the conciliatory authores or Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal , as the case may be .

3. that the complainan should have been aggrieved by the contraventior , and

4. that the application: should have been made to the Labour Court . Tribunal or the National Tribunal im which origmal proceedings are pending.

26. No evidence was brought over the record by the clamant as to when failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer, before the appropriate Government.Till Failure report is submitted to the appropriate Government , a proceeding is deemed to be pending before the Conciliation Officer Wiren proceedings are pending before the Conciliation Officer , the employer is under an obligation to seek permission/ approval of the authority before whom the proceedings are pending , for termination ofhis employment .

27. What is the effect of non - moving an application for approval ? Such proposition was taken note of by the Apex Court in Jaipur Zila Schkari Bhoom Vikas Bank ( AIR 2002 S.C. 643 ) wherein in was held that it would be clear case of contravention of the proviso to Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) of the Act . It would be expedient to reproduce the law laid in the above precedent , which are extracted thus :

"The provise to Section 3.3 ( 2 ) ( b ) as can be seen from its very unambiguous and clear language , is mandatory . This apart from the object of Section 33 and in the context of tire proviso to Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) , it is obvious that the conditions contained in the sati proviso are to be esentially complied with . Further any employer who contravenes the provisions of Section 33 anvites a punishment under Section 3201 ) with imprisonnient for a term which may extend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs . 1000 or with both. This penal provision is again a pointer of the mandatory nature of the proviso to comply with the conditions stated therein. To put it in other way, the said conditions being mandatory , are to be satisfied if an order of discharge or dismissal passed under Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) is to be operative , if an employer desires to take benefit of the said provision for passing an order of discharge or dismissal of an employee , he has also to take the burden of discharging the statutory obligation placed on him in the said proviso . Taking a contrary view that an order of discharge or dismissal passed by an employer in contravention of the mandatory conditions contained in the proviso does not render such an order inoperative or void , defeats the very

7181

न का राजपत्र अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/ कार्तिक 1 , 1932

purpose of the proviso and it becomes meaningless . It is well settled rule of interpretation that no part of statute shall be construed as unnecessary or superfluous . The proviso cannot be diluted or disobeyed by an employer . He can not disobey the mandatory provision and then say that the order of discharge or dismissal made in contravention of Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) is not void or inoperative . He cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own wrong. The interpretation of statute must be such that it should advance the legislative intent and serve the purpose for which it is made rather than to frustrate it . The proviso to Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) affords protection to a workman to safeguard his interest and it is a shield against victimization and unfair labour practice by the employer during the pendency of industrial dispute when the relationship between them are already strained . An employer cannot be permitted to use the provision of Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) to case out a workman without complying with the conditions contained in the said proviso for my alleged misconduct said to be unconnected with the already pending industrial dispute . The protection afforded to a workman under the said provision cannot be taken away. If it is to be held that an order of discharge or dismissal passed by the employer without complying with the requirements of the said proviso is not void or inoperative , the employer may with impunity discharge or dismiss a workman .

28. The Apex Court dealt with the situation of the withdrawal of such approval application or not making an application in the following manner :

"The view that when no application is made or the one made is withdrawn , there is no order of refusal of such application on merit and as such the order of dismissal or discharge does not become void or inoperative unless such an order is set aside under Section 33A , cannot be accepted. In our view , not making an application under Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) secking approval or withdrawing an application once made before any order is made thereon , is a clear case of contravention of the proviso to Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) . An employer who does not make an application under Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) or withdraws that one made , cannot be rewarded by relieving him of the statutory obligation created on him to make such an application. If it is so done , he will be happier or more comfortable than an employer who obeys the command of law and makes an application inviting scrutiny of the authority in the matter of granting approval of the action taken by him . Adherenceto and obedience of law should be obvious and necessary in a system governed by rule of law . An employer by design can avoid to make an application after dismissing or discharging an employee or file it 7182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 / KARJIKA 1. 1932

and withdraw before any order is passed on it , on its merits , to take a position that such order is not inoperative or till it is set aside under Section 33A notwithstanding the contravention of Section 33 ( 2 ) ( b ) proviso , driving the employee to have recourse to one or more proceeding by making a complaint under Section 33A or to raise another industrial dispute or to make a complaint under Section 31 ( 1 ) . Such an approach destroy.. the protection specifically and expressly gives to an employee under the said proviso as against possible victimization , unfair labour practice or harassmen because of pendency of industrial dispute so that an employee can be saved from hardship of unemployment.

29. As projected by Shri Prasad failure report was submitted by the Conciliation Officer before the appropriate Government . When failure report was under consideration with the appropriate Goveroment services of the claimant were terminatal on 1st of January , 2009. These facts make it implicit that provisions of section 33 of the Act has not come into play. No violations of provision/ proviso of section 33 of the Act was committed by the management . Under these situations claimant cannot be ordered to be deemed to be in the service of the management , using the precedent referred above .

30. Regularisation of service implies rectification or regularization of an Act , which was within the power and provisions of the authority but there has been some non- compliance with the procedure or manner which does not go to the root of appointment of an employee . In Naraynappa [ 1967 ( 1 ) S.C.R. 1281 , the Apex Court announcel it to be a misconception to consider regularization as permanence in service . In Nangundappa ( 1972 ( 2 ) S.C.R. 799 ] the Apex Court denounced that concept of regularization would conter quality of permanence of an appointment .It was commanded therein that if an appointment itself is in violation of the provisions of the Constitutional illegality cannot bergu al . Rectification or regularization is possible of an act which is within the power and provisions of the authority but there has been some non - compliance with the procedure or manner which does not go to the root of the appointment . In Nagarajan [ 1979 ( 3 ) S.C.R. 937] the Apex Court announced that the words " regular " or " regularized " are terms calculated to condone any procedural irregularities and are meant to cure only such defects as are practicable / attributable to methodology followed in making the appointments . It was emphasized that when rules framed under Article 309 of the Constitution are in force, no regularization is permissible in exercise of the executive powers of the Government under Article 162 of the Constitution , in contravention of the rules . The court went on to conclude that only something that is irregular, for want of compliance with one of the element in process of selection which does not go to the root of the process , can be regularized and that it alone can be regularized and granting permanence of employment is totally different coneja an equated with regularization . authe

m be prevent cena of 31. In Uma Devi [ 2006 ( 4 ) SCCt the Ape Cout considered the proposition as to whether the persons who got employment , without following of a regular pros alure or even from the back door or on daily wates ordered to be made permanent in their posts , regular recruitment to the posts concerned decisions over the subject were considered and the coun declined the submissions of the workmen to be made permanent on the posts which were held them in temporary or ad-hoc capacity for a teuls long sw.ll The Court ruled thus :

"With respect , why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts ? This Court , mour view , is bound to insist on the State making equiar and proper recruitments , and is botitta het to encourage or shut its eyes to the persistant transgression of the rules of regular res rudiment . The direction to make permanent the distanction between regularization and making permanent , was not emphasized here-- can only encourage the State. themodel employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benfits on a few at the cost of inamy waiting to compete . With respect the directions made in Piara Singh [ 1992 ( 4 ) SCC118 is to some extent inconsistant with the conclusion in para 45 of the said judgement therein . With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counист to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision . Really , it cannot be said that this decision has land down the law that all ad-hoc, temporary or casual cumployees engaged without following a regalar recentmeni procedare should be made permanent '

32. In P. Chandra Shekhara Rao and others 2006 ( 7 ) SCC 488 ] the Apex Court referred Uma Devi's Case ( supraj with approval . It also relied the decision in a tema Rani [2004 ( 7 ) SCC 112 ] and ruled that no regularizaiton is permissible in exercise of statutory powers conterred in Article 162 of the Constitution , if the appontmere- have been made in contravention of the statutory tales la Somveer Singh [ 2006 ( 5 ) SCC 493 ] the Apex ( ruled that appointment made without following due precedure cannot be regularized . In Indian Drugs & Pivrnur coals Ltd. [ 2007 ( 1 ) SCC 408 ] the Apex Court reiterated the law and announced that the rules of recruitmen cannot be relaxed and court cannot direct regularisation of tempaгary employees de hors the rules , nor can it direct continuation of service of a temporary employee ( whether called a casual , ad-hoc or daily rated employee ) or payment of ingular salaries to them .

33. In Uma Devi ( supra ) it was land that when a person enters a temporary employment or get engagement as contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

based on a proper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure , he is aware of the consequence of the appointment being temporary , casual or contractual in nature . Such a person cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed for the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following a proper procedure or selection in any concerned cases , in consultation with the public service commission . Therefore , the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary , contractual or casual employees . It cannot also be held that the State held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are to make them permanent . The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise . It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek relief of being made permanent in the post . In view of those precedent neither continuance nor regularisation of services of the claimants can be ordered , since it would amount to back door entry into Government job .

34. Whether Om Parkash could be regularized , using case of Gurmail Singh and Dharkar Lal as a precedent ? Such a proposition was considered by the Apex Court in Uma Devi ( supra ) , wherein it was ruled that regularization of an employee similarly situated , may be the State in past shall not be treated as a precedent if it was done only pursuant to judicial direction , either of the Administrative Tribunal or of the High Court and in some cases by the Apex Court . It would be expedient to reproduce the law so laid, which is extracted thus :

"Though , there is a case " that the State had made regularization in the past of similarly situated employees , the fact remains that such regularization were done only pursuant to judicial directions , either of the Administrative Tribunal or of the High Court and in some cases by this Court . Moreover the invocation of the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot enable the employees to claim that they must be made permanent or they must be regularized in service though they had not been selected in terms of the rules for appointment . The fact that in certain cases the court had directed regularization of the employees involved in those case cannot be made use of to found a claim based on legitimate expectation . The argument if accepted would also run counter to the constitutional mandate , the argument in that behalf has , therefore , to be rejected .

It was then contended that the rights of the employees thus appointed , under Articles 14 and 16 ofthe onstitution , are violated. It is stated that the State as treated the employees unfairly by employing them on less than minimum wages and extracting work from them for a pretty long period in comparison with those directly recruited who are getting more wages or salaries for doing similar work .

7183

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23, 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

The employees before us were engaged on daily wages in the department concerned on a wage that was made known to them . There is no case that the wage agreed upon was not being paid . Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves , they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with the regularly recruited candidate , and made permanent in employment , even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work . There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service . As has been held by this Court , they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since , a regular appointment should be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution . The right to be treated equally with the other employees employed on daily wages , cannot be extended to a claim for equal treatment with those who were regularly employed . That would be treating unequals as equals . It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules . The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled " .

35. Om Parkash does not project a claim that his services were engaged by the management in consonance with the rules of recruitment . He admits that no appointment letter was issued to him . It is emerging out of record that when Om Parkash was engaed by the management as a sewerman vacancies were not notified for public at large . Reservation policy was followed, is not a case of the claimant . There was a test/ interview before his engagement , claimant nowhere asserts those facts . Therefore it is obvious that his engagement was dehors the rules . Under these circumstances , the claimant has not been able to project a claim of his regularization/ absorption in service .

36. Award dated 31st of August , 2000 , passed by this Tribunal in the matter of Dev Karan and Raju , has been relied by the claimant . In that matter Dev Karan and Raju projected a claim for regularization of their services . The management opted not to present its defence . Considering the facts presented by Dev Karan and Raju , this Tribunal commanded the management to regularize their services as sewermen . The claimant does not project a case to seek parity with Dev Karan and Raju in the matter of regularization of his services . The award , referred above , would not come for his rescue . Apex Court in Uma Devi considered such arguments and discarded it. It would be expedient to reproduce pronouncement of the Apex Coun , which is extracted thus:

7184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

"The argument on behalf of some of the respondents is that this Court having been once directed regularization in Dharwad Case [ 1990 ( 2) SCC 396 ] all those appointed temporarily at any point of time would be entitled to be regularized since otherwise it would be discrimination between those similarly situated and in that view , all appointments made on daily wages , temporarily or contractually, must be directed to be regularized. Acceptance of this argument would mean that appointments made otherwise than by a regular process of selection would become the order of the day, completely jettisoning the constitutional scheme of appointment" .

37. In view of the law laid by the Apex Court award dated 31-8-2000 would not serve as a precedent for the claimant. Hehas no right of regularization of his services . Evenotherwise he projects that his services were dispensed with on 1st of January , 2009. The claimant is no more in the service of the management . In such a situation his claim for regularization has become infructuous otherwise .

38. Can claimant agitate that when claim of regularization pends consideration, in that situation this Tribunal should consider whether termination of his services amounts to retrenchment ? In case Tribunal proceeds with this enquiry then it would go beyond the purview of the reference . No such question has been referred for adjudication as to whether his termination amounts to retrenchment and he is entitled to any relief on that count . The Tribunal, being creature of the statute, is under an obligation to answer the points of dispute referred to it for adjudication. It shall confine its adjudication to those points and matters incidental thereto , as enactedby sub- section (4 ) of Section 10 of the Act . Something incidental to a dispute must mean something happening as a result of or in connection with the dispute or associated with the dispute. The dispute is a fundamental thing while something incidental thereto as an adjunct to it . Something incidental , therefore , cannot out at the root of main thing to which it is an adjunct . Reference can be made to precedent the Delhi Cloth and General Mills Co. Ltd. [ 1967 ( 1) LLJ 423 ] .

39. A point is incidental to another point when the former necessarily depends upon the other . Incidental implies a subordinate and subsidiary thing related to some other main or principal thing requiring casual attention while considering the main thing . It is obvious , therefore, that the matter which requires independent consideration or treatment and have their own importance cannot be considered as incidental . Reference can be made to precedent in Hukam Chand Jute Mills ( AIR 1958 Cal . 68) , Jaipur Spinning and Weiving Mills Ltd. [ 1959 ( 11 ) L.L.J. 656] and Bengal Electrical Lamp Works Ltd. [ 1958 ( 1 ) L.L.J. 571 ] .

