⁄UÁ¡S≈˛UË ‚¢¯ «UË¯ ∞‹¯ (∞Ÿ) Æy/ÆÆÆ|/wÆÆxóÆz

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

izkf/dkj ls izdkf'kr

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

‚ÊåÃÊÁ„U∑§

WEEKLY

la- 1]

ubZ fnYyh, fnlEcj 26] 2010—tuojh 1] 2011] 'kfuokj@ikS"k 5—ikS"k 11] 1932

No. 1]

NEW DELHI, DECEMBER 26, 2010—JANUARY 1, 2011, SATURDAY/PAUSA 5—PAUSA 11, 1932

bl Hkkx esa fHkUu i`"B la[;k nh tkrh gS ftlls fd ;g i`Fkd ladyu ds :i esa j[kk tk lds

Separate Paging is given to this Part in order that it may be filed as a separate compilation

Hkkx IIó[k.M 3ómi&[k.M (ii)

PART II—Section 3—Sub-section (ii)

÷Ê⁄UÃ ‚⁄U∑§Ê⁄U ∑§ ◊¢òÊÊ‹ÿÊ¥ (⁄UˇÊÊ ◊¢òÊÊ‹ÿ ∑§Ê ¿UÊ«∏U∑§⁄U) mÊ⁄UÊ ¡Ê⁄UË Á∑§∞ ª∞ ‚Ê¢ÁﬂÁœ∑§ •ÊŒ‡Ê •ÊÒ⁄U •Áœ‚ÍøŸÊ∞¢

Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India

(Other than the Ministry of Defence)

dk£ed] yksd f'kdk;r rFkk isa'ku ea=kky;

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 21 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 1-—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk

6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDÙk;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, fetksje jkT; ljdkj] lrdZrk foHkkx] vkbtky

dh vf/lwpuk la- lh@13011@256@2010&lrdZrk fnukad 30 vxLr]

2010 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls o"kZ] 2008&2009 ds nkSjku jk"Vªh;

ifj;kstuk fuekZ.k fuxe fy- vkSj pdek Lok;Ùk ftyk ifj"kn~]

fetksje }kjk #- 5]03]96]680 ls vf/d Hkkjr&ckaxyk ckMZj iQsfUlax

ls izHkkfor yksxksa dks Hkwfe eqvkots ds Hkqxrku esa dfFkr

/ks[kk/M+h ds laca/ esa Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/fu;e] 1988 (1988

dk vf/fu;e la- 49) dh /kjk 13 (1)(lh) vkSj (Mh) lifBr

/kjk 13(2) vkSj Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk 1860 (1860 dk vf/fu;e

la- 45) dh /kjk 120 (ch)] 420] 468 vkSj 471 ds v/hu naMuh;

vijk/ksa ds vUos"k.k ds fy, vkSj mi;qZDr iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kksa rFkk

"kM~;a=kksa ;k blh laO;ogkj ds Øe esa ;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mn~Hkwr vU;

fdUgha vijk/ksa ds vUos"k.k ds laca/ esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

4807 GI/2011

(1)

ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa rFkk {ks=kkf/dkj dk foLrkj ,rn~}kjk lEiw.kZ

fetksje jkT; ds lEcU/ esa djrh gS A

¹la- 228@65@2010&, oh Mh&IIº

vkj-ds- xqIrk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES

AND PENSIONS

( Department of Personnel and Training )

New Delhi, the 21st December, 2010

S.O. 1.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of section 5 read with Section 6 of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946),

the Central Government with the consent of the State

Government of Mizoram, Vigilance Department, Aizawl vide

Notification No. C/13011/256/2010-VIG. dated 30th August,

2010 hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the

members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the

whole of the State of Mizoram for investigation of offences

punishable under sections 120-B, 420, 468 and 471 of the

Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) and section

13(2) read with 13(1) (c) & (d) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of 1988) relating to the

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

alleged fraud in payment of land compensation to those

affected by Indo-Bangla Border Fencing involving more

than Rs. 5,03,96,680 by National Projects Construction

Corporation Limited and Chakma Autonomous District

Council, Mizoram during the year 2008-2009 and attempts,

abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in connection

with the above mentioned offences and any other offence/

offences committed in course of the same transaction of

arising out of the same facts.

[No.228/65/2010-AVD-II]

R. K. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 2-—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1946 (1946 dk vf/fu;e la- 25) dh /kjk

6 ds lkFk ifBr /kjk 5 dh mi/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq, >kj[kaM jkT; ljdkj] x`g foHkkx] jkaph dh

vf/lwpuk la- 6@lhchvkbZ&707@2010@3282 fnukad 12 vxLr]

2010 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls Mk- iznhi dqekj] Hkkjrh; iz'kklfud

lsok] rRdkyhu lfpo] LokLF;] >kj[kaM jkT; ljdkj }kjk fd,

x, dfFkr vijk/ ds laca/ esa Hkz"Vkpkj fujks/d vf/fu;e]1988

(1988 dk vf/fu;e la- 49) ds vUrxZr /kjk 13 (2) ds lkFk

ifBr 13 (1) (bzZ-) /kjkvksa ds vUrxZr n.Muh; vijk/ dk rFkk

iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kkvksa vkSj "kM~;a=kksa ds lEcU/ esa ;k mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr

vijk/ksa ds laca/ esa rFkk mlh laO;ogkj ds Øe esa fd, x, fdlh

vijk/@vijk/ksa ds ckjs esa ;k mUgha rF;ksa ls mn~Hkwr dksbZ vijk/ dk

vUos"k.k djus ds fy, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh

'kfDr;ksa vkSj {ks=kkf/dkj dk foLrkj lEiw.kZ >kj[kaM jkT; ds lEcU/

esa djrh gS A

¹la- 228@43@2009&, oh Mh&IIº

vkj- ds- xqIrk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2010

S.O. 2.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (1) of Section 5 read with Section 6 of the

Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 (Act No. 25

of 1946), the Central Government with the consent of the

State Government of Jharkhand, Home Department, Ranchi

vide Notification No. 6/C.B.I.-707/2010/3282 dated 12th

August, 2010, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction

of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment

to the whole of the State of Jharkhand for investigation of

offences punishable under sections 13(1) (e) read with 13(2)

of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Act No. 49 of

1988) allegedly committed by Dr. Pradeep Kumar, IAS , the

then Secretary, Health, State Government of Jharkhand and

attempts, abetments and conspiracies in relation to or in

connection with the above mentioned offences and any

other offence/offences committed in course of the same

transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/43/2009-AVD-II]

R. K. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 3-—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl

LFkkiuk vf/fu;e] 1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk

24 dh mi/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

Jh lanhi 'kekZ] odhy dks fgekpy izns'k mPp U;k;ky;] f'keyk

esa fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk (ds-v- C;wjks) ds fo'ks"k yksd

vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹la- 225@47@2009&AVD-IIº

vkj-ds- xqIrk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 27th December, 2010

S.O. 3.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (8) of Section 24 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974), the Central

Government hereby appoints Shri Sandeep Sharma,

Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor of the Delhi Special

Police Establishment (Central Bureau of Investigation) in

the Himachal Pradesh High Court at Shimla.

[No. 225/47/2009-AVD-II]

R K. GUPTA, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=kky;

(jktLo foHkkx)

(dsUæh; izR;{k dj cksMZ)

ubZ fnYyh] 22 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 4-—loZlk/kj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk

;g vf/lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd dsUnz ljdkj }kjk vk;dj

fu;ekoyh] 1962 (mDr fu;ekoyh) ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5Ä ds

lkFk ifBr vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 (mDr vf/fu;e) dh /kjk

35 dh mi/kjk (1) ds [kaM (ii) ds iz;kstukFkZ 1&4&2002 (dj

fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2003&2004) ds vkxs ls laxBu eSllZ us'kuy dkÅafly

iQkj vIykbZM bDuksfed fjlpZ] ubZ fnYyh dks fuEufyf[kr 'krks±

ds v/hu vuqla/ku dk;Zdykiksa esa va'kr% yxh ^vU; laLFkk* dh

Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] vFkkZr~ %&

(i) vuqeksfnr laxBu dks iznÙk jkf'k dk mi;ksx oSKkfud

vuqla/ku ds fy, fd;k tk,xk_

(ii) vuqeksfnr laxBu vius ladk; lnL;ksa vFkok vius

ukekafdr Nk=kksa ds ekè;e ls oSKkfud vuqla/ku djsxk_

(iii) vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/ku ds fy, blds }kjk

izkIr jkf'k ds laca/ esa vyx [kkrk cgh j[ksxk A

vuqla/ku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k mlesa n'kkZbZ xbZ gks]

mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 288 dh mi/kjk (2) ds

Li"Vhdj.k esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj ls viuh

[kkrk&cgh dh ys[kk ijh{kk djk,xk vkSj mDr vf/fu;e

dh /kjk 139 dh mi /kjk (1) ds varxZr vk; fooj.kh

izLrqr djus dh fu;r frfFk rd ,sls ys[kkdkj }kjk fof/&

or lR;kfir ,oa gLrk{kfjr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ekeys esa

{ks=kkf/dkj j[kus okys vk;dj vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj

funs'kd dks izLrqr djsxk_

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

(iv) vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/ku ds fy, izkIr nku

rFkk iz;qDr jkf'k dk vyx fooj.k j[ksxk vkSj mi;qZDr

ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk ys[kk ijh{kd }kjk fof/or

lR;kfir ,sls fooj.k dh izfr izLrqr djsxk A

2- dsanz ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr

laxBu %&

(d) iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (3) esa mfYyf[kr vyx cgh

[kkrk ugha j[ksxk_ vFkok

([k) iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (3) esa mfYyf[kr viuh ys[kk

ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr ugha djsxk_ vFkok

(x) iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (4) esa mfYyf[kr oSKkfud

vuqla/ku ds fy, izkIr ,oa iz;qDr nku dk viuk fooj.k

izLrqr ugha djsxk_ vFkok

(?k) viuk vuqla/ku dk;Z djuk can dj nsxk vFkok blds

vuqla/ku dk;Z dks tk;t ugha ik;k tk,xk_ vFkok

(Ä) mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5Ä ds lkFk ifBr mDr

vf/fu;e dh /kjk 35 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (3) ds

izko/kuksa ds vuq:i ugha gksxk rFkk mudk ikyu ugha

djsxk A

¹vf/lwpuk la- 90@2010@iQk- la- 203@86@2009&vk-d-fu-&II º

vt; xks;y] funs'kd

MINISTRY OF FINANACE

( Department of Revenue)

(Central Board of Direct Taxes)

New Delhi, the 22nd December, 2010

S.O. 4.—It is hereby notified for general information

that the organization M/s. National Council for Applied

Economic Research, New Delhi 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), with effect from 1-4-2002 (Assessment

Year 2003-04) onwards in the category of ‘other Institution’,

partly engaged in research activities subject to the following

conditions, namely : —

(i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall

be utilized for scientific research;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific

research through its faculty members or its enrolled

students;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate

books of 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 verfied by such accountant to the

Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of

Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by

the due date of furnishing the return of income

under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the said

Act;

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate

statement of donations received and amounts

applied for scientific research and a copy of such

statement duly certified by the auditor shall

accompany the report of audit referred to above.

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the

approval if the approved organization :—

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts

referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1;

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-

paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1: or

received and sums applied for scientific research

referred to in sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1;

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its

research activities are not found to be genuine;

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the

provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of

Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and

5E of the said Rules.

[ Notification No. 90/2010/F. No. 203/86/2009-ITA (II))]

AJAY GOYAL, Director

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 5-—loZlk/kj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk ;g

vf/lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd dsUnz ljdkj }kjk vk;dj fu;ekoyh]

1962 (mDr fu;ekoyh) ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5Ä ds lkFk ifBr

vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 (mDr vf/fu;e) dh /kjk 35 dh

mi/kjk (1) ds [kaM (ii) ds iz;kstukFkZ dj fu/kZj.k o"kZ 2010&2011

ls vkxs banzizLFk baLVhV~;wV vkiQ baiQksjes'ku] ubZ fnYyh dks fuEufyf[kr

'krks± ds v/hu vkaf'kd :i ls vuqla/ku dk;Zdykiksa esa yxs

^vU; laLFkk* dh Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] vFkkZr~ %&

(i) vuqeksfnr laxBu dks iznÙk jkf'k dk mi;ksx oSKkfud

vuqla/ku ds fy, fd;k tk,xk_

(ii) vuqeksfnr laxBu vius ladk; lnL;ksa vFkok vius ukekafdr

Nk=kksa ds ekè;e ls oSKkfud vuqla/ku djsxk_

(iii) vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/ku ds fy, blds }kjk

izkIr jkf'k ds laca/ esa vyx [kkrk cgh j[ksxk ftlesa

vuqla/ku djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k n'kkZbZ xbZ gks] mDr

vf/fu;e dh /kjk 288 dh mi /kjk (2) ds Li"Vhdj.k

esa ;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj ls ,slh [kkrk&cgh dh

ys[kk ijh{kk djk,xk vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 139

dh mi /kjk (1) ds varxZr vk; fooj.kh izLrqr djus dh

fu;r frfFk rd ,sls ys[kkdkj }kjk fof/or lR;kfir ,oa

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

gLrk{kfjr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ekeys esa {ks=kkf/dkj j[kus

okys vk;dj vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj funs'kd dks izLrqr

djsxk_

(iv) vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/ku ds fy, izkIr nku

rFkk iz;qDr jkf'k dk vyx fooj.k j[ksxk vkSj mi;qZDr

ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk ys[kk ijh{kd }kjk fof/or

lR;kfir ,sls fooj.k dh izfr izLrqr djsxk A

2- dsanz ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr

laxBu %—

(d) iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr ys[kk cgh

ugha j[ksxk_ vFkok

([k) iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr viuh

ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr ugha djsxk_ vFkok

(x) iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iv) esa mfYyf[kr oSKkfud

vuqla/ku ds fy, izkIr nku ,oa iz;qDr /ujkf'k dk fooj.k

izLrqr ugha djsxk_ vFkok

(?k) viuk vuqla/ku dk;Z djuk can dj nsxk vFkok blds

vuqla/ku dk;Z dks tk;t ugha ik;k tk,xk_ vFkok

(Ä) mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5Ä ds lkFk ifBr mDr

vf/fu;e dh /kjk 35 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (ii)

ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i ugha gksxk rFkk mudk ikyu ugha

djsxk A

¹vf/lwpuk la- 91@2010@iQk- la- 203@4@2010&vk-d-fu-&IIº

vt; xks;y] funs'kd

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2010

S.O. 5.—It is hereby notified for general information

that the organization Indraprastha Institute of Information

Technology, New Delhi 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 2010-11 onwards in

the category of ‘other Institution’, partly engaged in

research activities subject to the following conditions,

namely : —

(i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall

be utilized for scientific research;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific

research through its faculty members or its

enrolled students;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate

books of 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 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

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;

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the

provisions of clause (ii) of sub-section (1) of

Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and

5E of the said Rules.

[ Notification No. 91/2010/F. No. 203/4/2010-ITA (II)]

AJAY GOYAL, Director

ubZ fnYyh] 23 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 6-—loZlk/kj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk ;g

vf/lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd dsUnz ljdkj }kjk vk;dj fu;ekoyh]

1962 (mDr fu;ekoyh) ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5Ä ds lkFk ifBr

vk;dj vf/fu;e] 1961 (mDr vf/fu;e) dh /kjk 35 dh

mi/kjk (1) ds [kaM (iii) ds iz;kstukFkZ dj fu/kZj.k o"kZ

2010&2011 ls vkxs bafnjkxka/h us'kuy lsaVj vkiQ n vkVZ~l] ubZ

fnYyh dks fuEufyf[kr 'krks± ds v/hu vuqla/ku dk;Zdykiksa esa

yxh ^vU; laLFkk* dh Js.kh esa vuqeksfnr fd;k x;k gS] vFkkZr~ %&

(i) vuqeksfnr laxBu dks iznÙk jkf'k dk mi;ksx lkekftd

foKku esa vuqla/ku ds fy, fd;k tk,xk_

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

(ii) vuqeksfnr laxBu vius ladk; lnL;ksa vFkok vius ukekafdr

Nk=kksa ds ekè;e ls lkekftd foKku ;k lkaf[;dh; oSKkfud

vuqla/ku djsxk_

(iii) vuqeksfnr laxBu oSKkfud vuqla/ku ds fy, blds }kjk

izkIr jkf'k ds laca/ esa vyx [kkrk cgh j[ksxk vuqla/ku

djus ds fy, iz;qDr jkf'k mlesa n'kkZbZ xbZ gks] mDr vf/&

fu;e dh /kjk 288 dh mi /kjk (2) ds Li"Vhdj.k esa

;Fkk ifjHkkf"kr fdlh ys[kkdkj ls viuh [kkrk&cgh dh

ys[kk ijh{kk djk,xk vkSj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 139

dh mi /kjk (1) ds varxZr vk; fooj.kh izLrqr djus dh

fu;r frfFk rd ,sls ys[kkdkj }kjk fof/or lR;kfir ,oa

gLrk{kfjr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ekeys esa {ks=kkf/dkj j[kus

okys vk;dj vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj funs'kd dks izLrqr

djsxk_

(iv) vuqeksfnr laxBu lkekftd foKku esa vuqla/ku ds fy,

izkIr nku rFkk iz;qDr jkf'k dk vyx fooj.k j[ksxk vkSj

mi;qZDr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ds lkFk ys[kk ijh{kd }kjk

fof/or lR;kfir ,sls fooj.k dh izfr izLrqr djsxk A

2- dsanz ljdkj ;g vuqeksnu okil ys ysxh ;fn vuqeksfnr

laxBu %—

(d) iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr ys[kk cgh

ugha j[ksxk_ vFkok

([k) iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iii) esa mfYyf[kr viuh

ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr ugha djsxk_ vFkok

(x) iSjkxzkiQ 1 ds mi&iSjkxzkiQ (iv) esa mfYyf[kr lkekftd

foKku esa vuqla/ku vFkok lkaf[;dh; vuqla/ku ds fy,

izkIr ,oa iz;qDr nku dk viuk fooj.k izLrqr ugha djsxk_

vFkok

(?k) viuk vuqla/ku dk;Z djuk can dj nsxk vFkok blds

vuqla/ku dk;Z dks tk;t ugha ik;k tk,xk_ vFkok

(Ä) mDr fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 5x vkSj 5Ä ds lkFk ifBr mDr

vf/fu;e dh /kjk 35 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [kaM (iii)

ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i ugha gksxk rFkk mudk ikyu ugha

djsxk A

¹vf/lwpuk la- 92@2010@iQk- la- 203@17@2010&vk-d-fu-&IIº

vt; xks;y] funs'kd

New Delhi, the 23rd December, 2010

S.O. 6.—It is hereby notified for general information

that the organization Indra Gandhi National Centre of the

Arts, New Delhi has been approved by the Central

Government for the purpose of clause (iii) of sub-section

(1) of Section 35 of the Icome-tax Act, 1961 (said Act), read

with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (said

Rules), from Assessment Year 2010-11 onwards in the

category of ‘other Institution’, partly engaged in research

activities subject to the following conditions, namely : —

(i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall

be utilized for research in social sciences.