40. A matter which is independent in one context may become subsidiary in another matter in a different

[PART II - S3 ( ii) ] context. It all depends on how and under what circumstances it arises . The words " incidental to " used in sub-section ( 4) of section 10 of the Act ,do not have the same meaning as the words " appearing to be connected with or relevant to " occurring in clauses ( b ) , ( c ) and ( d) of sub - section ( 1 ) of section 10 of the Act . The matters coveredby the latter expression must be specifically referred for adjudication, while the matters covered by the former expression need not be specifically referred , as tirey can be adjudicated upon as a part of the main dispute . For instance , on an industrial dispute being referred to it , the Tribunal has jurisdiction to determine whether on the facts placed before it an "industrial dispute" within the meaning ofclause (k) of section 2 of the Act has really arisen or the concerned person are " workmen " as defined in clause( s) of section 2 or a particular undertaking is an " industry " within the meaning of clause (j ) of section 2 or such industry is a live industry or a closed industry . Such questions can be validly examined and adjudicated upon by the Tribunal as matters incidental to points ofdispute, specified in the order of reference . These matters have not only to be determined as matters incidental to the dispute but have necessarily to be dotermined as collateral or jurisdictional issue . Reference can be made to a procedent in P.P.M.S. Nagarathman [ 1965 ( 1 ) [ .. [L.J. 84 ] .

41. Here in the case , one of the count of dispute referred for adjudication , is whether the demand ofCPWD Mazdoor Union for regularization of the service of Om Parkash by themanagement of CPWD is legal and justifiol . For seeking an adjudication of the said dispute , the claimant is under an obligation to establish that he is still in the employment ofthe management . As per his own case, his employment came to an end on 1st ofJanuary , 2009 , Issues , such as whether his termination is retrenchment and whether provisions of section 25F . 25G and 25HoftheAct were complied , are not matters incidental to the question, referred above . These matters are independent disputes , which cannot be adjudication while answering , question , referred above . Therefore , questions as to whether his termination amounts to retrenchment and that too violative ofprovisions of section 25 - F, 25 - G and 25 - H cannot be gone into while adjudicating the dispute , referred above.

42. As concluded above , the claimant is not entitled for regularization of his service , since his engagementwas dehors the rules . Therefore, one count of the reference is answered in favour of the management and against the claimant . Other count of the reference is answered in favour of the claimant , as detailed in para 21 of the award and the management has been commanded to make payment of differenceofhis wages to him within a period of one month from the date the award becomes operative . An award is , accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication .

Dr. R.K. YADAV , Presiding Officer Dated 9-9-2010 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 28 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2634, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1277 /2k6 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 129/2005 - आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th September , 2010 S.O. 2634. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref: No. 1277 / 2k.6 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court No. 2 , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of CPWD , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 28-9-2010.

[No. L -42012/ 129 / 2005 - IR( CM - II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH Present : Sri A.K. Rastogi , Presiding Officer

Case No. I.D. No. 1277 / 2k6 Instituted on : 9-08-2006

i he Zonal Secretary , All India CPWD ( MRM ) Karamchari Sangthan , CPWD Store Building , Sector 7 - B , Chandigarh .

7185

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

Sub- section ( 2A ) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred as the Act ) , referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication of this Tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of CPWD, Chandigarh in not regularizing the services of Sh . Ram Swarup Singh w.e.f. 19-11-1979 to 15-4-1993 and action of not extending consequential benefits is legal and justified? If not, to what relief he is entitled to ? "

The claim statement has been filed by the All India CPWD ( MRM ) Karamchari Sangathan referred to as Sangathan hereinafter and the workman Ram Swarup Singh. The claimant have raised an industrial dispute by stating that claimant No. 1 , Sangathan is a registered Union of the management and claimant No. 2 workman is an employee ofthe management . The Sangathan is filing claim statement onbehalf of the workman . The grievance of the claimant is that the workman was employed as Beldar on Muster Roll with effect from 19-11-1979 and was working as such at the time of presenting the claim , under the Executive Engineer , Chandigarh Central Division - II , CPWD , Chandigarh . According to a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the workman was entitled to his regularization w.e.f. 19-11-1979. He is also entitled to all the consequential benefits in the nature of arrear of all allowances ( like Increment , Uniform Allowance, Medical facilities , Bonus , Leave etc. ) and counting of service for the grant of promotion and service benefits of 12/24 years under the A.C.P. Scheme , Pension , Gratuity etc. w.e.f. 19-11-1979 , which was not given to him by management . He has prayed for the same .

...Applicant

Versus

The Executive Engineer , Chandigarh Central Divn . - II , CPWD , Kendriya Sadan , Sector 9A , Chandigarh

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the workman : Shri Som Dutt Sharma , Advocate For the Management : Shri G.C. Babbar , Advocate .

AWARD

Passed on 7th September , 2010

Government of India vide notification No.L - 42012/ 129 / 2005 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 31-7-2006 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub- section ( 1 ) Clause ( d ) and The claim was contested by the management . It was disputed that the Sangathan is a recognized body and is competent to present the case of the workman . Claim statement was alleged to be barred by time . According to the management , the Hon'ble Supreme Court never issued any directions to regularize the service of daily wage person from the date of appointment . Rather Government had been advised to take a proper action to regularize the service of the persons who have been working continuously for more than six months . In pursuance to the judgment of the Apex Court , the Government of India framed a policy and the management accordingly issued directions . As per policy and guidelines the service of the claimant was to be regularized w.e.f. 15-4-1993 and all the benefits as admissible to the regular employees under the service rules were paid as it has been admitted by the workman himself also . The workman is not entitled to other benefits like Increment , Uniform allowance , Mexlical facilities , Bonus and counting of service for the purpose of promotion under the A.C.P. Scheme or for the pensionary benefits from the date of his appointment . It was stated that in fact the Hon'ble Supreme Court had made an order for the payment of equal pay for equal work . As a result of which the 7186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 / KARTIKA 1 , 1932

minimum scale of pay was given to the claimant along with admissible allowances . It was stated that the claim of the claimant is liable to be rejected .

While the case was still at the stage of evidence an application was moved today by the Zonal Secretary , All India CPWD ( MRM ) , Kendriya Sadan and the advocate of the claimants for withdrawing the claim on the grounds that the workman has taken Voluntery retirement on 11-11-2009 and is not intrested in pursuing the industrial dispute . In view of the application of the claimant , the claim is dismissed as withdrawn and the reference is answered against the workman . Let two copies of the award be sent to Central Government after due compliance .

A.K. RASTOGI , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 28 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2635.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , कंन्द्रीय सरकार राजस्थान ऐटोमिक पावर स्टेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में औद्योगिक अधिकरण कोटा के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-42012 / 145/2005- आई आर ( सी- II ) } डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th September , 2010 S.O. 2635.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 1/07) of the Industrial Tribunal , Kota as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Rajasthan Atomic Power Station , and their workman , received by the Central Government on 28-9-2010.

[No. L -42012 / 145 / 2005 - IR( CM - II ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

अनुबन्ध

न्यायाधीश , औद्यौगिक न्यायाधिकरण /केन्द्रीय /कोटा/राज, पीठासीन अधिकारी अनुराधा शर्मा , आर. एस. जे. एस

निर्देश प्रकरण क्रमांक ओ. न्या. केन्द्रीय/ 1 / 107

दिनांक स्थापित : 3-2-07

प्रसंगः भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के आदेश संख्या एल 42012 / 145 / 2005/ आईआर, सीएम -1 ! दिनांक 5-9-06 निर्देश विवाद अन्तर्गत धारा 101 ) ( घ ) औद्यौगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947

मध्य

[ PAKI 11- S3 ( ii ) ] ललित खींची द्वारा सैक्रेट्री , राज. अनुशक्ति

परियोजना कर्मचारी संघ ( इन्टक ) प्रताप सर्विल ,

...प्राथी श्रमिक जी जी रावलभाट ( कोटा)

एवं

साईट डॉयरेक्टर , राज. एटोमिक पावर स्टेशन

.... अप्रार्थी यूनिट 1 से 4 , पी.ओ. अनुशक्ति, रावलभाटा ( कोटा )

नियोजक उपस्थित

उपस्थित नहीं प्रार्थी श्रमिक की ओर से प्रतिनिधि:-

अप्रार्थी नियोजक की ओर से प्रतिनिधिः-

श्री वी. के. जैन अधिनिर्णय दिनांक: 20-8-2010

अधिनिर्णय

भारत सरकार , श्रम मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के उक्त प्रार्योगक आदेश दिनांक 5-9-06 के जरिये निम्न निर्देश/ विवाद , औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 जिसे तदुपरान्त " अधिनियम " में सम्बोधित किया जायेगा की धारा 10 ( 1 ) ( घ ) के अन्तर्गत इस न्यायाधिकरण को अधिनिर्णय सम्प्रेषित किया गया है : -

"Whether the action of the management of the Rajasthan Atomic Power Station 1 & 4 , Rawabhata for denial of promotion to Sh . Laht Khinchi Steno Gd. Il to Steno Gd . III is legal and justified ? Ifnot , to what relief is the workman entitled ?"

2. निर्देश / विवाद , न्यायाधिकरण में प्राप्त होने पर पंजीयद्ध उपरान्त पक्षकारों की सूचना विधिवत रूप में जारी की गया जिम पर दोनों पक्षों की ओर से अपनी-अपनी उपस्थिति दी गयी । 3. पत्रावली के दौरान विचार दि. 12-8-10 को प्राथर्थी यूनियन की ओर से उन पर तारीख पेशी दिनांक 30-1-09 के पेशी के नोटिस की शामिल होने के उपरान्त कोई उपस्थित नहीं हुआ और न ही क्लैम स्टेटमेंट प्रस्तुत किया गया , ऐसी स्थिति में प्रार्थी पक्ष के क्लंम पेश किये जाने का अधिकार समाप्ति हेतु आदेशित किया गया । अप्रार्थी नियोजक पक्ष की ओर से भी उक्त तिथि को कोई उपस्थित नहीं हुआ ।

पत्रावली प्रकरण के अवलोकन से यह स्पष्ट है कि स्वयं प्रार्थी पक्ष द्वारा उससे सम्बन्धित निर्देश/ अधिसूचना की सूचना उसे प्राप्त होने के 15 दिवस के अन्दर ही अपना क्लेम स्टेटमेंट में समग्न मुसंगत दस्तावेज व साक्षीगण को सूची के प्राधित नियमानुसार न्यायाधिकरण में प्रस्तुत किया जाना चाहिए , किन्तु प्राथी श्रमिक पक्ष द्वारा बावजूद उक्त सूचना प्राप्ति के ऐसा कुछ भी किये जाने का प्रयाम नहीं किया गया है , अर्थात् उसकी ओर से विधिनुसार क्लेम स्टेटमेंट में सुसंगतं दस्तावेज आदि के प्रस्तुत नहीं किया गया हैं । निवर्णतः प्रार्थी श्रमिक अपने मामले को साबित करने में पूर्णतया असफल रहा है . व अधिनियमान्तर्गत कोई संरक्षण प्राप्त नहीं होने से वह किसी अनुतोष का अधिकारी नहीं है और सम्प्रेषित निर्देश/विवाद को उसी प्रकार अधिर्मित कर उत्तरत किया जाता है । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010 /कार्तिक 1 , 1932

अधिनिर्णय आज दिनांक 20/8/2010 खुले न्यायाधिकरण में सुनाया गया जिसे नियमानुसार समुचित सरकार को प्रकाशनार्थ भिजवाया जाये।

अनुराधा शर्मा, न्यायाधीश नई दिल्ली , 28 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2636.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सी. पी. डब्ल्यू. डी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण / श्रम न्यायालय ईरनाकुल्लम के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 262/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 28-09-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -42012 / 205 / 2005 - आई आर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 28th September , 2010 S.O. 2636. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 262/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court Ernakulam now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of CPWD , and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 28-09-2010 .

[No. L -42012 /205 /2005 - IR( CM - II ) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

L.L.B. , Presiding Officer Present : Shri P.L. Norbert , B.A. ,

(Wednesday the 8th day of September , 2010 /17th Badrapadham, 1932 )

I.D. 262/2006

Union

: The Secretary , Central PWD Mazdoor Union , Income Tax Building , Mananchira, Calicut - 01

By Advs . Sri . P. S. Murali & Ashok B. Shenoy .

Management : The Executive Engineer , CPWD , Trivandrum Central Divison , CGO Complex, Punkulam , Trivanduram- 695 522 .

By Adv . Sri . Thomas Mathew Nellimoottil .

7187 This case coming up for hearing on 6-09-2010 , this Tribunal - cum- Labour Court on 08-09-2010 passed the following

AWARD

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

"Whether the action of the management of CPWD in not paying remaining 93 hours of OTA to Shri C.K. Narayanankutty , Chowkidar is legal and justified ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled ? " 2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows :

Sri . C.K.Narayanankutty was working in CPWD , Trivandrum office as Chowkidar . He claims that he had worked overtime for 696 hours during January 2000 to July 2004. However he was paid wages only for 603 hours of overtime work . Management is withholding wages for 93 hours illegally.

3. According to the management the claimant had worked over time for 688 hours only during a period of 85 days from January 2000 to July 2004. As per official memorandum of the department and CPWD Manual out of over time duty one hour per day has to be deducted as free OTduty . Accordingly 85 hours of OT was deducted out of the total hours of OT duty ( 688 hours ) . He was borne on the regular classified establishment and hence the OM of the department dated 19-01-2004 is applicable to him. Hence he is not entitled to get anything more towards OT wages .

4. In the light of the above contentions the only point that arises for consideration is :

Whether the management is justified in treating one hour , out of OT duty per day , as free duty ?

5. The evidence consists of summoned documents Exts.X1 series and X2 only.

6. The Point : It is an admitted fact that Sri . C.K. Narayanankutty was a Chowkidar borne on the regular classified establishment . The fact that he had done Oт duty during January 2000 to July 2004 is also admitted . But according to the management he had done OT duty only for 85 days . The union disputes the number of hours ofOT duty. According to the union he had done 696 hours of OT duty during 2000-2004 . The union also questions the legality in deducting one hour each per day out of OT duty as free duty.