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out research

in social science or statistical research through

its faculty members or its enrolled students;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate

books of accounts in respect of the sums received

by it for scientific research, reflect therein the

amounts used for carrying out research, get such

books audited by an accoutant as defined in the

explanation to sub-section (2) of Section 288 of the

said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly

signed and verified by such accountant to the

Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of

Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by

the due date of furnishing the return of income

under sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the said

Act;

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a

separate statement of donations received and

amounts applied for research in social science and

a copy of such statement duly certified by the

auditor shall accompany the report of audit

referred to above.

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the

approval if the approved organization :-

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts—

referred to in sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph

1; or

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in

sub-paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1: or

received and sums applied for research in social

science or statistical research referred to in

sub-paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or

(d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its

research activities are not found to be genuine;

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the

provisions of clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of

Section 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and

5E of the said Rules.

[ Notification No. 92/2010/F. No. 203/17/2010-ITA -II]

AJAY GOYAL, Director

vkS|ksfxd vkSj foÙkh; iqu£uekZ.k vihyh; izkf/dj.k

ubZ fnYyh] 16 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 7-—bl izkf/dj.k dh fnukad 1 tuojh 2010 dh

lela[;d vf/lwpuk ds Øe esa jsy fMCck dkj[kkuk diwjFkyk

dk;kZy; egkizcU/d dk£ed jsfMdk@diwjFkyk esa LFkk;h :i ls

dk;Zjr futh lfpo Jh j?kqchj ¯lg dks #- 10000&325&15200

la'kksf/r osrueku ih ch&3 #-15600&39100 $ 6600 fnukad

1 tuojh 2010 (iwokZg~u) izfrekg ds osrueku esa izeq[k futh

lfpo ds :i esa dh xbZ izfrfu;qfDr dh vof/ iwoZ fucU/uksa vkSj

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

'krks± lfgr fnukad 1&1&2011 (iwokZg~u) ls vxys ,d o"kZ fnukad

31&12&2011 rd ;k vxys vkns'k rd ;k bl izkf/dj.k dh

lekfIr rd] tks Hkh iwoZ ?kfVr gks] c<+k nh xbZ gS A

¹la- 1@1@2010&iz'kkluº

n;kuUn] voj lfpo

APPELLATE AUTHORITY FOR INDUSTRIAL AND

FINANCIAL RECONSTRUCTION

New Delhi, the 16th December, 2010

S.O. 7.—In continuation of this Authority’s

Notification of even number dated 1-1-2010, the term of

deputation of Shri Raghuvir Singh, a permanent PS of Rail

Coach Factory, Kapurthala, as Principal Private Secretary

(PPS) in this Authority on deputaiton basis in the pre-

revised Pay Scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200 (Revised Pay

Band PB-3 Rs. 15600-39100+6600 Grade Pay) is extended

for a further period of one year w.e.f. 1-1-2011 (F/N) to

31-12-2011 or till abolition of this Authority or until further

orders, whichever is earlier, on the same terms and

conditions.

[No. 1/1/2010-Admin.]

DAYA NAND, Under Secy.

lwpuk ,oa izlkj.k ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 7 vDrwcj] 2010

dk-vk- 8-—bl ea=kky; dh fnukad 10&11&2009 dh

lela[;d vf/lwpuk ds Øe esa vkSj pyfp=k (izek.ku) fu;e]

1983 ds fu;e 7 o 8 ds lkFk ifBr pyfp=k vf/fu;e] 1952

(1952 dk 37) dh /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj Jh ,l- tks'kh]

^^T;ksfr"k** ikuk;epsjh] vapy ih-vks- dksYye] dsjy dks nks o"kZ

dh vof/ ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys gks] dsanzh; fiQYe

izek.ku cksMZ ds fr#ouarkiqje lykgdkj iSuy ds lnL; ds :i esa

fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 809@6@2009&,iQ (lh)º

vferkHk oqQekj] funs'kd (fiQYe)

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND BRODCASTING

New Delhi, the 7th October, 2010

S.O. 8.—In continuation of this Ministry’s

Notification of even number, dated 10-11-2009 and in

exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of

Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read

with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification)

Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint

Shri S. Joshi, “Jyothiss”, Panayamcheri, Anchal P.O. Kollam,

Kerala as a member of the Thiruvananthapuram Advisory

panel of the Central Board of Film Certification with

immediate effect for a period of two years or until further

orders, whichever is earlier.

[ F. No. 809/6/2009-F (C)]

AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films)

ubZ fnYyh] 19 uoEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 9-—bl ea=kky; dh fnukad 10&11&2009 dh lela[;d

vf/lwpuk ds vuqØe esa vkSj pyfp=k (izek.ku) fu;ekoyh] 1983

ds fu;e 7 vkSj 8 ds lkFk ifBr pyfp=k vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952

dk 37) dh /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj Jherh ds-,p- lkfo=kh] la- 8]

^lq'khyk* jsyos isjsyy jksM] jkekeksgu iqje] caxykSj dks rRdky

izHkko ls nks o"kZ dh vof/ ds fy, ;k vxys vkns'k gksus rd] buesa

ls tks Hkh igys gks] dsanzh; fiQYe izek.ku cksMZ ds caxykSj lykgdkj

iSuy ds lnL; ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 809@5@2009&,iQ (lh)º

vferkHk dqekj] funs'kd (fiQYe)

New Delhi, the 19th November, 2010

S.O. 9.—In continuation of this Ministry’s

Notification of even number, dated 10-11-2009 and in

exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of

Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read

with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification)

Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint

Smt. K. H. Savithri, No.8, ‘Susheela’, Railway Parallel Road,

Ramamohana Puram, Bangalore., as a member of the

Bangalore Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film

Certification with immediate effect for a period of two

years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[ F. No. 809/5/2009-F (C)]

AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films)

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk-10-—bl ea=kky; dh fnukad 10&11&2009 dh

lela[;d vf/lwpuk ds Øe esa vkSj pyfp=k (izek.ku) fu;e]

1983 ds fu;e 7 o 8 ds lkFk ifBr pyfp=k vf/fu;e] 1952

(1952 dk 37) dh /kjk 5 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj Jh ftrsUnj dqekj

eYgks=kk] 1284@89] xq: ukud nso uxj] lqanj uxj ds ikl]

yqf/;kuk] iatkc dks nks o"kZ dh vof/ ;k vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks

Hkh igys gks] dsanzh; fiQYe izek.ku cksMZ ds fnYyh lykgdkj iSuy

ds lnL; ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 809@8@2009&,iQ (lh)º

vferkHk dqekj] funs'kd (fiQYe)

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 10.—In continuation of this Ministry’s

Notification of even number, dated 10-11-2009 and in

exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of

Section 5 of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 (37 of 1952) read

with rules 7 and 8 of the Cinematograph (Certification)

Rules, 1983, the Central Government is pleased to appoint

Shri Jatinder Kumar Malhotra, 1284/89, Guru Nanak Dev

Nagar, Near Sunder Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab as a member

of the Delhi Advisory panel of the Central Board of Film

Certification with immediate effect for a period of two

years or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[ F. No. 809/8/2009-F (C)]

AMITABH KUMAR, Director (Films)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

miHkksDrk ekeys] [kk| vkSj lkoZtfud forj.k ea=kky;

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2010

dk-vk- 11-—dsanzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gSa vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ bZ Fkzh osbax flLVe] ua- 13 T;ksFkh jkek¯yxk ,e LVªhV iqtqfFko vDde] psUuS&600091 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III ) okys

¶bZ 3&Vh¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶bZ Fkzh¸ gS (ftls

blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@247 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k

i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki izdkj) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

30 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 5 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr

O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k 230

oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 midj.k ds ekWMy dk lh¯yx izko/ku

Ldsy dh ckMh ds gksYl esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih

;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mQij fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

1 fe-xzk- ls 2 xzk- rd ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 100 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) vkSj 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d

ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj

¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10 ^dss] 5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(151)@2010º

ch-,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2010

S.O. 11.—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 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-authomatic weighing

instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series ‘‘E-3-T” and with

brand name ‘‘E THREE” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s. E Three Weighing System, No. 13

Jothi Ramalinga M Street Puzhuthiv Akkm, Chennai-600091 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/247;

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 100 g. The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. It has a tare device

with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result.