7. Ext.X1 series (3 in number) are attendance registers forthe period 2000 to 2004 , The disputed period is February 2001. According to the management during that month the claimant had not done OT duty . Ext.X1 shows that he had worked on 28-02-2001 . Ext.X2 is photostat copies of OT 7188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 / KARTIKA 1 , 1932

duty of each day, as free duty , is legal and justifiod. However the management has not counted one day's OT duty or paid wages for that duty. The workman is entitled to get allowance for one day's OT duty less one hour tree duty.

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

Dictatedto the Personal Assistant , transcribed and typed by her , corrected and passed by me on this the 8th dayof September, 2010 ,

P.L. NORBERT . Presiding Officer

Appendix

Witness for the Umon Nil.

Nil Witness for the management

Nil. Exhibitfor the Union

register ofdifferent periods . As per Ext.X2 in the month of February 2001 the claimant had performed OT duty on 28- 02-2001 for 8 hours and the net hours of OT duty was 7 . Thus the attendance register as well as OT register reveal that in the month of February 2001 the claimant had worked and performed normal duty as well as extra duty . Whenever he was on extra duty he had performed OT duty for 8 hours per day. Thus the contention of the union that altogether the claimant had performed OT duty for 696 hours is true . But the question is whether the management is entitled to deduct one hour each out of each OT duty as free duty . Along with the reply statement of the management they have produced Official Memorandum of the department and relevant portion of CPWD Manual . Annexure R2 to reply statement is OM dated 19-01-2004 of CPWD . Para 10 of annexure R2 shows that the Work- charged Staff and Regular Classified Staff are entitled to get OT allowance as per the rates mentioned in para 8 subject to the following conditions:

Nil Exhibit for the management

(i) One hour to be deducted as free duty from extra duty performed.

Court Exhibits

(ii) The actual time taken for lunch break is to be deducted from OT duty .

X- 1 series Attendance Registers for the period 200 2004, (3 in number )

X2 -Photostat copies of Over Time Duty Register. नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर 2010 ( iii) If an employee comes late on the day when puton OT duty , the time by which he comes late is to be deducted .

( iv) to (vi) ..

8. The learned counsel for the union argued that OM cannot over- ride CPWD Manual . But there appears to be no inconsistency between the provisions in the Manual and OM of the department . Annexure R2 Manual Para 19 is as follows:

का.आ. 2637. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1941 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, कंन्द्रीय सरकार बी. एग, ग एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 213/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकारका 29-9-2010 का प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-40012/ 148/2002- आई आर इंग्यू

जाहन नापना कध "19. Overtime work , for the purpose of grant of overtime allowance , means the work done in excess of one hour over the prescribed hours of work on any working day and includes the work done on any Sunday or any other holidays minus the hour of lunch break" .

New Delhi , the 29th September , 2010

S.O. 2637. -In pursuance of Sechon 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 213 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum- Labour Court No. 1. Chandigarh as shown the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between thre employers in relation to the management of BSNL and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-09-2010 ,

Therefore the management is within their rightsto deduct one hour each per day of OT duty as free duty. Per day admittedly 8 hours of OT duty is performed whenever there is extra work . Thus he had done OT duty for 696 hours from January 2000 to July 2004 for 87 days . The management is entitled to deduct one hour each per day out of each day's OT duty. Even then the management had not counted one day's extra duty ( on 28-02-2001 ) . However there is no illegality in deducting one hour each out of each day's extra duty . The point is answered accordingly .

[No. L-40012/14 × 2002-16-1 JOHAN TOPNO , Deskg Inthe result an award is passed finding that the action of the management in doducting one hour each , out of OT [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ANNEXURE

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

Case ID No. 213/2002

Sh. Surender Kumar , C/ o Sh . Gopal Sharma, Niwas , Middle Kuftadhar , Shimla ( Himachal Pradesh ) -3

Applicant

Versus

The Divisional Engineer , Telecom Project , Sanjay Sadan , Shimla (Himachal Pradesh)

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workman

: None

Shri Jitender Kumar For the management :

AWARD

Passed on 7-9-2010

Government of India vide notification no.L- 40012/ 148 /2002 / IR( DU ) dated 30-09-2002 , by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , ( the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of BSNL . Shimla in terminating the services of Sh . Surender Kumar , Ex-daily wages Mazdoor is just and legal ? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to " ?

2. Case is taken up hearing at Shimla camp court . Case repeatedly called . None appeared on behalf of the workman despite repeated calls . On perusal of the record, it reveals that none is appearing on behalf of the workman for the last several dates . It appears that workman is not interested to pursue with the present reference . In view of the above , the claim in the present reference is returned to the Central Government for want of prosecution . Central Govt . to be informed . File be consigned .

Chandigarh . Camp Shimla 7-9-2010

G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 29 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2638.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार संन्ट्रल लैदर रिसर्च इंस्टिटयूट् के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार

7189

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/ कार्तिक 1 , 1932

औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 31/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -42011 / 111/ 2007- आई आर ( डी.यू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th September , 2010 S.O. 2638.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 31/2008 ) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Leather Research Institute and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-9-2010 .

[No. L -42011 / 111 / 2007 - IR( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

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

Monday , the 20th September , 2010 Present : A.N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 31/2008

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of Central Leather Research Institute and their Workman)

Between

Sri P. Nagarajan :

Petitioner/ 1st Party Vs.

1. The Director

: 1st Respondent/2nd Party Central Leather Research Institute Adyar Chennai - 600020

: 2nd Respondent/ 2nd Party M/ s Narender Engineer

Civil and Mechanical

2. The Management Works Engineering Contractors

Chennai - 15

APPEARENCE :

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s Balan Haridas . R. Kamatchi Sundaresan Advocates 7190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

[PART II-St: 3 ( ii ) ] For the Ist Management: Sri T. Ravi Kumar, Advocate

: Sri P.V. Sudakar, Advocate .

2nd Management

AWARD

The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L - 42011 / 111 / 2007 - IR( DU) dated 18-6-2008 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

"Whether the contract between the management of Central Leather Research Institute and M/ s Narendra Engineering Works , with regard to employment of Sri P. Nagarajan is sham and bogus ? If yes , whether the action of the principal employer in terminating the services of the said workman w.e.f. 2005 is legal and justified? If not , to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

Workmen's Compensation Act for which the case is pending before Dy . Commissioner of Labour ( Chennai ) . The petitioner had been working only under thedirect control and supervision of the Ist Respondent. Ist Respondent has not registered under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition ) Act, 1970. 2nd Respondent has not obtained license under the Act . The alleged contract between 1st and 2nd Respondent is sham and bogus . The petitioner has worked for more than 240 days within 12 calendar months . No notice or compensation was paidto him on termination amounting to retrenchment thus making the termination void. The action of the Management amounts to unfair labour practice . The 1st Respondent has not taken prior permission under Section 25N of the I. D. Act thus making the termination again void . The petitioner is not gainfully employed after termination. Hence the prayer to hold that the alleged contract is sham and bogus and his termination is illegal and it is prayed that he be remstated into service with full backwages and all attendant benefits .

4. The Counter Statement contentions of the 1st Respondent/2nd Party briefly read as follows:

The claim petition is not maintainable since CSIR is 2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 31/2008 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their Advocates and 1st Party filed Claim Statement , Ist and 2nd Respondents of 2nd Party filed separate counter statements . The petitioner further filed a reply statement.

3. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the Claim Statement briefly read as follows :

not an industry . Respondent , a constituent unit of CSIR, which is a Society under the Societies Registration Act , comes under Ministry of Science and Technology , Department of Scientific and Industrial Research ofwhich the PrimeMinister is the Ex - Officio President of the Society. The functions and objects of the council are described in the Claim Statement . CLRI is one of the constituents of CSIR to seck excellence in research in biological , chemical and engineering sciences to serve as a National Apex Body in the areas of leather and related products ,to provide education and training in leather and allied sciences at national and international levels and to render technical assistance to leather industry . The research organization cannot be considered as industry . Its main asset is the brain of the Scientists . Research is an activity carried out by the Scientist individually. It does not indulge in any business , trade or manufacture with any commercial enterprise. The claim is neither legal nor justified . Petitioner was never an employee of the Respondent . He was not recruited. He is a contract worker of M/ s Narendra Engineering Works , the 2nd Respondent from 1-3-2003 to 22-10-2004. It is denied that petitioner sustained injury during harness . There is no proof of the same . CLRI is not liable for any injury or medical expenses . Medical treatment has to be availed through ESt as an employee of M/ s Narendra Engineering Works . ESI , EPF Contributions were deducted by his Contractor and CLRI is not liable for the same. There is no proof to show that the petitioner was recruited in CLRI . CLRI bas discharged all its statutory obligations to the petitioner through the Contractor , Ist The petitioner, a qualified Air - Condition Technician working since 5-8-1997 under the 1st Respondent was termed by R1 as a Contract Employee though there was no Contractor . His wages were paid by the 1st Respondent directly which initially was Rs . 1,500 per month with gradual increase . While so, on 5-9-1998 during harness the cutting player tool for work fell on his left eye causing bleeding injury . Afterfirst aid he underwent treatment at Government Eye Hospital , Egmore . In the wake of the injury cataract developed in the left eye blocking the vision . On 20-6-2003 in an operation cataract was removed . The retina in the left eyegot detached on 1-10-2004, to rectify which, on advice , he approached and underwent three surgeriesat Madras Medical Research Foundation ( Sankara Nethralaya ) on 20-10-2004 , 10-11-2004 and 30-12-2004 . In the meantime the petitioner had worked continuously under 1st Respondent till 21-10-2004 . On 1-3-2005 when petitioner reported for duty, he wasdenied employment orally. On 1-3-2003 only he was termed to be a contract workman under Contractor Narendra Engineering Works , which is only to circumvent the law . ESI , Provident Fund Contributions deducted from 1-3-2003 were not paid to the credits of the employee. The injury suffered by the petitioner arose out of an accident in the course of his employment under 1st Respondent . No compensation has been paid to the petitioner under the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Respondent is registered as Principal Employer and 2nd Respondent is a Licensed Contractor as covered by documents . Pursuant to the order dated 10-08-1994 of the Supreme Court in CSIR Vs. S.P. THAKUR AND OTHERS , the CSIR Casual Workers Absorption Scheme , 1990 was modified to cover all casual labours engaged prior to 5-12-1988 and CSIR Casual Workers Absorption Scheme , 1995 was formulated as a one - time measure . The petitioner having not fulfilled the basic requirements of the schemes has not been identified and listed in any scheme and hence cannot claim benefit as a contract worker . As per the judgment of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi and Others Vs. Secretary , State of Karnataka and Others , there is ban on regularization of the petitioner . The claim is meritless , lacking in bona fides and deserves to be dismissed .

5. The Counter Statement contentions of the 2nd Respondent / 2nd Party briefly read as follows :

Under a formal agreement , the 2nd Respondent was Contractor with the 1st Respondent for Air - Condition Maintenance from 1-03-2003 . The contract is under due beense and is not sham . Petitioner was contract worker from 1-03-2003 to 22-10-2004 after which he abstained from duty without intimation. He is covered under ESI and EPF. Any accident or injury sustained by the petitioner during barness is not to the notice of the Respondent . ESI and EPF contributions were remitted to the authorities . Letter addressed to the petitioner at the last known address to collect the bonus and EPF amounts was returned as not found. There was no termination of petitioner on 1-03-2005 as alleged and hence there is no question of issuing notice or payment of compensation . The Respondent has complied with all statutory rules and regulations and the petitioner was covered under ESI and EPF. If at all sustained any injury , the petitioner ought to have obtained treatment at the ESI Hospital for which due remittances have been made . The petitioner never informed about the injury or the treatment taken to the 2nd Respondent . The claim is vexatious and deserves to be dismissed.

6. The supplementary contentions in the Reply Statement in a nutshell are as follows :

That 1st Respondent is not an industry is far- fetched . The petitioner was in service from 1997. The 2nd Respondent was Contractor only from 1-03-2003 . Petitioner's salary was paid directly by the Ist Respondent . Eye injury was prior to coverage under ESI Act .

7. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of W'W'I and Ex.WI to Ex . W13 on the side of the petitioner and the testimony of MW1 and Ex . M1 to Ex . M22 on the Respondent's side.

7191

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/ कार्तिक 1 , 1932

8. Points for consideration are :

(i) Whether the contract between the 1st Respondent/Management and the 2nd Respondent with regard to employment of P. Nagarajan is sham and bogus ?

(ii) If yes , whether the termination of the workman is legal and justified ?

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

Points ( i ) , ( ii ) and ( iii )

9. The arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner are that the petitioner , an air - conditioning technician who worked for 8 years under the 1st Respondent as direct employee though under a so - called contractor, the 2nd Respondent is retrenched from service. His wages were paid directly by the 1st Respondent at the rate of Rs . 1,500 per month. He had worked continuously since 5-8-1997 till 21-10-2004 . According to the petitioner only from 1-3-2003 he was termed to be a contract workmen under R2 which is to circumvent the law . ESI and PF contributions were deducted from him but were not remitted to his credits . He had been working under the direct control and supervision of the 1st Respondent , not a registered principal employer . Second Respondent is not a licensee under the Contract Labour ( Regulation and Abolition) Act . The alleged contract is sham . The petitioner worked for 240 days within 12 calendar months . No compensation was paid or notice was issued to him. He is retrenched in unfair labour practice without permission under Section 25N of the ID Act .

10. The arguments on behalf of the Respondents are that thedocuments relied on by petitioner are of no avail to prove that he is a workman under the 1st Respondent but is a contract workman under R2 . He was put on job like cleaning , painting , support service for AC plant , etc. by a letter of tender . It shows that he is not a regular workman . The documents relied on by him are of no effect to prove that he was under the employment of the Ist Respondent . The salary vouchers produced by him show payment having been made for AC work at Leena Cooler Centre . The registers produced by him are only self- serving documents with no evidentiary value to advance his case . He has not produced any appointment order . Admittedly , he is not a candidate sponsored through Employment Exchange . According to the petitioner he worked in Leena Cooler Centre as AC Maintenance Worker of which the Proprietor is his Father . There is also no reliable evidence to prove that the workman had worked for 240 days continuously in a calendar year in CLRI . There is no reliable material to show the alleged accident in which the workman was a victim occurred in CLRI workshop while serving 7192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

there . There is no employer - employee relationship between R1 and the workman established to concode to this claim . Initially a contract tender was given to the workman which was later given to R2 . The contract is not capable ofbeing comprehended as sham . RI is a registered principal employer as is proved by documents . There was no appointment of workman by R1 and there is equally no termination of the workman from the service of the Ist Respondent as could be found from any genuine or valid documents . Nodocuments are produced which would show the status of the workman as an employee under R1 . The workman is also not proved to have worked continuouslyfrom 1997 to 1999 with the production of any convincing or reliable materials or records . He is only apt to be contract employee as could be comprehended from the given facts . Reliance is also placexi on the decision of the Apex Court in UMA DEVI's case under which candidates continuing for a long time have no right to be absorbed or made permanent . The petitioner has admitted that he is a contract labour and therefore he is not entitled to any claim. The workman was actually abstaining from work after 20-10-2004 .

11. The learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanpur Electricity Supply Co. Ltd. Vs. Shamim Mirza ( 2009-1 - SCC - L & S - 70 ) wherein it was held that in the present instance , workman did not produce the letters of appointment as also their salary slips but they were successful in adducing some contemporaneous documentary evidence showing that they were collecting cash on behalf of the Appellant and were answerable to the officials .

12. In Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation and Another Vs. Casterive Rajya Parivahan Karamchari Sanghatana ( 2009-2- SCC - L & S 513 ) , the Apex Court held that industrial and labour courts enjoy wide powers under Section - 30 ( i ) (b) includingto accord permanency to employees affected by unfair labour practice .

13. The workman of Food Corporation of India Vs. M/sFood Corporation of India ( 1985 - II - LLJ - 4 ) where the Apex Court held that workman employed by Contractor cannot be workman ofthird Party who engages Contractor to accomplish a particular result .

14. In the decision of the Apex Court in Raghavendra Rao and Others Vs. State of Karnataka and Others (2009-4- SCC - 635 ) the Apex Court held that offer of appointment made by an incompetent authority renders the offer anullity.

15. In this case it is not clear who appointed the petitioner if at all he was initially engaged under the 1st Respondent . There is not only non - production of appointment order by the petitioner but also it is not made clear who is the appointing authority. Only when it is made

[PART 300 ) ] clear who that authority is could be examed whether the appointment could be a valid one having relate to the authority of the concerned Officer. The other decisions cited and relied on behalf of the petitioner on their facts or dicta are not applicable to the facts of the present case .

16. On a consideration of the entire materials and as borne out in evidence , documentary and oral i ant led to conclude that the case of the petitioner does not stand substantiated for any relief. He has not been proved to be a direct employee under R1 . There is no evidence to show that he was being retrenched by RI so as to cntil , him any benefit . There is nothing to show that the contract between the workman and the 2nd Respondent is sharm or that the workman was actually a direct employce under the Ist Respondent . There is no evidence of a rehable nature to show that initially petitioner started as a direct caployee under the 1st Respondent and that thereafter bus status was being changed into as a worker under the 2nd Respondent Contractor . The case of the petitioner seems to be built up without sound edifice in evidence. As between the two versions , one that petitioner anet with an accident while he was in the workshop under Ri and he was undergoing treatment thereafter the version of the 2ndRespondent that he was abstaining from durs abruptly it is not possible to comprehend which version is true or more probable . It is for the petitioner to pros e bis claim in orderto succeed . The burden to discharge such a dutyhas not been fruitfully done and therefore the petitioner is bound to fail in his claim. Even on a prepondance of probability a decision cannot be tilted in his favour to the absence of any iota of evidence .

17. The reference is answered that the contract between the R1 and R2 is not sham and bogus and there is no termination of the workman by the Ist Respondent . He is therefore not entitled to any relief.

18. The reference is answered according ) .

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open cogn on this day the 20th September , 201 (0 )

A. N. JANARDANAN , Preeding Officer Witnesses Examined:

: WWT. SP Nagrajan For the 1st Party/ Petitioner

For the 2nd Party/Management MWI , SA. Muthukrishnan Documents Marked : On the petitioner's side

Date

Ex. No.

Description Ex.WI 03-05-1997 Bill issued by the Rospendent forwages [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

ExW2 02-09-1998 Working and Conduct Certificate issued by the Respondent

ExW3 26-11-1999 Working and Conduct Certificate issued by the Respondent

xW4 06-12-1999 Tender awarded in favour of petitioner

ExWS 01-06-2001 Bill issued by the Respondent for wages

07-08-2002 Working and Conduct Certificate issued by the Respondent

07-03-2003

Ex.W7

Representation given by the petitioner regarding absorption 15-07-2003

ExW8

Treatment summary of the petitioner for his eye treatment ExW9

Certificate given by the Medical Director ( RIO , GOH) regarding eye treatment for petitioner 15-10-1004 Letter given by the Respondent 10 Sankara Nethralaya regarding free treatment for petitioner's eye damage ELWIL

Salary vouchers from Feb. , 2002 to Feb. , 2003

W12 06-03-2003 Letter issuedby Mr. Thiagu to all section heads regarding entry of petitioner to all the sections without any hindrance

ExW13

Work register of the petitioner from 01-03-2002 to 27-02-2003 Documents Marked On the petitioner's side

Date

Description Ex.Mi 02-12-2009 Authorization letter given by Director , CLRI to Dr. A. Muthukrishnan to tender evidence for the case Ex.M2

CSIR Bye- laws

Ex.M3

Attendance Roll of CLRI A/ c Department for the period Oct. 2002 to Feb. 2003

Form for opening tenders dated 28-09-2001 .

7193 Ex.M5

Letter dated 03-01-2002 from Leena Cooler Centre ExM6

Letter dated 23-01-2002 from Leena Cooler Centre Ex.M7

Letter dated 25-01-2002 from Leena Cooler Centre Ex.M8

Agreement dated 01-02-2002 between M / s Leena Cooler Centre and CSIR/ CLRI Ex.M9

Bonus bill of M/ s Leena Cooler Centre 2002-2003

Ex.M10

Wage acquittance roll of M/ s Leena Cooler Centre for Feb/ March 2002

Ex.M11

Wage acquittance roll of M/ s Leena Cooler Centre for April , 20002

Ex.M12

Wage acquittance roll of M/ s Leena Cooler Centre for May 2002

Ex.M13

Wage acquittance roll of M/ s Leena Cooler Centre for July 2002

Ex.M14

August , 2002 Wage acquittance roll of M/ s Leena Cooler Centre for Ex.M15

Wage acquittance roll of M/ s Leena Cooler Centre for September , 2002

Ex.M16

Wage acquittance roll of M/ s Leena Cooler Centre for October, 2002

Ex.M17

Wage acquittance roll of M /s Leena Cooler Centre for November , 2002

Ex.M18

Wage acquittance roll of M/ s Leena Cooler Centre for December , 2002

Ex.M19

Bonus acquittance roll for 2002- 2003 dated 24-02-2003 .

Ex.M20

Wage acquittance roll for February 2003

Ex.M21

Letter dated 12-03-2003 of M / s Leena Cooler Centre Ex.M22

Receipt dated 12-03-2003 of M/ s . Leena Cooler Centre for refund of EMD 7194

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 /KARTIKA 1 , 1932

[PART II--St .3 ) नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर , 2010

APPEARANCE :

For the Petitioner 1st Party

: Sri K Sudalaikannu, S.Annamalai

: M/s Gupta & Kavi

For the 2nd Respondent / 1stParty

M/s. DevratAR

For the 2nd Respondent/ 2nd Party

का.आ. 2639.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स सहारा एयरलाइन्स लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-09-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

For the 2nd Respondent/ 3rd Party : M/s Gupta & Kavi

AWARD

[सं. एल-11012/23/2009- आईआर( सी -1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th September , 2010

The Central Government , Ministry ofLabourets Order No. L - 11012 /23 / 2009 - IR( CM - 1 ) dated 106-2009 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is .

S.O. 2639.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 55/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum - Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of M/ s . Sahara Airlines Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 29-09-2010.

"Whether the demand of Sri S. Ravichandran for ins absorption in Jet Lite by the Management of Jet Airways with reference to the Share Purchase Agreement of dated 1-04-2007 cdered by the Management of Jet Airways ( India) Linetca, Sahara India Commercial Corporation Linted and Others and Sahara Airlines Limited is justified and gai ( ii) To what relief is the workman con erhed entitled ? "

[No. L- 11012/ 23/2009 - IR (C -I ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

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

Tuesday, the 31st August, 2010

2. After the receipt of industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 55/2009 and isstred bettices to both sides . First Party entered appearance tnt agh Advocate, First and Third respondents through toomsel and the Second Party through Authorized Represent dive When the matter stood posted for filmg Claim Statement . the 1st Partyfiled Claim Statement . No Counter Stalinche was filed by the Respondents .

PRESENT : A.N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 55/2009

3. The sam and substance of the Claim Stationtis as follows:

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of M/ s Sahara Airlines Ltd. and their Workmen] BETWEEN

Sri S. Ravichandran

: 1stParty/Petitioner

Vs.

1. M/ s Sahara Airlines Limited : 2nd Respondent/ 1stParty

: 2nd Respondent/

2. M/ s Sahara India Commercial Corpn . Ltd.

2nd Party

Sahara India Centre . 8th floor No. 2, Kapoorthala complexAliganj Lucknow - 226024

: 2nd Respondent/ 3rd Party

3. M/ s Jet Airways Ltd. SM Centre , Andheri- Kurla Road , Andheri East Mumbai -400059

The petitioner appointed as Loader in Commercial Department on 31-01-1994 with last drawn salary of Rs . 8,330 by the First Respondent later - fully acqparing whose shares by Third Respondent as per letter dated 20-04-2007 was informed to be on deputation with the RI which is incorrect . R2 by letter dated 19-05-2007 paying Rs . 40,000 to the petitioner as Ex - Gratia and also acknowledging petitioner as workman et RI was further issued with letter dated 1-06-2007 by R2 with whom theets no privity of contract and informed petitioner's relict rem deputation and also requiring him to report to Album. Lucknow which order is invalid . The petitioner is BETA 101 gainfully employed . There is no basis to shunt the penti ner out of employment. The establishment at Chennai cos cred under Section - 25N of I.D. Act employing more than 180 workers and hence the termination amounting to retrenchment by RI and R3 have to comply with the provisions under Section - 25N of the 1.D. Act failure to which the termination is void abinitio . There is no legal or factualjustification for the termination . Hence the prayer for reinstatement and absorption .

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( 11) ]

4. Points for consideration are :

( i ) Whether the demand for the absorption of the petitioner in Jet Lite by Jet Airways ( India ) is justified and legal ?

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

Points No. 1 & 2

5. When the I.D. stood posted to today for further proceeding the petitioner appeared in person and filed a petition supported by Affidavit, both signed by him praying for withdrawing the dispute . It is averred that the dispute has been settled with the Management and he has collected fus full and final payment of the dues . He has also stated that he has forgone the right for reinstatement .

6. On a consideration of the request of the petitioner supported by the written application and affidavit sworn to in support thereof that the dispute has been settled between the parties in consideration of the full and final payment of dues thereof having been realized by him and he be permitted to withdraw the dispute in the wake ofthe repeated appeal of this Tribunal before the parties to have the dispute amicably settled and the petitioner having effected out of court settlement of the dispute and having collected the dues in terms thereof and has forgone the right for reinstatement as was originally claimed the prayer is only to be accorded .

7. Accordingly the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the dispute . In view of the fact that the withdrawal is in licu of agreed monetary compensation with due receipt thereof acknowledged by the petitioner and his claim for absorption being given up no question further survives as to the demand for the absorption as being whether legal and justified.

3. The reference is answered accordingly .

Dictatedto the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31st August , 2010 ) .

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

None For the I Party/Petitioner

None For the II Party / Petitioner

Documents Marked :

On the Petitioner's side

Ex . No.

Date

Description Nil

On the Management's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description Nil

नई दिल्ली , 29 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2640. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.एस.एन.एल.

7195

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकारी / श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 262/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[मं. एल -40025/ 5 / 2010- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th September , 2010 S.O. 2640. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 262/ 2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - Cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relationto theManagement of BSNL and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 29-09-2010 ,

[ No. L - 40025 / 5 / 2010 - IR ( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

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

Present : SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer Dated the 23rd day of August , 2010 Industrial Dispute L.C.No. 262/2004 Between:

Sri P. Ashok Kumar ,

S/o P. Rajaiah ,

R/ o Vijayanagar Colony,

... Petitioner Hyderabad .

AND

1. The Chief General Manager , Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. , Door Sanchar Bhavan , Nampally Station Road , Hyderabad - 1 .

2. The Principal Chief Manager , Hyderabad Telecom District , Suryalok Complex , Abids , Hyderabad - 1

3. The Divisional Engineer , Phones ( South ) , Saifabad , Hyderabad.

4. The Sub - Divisional Officer , Phones ( South ) , Vijaynagar Colony , Hyderabad

...Respondents APPEARANCES

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . B. G. Ravindra Reddy , B.V. Chandra Sekhar & P. Srinivasulu , Advocates

For the Respondent :Sri R. S. Murthy , Advocate 7190

AWARD

This parader Sec. 2 A ( 2 ) Act, 1947 has been filed i Sri P. Ashok Kunat es siest alleged termination ordes dated 31-3-2001 and fos reiestatament in the service in light of the judgnent of the Hon'ble High Court ofAndhra Pradesh reported P. Ma , 8395 of 1989 dated3-8-1995 between Sri . Chénuspa a ased Mis Cotton Corporation of India and two others

2. The Petitioner was apponieds mazdoor on casual basis in Respondent's orgmacion and he was illegally discharged/dismissed/ raruchhs Arminated by said employer on 31-3-2004 . He was served a notice on Respondent but no action as taken be the management . Hewas not given any appointment letter, his salary was paki through youchers . Several persons pudove to himhave been retained in services and have been given temporary status by the management . Therefore, Petitioner filed O.A. No. 1582/2003 before the Hon'ble Central Adnanistrative Tribunal which was dismissed for wot of jurisdiction Thereafter Petitioner filed W.P. No 11287 2004 seeking extension of similar benefits Said wrtation was disposed off by order dated 6-8-2004 directing the Respondentto consider the case of the Petitioner within three months . However, the Respondent by order stated 25-10-2004 rejectal the case of the Petitions for regulatzabon in the service , hetree , this petition before this Bibunal .