The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the body of the scale through holes. A typical schematic diagram

of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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 50 kg. with verification scale

interval(n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 1mg. to 2g. and with verification scale interval (n) in range of 500 to

10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g or more and with ‘e’ value of 1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole

number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with

the same materials with which, the approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM-21(151)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 11 vDrwcj] 2010

dk-vk- 12-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (7) vkSj mi/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ

bZ Fkzh osbax flLVe] ua- 13 T;ksFkh jkek¯yxk ,e LVªhV iqtqfFko vDde] psUuS&600091 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ& III ) okys ¶bZ

3&ih¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶bZ Fkzh¸ gS (ftls

blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@248 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k

i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

1000 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 2 fd-xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 100 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr&

izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 midj.k ds ekWMy dk lh¯yx izko/ku

Ldsy dh ckMh ds gksYl esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih

;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mQij fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS

fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Üka`[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs

tks 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- ls 5000

fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10 ^dss] 5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds

lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(151)@2010º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 11th October, 2010

S.O. 12.—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-authomatic weighing

instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series ‘‘E-3-P” and with

brand name ‘‘E THREE” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s. E Three Weighing System,

No. 13 Jothi Ramalinga M Street Puzhuthiv Akkm, Chennai-600091 and which is assigned the approval mark

IND/09/10/248;

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 2kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare

device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing

result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the right side/back side of the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display.

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 50 kg. and upto 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 1x10^k, 2x10^k,

or 5x10^k, 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(151)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2010

dk-vk- 13 -dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd mDr

fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud (ekWMyksa

dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gSa vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy ;FkkFkZrk

cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (7) vkSj mi/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ

th-,e- lsYl ,aM l£ol bZ&77] vkse fogkj] iQst&5] mÙke uxj] ubZ fnYyh&110059 }kjk fofu£er mPp ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ II ) okys

¶th,eVh¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki izdkj) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶th VSd¸ gS

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@28 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu

izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki izdkj) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

30 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 2 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr

O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLIys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLIys ds nk;h vksj@ihNs dh vksj lh¯yx dh xbZ gS A fMLIys dh csl IysV vkSj

Vki doj ds Nsn ls lhy dks tksM+k x;k gS] rc] lhy ok;j bu nksuksa Nsnksa esa ls fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus

ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa dsfyczs'ku ds fy, ckgjh igqap gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,~@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi fLop

Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS

fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

1 fe-xzk- ls 50 fe-xzk- rd ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 100 ls 50]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) vkSj 100 fe-xzk- ;k mlls

vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 5000 ls 50]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk

okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10 ^dss vkSj 5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(33)@2010º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2010

S.O. 13.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority,

is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of

the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and

Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-authomatic weighing

instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class -II) of Series ‘‘GMT” and with brand

name ‘‘G Tech” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s. G M Sales & Services E-77, Om Vihar,

Phase-5, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/28;

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 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result.

The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the right side/back side of the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display.

The seal is connected by whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes

attached with seal. 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 50 kg. and with number of verification

scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ‘e’ value of 1mg. to 50mg. and with number of verification scale interval

(n) in the rage of 5000 to 50,000 for ‘e’ value of 100mg. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k, 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(33)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 12 vDrwcj] 2010

dk-vk- 14-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gSa vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (7) vkSj mi/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ

th-,e- lsYl ,aM l£ol bZ&77] vkse fogkj] iQst&5] mÙke uxj] ubZ fnYyh&110059 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III ) okys

¶th,eih¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ izdkj) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶th VSd¸ gS

(ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fp³ã vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@29 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu

izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ izdkj) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

200 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 400 xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 20 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr

O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k 230

oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLIys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLIys ds nk;ha vkSj@ihNs dh vksj lh¯yx dh xbZ gS A fMLIys dh csl IysV vkSj

Vki doj ds Nsn ls lhy dks tksM+k x;k gS] rc] lhy ok;j bu nksuksa Nsnksa esa ls fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus

ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa dsfyczs'ku ds fy, ckgjh igqap gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi fLop

Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS

fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- ls

5000 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10 ^dss] 5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU;

ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(33)@2010º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2010

S.O. 14.—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 ‘‘GMP” and with

brand name ‘‘G Tech” ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ), manufactured by M/s. G M Sales & Services E-77,

Om Vihar, Phase-5, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-59 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/29;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument ( Platform type) with

a maximum capacity of 200 kg. and minimum capacity of 400g. The verification scale interval (e) is 20g. It has a tare

device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the

weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the right side/back side of the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display.

The seal is connected by whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes

attached with seal. 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, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg. 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

1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufacturerd 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(33)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 15-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ ¯lns ,aM lUl] 40] ukjk;.k ihB] ekVh x.kifr ds ikl] egkjk"Vª] iq.ks&411030 }kjk fofu£er fo'ks"k ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk&I ) okys

¶chth,l,e¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶chth,l¸

gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@431 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu

izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d bySDVªks eSxusfVd iQkslZ dEisuls'ku ¯izfliy ij vk/kfjr vLopkfyr (VscyVki izdkj) rksyu midj.k gS A

bldh vf/dre {kerk 500 xzk- gS vkSj U;wure {kerk 0-1 xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 1 fe-xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu

;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr

djrk gS A midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ds jkbV lkbM@cSd lkbM esa lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq,

fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/

dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,~@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

1 fe-xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 50000 ;k vf/d dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh

vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10^ds] 5x10^ds] ds gSa] tks ?kukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d 'kwU; ds

lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(263)@2010º

ch-,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2010

S.O. 15.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority,

is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of

the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and

Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing

instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of Special Accuracy (Accuracy class -I) of Series ‘‘BGSM” and with

brand name ‘‘BGS” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s Shinde & Sons, 40, Narayan Peth,

Near Mati Ganpati, Maharashtra, Pune-411030 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/431;

The said model is a Electro Magnetic Force Compensation Principle based non-automatic weighing instrument

(Table Top Type) with a maximum capacity of 500g. and minimum capacity of 0.1 g. The verification scale interval (e) is

1mg. 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 and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by

whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. 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, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with verification scale

interval (n) in the range of 50000 or more for ‘e’ value of 1mg. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k, 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/(263)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 16-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (7) vkSj mi/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ ¯lns ,aM lal] 40 ukjk;.k isB] ekVh x.kifr] egkjk"Vª] iq.ks&411030 }kjk fofu£er mPp ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ&II ) okys

¶chth,lts¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶chth,l¸

gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@432 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu

izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

30 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 50 xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 1 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr

O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k 230

oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &1

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj

VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼

Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS

fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

1 fe-xzk- ls 50 fe-xzk- rd ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 100 ls 100]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) vkSj 100 fe-xzk- ;k mlls

vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 5000 ls 100]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk

okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10 ^ds] 5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks ?kukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(263)@2010º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2010

S.O. 16 .—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and

Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing

instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class -II) of Series ‘‘BGSJ” and with brand

name ‘‘BGS” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s Shinde & Sons, 40, Narayan Peth, Near

Mati Ganpati, Maharashtra, Pune-411030 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/432;

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 50g. The verification scale interval (e) is 1g. 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 and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by

whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal.

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, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with verification scale

interval (n) in the range of 100 to 100,000 for ‘e’ value of 1mg. to 50mg. and with verification scale interval (n) in the rage

of 5000 to 100,000 for ‘e’ value of 100mg. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k, 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/(263)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 17 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ ¯l/s ,aM lUt] 40 ukjk;.k ihB] ekVh x.kifr ds ikl egkjk"Vª] iq.ks&411030 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III ) okys

¶chth,lVh¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶chth,l¸

gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@433 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu

izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki izdkj) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

30 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 5 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr

O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k 230

oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &1

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dk lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj

VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼

Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS

fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

1 fe-xzk- ls 2 xzk- rd ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 100 ls 10]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) vkSj 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds

¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj

¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10 ^dss] 5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(263)@2010º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2010

S.O. 17.—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-authomatic weighing

instrument (Table Top Type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series ‘‘BGST” and with

brand name ‘‘BGS” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s Shinde & Sons, 40, Narayan Peth,

Near Mati Ganpati, Maharashtra, Pune-411030 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/433;

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 5g. It has a tare device

with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) Display indicates the weighing result.

The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the Model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by

whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal.

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 up to 50 kg. with verification scale

interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 1mg. to 2g. and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of

500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value 1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k, 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(263)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 18 -—dsaUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976 (1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (7) vkSj mi/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ ¯l/s ,aM lUt] 40 ukjk;.k ihB] ekVh x.kifr ds ikl egkjk"Vª] iq.ks&411030 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ II ) okys

¶chth,lih¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶chth,l¸

gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@434 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu

izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

1000 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 2-5 fd-xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 50 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr

izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dk lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj

VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼

Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS

fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

0-1 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 5000 ls 100]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- ls 5000

fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10 ^dss] 5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds

lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(263)@2010º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2010

S.O. 18.—Whether 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-authomatic weighing

instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class -II) of Series ‘‘BGSP” and with brand

name ‘‘BGS” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s Shinde & Sons, 40, Narayan Peth, Near

Mati Ganpati, Maharashtra, Pune-411030 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/434;

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 2.5kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 50g. It has a tare

device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) Display indicates the

weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the Model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by

whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal.

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. and up to 5000kg. with

verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 100,000 for ‘e’ value of 0.1g. or more and with ‘e’ value of

1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k, 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(263)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 19 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gSa vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs

gq, eSllZ ¯l/s ,aM lUt] 40 ukjk;.k ihB] ekVh x.kifr ds ikl egkjk"Vª] iq.ks&411030 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III )

okys ¶chth,lih¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke

¶chth,l¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@435 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k

gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

500 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 2 fd-xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 100 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr

izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dk lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj

VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼

Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs

tks 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- ls 5000

fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10^dss] 5x10^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds

lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(263)@2010º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2010

S.O. 19.—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 ‘‘BGSP” and with

brand name ‘‘BGS” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s Shinde & Sons, 40, Narayan Peth,

Near Mati Ganpati, Maharashtra, Pune-411030 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/435;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with

a maximum capacity of 500 kg and minimum capacity of 2kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare

device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing

result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by

whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal.