3. Counter statement has con filed by the They had stated that pention is noi Pehtioner has never y esked as casual labour Respend namtanmal though Iwate tihon beforetteHon'bleHigh Court his reptes station was rejected fatimatrag im that there is no chyasatent of casual labear He was never appointed as casual labour nor he was allowed to perform any duty , He was never terminated retrenched or discharged on 31-3-2004. It has further beva submittest that the department has imposed ban on engagement of casual Labour vide letterNo.270/ 6/84 - STN dated 30-3-1985 Thus , in light of the aforesaid ban no tempotary or casual worker is being engaged . The petition is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed .

4. Padies were drrected to adduce esidence , Petitioner workan filed affidavit and produk od banself fos cross examination. He has filed a scire certificare alleged to have been issued by department of Telecommunications on31-12-94 . He has also filed three photographs 5 Respondent management has filed affidavit of Sir D. Mathu Lingam. Sub Divistonal Engineer (Legal), and produced him for cross examination. Managerment has also filed circulars from Director General. Telecom and Government of India . Ministry of Communication ban imposed by department for recruitment of casual labour.

6. I have heard Leased Counsel for the Petitioner , the Respondent counsel was not present.resent. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner that if a daily rate worker is terminated by verbal order without complying with the Sec.25F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1976 : shus of the разделили provisions Disputes Act 197 the managy mon llegai and the wurkmen in vo prosecutethex. 257. He has dicter he sport: 1177 ) Administrative Tribunale Cannonge 480 inhandra Korne Chara and the severificate issued by the Janeir Officer, Chami Zere, Sartabai which was w 31-12-1994 hsinchurargusd der Palace freshwar petheros, Pon'ble High Coon , it water hy Hon'ble light and Responded we drar disposed on the prisonation of the Tiến , c 1 reconsidered the eund for ve taman and have gone timergh tim stateregant and our statement. The workma establish the tai sonship of master and servam him and de Posdent. Learned Coons -ilor de bewus has not bra hero prove before this ribus ve was at master abo Petmoner and my arparnment of ickensa Petitiene kW , 1080/2004 1 petition sie das sind off with dushop that case of the Petoner . The Femur b representation iva reasonel onde fare his claim

tor a purane and bec and have become Lock for more th should he currcady engaged as catal Labor of these zodziens were fulfilled me tb, Petr njected. Positioner he d representar certificate Ex . V but he has pot beve cho meet who batiseerd in comificate more ost, this ca mdicates thor ? Astek Kumar has wors oferest রে from August , 179110 31-12-94, Whesterthe Pedirnevis engaged on 1989 and he worked upto 124 been mester Pham More over . Re- pu - k Sn D.Mera Prgate , SDE Legal , bas deposits appomted in taustated or dismissed in thess The Petitton Piston Cros, Jmus that he was Jocumens toute sho ta nd case. But there is no seu i decms at walahly on tha Permione Las stined that he represent data ius repulanza- on. He has bette dhat the person hal in bis affidava doi tu office, they have worked in otisnilice his si the contention oflin , Petniong hat vi working in lolooommmmcatonoil.cis.arische facts Theposti o is said to be more the p are working a dier offices. The Ponttonen haste able to nam segle pason a bot. Wekong wharePomoneretinsed to he worked Bat Ex . W 4 there to paper to prove that Putthet भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

worked in the telecom department or under the Respondent No. 2 as claimed by him . Ifhe had worked with the telecom department he could have filed his pay slip or wage slip or wage payment orders . In absence of any wage payment order mere filing photographs along with the officials of the telecom department it can not be said to be proof that Petitioner was a casual labour as alleged by him in the telecom department . The Petitioner has not been able to prove relationship of master and servant , certificate produccá by him has not been properly proved and it will not help the Petitioner to establish his case that he has been working with the department . Since the department has put a ban on the appointment of casual labours in the year 1988 itself it can not be said that the junior officer can appoint any person in violation of the directions issued by the Director General of Communications .

8. From the above discussions this tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Petitioner workınan has not been able to prove that he has been working as casual labour and was retrenched or disengaged on 31-3-2004. There is no relation of master and servant between the Petitioner and the management and Petitioner is not entitled for any relief from this tribunal . This petition deserves to be dismissed . Hence , this Award.

Award passed accordingly Transmat.

Dictatedto Smt. P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 23rd day of August , 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent WWI: Sri P. Ashok Kumar MW!: Sri D. Muthu Lingarm

Documents marked for the Petitioner Copy of order in WP No. 11287/2004dt . 16-8-2004 Ex.Wi

Copy of letter No.DE ( E1 ) SFD/X/ 01-02 dt . 25-10-2004 Ex.W2:

Copy of representation of WWI to Respondents dt . 29.12.2004 Ex W3 .

Ex.W4; Original service certificate dt, 31-12-1994 ExWS: Photgraph

Ex.W6 : Photgraph

Ex. W7: Photgraph

Documents marked for the Respondent Ex.MI : Copy of DOT, N Dir . No.270/ 6/ 84 - STN clt.30-3-1985

Ex.M2: Copy of DOT, ND Ir . No.270/ 6/84 - STN dt.22-6-1988

Ex.M3: Copy of DOT, NDLr . No.269-10/89 - STN dt. 7-11-89

7197 Ex.M4: Copy of DOT, N Dir . No.269-4/ 93 - STN ch.17-12-93

Ex.M5: Copy of DOT , ND Jr. No.269-10 / 99 - STN dt.14-8-1998

Ex.M6: Copy of O.M. No. 269-4 /93 - STN - 11 ( Pt . ) dt. 12-2-99

Ex.M7: Copy of O.M. No. 269-4/ 93 - STN - II ( PL ) dt. 15-6-99

Ex.M8 Copy of order dated 26-4-2004 in OA No. 1583/2003

Ex.19 Copy of order dated 6-8-2004 in WP No. 11287/2004

Ex.MIO Copy of LR. No. DE ( E1 ) / SFD / X / 01-02 dt . 25-10-1994

नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2641.औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स डायनामिक सिक्यूरिटी कांट्रेक्टर ऑफ पावर ग्रिड कॉर्पोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( मंदर्भ संख्या 30/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-09-10 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ सं. एल -42012/ 93 /2007- आईआर ( डीयू) ]

जोहन तोपना , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 29th September , 2010 S.O. 2641. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 30/2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Labour Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of M/ s . Dynamic Security Contractor of PowerGrid Corporation of India Ltd. and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-09-2010 .

[ No. L - 42012 / 93 / 2007 - IR ( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM - LABOUR COURT, BHUBANESWAR

Present :

Shri J. Srivastava , Presiding Officer , C.G.I.T. - cum - Labour Court , Bhubaneswar.

Industrial Dispute Case No. 30/2009 L- 42012/ 93 / 2007 - IR ( DU ) , dated 3-7-2009 Date of Passing Order - 28th May, 2010 7198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 / KARTIKA 1 , 1932

Between:

The Management of M/ s . Dynamic Security , Contractor, Power Grid Corporation of India Limited, 162/1 , Moti Bagh Village , Nanakpura , New Delhi - 110021 .

1st Party -Management

And

Their Workman Shri Dileswar Naik, representazi through the Vice President , Sundargarh Industrial Mazdoor Union, A/ 49 , Sector- 16 , Rourkela-3 , Sundargarh.

2nd Party -Union Appearances :

None

For the 1st Party- Management .

None

For the 2nd Party- Union .

ORDER

9. 28-5-2010 Lok Adalat :-- Case taken up today before Lok Adalat . None of the parties is present . Statement of claim has not yet been fileal by the 2nd Party - Union , though notices were issued to the parties by ordinary post on 24-12-2009 and by registerexi post on 29-4-2010 . But the parties did not take pain to appear and file their respective claim and counter claim , if any claim is filed . As such it appears that the 2nd Party - Union is not any more interested in pursuing the case and it will be of no use if the case is kept hanging without any purpose Therefore the reference is liable to be returned and is returned to the Government of India , Ministry of Labour for necessary action at their end.

J. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 29 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2642.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार आर्किलॉजिकल सर्वे ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 164/91 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-09-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/ 278/90- आई आर ( डीयू) ]

जोहन तोपनो , अवर सचिव New Delhi, the 29th September , 2010 S.O. 2642. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 164/ 91) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-

[PART II- S 3(11) ] Labour Court , Chennai as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Archaeological Survey of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-09-2010 .

[ No. L - 42012 / 278 /90- [ R ( DU ) ] JOHAN TOPNO , Under Secy .

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI B. K. SRIVASTAVA PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - CUM- LABOUR COURT, PANDU NAGAR, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 164 of 1991

In the matter of dispute between

Ishwari Prasad C / o Surendra Singh , 2/236 Namneır Agra And

Superintending Archaeologist , A.S. I. The Mall Agra .

AWARD

1. Central Government , Ministry of Labour , vide its notification No. 42012 / 278 / 90-1.R.D.U . dt . 25-9-91 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal-

Whether the Superintending Archacologist , Archaeological Survey of India , Agra was justified in terminating the services of Sri Ishwari Prasad w.e.f. 13-7-87 ? If not , to what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?

2. In the instant case the concerned workman has not filed statement of claim despite availing of sufficient time. It thus appears that the concerned workman is not interested in prosecuting the case .

3. In view of above , the reference is answered inaffirmative for want of pleading . Consequently the concerned workman is not entitled for any reliet.

4. Reference is answered accordingly .

B. K. SRIVASTAVA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 29 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2643. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कंन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय । , चंडीगढ़ के पंचान ( संदर्भ मंख्या 309/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-09-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ मं. एल -1201299/ 01 आई आरबी -1 ) ] पुष्यंन्दर कुमार, इंग्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 29th September , 2010 S.O. 2643. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7199 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

discharge. The main contention of the workman is the nature of admission of charges before the enquiry officer during departmental proceedings .

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 309/ 2001) the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - 1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the Management of Bank of India and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-09-2010.

[ No. L- 12012/99/01 - IR (B - II) ]

PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

The management appeared and contested the claim of the workman by filing written statement . It is the contention of the management that workman has voluntarily admitted the charges . There was no occasion for the enquiry officer to conduct a full fledged enquiry and enquiry report was given on the basis of the admission. The enquiry report absolutely based on the admission is notbad in law .

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

Case I. D. No. 309/2001

Shri Nachhattar Singh ( Happy Studio Circle ) , H. No. 2662, Street No. 2, Guru Nanak Colony - B , Opp . G.N.E. , College, Mam Gate, Ludhiana- 141001 .

...Applicant

Versus

Parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence. Prior to affording the opportunity for adducing evidence. preliminary issue on fairness of enquiry was decidedby this Tribunal vide Order dated 15-02-2010 . Order dated 15-02-2010 itself makes it clear that opportunity for adducing evidence was afforded to the workman by this Tribunal on nature of admission in departmental proceedings . No evidence was adduced . Number of opportunities were afforded to the parties but opportunities given by this Tribunal were not availed . Consequently on 24-05-2010 this Tribunal ordered for conducting the proceedings ex parte on account of long and continuous absence of the management . The affidavit filed by the workman was considered in evidence .

The Chief Regional Manager , Bank of India , 579 , Model Town , Ludhiana - 141001 ,

Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman:

Shri B. N. Shegal .

For the Management : Shri Ranjan Lohan .

AWARD

Passed on : 20-9-2010

The arguments of the parties were heard at length . As stated earlier , the main issue before this Court is regarding the nature of admission and charges levelled against the workman during departmental proceedings . Afterhearing the parties and perusing the entire materials on record , I am of the view that it was a voluntarily nature ofadmission made by the workman during the departmental proceedings , I am reaching to the conclusion on the following grounds :-

Government of India vide notification No. L -12012/99/2001 - IR ( B - II ) ) , dated 10-10-2001 by exercising us powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, (the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :---

( 1 ) The workman admitted the charges before the enquiry officer . He moved an application addressed to the disciplinary authority regarding admission ofthe charges . The statement of the workman was recorded by the enquiry officer in which the workman has also stated the voluntarily nature of admission.

(2) The workman has not only admitted the charges before the enquiry officer but before disciplinary authority as well .

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India in awarding the punishment of removal from the services to Shra Nachhattar Singh S/ o Shri Bant Singh is legal and just ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"

After receiving the reference, parties were informed . Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . On perusal of the pleadings of the parties , it is evident that the case of the workman in nut shell is that he was removed from the services without conducting any enquiry. He has not admitted the charges levelled against him voluntarily. He admitted the charges on assurance of the management to award the lesser punishment then removal or

(3) The workman has further admitted the charges and its voluntarily nature before the appellate authority . In the memorandum of appeal it is specifically mentioned by the workman that he has voluntarily admitted the charges before the enquiry officer and prayed for lenient punishment . On perusal of the entire materials on record, I am unable to trace out even tote of evidence to prove the contention of theworkman for admitting the charges on assurance 39634110-13 [PART 11--SEC. 3 ( ii ) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIKA 1 , 1932

7200

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI of the management for lesser punishment then removal or discharge . No complaint anywhere was lodged by the workman against his voluntarily nature of admission .