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 and 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 1x10^k, 2x10^k, or

5x10^k, 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(263)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 20 -—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (7) vkSj mi/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ ¯l/s ,aM lUt] 40 ukjk;.k ihB] ekVh x.kifr ds ikl egkjk"Vª] iq.ks&411030 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ&III ) okys

¶MCY;wchVh¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud osfczt Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke

¶chth,l¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@436 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k

gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud osfczt) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 30 Vu vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 fd-xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 5 fd-xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr

izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ds jkbV lkbM@cSd lkbM esa lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk tqM+s gq,

fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj VkWi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/

dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS

fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs

tks 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 5 Vu ls

200 Vu rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10 ^dss] 5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds

lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(263)@2010º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 14th December 2010

S.O. 20 .—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 (Electronic Weighbridge Type) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series

‘‘WBT” and with brand name ‘‘BGS” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s Shinde & Sons,

40, Narayan Peth, Near Mati Ganpati, Maharashtra, Pune-411030 and which is assigned the approval mark

IND/09/10/436;

The said model is a strain gauage type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Electronic

Weighbridge Type) with a maximum capacity of 30 tonne and minimum capacity of 100kg. The verification scale interval

(e) is 5g. 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 and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the right side/back side of the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display.

The seal is connected by whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes

attached with seal. 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, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5tonne and up to 200 tonne with

verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or above and with ‘e’ value of 1x10^k, 2x10^k,

or 5x10^k, 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/(263)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj 2010

dk-vk- 21 -—dsaUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ VSeVªksu vksokbZ] ih-vks- ckDl 15 (osLVksudrw 11)] ,iQ 133561] Vseisjs fiQuySaM }kjk fofu£er ;FkkFkZrk oxZ okbZ (ch) okys ¶ihdsoh

izks XXX¸ Ük`a[kyk ds Lopkfyr dSp osbax midj.k (pSd Ogh;j) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶ihdsoh izks¸ gS (ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls Hkkjr esa eSllZ osyksM VSduksyksth izk-fy-] ,Dly gkÅl] xzkmaM Ýyksj] Mh oh dks&vkijsfVo

gkm¯lx lkslk;Vh] Mhihlh eksVlZ vxkyh ds ihNs] iQVksMkZ] ekjxksok] xksok&403 602 }kjk foi.khr fd;k x;k gS vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ

,u Mh@09@10@56 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk yksM lsy vk/kfjr Lopkfyr dSp osbax midj.k gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

> 2000 fd-xzk- gS] U;wure {kerk > 200 fd-xzk- vkSj Ldsy varjky bZ {kerk > 20 fd-xzk- vkSj Ldsy varjky < 250 gS A blesa ,d

vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A Vh,iQVh dyj fMLiys rksy ifj.kke n'kkZrk gS A

fyfDoM fØLVy Mk;ksM (,y lh Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk;

ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2&& ekWMy ds lh¯yx izko/ku dk lhfyax Mk;xzke

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fod.kZr% fudky dj fMLiys d nks rjiQ lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A fMLiys dh csl IysV vkSj Vki

doj ds gksy ls lhy dks tksM+k x;k gS rc lhy ok;j nksuksa Nsnksa esa ls fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/

dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21@(292)@2009º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 21 .—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority, along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Inspecta Finland is satisfied that the Model described in

the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures

Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model

is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Automatic Catch Weighing

Instrument (Check Weigher) belonging to accuracy class, Ref Y (b), of ‘PKV Pro XXX’ series with brand name “PKV Pro”

(herein referred to as the said Model) maunfactured by M/s. Tamtron OY P. O. Box 15 (Vestonkatu 11), F 133561 Tampere

Finland and marketed in India by M/s. Weighload Technologies Pvt. Ltd., Excel House, Ground Floor, D.V. Co-operative

Housing Society, Behind DPC Motors Agalli, Fatorda, Margao, Goa-403602 and which is assigned the approval mark

IND/09/10/56;

The said model is a strain gauage type load cell based Automatic Catch Weighing Instrument. It has maximum

capacity > 2000kg with minimum capacity > 200 kg and scale interval ‘e’ > 20kg and number of scale intervals < 250. It has

a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The TFT Colour Display indicates the weighing results.

The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2— Sealing Diagram of the sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the two sides of the display by passing sealing wire diagonally from the body of the display.

The seal is connected by whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes

attached with seal. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

[ F. No. WM-21/(292)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 22-—dsaUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gSa vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ gsoYl baLVwesaV] 60] jtr ladqy] x.ks'k isB cl LVki ds lkeus] ukxiqj] egkjk"Vª }kjk fofu£er mPp ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ II ) okys

¶,ythtsMCY;w&3¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke

^^,yth&bysDVªks** gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@09@547 leuqnsf'kr fd;k

x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.ki=k tkjh djrh gS _

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki izdkj) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 300 xzk- gS] U;wure {kerk 200 fe-xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 10 fe-xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr

izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~Zt izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2—ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

osbax e'khu dks diViw.kZ O;ogkjksa ds fy, [kksys tkus ls jksdus ds fy, lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A LVkfEiax ds fy,] Ldsy dh ckMh ds

ck;ha rjiQ fMªy fd, x, Nsnksa ls yhM lhy ds lkFk lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj LVk¯Eix IysV ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds

mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ easa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS

fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkezxh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

1 fe-xzk-ls 50 fe-xzk- rd ds ^^bZ ** eku ds fy, 100 ls 50]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) vkSj 100 fe-xzk- ;k mlls

vf/d ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 5000 ls 50]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk

okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1x10^ds] 2x10^ds] 5x10^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21@(314)@2009º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 22.—Wheareas 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 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 ‘‘LGJW-3” and with brand

name ‘‘ LG-ELECTRO” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Havels Instrment, 60, Rajat Sankul,

Opp. Ganesh Peth Bus Stop, Nagpur, Maharashtra which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/547;

The said model is a strain gauage type load cell based non-Automatic Weighing Instrument(Table top type)

with a maximum capacity of 300g and minimum capacity of 200mg. The verification scale interval (e) is 10mg. It has a tare

device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing

result.The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model

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 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 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 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 50 kg and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the

range of 100 to 50,000 for ‘e’ value of 1mg to 50 mg and with number of verification scale interval(n) in the range of 5000 to

50,000 for ‘e’ value of 100 mg or more and with ‘e’ value 1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k, 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/(314)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 23-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (7) vkSj mi/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq, eSllZ

gsoYl baLVwesaV 60] jtr ladqy] x.ks'k isB cl LVki ds lkeus] ukxiqj egkjk"Vª }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys

¶,ythVh&II¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke

^^,yth&bysDVªks** gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@09@548 leuqnsf'kr fd;k

x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk yksM lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki izdkj) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 30 fd- xzk- vkSj] U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 5 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr&

izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

osbax e'khu dks diViw.kZ O;ogkjksa ds fy, [kksys tkus ls jksdus ds fy, lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A LVk¯Eix ds fy,] Ldsy dh ckMh ds

ck;ha rjiQ fMªy fd, x, Nsnksa ls yhM lhy ds lkFk lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj LVk¯Eix IysV ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds

mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ easa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd

mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr

vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

1 fe-xzk-ls 50 fe-xzk- rd ds ^^bZ ** eku ds fy, 100 ls 10]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) vkSj 2-xzk- ;k mlls

vf/d ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys

gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1x10^ds] 2x10^ds vkSj 5x10^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(314)@2009º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 23 .—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority,

is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of

the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and

Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatic Weighing

Instrument (Table Top Type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class-III) of series ‘‘LGT-II” and with

brand name ‘‘ LG-ELECTRO” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Havels Instrument 60, Rajat

Sankul Opp.Ganesh Peth Bus Stop, Nagpur, Maharashra which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/548;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic Weighing Instrument(Table Top Type)

with a maximum capacity of 30kg and minimum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. It has a tare device

with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result.The

instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model

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 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 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 50 kg and with number of verification scale

interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 1mg to 50 mg and with number of verification scale interval(n) in the

500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 2g or more and with ‘e’ value 1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k, 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 said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM-21(314)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 24-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ gsoYl baLVª wesaV 60] jtr ladqy] x.ks'k isB cl LVki ds lkeus] ukxiqj] egkjk"Vª }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III) okys

¶,ythih&500¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke

^^,yth&bysDVªks** gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@09@549 leuqnsf'kr fd;k

x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk yksM lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 500 fd- xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 1 fd- xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 50 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk

'kr izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A

midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~Zt izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dk lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

osbax e'khu dks diViw.kZ O;ogkjksa ds fy, [kksys tkus ls jksdus ds fy, lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A LVk¯Eix ds fy,] Ldsy dh ckMh ds

ck;ha rjiQ fMªy fd, x, Nsnksa ls yhM lhy ds lkFk lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj LVk¯Eix IysV ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekMy dks lhycan djus ds

mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ easa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS

fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k&i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofuekZrk mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs

tks 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ^^bZ ** eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- ls 5000

fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1x10^ds] 2x10^dss ;k 5x10^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(314)@2009º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 24 .—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and

Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatic Weighing

Instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class-III) of series ‘‘LGP-500” and with

brand name ‘‘ LG-ELECTRO” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Havels Instrument, 60 Rajat

Sankul, Opp.Ganesh Peth Bus Stop, Nagpur Maharashtra which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/549;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Non-Automatic Weighing Instrument(Platform type) with

a maximum capacity of 500kg and minimum capacity of 1kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 50g. It has a tare device with

a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result.The

instrument operates on 230 volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model

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 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 witch 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 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 above 50 kg up to5000kg with verification scale interval

(n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g or more and with ‘e’ value 1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k, 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(314)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 25-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gSa vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (7) vkSj mi/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ twMs baD;wiesaV~l izk-fy-] ,u-61] oyku uxj] II&LVªhV] dks:DdqisV] psUubZ&600021 }kjk fofu£er mPp ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ II) okys

¶tsbZih&tsih¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki Vkbi) ds ekMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ^^d:U;k**

gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@09@536 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu

izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk yksM lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki izdkj) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 30 fd- xzk- gS] U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 2 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk

'kr&izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A

midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dk lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

osbax e'khu dks diViw.kZ O;ogkjksa ds fy, [kksys tkus ls jksdus ds fy, lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A LVk¯Eix ds fy,] Ldsy dh ckMh ds

ck;ha rjiQ fMªy fd, x, Nsnksa ls yhM lhy ds lkFk lh¯yx ok;j fudkydj LVk¯Eix IysV ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekMy dks lhycan djus ds

mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ easa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd

mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls mDr

vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks 1 fe-

xzk- ls 50 fe-xzk- ds ^^bZ ** eku ds fy, 100 ls 50]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) vkSj 100 fe-xzk- ;k mlls

vf/d ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 5000 ls 50]000 rd jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys

gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1x10^ds] 2x10^dss ;k 5x10^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(310)@2009º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 25 .—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority,

is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of

the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and

Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of non-automatic Weighing

Instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class-II) of series ‘‘JEP-JP” and with brand

name ‘‘ KARUNYA” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s. Jude Equipments Pvt. Ltd., N.

61,Velan Nagar,IInd Street, Korukkupet, Chennai-600021 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/536;

The said model is a strain gauage type load cell based non-Automatic Weighing Instrument (Table top type)

with a maximum capacity of 30kg. and minium capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval (e) is 2g. It has a tare device

with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result.The

instrument operates on 230 volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model

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 the left 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 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 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 50 kg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the

range of 100 to 50,000 for ‘e’ value of 1mg. to 50mg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000

to 50,000 for ‘e’ value of 100mg. or more and with ‘e’value 1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k, 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 said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM-21(310)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

4807-B MSS No. 81—100

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 26-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs

gq, eSllZ twMs baD;wiesaV~l izk-fy-] ,u- 61] oyku uxj] 2 LVªhV] dksjDdqisV] psUubZ&600021 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III )

okys ¶tsbZih&Vhch¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke

¶d#U;k¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@09@537 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k

gS] vuqeksnu izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki izdkj) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

30 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 5 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr

O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k 230

oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

osbax e'khu dks diViw.kZ O;ogkjksa ds fy, [kksys tkus ls jksdus ds fy, lh¯yx dh tkrh gS LVkfEiax ds fy,] Ldsy dh ckMh ds

ck;ha rjiQ fMªy fd, x, Nsnksa ls yhM lhy ds lkFk lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj LVkfEiax IysV ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds

mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

1 fe-xzk- ls 50 fe-xzk- rd ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 100 ls 10]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) vkSj 100 fe-xzk- ;k mlls

vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk

okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10^ds] 5x10^ds] ds gSa] tks ?kukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(310)@2009º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

4807-B MSS No. 81—100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 26 .—Whether the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

authority, is satisfied that the Model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the

provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and

Measures (Approval of Models) Rules, 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing

instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series ‘‘JEPTB” and with

brand name ‘‘KARUNYA” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s Jude Equipments Pvt Ltd.,

61, Velan Nagar, IInd Street, Korukkupet, Chennai-600021 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/537;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type) with

a maximum capacity of 100g. The verification scale interval (e) is 5g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive

retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230

Volts and 50 Hertz alternate current power supply.

Figure-1

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 the left 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 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 1mg. to 50mg. and with number of verification scale interval (n) in

the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 100mg. or more and with ‘e’ value 1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k, 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 said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM-21(310)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

4807-B MSS No. 81—100

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 27-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gS vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ twMs baD;wiesaV~l izk-fy-] ,u- 61] oyku uxj] II LVªhV] dksjDdqisV] psUubZ&600021 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III )

okys ¶tsbZih&ih,iQ¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke

¶d#U;k¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@09@538 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k

gS] vuqeksnu izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (IysViQkeZ Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

1000 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 4 fd-xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 200 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr

izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

osbax e'khu dks diViw.kZ O;ogkjksa ds fy, [kksys tkus ls jksdus ds fy, lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A LVkfEiax ds fy,] Ldsy dh ckMh ds

ck;ha rjiQ fMªy fd, x, Nsnksa ls yhM lhy ds lkFk lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj LVkfEiax IysV ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds

mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,~@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd mDr ekMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- ls 5000

fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10^dss] 5x10^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds

lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(310)@2009º

ch-,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

4807-B MSS No. 81—100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 27 .—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-autuomatic weighing

instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series ‘‘JEP-PF” and with

brand name ‘‘KARUNYA” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s Jude Equipments Pvt Ltd.,

N. 61, Velan Nagar, IInd Street, Korukkupet, Chennai-600021 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/538;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with

a maximum capacity of 1000kg and minimum capacity of 4kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 200g. It has a tare device

with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing result.

The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model

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 the rear 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 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 1x10^k, 2x10^k,

or 5x10^k, 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/(310)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

4807-B MSS No. 81—100

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 28-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gSa vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs

gq, eSllZ MklZ vkVkseksckby izk-fy-] 10@1] fDoal jksM] caxykSj&560 052 }kjk fofu£er ¶,ebZvkj&Mh,vkj,l&01¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu

lfgr ¶VSDlhehVj (vkVks iQs;j ehVj)¸ ds ekMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶elhZnk¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k

gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@09@249 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ¶VSDlhehVj¸ (vkVks iQs;j ehVj) vadd lwpu lfgr** ekiu midj.k gS tks yxkrkj ;ksx djrk tkrk gS vkSj ;k=kh

}kjk ns; HkkM+s dks ;k=kk ds nkSjku fdlh Hkh le; n'kkZrk gS A lkoZtfud okgu ds ;kf=k;ksa }kjk ns; HkkM+k] r; dh xbZ nwjh vkSj fu/kZfjr LihM

ls de ij O;rhr fd, x, le; dk iQyu gS tks izkf/Ñr 'kqYd ds vuqlkj vuqiwjd HkkM+s ds Lora=k gS A ehVj dh jh¯Mx izdk'k mRltZd

Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) }kjk n'kkZ;h tkrh gS A VSDlh ehVj dk ^ds* iQsDVj 1700 izfr fdyksehVj gS A

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

lh¯yx ds fy, Nsn cukdj vkSj buesa ls lhy ok;j fudky dj] ok;j ds TokbaV ij yhM lhy yxkbZ tkrh gS A iQs;j ehVj dks

lhy ds lkFk NsM+NkM+ fd, fcuk ugha [kksyk tk ldrk A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke Åij fn;k

x;k gS A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(93)@2009º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

4807-B MSS No. 81—100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 28.—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 “ TAXI METER” (Auto Fare

Meter) with digital indication (hereinafter referred to as the said model) of MER-DARS-01 D” series with brand name

“MERCYDA” manufactured by M/s. Dars Automobiles Pvt. Lt d., 10/1, Queens Road, Bangalore-560 052 and which is

assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/249;

The said model of “ TAXI METER” (Auto Fare Meter) with digital indication a measuring instrument which

totalizes continuously and indicate the fare, at any moment of journey, the charges payable by the passenger of a public

vehicle as function of the distance traveled, and below a certain speed on the length of the time taken; this being independent

of supplementary charges according to the authorized tariffs. The reading of the meter is indicated by the Light Emitting

Diode (LED). The ‘K’ factor of the Taxi-meter is 1700 rev per kilometer.

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 Sealing diagram of the sealing provision of the Model

Sealing is done by making the holes and passing a seal wire through these holes, and then a lead seal is applied on

the joint of the wire. Fare meter can not be opened without tampering the seal. A typical schematic diagram of sealing

provision of the model is given above.