Present : A. A. LAD , Presiding Officer

Complaint No. CGIT - 2 /4 of 2007

Reference No. CGIT - 2 / 12 of 2007

Parties:-

Raigad Shamik Aekata Sangh

Shetkari Kamgar Paksha Karyalaya PlotNo. 228/1 , Savali Society Opp . Rupali Talkies , Panvel Tal . Panvel, Distt .

Complainant

Raigad -410 206

Versus

Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust 1107, Raheja Centre 214 , Free Press Journal Road, Nariman Point

On the basis of the above observation, I am of the view that workman had voluntarily admitted the charges and the nature of the charges proves that punishment awarded was proportionate to the committed misconduct . The workman not only admitted the charges , but from the documentary evidence it is also proved that he had deposited the amount which was subject matter of fraud and embezzlement . Under such circumstances , there should be no sympathy in awarding the punishment and order of removal was proportionate to the committed misconduct . Moreover , management is a financial institution where the main business is relating to the finance. If the management losses the faith in any workman on account of losing faith ofpublic in workman , he became useless for the institution and he was rightly kicked off from the institution like bank . Accordingly , the reference is answered . The workman is not entitled for any relief. Let Central Government be approached for publication of award , and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

Mumbai -400021

G.K. SHARMA , Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

No appearance

For the Complainant:

नई दिल्ली , 29 सितम्बर , 2010

For the Opponent :

Mr. S. S. Amdoskar, Representative

Mumbai , dated the 6th August , 2010

AWARD

का.आ. 2644, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार जवाहरलाल नेहरू पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण श्रम न्यायालय-2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट (संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी-2/ 12 ऑफ 2007 ) शिकायत सं. सीजीआईटी-2/4 ऑफ 2007 को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-09-10 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12025/ 1/2010- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

पुष्पेन्द्र कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 29th September, 2010

Complaint is filed by Union alleging that complaints involved in this are project affected persons , whose lands however were acquired by Government of Maharashtra and was handed over to JNPT . They were working with JNPT. They worked for more than 240 days in a vear and acquired status of permanency . Workmen were engaged on that work through contractor and demand was raised not to give said work to contract workers . Opponent is the only Port who is not engaging permanent workers on the work of maintenance . It is against the interest of workmen and said is done without giving notice under Section 33 -A ofthe Industrial Disputes Act . So it is prayed that said act of the JNPT be declared as unfair labour practice.

2. Notice was served on complainants vide Ex - 6 looking their absence in the proceedings since long. However complainants found absent on sumber of occasions including today's date . So complaint is disposed , off.

Hence following order is passed .

ORDER

S.O. 2644. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 2/12 of07 complaint No. CGIT- 2/ 4 of 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court - 2 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial dispute between the employees in relation to the Management of Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust and their workman , which was receivedby the Central Government on 29-09-2016

Complaint isdismissed for want of prosecution , [No. L- 12025/ 1/2010 - IR (B - II ) ]

Date: 06-08-2010

PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer 7201 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

नई दिल्ली , 29 सितम्बर , 2010

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank inflicting the punishment of Compulsory Retirement on Sri M. Damodaran is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ? " का.आ. 2645.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 82/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं.एल -12012/92/07- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute , this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 82/2007 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their Advocates and filed their Claim and Counter Statement as the case may be .

पुष्पेन्दर कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी

3. The facts in the Claim Statement bereft of unnecessary details are as follows :

New Delhi , the 29th September , 2010

S.O. 2645.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 82/ 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Cum- Labour Court , Chennai now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 29-9-2010

[ No. L - 12012/ 92/ 07 - IR ( B - II ) ]

PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Friday , the 24th September , 2010

Present : A. N. Janardanan , Presiding Officer Industrial Dispute No.82/ 2007

( In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause ( d ) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , between the Management of Indian Bank and their Workman )

BETWEEN

Sri M. Damodaran

I Party/Petitioner

Vs.

Il Party / Respondent

The General Manager Indian Bank Personnel Department Head Office , 66 , Rajaji Salai , Chennai - 600001 APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/ Petitioner : M/ s . K.M. Ramesh , Advocates

For the 2nd Party /Management : M/ s T.S.Gopalan &

Co. , Advocates

AWARD

The petitioner while was working as Sub - Staff in Arokkanam Branch of the Respondent/Bank was abrupty suspended in August , 2000 alleging him to have been involved in two fictitious credit entiries for Rs . 39,000 dated 24-06-2000 and for Rs . 54,000 dated 03-08-2000 and cash withdrawal for Rs . 38,000 on 18-07-2000 , Rs . 900 on 27-07-2000 , Rs . 40,000 on 08-08-2000 and Rs . 14,000 on 09-08-2000 in SB A/ c No. 16204 of one Sri S.S. Kumar , He was charged for misconduct prejudicial to the interests of the bank and gross negligence under Clause - 5 ( b ) of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-1966 whereby itself the Enquiry Officer was appointed. He was led into the enquiry blindfolded and against the principles of natural justice. In the enquiry one V. Siva Kumar , Branch Manager , A.D. Gopal , Senior Manager , Vellore and S.M. Kannan , Senior Manager , Anna Nagar were examined . The Enquiry Officer was biased which prejudiced the workman . The enquiry is not fair and proper . Copy of the enquiry report dated 7-12-2002 was furnished to him to which he offered his comments by way of detailed explanation . On 19-6-2004 notice proposing compulsory retirement under Clause - 6 ( c ) ofMemorandum of Settlement dated 10-04-2002 for gross misconduct under Clauses - 5 ( b ) , 5 ( d ) and 5 (j ) of Bipartite Settlement was issued. Petitioner submitted a further reply and was heard personally on 18-06-2004 where he submitted that he is not guilty , which without being considered the proposed punishment was imposed under Clause - 6 ( c ) on 19-06-2004 . His appeal dated 30-07-2004 pointing out illegality of punishment under Clause - 6 ( d ) was rejected on 13-05-2005 without application of mind . It is a case of victimization and unfair labour practice . The complainant was not examined thus with no opportunity to the petitioner to cross - examine him . There was no misappropriation of money . The principle that the fact sought to be proved must be supported by statements made in the presence of the person against whom the enquiry is held and those statements made behind the back of the person charged are not to be treated as substantive eveidence which is one of the basic principle and which cannot be ignored on the mere ground that domestic tribunals are not bound by the technical rules or procedure under the Evidence Act are violated . The petitioner was deprived of opportunity to The Central Government , Ministry of Labour vide Order No. L - 12012 / 92 / 2007 - IR ( B - II ) dated 28-11-2007 has referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication .

7202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 /KARTIKA 1 , 1932

[PARI II- S3 ( ii ) ]

on consent . No oral evidence was adduced on the side of the Respondent .

6. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the compulsory retirement of the petitioner is legal and justified?

defend properly. The finding is perverse without appreciation of the evidence and being pre - determined . Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities mechanically affirmed the finding . The Charges have not been proved . The evidence is to be re - appreciated under Section- 11A . Hence the claimfor setting aside the punishment and reinstatement .

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

4. The Counter Statement contentions briefly read as follows:

Points ( i) and ( ii)

On 11-8-2000 during balancing the books of accounts and ledgers in the SB A/c No. 16204 of S.S. Kumar, 2 credit entries for Rs . 39,000 datel 24-6-2000 with a narration "OBC" and for Rs . 54,000 datod 3-8-2000 with a narration "by clearing" not supported by any challan or voucher nor with corresponding entries in the accounting books of the bank like Sectional Day Book or OBC Lalger or Clearing Register were noticed. A sum of Rs . 38,000 seemed to have been withdrawn on 18-07-2000 , another sum of Rs . 900 on 21-07-2000 , another sum of Rs . 40,000 on 08-08-2000 and a sum of Rs . 14,000 on 09-08-2000 . All the vouchers relating 10 the debits were intact with the voucher bundle of respective dates and they were kept in safe custody. At 0800 PM on the same date , the matter was reported to the AGM , Vellore over phone and later by letter dated 12-8-2000 to the Chief Vigilance Officer , Chennai . On questioning Sri S.S. Kumar , SB Account Holder, he admitted that amounts credited on 24-06-2000 and 03-08- 2000 did not belong to him and he argreed to repay the amount before 01-09-2000 . Mr. Kumar confessed that the petitioner was involved in engineering these transactions and also that the petitioner had told him to withdraw the credits in his account through withdrawal slips not to face consequences , which he complied. Receiving the payments from the counter by the petitioner he paid Rs . 10,000 to Kumar . Kumar gave a letter dated 12-8-2000 to the Investigation Officer confirming the above . The father of the petitioner , Mathur coming to the Bank assured 10 arrange remittance of the balance amount . To Show Cause Notice dated 25-02-2000 the petitioner did not give a reply despite 4 reminders . On 09-03-2002 he was charge sheeted. An enquiry was held. The petitioner examined his father. The punishement is fully justifics! and there is no scope for interference. The petitioner has stue creceived his gratuity and PF dues and is getting monthy pension of Rs . 1,320 . The suspension was not malafide or asgainst natural justice . Non - examination of Kumar would not exonerate the petitioner . The enquiry is fair , proper and not biased . The finding is not perverse. The finding is on application of mind . Petitioner engineered fraudulent credits forging the initials of Checking Officer in balance column and subsequent fraudulent withdrawal of funds . The finding does not call for interference under Section 11A. the claim is to be dismissed.

7. Heard both sides and perused the documents , enquiry proceedings and report as well as written arguments filed on behalf of the petitioner. The prominent argumeats advanced on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel are that there is no evidence at all against the petitioner, is a Sub - Staff who connot have access to the ledger and who so is unable to give any credit entry . The evidence of MWI and MW2 is hearsay and illegal based on the statement purportedly made by S.S. Kumar . Account Holder of the SB A/ c No. 16204 in respect of which the fictitious credits were made without examining S.S. Kumar , the complainan in the enquiry and whose no cross -examination being made possible by the petitioner . It is pointed out that during enarriry wike fact was brought to the notice of the Enquiry Officer , he recorded im the proceedings by way of a ruling that no credence would be given to the statement of S.S. Kumar was not produced for examination. But without that rufing being translated into reality a finding is given against the petitioner . The finding is perverse and bad in law apart from being biased . Again it is on record that Ms. Rajganayaki , Clerk of Arakkonam Branch only had made the entires . The petitioner was on leave on the relevant dates also . Except the statement of S.S. Kumar , no other document is there to implicate the delinquent . The finding is rendered behind the back of the delinquent and is treacherous . He relied on the decision of the Apex Court in ROOP SINGH NEGI VS. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANKAND OTHERS ( 2009-2SCC - 570 ) wherein it is held that "the purported evidence collected during investigation against the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceedings . No witness examined to prove the saiddocuments . The Management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. In KULDIP SINGH NS . THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE AND OTHERS ( 1999-2- SCC- 10) it was held "where a previously madeby the witness either during the course of preliminary enquiry or investigation , is proposed to be brought on record in the departmental proceedings , the law as laid down by this Court is that a copy of that statement should first be supplied to the delinquent , who should thereafter be given an opportunity to examine that witness " . In Hardwarn Lal Vs. State of UP and Others ( 1999-8 - SCC - 582 ) , the Supreme Court held that " failure to examine material witness would vitiate the disciplinary proceedings " . In Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer ( 1985-3 - SCC - 378 ) Supreme Court held that 5. The evidence consists of oral evidence of WW1 and Ex . WI to Ex. W6 on the petitioner's side and Ex. MI to Ex . M16 on the side ofthe Respondent, both sets marked [ भाग ।। - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

7203 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23. 2010 /कार्तिक 1. 1932

legal evidence the finding could reasonably be entered into. Even if it may be that a third person may also be involved , as to who he is , we may be in dark presently , does not mean that the pinpointed man cannot be procecied against.

" an enquiry report in a quasi judicial enquiry must show the reasons for the conclusion .It cannot be an ipse-dixit of the Enquiry Officer . It had to be speaking order in the sense that conclusion is supported by reasons " . In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India ( 1966-1 - SCC- 466) it was observed that " a speaking order will at its best be a reasonable and at its worst be atleast a plausible one" . " It should all the more be so where the enquiry may result in deprivation of livelihood or attach a stigma to the character " . " Where a disciplinary enquiry affect the livelihood and is likely to cast a stigma and it has to be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice the aninimum expectation is that order must be a reasoned one" . It is further held in H. C. Goel Vs. Union of India (Air 1964- SC - 364 ) " mere suspicion should not allowed to take the place of proof even in domestic enquiries " .