[ F. No. WM-21(93)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

4807-B MSS No. 81—100

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 29-—dsaUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976 (1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gSa vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ ,lsaV baLVªwesaV~l] 152] lq[ku ekWy] lkbal flVh jksM] lksyk] vgenkckn (Hkkjr) }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk oxZ III ) okys

¶,lhMCY;w&4¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud osfczt) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶,lsaV¸

gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@09@520 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu

izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (bysDVªksfud osfczt) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 30 Vu vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 fd-xzk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 5 fd- xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr

izfr'kr O;odyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2—ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLIys dh ckWMh esa ls rkj fudky dj fMLIys ds VkWi ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS rkfd lh¯yx ds ckn lh¯yx dks gVk, fcuk

fMftVkbtj dks [kksyk u tk lds A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mij fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.k i=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkezxh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs

tks 5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd dh jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 5 Vu ls 150 Vu rd

dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10^dss] 5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21@(300)@2009º

ch- ,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

4807-B MSS No. 81—100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 29.—Whether 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 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 (Electronic Weighbridge) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series

‘‘ACW-4” and with brand name ‘‘ACCENT” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s. Accent

Instrument, 152, Shukan Mall, Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad (India) and which is assigned the approval mark

IND/09/09/520;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge)

with a maximum capacity of 30 tonne 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 Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing

results. The instrument operates on 230 volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model (Weighbridge)

Figure-3— Sealing provision of the indicator of the model

Sealing is done on the top of the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display, so that after sealing

digitizer can not be opened without removing seal. 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 calibaration.

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 above 5tonne and up to 150tonne with

verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g or above and with ‘e’ value of 1x10^k, 2x10^k,

or 5x10^k, 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/(300)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

4807-B MSS No. 81—100

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 30-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gSa vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (7) vkSj mi/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ ,lsaV baLVªwesaV~l ] 152] lq[ku ekWy] lkbal flVh jksM] lksyk] vgenkckn (Hkkjr) }kjk fofu£er ;FkkFkZrk oxZ X ( I ) okys Lopkfyr

xzsfoesVªhd fiQ¯yx baLVªwesaV ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶,lsaV¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls

vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@09@519 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr Lopkfyr xzsfoesVªhd fiQ¯yx baLVªwesaV gS A bldh vkmViqV 50 fd-xzk- ds

lkFk U;wure osV 10 fd-xzk- lfgr 7 iSdsV izfr feuV dh ckjEckjrk lfgr] tks mRikn dh izÑfr vkSj ek=kk ij fuHkZj gS A e'khu dks eqDr

izokg] ukWu fLVdh] ukWu MLVh mRikn tSls LuSd iQwMl] dSaMht] pksdysVl] dksaMhesaVl] oSiQlZ] fpIl] isMhxzh] vkdkj esa NksVs fcLdqV vkfn ds

Hkjus ds fy, fMtkbu fd;k x;k gS A fyfDoM fØLVy Mk;ksM (,y-lh-Mh-) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k 230 oksYV

vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLIys dh ckWMh esa ls rkj fudky dj fMLIys ds VkWi ij lh¯yx dh tkrh gS rkfd lh¯yx ds ckn lh¯yx dks gVk, fcuk

fMftVkbtj dks [kksyk u tk lds A ekMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mij fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS

fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

300 fd-xzk- rd dh {kerk okys gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(300)@2009º

ch-,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

4807-B MSS No. 81—100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 30.—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 Automatic Gravimetric Filling

Instrument belonging to Accuracy Class, X (I) with brand name ‘‘ACCENT” (hereinafter referred to as the said model),

maunfactured by M/s Accent Instrument, 152, Shukan Mall, Science City Road, Sola, Ahmedabad (India) and which is

assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/519;

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument. It has the output

upto 50kg. with minimum weight of 10kg. a frequency of weighing 7 packs per minute depending upon the quantity and

nature of the product. The machine is designed for filling the free flowing, non sticky, non-dusty products like snack foods,

candies, chocolates, condiments, wafers, chips, pedigree, biscuits of small sizes, etc. The Liquid Crystal Diode Display

(LCD) indicates the weighing results. The instrument operates on 230 volts, 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 Sealing diagram of the Sealing provision of the Model

Sealing is done on the top of the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display, so that after sealing

digitizer can not be opened without removing seal. 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 calibaration.

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 capacity up to 300kg. 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(300)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

F.No. 4807 Mss. 101- 114

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 31-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gSa vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs

gq, eSllZ jkty{eh baMfLVªt] f'kokth uxj] okVj VSad ds lkeus] lkojdqaMyk] xqtjkr&364515 }kjk fofu£er vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k

(eSdsfudy dkmaVj e'khu) lk/kj.k ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZrk III ) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ^^jkty{eh** gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr

mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@09@544 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.ki=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy fizafliy vkiQ ewesaVl vk/kfjr eSdsfudy vLokpkfyr rksyu midj.k (eSdfudy dkmaVj e'khu Vkbi) gS ftldh

vf/dre {kerk 5 fd-xzk- gS A baMhds'ku ,ukyksax izdkj dk gS A

vkÑfr &1 ekWMy

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkezxh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy dk fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs

tks 1 fD-xzk-] 2 fd-xzk-] 5 fd-xzk-] 10 fd-xzk-] 20fd-xzk-] 25fd-xzk-] 30fd-xzk- vkSj 50fd-xzk- rd dh {kerk esa gsS A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(316)@2009º

ch-,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

F.No. 4807 Mss. 101- 114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 31.—Whether 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 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-authomatic weighing

instrument (Mechanical Counter Machine Type) with brand name ‘‘RAJLAXMI” (hereinafter referred to as the said

model), maunfactured by M/s Rajlaxmi Industries Opp. Water Tank Shivajinagar, Savarkundla, Gujarat-364515 and which

is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/544;

The said model is a Principle of Moments based mechanical non-automatic weighing instrument (Machanical

Counter Machine Type) with a maximum capacity of 5kg. The indication is of analogue type.

Figure-1 Model

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 capacities 1kg, 2kg, 5kg, 10kg, 20kg, 25kg. 30kg &50kg

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/(316)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

F.No. 4807 Mss. 101- 114

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 15 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 32-—dsaUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gSa vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr% vc dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (7) vkSj mi&/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs

gq, eSllZ 'kkiZ baLVª wesaV] 126] jkWVdj ysvkmV] U;w vkse uxj] gqMds'oj jksM] ukxiqj&440034 }kjk fofu£er mPp ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZRk oxZ II)

okys ^^,l,lih&13** J`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLokpkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke

^^lulqbdkWu** gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr mDr ekMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@63 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k

gS] vuqeksnu izek.ki=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre

{kerk 30 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 100 xzkk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 2 xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr

izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &1 ekMy

vkÑfr&2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

fMLiys dh ckMh esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj fMLiys ds Vki lkbM@ckVe lkbM dh vksj lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A lhy ds lkFk

tqM+s gq, fMLiys ds csl IysV vkSj Vksi doj esa cus nks Nsnksa esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lhy ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan

djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih ;kstukc¼ mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dh lqfo/k gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa

fMi fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi&/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkezxh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls dh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

1 fe-xzk- 50 fe-xzk- rd ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 100 ls 50]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) vkSj 100 fe-xzk- ;k mlls

vf/d ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 5000 ls 50]000 rd dh jsat esa rkieku ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk

okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1x10^ds] 2x10 ^dss] 5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(65)@2010º

ch-,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

F.No. 4807 Mss. 101- 114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th December, 2010

S.O. 32.—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 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-authomatic weighing

instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class-II) of serirs ‘‘SSP-13” and with brand

name ‘‘SANUICON” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s. Sharp Instruments, 126, Rotkar

Layout, New Om Nagar, Hudkeshwar Road, Nagpur-440034 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/63;

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 subtravtive 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.

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the top side/bottom side of the display by passing wire from the body of the display. The

seal is connected by whole in base plate & top cover of display than seal wire is passed through these two holes

attached with seal. 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 capacities up to 50 kg and with number of verification scale

interval(n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ‘e’ value of 100 mg or more and with ‘e’ value 1 X 10k, 2x10k, or 5x10k, being the

positive or negetive whole number or equual to Zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same

principle,design and with the same materals with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM-21/(65)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

F.No. 4807 Mss. 101- 114

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ubZ fnYyh] 20 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 33-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

mDr fjiksVZ esa o£.kr ekWMy (uhps nh xbZ vkÑfr ns[ksa) ckV vkSj eki ekud vf/fu;e] 1976(1976 dk 60) rFkk ckV vkSj eki ekud

(ekWMyksa dk vuqeksnu) fu;e] 1987 ds mica/ksa ds vuq:i gSa vkSj bl ckr dh laHkkouk gS fd yxkrkj iz;ksx dh vof/ esa Hkh mDr ekWMy

;FkkFkZrk cuk, j[ksxk vkSj fofHkUu ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa mi;qDr lsok iznku djrk jgsxk_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (7) vkSj mi/kjk (8) }kjk 'kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx djrs gq,

eSllZ bZxy Ldsy esU;qiQsDp¯jx oDlZ] IykV ua- 140@141 baMfLVª;y ,LVsV] ukscy uxj ds lkeus] dksVkjiqj okVj oDlZ ds ikl] iksLV&ljnkj

uxj] vgenkckn&384275 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk (;FkkFkZRk oxZ III) okys ^^bZds,l 10Vh** Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr

rksyu midj.k (Øsu Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ^^bZxy** gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls

vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@09@339 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (Øsu Vkbi) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk

10]000 fd-xzk- vkSj U;wure {kerk 20 fd-xkk- gS A lR;kiu ekieku vUrjky (bZ) 1 fd- xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu ;qfDr gS ftldk