8. The contra arguments of the Respondent's learned counsel are that regarding the spurious credits of the amounts into the account of S. S. Kumar , the Account Holder alone can throw some light . On information vegarding the credits while the Investigating Officer was nquired with the account holder who admitted the credits as not belonging to him. It is from him that some materials were emanating so as to throw light into the fact that the wrong credits occasioned at the intervention of the petitioner , a Sub- Staff. Though , describing himself as Sub- Staff the petitioner may not totally disown the responsibility for the wrong credits of the amounts to the SB A / c of S. S. Kumar , the Account Holder. For the fraudulent acts the fraudster need not be directly involved but may get it done by any hook or crook . It is the petitioner alone who engineered the fraud . The petitioner did not appear before the enquiry or plead not guilty . It is further pointed out that there is no motive for the Respondent/ Bank to falsely proceed against the petitioner . It is not without any basis that the Management proceeded against the petitioner . There was a statement of S. S. Kumar recorded by the Investigating Officer in which Kumar has confessed that the credits were not effected by him but were caused at the instance of the petitioner . He also has delineated the episode that was unfolded from the petitioner regarding the credits of the amounts in his SB Account, the withdrawals effected by the petitioner appropriating to himself major protions of the money but without disclosing how the credits were given or from whom it was leaving those matters in obscurity for being explained later , but with no discernible intention to disclose later too . The learned counsel while agreeing that there may not be tangible evidence to contend that the petitioner alone may by guilty there is cirucumstantial evidence to show that the petitioner is guilty. He reminded this Tribunal that the function of this Tribunal is only to have a judicial review in which the question to be looked into is whether there is some legal evidence to warrant the finding and it is not to look for sufficient evidence . In other words insufficiency

of the evidence is not a ground to interfere with the finding rendered by the Enquriy Officer if on some evidence , say

9. There is forceful challenge against the reliance placed on the statement of S. S. Kumar , the Account Holder without his having been examined . A good number of decisions have been sought to be relied on behalf of the petitioner to show that the statement of the Account Holder is not acceptable without his having been examined in the enquiry and without having given an opportunity to the delinquent to cross - examine the Account Holder on whose complaint or the statement the petitioner is proceeded against . In other words , the taint ascribed against the statement of S. S. Kumar without examining him is that the same is only an instance of hearsay and cannot be based for a decision .It is settled that any material logically probative to a prudent mind is reliable provided it has rational nexus and is reliable . It has been held that there is no allergy even to hearsay provided there is rational nexus to the information with the fact in issue and the same is credible . Applying the above dicta to the facts of the present case when the issue is examined it may seen sound to hold that though the statement of S. S. Kumar , the Account Holder is not proved by himself, but when has been proved through the Investigating Officer and other witnesses on the side of the Respondent /Management it is pertinent to ask would they not be logically probative materials to hold that the statement of the said S. S. Kumar, the Account Holder are true and the contents thereof are reliable to implicate the petitioner as being the person who caused the fictitious credit entries being made in the SB Account of S. S. Kumar . It is broughtto light that the very petitioner was getting the wrongly credited amounts withdrawn through the withdrawal slips signed by S. S. Kumar , the Account Holder of which amounts the petitioner himself was appropriating the major portion, parting a small portion to S. S. Kumar who when was receiving the money being found startled, the petitioner was making standstill by saying that everything will be explained later , putting a lid to the conversation touching the very affair . It is shown that the petitioner and the Account Holder , S. S. Kumar are friends . Though S. S. Kumar was sought to be made a witness by summoning him in the enquiry he was not appearing for the enquiry and that has been the reason for his not being examined as a witness in the enquiry and the non - examination of S. S.Kumar , therefore cannot be attributed as a fault on the part of the Respondent / Management . Though this is the only evidentiary material pointing to the guilt against the petitioner it cannot be found that there is no evidence , say legal evidence worth the name to warrant a finding that the petitioner is guilty ofthe charges . Law cannot be oblivious to what is obvious to others . Strict rules of Evidence Act are not applicable in an industrial adjudication. As already mentioned even a reliance can be placed on hearsay evidence provided the 7204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 / KARTIKA 1 , 1932

material has rational connection and the same is credible . in this case , the material is the information furnished from the statement of S. S. Kumar , Account Holder indicating the petitioner to have engineered the fictitious entries in the SB Account and the withdrawals of amounts by himself through the petitioner appropriating a major portion to petitioner himself and parting with a small sum to the Account Holder as a reward for the share of the Account Holder in assisting the petitioner to achieve his objective of wrongfully enriching himself. There is no reason to disbelieve the management witnesses . They are only out for finding of facts . They have no ill motive against the petitioner . The case on hand is not one with no evidence but is with some material logically probative to persuade to a positive finding against the petitioner . Therefore , the so- called hearsay statement in writting as a logically probative material to a prudent mind could safely be relied upon to hold that the petitioner is the brainchild of the fraudulent entries . Therefore , he is guilty of the charges . The finding to that score rendered does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality and the same is not vitiated for any reason , whatever . The punishment of Compulsory Retirement imposed on the petitioner is also just proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the same also does not call for interference . The petitioner is therefore not entitled to any relief.

10. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P. A. transcribed and typed by him , corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 24th September , 2010 ) .

A. N. JANARDANAN , Presiding Officer Witnesses Examined :

WW1 , Sri M. Damodaran Forthe I Party/Petitioner :

: None

Forthe II Party /Mgmt

Documents Marked : ----

On the petitioner's side

Ex. No.

Date

Description Ex.WI

7-12-2002

Letter from Indian Bank employees Union to the Enquiry Officer enclosing Defence Summing Up statement .

7-12-2002

Ex. W2

Defence Summing Up statement submitted by the Ist Party to the Enquiry Officer.

1-10-2003

Ex . W3

Letter from 2nd Party enclosing enquiry findings and asking for comments from the 1st Party.

[ PART II - SEC 3 ( i ) ] Nil

Ex. W4

Comments submitted by the 1st Partyto the enquiry findings , Nil

Ex . W5

Petitions under Section 2A filed by the 1st Party before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour ( Central ) , Chennai .

Nil

Ex . W6

Reply filed by the Ist Partyto the remarks of the 2nd Party before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour ( Central ) , Chennai .

On the Management's side

Date

Ex. No.

Description Ex . MI

9-03-2002

Charge Sheet issued to the petitioner .

Nil

Ex . M2

Replyby petitioner Nil

Ex .M3

Enquiry proceedings 12-08-2000

Ex .M4

Later by Respondent to Chief Vigilance Officer regarding the fraud (M.E. 1) .

16-08-2000

Ex .M5

Letter by Respondent to the Regional Office , Vellore ( M.E. 2 ) .

19-08-2000

Ex . M6

Later by Respondent to the Regional Office , Vellore ( M.E. 3 ) .

Ex . M7

12-08-2000

Letter by S.S. Kumar , Account Holder to the Respondent infornting the fraud committed by the petitioner ( M.E. 4) .

16-08-2000

Ex. M8

Letter by the Investigation Officer (Senior Manager ) to the Regional Office , Vellore alongwith annexures ( M.E.5 ) .

Ex. M9

24-04-2001

Letter by Office of the Government examiner( Ministry of Home Affairs ) to the Respondent Bank (D.E.I ) .

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

Ex . M10

22-09-2001

Enquiry findings Ex. M11

3-05-2004

2nd Show Cause Notice issued to the petitioner.

Ex .M12

Nil

Reply by the petitioner to the above show cause notice .

4-06-2004

Ex . M13

Letter issued to the petitioner by Respondent .

Ex. M14

19-06-2004

Order of Compulsory Retirement issued to the petitioner.

Ex . M15

30-07-2004 Appeal preferred by the petitioner against the above order .

Ex. M16

31-08-2005

Order passed by Appellate Authority.

नई दिल्ली , 30 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2646. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , चंडीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 91/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था। [ सं. एल-12012 /197/02- आईआर( बी- II ) ]

पुष्पेन्दर कुमार , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th September , 2010 S.O. 2646. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 91 / 2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court - 1. Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 29-9-2010 .

[ No. L- 12012 / 197/ 02 - IR (B - II ) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

Case 1.D. No. 91/2003

Shri Tusli Prasad S/ o Shri Baij Nath , R/ o H. No. 10, Sector - 11 - A , Chandigarh - 160017 .

...Applicant

7205

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/कार्तिक 1 , 1932

Versus

The Zonal Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank , Zonal Office , Sector - 17 - B , Chandigarh .

...Respondent APPEARANCES :

For the Workman : Shri M. P. S. Mann .

Shri J. S. Sathi .

For the Management :

AWARD

Passed on : 17-9-2010

Government of India vide notification No. L - 12012/ 197/ 2002 - IR( B - 11 ) , datod 31-03-2003 by excrcising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act ( the Act in short ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal : -

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Tulsi Prasad S /o Shri Baij Nath , Ex - poon ( Daily Wage Basis ) w.e.f. 4-02-2002 without any notice and without any payment of retrenchment compensation in violation of statutory provisions of Section 25 - F , 25 -G and 25 - Hof the ID Act , 1947 is just and legal ? If not , what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and from which date?"

After receiving the reference parties were informed . Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The case of the workman in nut shell is that he was appointed as temporary peon in the year 1983-84 at Sector - 11 , Chandigarh branch . He worked there interminently with certain breaks up to September, 1998. Thereafter , he had continuously worked from Ist September , 1998 to June, 1999. Thereafter , the workman further worked in Sector - 41 branch of the bank from February , 2000 to 4th February , 2002 continuously without any break . He has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date ofhis termination . His services were terminated without notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation . In spite of vacancies , the services of the workman were terminated without any reason . Since the termination of his service he has not been and is gainfully employed . His services were terminated without following the procedure established by law on the letters issued by the management . Fresh hands were recruited after the termination of his service . On the basis of the above the workman has requested for an order of this Tribunal for setting aside the termination order and for consequential order regarding the reinstatement of his services along with other benefits .

Management opposed the claim by filing written statement . On perusal of the written statement it is evidently clear that management has not denied the length of service and the nature of services rendered by the workman to the management . The management has only contended that he was appointed on temporary basis as daily waged worker 7206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 /KARTIΚΑ 1 , 1932

having no right to post . The right to regularization of his services has also been challenged by the management . He was appointed without following the procedure for appointment . It was furthermore contended by the bank that bank has initiated and launched VRS policy and number of employees have taken the benefit of the policy. Under such scenario , it will be against the principle of law toallow the petition for reinstatement of the workman into the services

Both ofthe parties were afforded the opportunity for adducung evidence. Documentary evidence was filed by the parties Statement of workman Shri Tulsi Parshad was recorded whereas , on behalf of the management statement of one Shri Tardochan Singh , Senior Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank was recorded on oath.

Ihave heard the parties at length and perused the entire materials on record . The workman has prayed for setting aside the order of termination being against the provisions of the Act and for his remstatement on two grounds . The first ground is that his termination is without following the provisions of law, meaning thereby, without issuing a notice or payment of one month wages in lieu of notice and without payment of retrenchnment compensation and second ground is that the fresh hands were recruited/ engaged after the termination of his services .

So far as second ground is concerned it is pleaded by the workman in garlanding words without any proof. The workman has failed to previde the particulars of persons who were engaged after the termination of his services .

So far as the first ground for his illegal termination is concerned it is admitted by the management that the workman has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination . The workman has specifically pleaded about the teoure and the nature of the work in his statement of claim which is not specifically dented by the management . It is further contended by the management that workman was a casual worker and a daily waged worker have no rightto post . The management has also tried to interlinked the protection of right to work with regularization of the services . These two issues namely protection from illegal termination and regularization of his services are quite different and sometimes have no nexus with each other . The Industrial Disputes Act also protects the services of a casual worker and a temporary workman. When a temporary workman or a casual worker is appointed and has served the management for a substantial period of time, it is arumateriał how he was initially appointed . The definition of the workman and retrenchment given in the Industrial Disputes Act makes it absolutely clear that every workman whatever may be his nature of appointment comes within the parameters of the Industrial Disputes Act . Every such appointment has got the protection of umbrella of law. The Industrial Disputes Act does not bar the termination of a casual worker or temporary employee but

[ PARI II- SE 3 ( i ) ) it regulates it . The services of a temporary employee or a casual daily waged worker are regulated in the sense that if the services are no more required to the management , the management is at liberty to terminate the services strictly as per the provisions of the law. The law provided that if the services are no more required the management has to give a month notice , or pay one month wages in lieu of notice along with lawful terminal dues Neither notice was given nor one month wages were paid to the workman and no retrenchment compensation as per provisions of law paid which makes the termination of the workman void and illegal being against the provisions of the Act Nodoubt , the management has not denied the length of the services of the workman as pleaded but the workman has also proved by filing documentary evidence . Documents W2 to W26 makes it clear that workman has completed 240 days of work in the proceding year from the date of his termination . Thus , the toponation of the workman from the services was viod and illegal .

Whenever , the termination of any word quan is declared to be illegal and void , there are two possible remedies available to the workman . The first remedy is reinstatement of the workman into the services on the same position he was initially appointed and working with the bank . The second alternative remedy is deemable compensation . It is the settled law of serviciurisprudence that priority should be given for remstatement of the workman into the service. On poing through materials on record, it is clear that work as aulable warb the bank . Accordingly reinstatement of the workman mio the services will be the appropriate remedy the matapelacht is directed to reinstate the workman within one month from the date of publication of award . Acorderers , the reference is answered . Let Central Lioscomment be approached for publication of award and tinereafter tile be consigned to record room .

G.K. SHARMA, Pre-adme Officer नई दिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर 2010

का.आ. 2647 - औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम 1941947 का 14 ) की धारा । के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकारनंद सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके मकान के बोन अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में कन्नीक अधिकरण/ श्रभ न्यायालय । चंडीगढ़ के चार मंख्या 68/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जाकर एक को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[ मं.एल-120129509 室 ) ] New Delhi , the 30th September of

S.O. 2647. In pursuance of Section of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 11 of 1947 ), the Central Government hereby publishes the Awardi Ket , Na 6820091 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (i) ]

7207 भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010/ कार्तिक 1 , 1932

every workman for regularization of their services along with consequential benefits .

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court - i , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workman , which was receivd by the Central Government on 29-9-2010

[ No. L- 12012/93/09 - IR (B - II ) ]

PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

The management appeared and opposed the claim ofthe workman by filing written statement . It is contended the by bank that the entry of every workman was a back door entry and they cannot have any rightto claim for regularization of their services . They have not worked continuously but have rendered their services interminently.

ANNEXURE

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

CHANDIGARH

Case I.D. No. 68/2009

Bothof the parties were afforded the opportunity for adducing evidence . On behalf of all the five workmen Shri Vinod Kumar adduce the evidence for himself and for others , whereas , on behalf of the management of funjab & Sind Bank the statement of Shri Kanwarjet Singh was recorded.

Shri Vinod Kumar S/ o Shri Puna Ram C/ o Shri R.P.Rana , H. No. 398, Sector- 45 -A, Chandigarh

...Applicant

I have heard the parties at length and perused the entire materials on record . So far as the circular order ofthe bank W 2 is concerned, it is applicable to all the workmen . The opening three lines of the circular letter are as follows:

Versus

The Zonal Manager , Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office, Bhangu Road Bhatinda (Punjab) -151001 .

...Respondent

"Please furnish us the following information in respect of temporary peon/ casual/daily waged workers / labours etc. who were engaged at the branch during the period on 01-01-1982 to 31-12-1989 ".

APPEARANCES

For the Workman

: Shri R.P. Rana

For the Management : Shri J.S. Sathi

AWARD

Passed on: 17-9-2010

Government of India vide notification no . L - 12012/ 93/2009- IR(B - II), dated 15-02-2010 by exercising its powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , (the Act in short) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal: -

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab & Sind Bank in employing Shri Vinod Kumar & 4 others (Gurbhej Singh, Darshan Singh , Manjit Singh, Kuldip Singh) since last 8 to 18 years as peon as daily wages without any statutory and non - statutory benefits is legal and justified . What relief are they entitled to and from which dates ?"

informed. After receiving the reference parties were

case It means that this circular letter is applicable in of temporary peon/ casual /daily waged worker working in the bank during the period w.e.f. 01-01-1982 το 31-12-1989 . In general , this circular letter is also applicable to all the temporary peon/casual /daily waged worker/ labourers who were appointed subsequently and are working with the bank . All the workmen have been appointed between the year 1992-99 . The workman who is appointed in the year 1992 has completed 18 years of service as temporary peon whereas , rest of the workmen has also completed more than 10 years of services with the bank as temporary peon . The informations were to be rendered as per the circular letter . The circular letter contains nine informations . Last one is regarding the completion of 240 days in a block of 12 consecutive months . It is admitted by the witness of the management that informations regarding all the five workmen were send to the head office by the branch office vide circular letter W2 . It has been mentioned by the witness of the bank that this circular letter was regarding the members of the scheduled castes and scheduled tribes . It is nowhere mentioned the circular letter that it only applies to the members of scheduled castes and scheduled tribes . It is the development of the Manager concern in the oral evidence adduced before the Tribunal on oath . In column No. 5 information was sought regarding the category of the candidate . I am reproduced the column no . 5 as follows :-

"(5) Category: whether General/SC / ST/OBC /PH . " Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The case of the workmen in nut shell is that they joined the bank in different years . Shri Manjeet Singh joined the bank in the year 1992. Shri Vinod Kumar and Kuldeep joined the bank in the year 1998 , whereas , Gurbhej Singh and Darshan Singh joined the bank in th year 1999. They are still working as daily waged temporary peon . Their names were sent to the office for regularization of services vide notification no . W2 . Their servies were not regularized, whereas , they have worked with the bank for 10 to 20 years as temporary employee . With the above contention every workman has prayed for an order of this Tribunal directing the management of the bank to consider the claims of

Thus, the plain language of the circular letter speaks thatthe circular letter applies to the all category of peons/ casual workers / labours / who were engaged in the branch at any point of time but have completed 240 days of work .

396395/ 10-14 7208

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010/KARTIΚΑ 1 , 1932

The antecedents and informations regarding all the five workman were send to the head office for considering their claim for regularization of their services shows that every workman has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of notification . All the workman are still working in the bank and no order was passed by the management regarding circular order W2 . It was the violation of the beneficiary scheme launched by the management of the bank for regularization of the services of every workman vide letter W2 .

It is true that this Tribunal generally should not direct the management for regularization of their services unless it is not the case of the glaring injustice by violating any rules or regularization . As mentioned above circular letter W2 has been violated by the management Accordingly, the management is directed to consider the claim for the regularization of the services of each workman as per the information given and antecedents provided to the management vide letter W2 . The management is further directed to consider the case of the workman from the day back when the benefit was given to the other persons vide letter W2 . Accordingly, the reference is answered. Let Central Government be approached for publication of award, and thereafter , file be consigned to record room.

G K. SHARMA , Presiding Office नई दिल्ली, 30 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2648. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 99/2005 )को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं.एल-39025 / 1/ 10 - आईआर ( बी- II ) ] पुष्पेन्दर कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th September , 2010 S.O. 2648. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. LC ID- No.99/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workman, which was receivd by the Central Government on 29-9-2010

[No. L- 39025/ 1 / 10- IR (B - II) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD

PRESENT: - Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer Dated the 18th day of August , 2010

[ PART 11- S ( in) ] Industrial Dispute L. C. No. 99/2005 BETWEEN :

P.Mogili (Dial )

1 . Smt . P. Devika , W/ o Late P. Mogili ,

2. Ms. P. Mamata , Dio Late Mogih.

3. Ms. P. Manjula, D/ o Late P. Mogilh .

4. Ms.P. Deepthi, D/o Late P. Mogili ,

Ms. P. Suman, D/ o Late P. Mogili , 5.

R/ o 5-9-24 , Lakshar Bazar,

...Petutioner Hanumakonda, Warangal district AND

1. The Deputy General Manager , SyndicateBank, Pioneer House , Sontajiguda, Hyderabad- 82.

2. The General Manager ( Personal) SyndicateBank , Post Box No. 1, Manupal - 5761 Respondenst APPEARANCES :

Forthe Petitioner : M/ s . K. Aranth R... T. Chakravarthy, B. Sityam Sunder Rao , Advocates For the Respondent : Sri Alluri Krishnam Raju , Advocate

AWARD

This petition was filed by P. Mogili ( Since deceased ) under Sec . 2. A (2 ) of the I.D.Act , 1947 in light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Hight Court of Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated 3-8-1995 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/ s . Cotton Corporation of India and two others challenging the order of compulsory retirement dated 27-6-2002 and the appeal rejection order dated 16-11-2000 as illegal and arbitrary and consequently set aside the same and to reinstate the Petitioner into service .

2. Since Petitioner deceased , has been representert by Smt . P. Devika, W/ o Late P. Mogili , Daughters te . P. Mamatha P. Manjula, P. Deevthi and P. Suntan has beensubmitted by the Petitioner that he was appointed as clerk in Respondent bank on 26-9-1973 . Thereafter rendered services to the utmost satisfaction ofhis superiors . During the year 1983-84 while the Petitioner was working at Bollaram branch , Secunderabad he developed kidney problems and was forced to undergo extensive medical tests and medical treatment . In the mean time he was transferred to village Devagiripatnam where he could not avail medical treatment which affected the health of the Petitioner adversely. He applied for leave . However, he was served with the charge sheet alleging therein that he committed misconduct of habitual absence without leave and irregular attendance for 122 days between 28-4-94 to 7209 [ भाग 11 - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : अक्तूबर 23 , 2010 / कार्तिक 1 , 1932

6 . this case: The followingpoints have to be considered in

( i ) Whether the punishment imposed on Petitioner is illegal and arbitrary ?

( ii) If Petitioner is entitled for any relief and if he is entitled then to which relief he is entitled to ?

28-8-99 . Disciplinary action was initiated which ultimately resulted in removal from service by way of compulsory retirement . Since Petitioner was suffering from kidney problem and also he met with a scooter accident in which his leg was severely injured . That forced the Petitioner to apply for leave. Thedomestic enquiry was conducted, Enquiry Officer acted as an agent of the management and proper enquiry was not conducted . The charges were not framed as per clause 19.5 ( f) of Bipartite settlement between the management and the union of the bank, the copy of the said settlement was not filed before the Enquiry Officer. Enquiry Officer submitted his report without looking into the terms and settlements , holding that charges are proved and punishing authority ordered for compulsory retirement of the Petitioner . Appeal was preferred by the Petitioner which was dismissed by Appellate Authority vide order dated 16-11-2000 . Petitioner has put in 27years of service which was not considered by the management while umposing the punishment of compulsory retirement . The order is illegal , arbitary and deserves to be quashed .

3. Respondent filed counter statement stating therein that while working as clerk at Bollaram branch , the Petitioner committed gross misconduct of habitual absence without leave and irregular attendance vide clause No. 19.5 ( f) of Bipartite settlement . He remained absent without prior intimation or sanctioned leave for 122 days between 24-8-98 and 28-2-99 on which he was issued with the charge sheet and show cause notice for his unauthorized absence and was awared with appropriate punishment . He again resorted to absence . Charge sheet was issuedto him . Delinquent employee submitted a letter dated 8-10-99, which was not found to be satisfactory. Hence , departmental enquiry was ordered and intimated to the workman . Workman participated along with defence representative Sri . P. Vijaya Rao , then CEC Member , SBEU . The Enquiry Officer has submitted his report , report was forwarded to the Petitioner for submission of his reply but delinquent employee did not submit any reply to the show cause notice issued to him . The Disciplinary Authority passed order for compulsory retirement of the delinquent employee . The allegation of the Petitioner that the report of the Enquiry Officer is not based on Bipartite settlement or he was not given proper opportunity is without any basis , has no force , claim statement is devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed .

7. Point Nos . ( I ) & ( II ) : It is not disputed that Petitioner remained absent during the year 1983-84 . The Petitioner's case is that he remained absent due to kidney trouble and he was under the treatment for the kidney ailment . He has state that he applied for leave on medical ground and also attached medical certificates from timeto time, but , Respondent has not adjusted his leave . He submitted his explanation . He has relied on documents , charge sheet dated 7-9-99 , explanation to the charge sheet dated 8-10-99 , notice of enquiry dated 20-10-99 , enquiry report dated 9-2-2000 , show cause notice dated 20-3-2000 , personal hearing datexl 10-4-2000 , compulsory retirement order dated 27-6-2000 , appeal preferred by Mogili dated 27-6-2000 , appeal dismissal order dated 16-11-2000 , copy of his mercy petition to Chairman dated 18-11-2002 , 1-2- 2002 and 13-1-2003 which has been marked as Ex . W1 to W12 . But no medical certificate has been filed by the Petitioner to prove that he suffered ill - health during the year 1983-84 . The contention of the Petitioner is that he was not keeping good health , he applied for leave but no action was taken by the management but Petitioner has not filed any copy of application before this tribunal that may show that he applied for any leave or he produced any medical certificate before the management for leave during the period of his absence as such , documents filed by him marked as Ex . W1 to W12 will be of no help to the Petitioner . If the Petitioner was undergoing treatment he could have filed medical certificate before Enquiry Officer , so that this tribunal can come to an independent conclusion regarding the absence of Petitioner . Since the Petitioner himself has admitted that he remained absent and pleaded that absence was due to his ill -health . It was his duty to prove the ground ofhis absence and his ill - health before this tribunal . Since Petitioner has not filed any document to prove that he has undergone any treatment during the period of absence , action of the management can not be said to be arbitrary or illegal . Petitioner was clerk, his absence from the duty of the bank would have hampered the working of bank as well as customers of the bank . The bank has not committed any irregularity or illegality in imposing the punishment of compulsory retirement and the Petitioner does not deserve any sympathy from this tribunal . Point Nos . ( I ) and ( II ) are answered accordingly .

4. The workman has filed his affidavit and he appeared for cross examination but no cross examination was done . Respondent management has filed copy of charge sheet , procecxling before the Enquiry Officer , report of the Enquiry Officer and letter of Petitioner and letter of management .

5. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner and I have gone through the evidence produced by parties before this tribunal .

8. From the above discussion , this tribunal is of the view that Petitioner has not been able to prove that the action of the management is illegal and arbitrary, he does not deserve any sympathy . Petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed . Hence, this award .

7210

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : OCTOBER 23 , 2010 /KARTIKA 1 , 1932

Award passed accordingly . Transmit .

Dictated to Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 18th day of August, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Persiding Officer Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined of the Petitioner

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Nil

WW1 : Smt . P. Devika

Documents marked for the Petitioner Ex. WI: Copy of charge sheet dtd.7-9-99

Ex. W2: Copy of explanation to the charge sheet dtd 8-9-99.

Ex. W3: Copy ofnotice of enquiry dtd. 20-10-99 .

Ex. W4: Copy of enquiry report dtd. 9-2-2000 .

Ex. W5: Copy of show cause notice dtd . 20-3-2000.

Ex. W6: Copy of lr. ofpersonal hearing dtd . 10-4-2000 .

Ex. W7: Copy oforder of compulsory retirement dtd . 27-6-2000.

Ex. W8: Copy of appeal preferred by Mogili dtd. 27-6-2000.

Ex. W9: Copy of Ir . reg.dismissal of appeal Ex. W8dtd. 16-11-2000 .

Ex. W10: Copy of mercy petition to the chairman dtd . 18-11-2002.

Ex. W11: Copy of mercy petition to the chairman dtd . 1-2-2002.

Ex. W12: Copy of mercy petition to the chairman did . 13-1-2002 .

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

नई दिल्ली , 30 सितम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 2649. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रभ न्यायालय 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 182/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 29-9-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं.एल-12012/3 /2000 - आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

पुष्पेन्दर कुमार, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 30th September, 2010 S.O. 2649.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref . No. 182/2000 ) of the Central Government ladestral Tribunal / Labour Court - 1 , Dhanbad now as shown as the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 29-9-2010 .

[No. L - 12012/3/2000-1R ( B - 11 ) ] PUSHPENDER KUMAR . Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . I , AT DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri H.M.Singh , Presiding Ofhee

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

Reference No. 182 of 2000

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

None

Onbehalf ofthe workman :

On behalf of the employers : Sri Abanish Haidar, Sr.Manager State : Jharkhand

Industry: Banking Dated, Dhanbad, the 31st September , 2010

AWARD

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour , in exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10 ( 1) ( d) of the I.D. Act . , 1947 has referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order No. L - 12012/3/ 2000 - IR( B - II ) , dated the 16th June , 2000 ,

SCHEDULE

"Whether denial of special allowance in cash department to senior employees i.e. B.D. Singh , Clerk on permanent assignment by the Regional Manager , Indian Bank, Patna for the Branches at Arrah, is as per direction of Sastry Awards & Bi - partutе settlement ? If so , whether the action of the management of Indian Bank is justified ? If not , what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. In this case neither the concerned workman/ anion appeared nor filed the Written Statement inspite of the issuance of notice to them . Management , however , made appearance through their authorised representative The instant reference is of the year 2000 and since then it is pending for disposal . The attitude of the workman side clearly shows that they are not interested to contest the case . Under such circumstances , a ' No dispute Award is passed presuming non - existence of any industrial dispute between the parties .

H.M. SINGH . Presiding Officer Frinted by the Manager, Government of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri . New Delhi - 11006-4

and Publishedby the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054 .