'kr izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A izdk'k mRltZd Mk;ksM (,y bZ Mh) izn'kZ rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A

midj.k 230 oksYV vkSj 50 gV~tZ izR;korhZ /kjk fo|qr iznk; ij dk;Z djrk gS A

vkÑfr &1 ekWMy

vkÑfr&2 ekWMy dks lh¯yx djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

Ldsy dh ckVe IysV vkSj VkWi doj ij cuk, x, gksYl esa ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A diViw.kZ O;ogkj dks

jksdus ds fy, osbax e'khu dks [kksys tkus ls jksdus ds fy, lh¯yx yxkbZ tkrh gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus ds mica/ dk ,d iz:ih

;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

midj.k esa dsfyczs'ku ds fy, ckgjh igqap gS A ckgjh dsfyczs'ku rd igqap dks jksdus ds fy, ,@Mh dkMZ@enj cksMZ esa fMi fLop

Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 36 dh mi/kjk (12) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh gS

fd mDr ekWMy ds vuqeksnu ds bl izek.ki=k ds varxZr mlh fofuekZrk }kjk mlh fl¼kar] fMtkbu ds vuqlkj vkSj mlh lkexzh ls ftlls

mDr vuqeksfnr ekWMy fofuekZ.k fd;k x;k gS] fofu£er mlh Ük`a[kyk ds oSls gh esd] ;FkkFkZrk vkSj dk;Zikyu ds rksyu midj.k Hkh gksaxs tks

5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ^^bZ** eku ds fy, 500 ls 10]000 rd ds jsat esa lR;kiu ekieku varjky (,u) lfgr 50 fdxzk- ls 30 Vu rd

dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ^^bZ** eku 1x10^ds] 2x10 ^dss] 5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e &21(191)@2009º

ch-,u- nhf{kr] funs'kd] fof/d eki foKku

F.No. 4807 Mss. 101- 114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 20th December, 2010

S.O. 33 .—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 (Crane Type) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class-III) of series ‘‘EKS-10T” and with

brand name ‘‘EAGLE” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s. Eagle Scale Manufacturing

Works Plot No:- 140/141 Industrial Estate Opp. Noble Nagar, Nr Kotarpur Water Works Post:- Sardar Nagar, Ahmedabad-

384275 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/339;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Crane type) with a

maximum capacity of 10000 kg. and minimum capacity of 20kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 1kg. It has a tare device

with a 100 per cent subtravtive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) indicates the weighing results. The

instrument operates on 230 Volts, 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 Sealing arrangement

The Sealing is done through the whole made in the bottom plate and top cover of the scale, than sealing wire is

passed through these two wholes. 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.

The instrument has external control to calibration. A dip switch has also been privided 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 50 kg. and up to 30 tonne with

verification scale interval(n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1x10^k, 2x10^k, or 5x10^k,

where K is a positive or nagative 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(191)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

F.No. 4807 Mss. 101- 114

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

ubZ fnYyh] 13 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 34 -—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mifu;e(1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

,rn }kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd vf/lwph esa fn;s x;s ekud (dks) esa la'kks/u fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gSa %

Ø-la-

la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud (dksa) dh

la'kks/u dh la[;k

la'kks/u ykxw gksus dh

la[;k o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vkSj frfFk

frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 10803% 1984 eSU;qvy /krq vkdZ os¯YMx

la'kks/u la[;k 1 uoECkj 2010

30 uoEcj 2010

gsrq vkofjr bysDVªksM dh osYM /krq ds jklk;fud

fo'ys"k.k ds fy, osYM iSM ds uewus ysus vkSj rS;kj

djus dh i¼fr

bl la'kks/u dh izfr Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou] 9] cgknqj 'kkg tiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh&110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa % ubZ

fnYyh] dksydkrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxykSj] Hkksiky] Hkqus'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]t;iqj]

dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:oUurkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % ,eVhMh 11@Vh&113º

ih- ?kks"k] oSKkfud ^,iQ* ,oa izeq[k (,eVhMh)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 13th December, 2010

S.O. 34.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the Schedule hereto

annexed have been established on the date indicated against each:

SCHEDULE

Sl. No.

No. and Title of the standard(s)

No. & year of the amendment

Date from which the

amendment shall have

effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 10803: 1984 Method of sampling and

Amendment no. 1 November 2010

30 November. 2010

preparation of weld pad for chemical

analysis of weld metal from covered

electrodes for manual metal arc welding

Copy of this amendment is available for sale with the Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah

Zafar Marg, New Delhi- 110002 and Regional Offices: New Delhi, Kotkata Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai, and also Branch

Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore,Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna,

Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[ Ref : MTD 11/T-113]

P. GHOSH, Sc.‘F’ Head (Met Engg.)

F. 4807-6

MSS 301-342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 35.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh-,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

23@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&12&2010

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@185@2005&vkbZvkj(lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 35. —In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 23/2006)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. B.C.C.L.and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 6-12-2010.

[No. L-20012/185/2005-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 23 of 2006

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of

E. J. Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : Mr. Raghu Nandan Rai,

Working President, Jharkhand

Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor

Union

On behalf of the employers: None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 25th November, 2010

ORDER

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers confered on them under Section 10

(1) (d) of the I. D. Act., 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order

No. L-20012/185/2005-IR (CM-I), dated 1-6-2006.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the demand of the Jharkhand Mines Lal

Jhanda Mazdoor Union from the management of

BCCL, EJ Area that Smt. Bandana Mandal may be

promoted as Sr. Staff Nurse Gr. ‘B’ is justified ? If so

to what relief is the workman entitled and from what

date ?”

The case under the reference relates to the

promotion of Smt. Bandana Mandal as Senior Staff Nurse

Grade-B under the management of E.J. Area of M/s BCCL.

To-day Shri Raghu Nandan Rai, Working

President, Jharkhand Mines Lal Jhanda Mazdoor Union,

Bhowra, Dhanbad is present but none appears on behalf

of the management.

A petition filed on behalf of Smt. Bandana

Mandal, work woman under the signature of aforesaid

working President of the Union and submitted by himself

that aforesaid Smt. Bandana Mandal, Staff Nurse, the work

woman, has been promoted to Senior Staff Nurse Grade -B

on 27-12-2007, so union declined to proceed with the

dispute and accordingly it is submitted to dispose of the

case.

Perused the case record. I find that the case was

running for filing a rejoinder on behalf of the workman.

Meanwhile the aforesaid petition filed on behalf of the

sponsoring union that the work woman Smt. Bandana

Mandal the Staff Nurse has been promoted to Senior

Staff Nurse Grade-B on the very 27-12-2007, for which the

present case was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

In the meantime, in view of the facts and circumstances,

the dispute of the aforesaid work woman for her promotion

exists no longer. Hence, the case is closed and accordingly

order is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 36.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh-,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

138@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

6&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@338@98&vkbZvkj(lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

F. 4807-6

MSS 301-342

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 36. —In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 138/2000)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. B.C.C.L.and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 6-12-2010.

[No. L-20012/338/98-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 138 of 2000

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman : None

On behalf of the employers: Mr. D. K. Verma, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th November, 2010

ORDER

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10

(1) (d) of the I. D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order

No. L-20012/338/98-IR (C-I), dated the 20th October, 2000.

SCHEDULE

“ KYA BIHAR COLLIERY KAMGAR UNION KI

MANG KI SHRI SWARNA KUMAR CHOUHAN KO

ATTENDANCE CLERK KEY PAD PAR NIYAMIT

KIYA JAEY, UCHIT EVAM NAYASANGAT HAIN ?

YADI HAIN TO KARMKAR KIS RAHAT KEY

PATRA HAIN TATHA KIS TARIKH SEY ?”

This case relates to the regularisation of Swarn

Kumar Chouhan as Attendance Clerk by the management

of M/s. BCCL.

The representative of the management is

present. None appears for the workman. Perused the case

record. I find that the case was running for evidence of the

management, but meanwhile the petition filed dated

28-1-2009 on behalf of the sponsoring union for the

workman viz. Swarn Kumar Chouhan with prayer to pass

‘No dispute’ Award, as the Union did not want to contest

this case.

The case under reference relates to the

regularisation of the concerned workman as Attendance

Clerk by the management. If the sponsoring union declines

to contest the case for the reason best known to it, it

would not be proper to keep the proceeding continued

for it.

Under this circumstances, the case is closed and

accordingly the order is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 37.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh-,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k @ Je U;k;ky; la- 2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

33@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&12&2010

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@210@2005&vkbZvkj(lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 37.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 33/2006)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

6-12-2010.

[No. L-20012/210/2005-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 33 of 2006

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of

Western Jharia Area of M/s. BCCL and their

workman.

F. 4807-6

MSS 301-342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : Shri Ajay Kumar Singh

the concerned workman

himself.

On behalf of the employers

Mr. D. K. Verma,

Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 24th November, 2010

ORDER

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10

(1) (d) of the I. D. Act., 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order

No. L-20012/210/2005-IR (CM-I), dated , the 1st June, 2006.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the demand of the Janta Mazdoor Sangh

from the management of BCCL, W. J. Area that

Sh. Ajay Kumar Singh, Electrician Cat-V may be

regularised as Electrical Supervisor in Grade- C is

justified ? If so, to what relief is the workman entitled

and from what date ?”

This case relates to the regularisation of

Shri Ajay Kumar Singh, Electrician Cat.-V to the post of

Electrical Supervisor in Grade-C by the management of

W.J. Area of M/s. BCCL.

To -day the representative of the management

as well as the workman Shri Ajay Kumar Singh is

present.

A petition in triplicate with photo copy of the

office order No. 95 dated 5/7-1-2008 of BCCL Murulidih

20/21 Pits Colliery under his signature filed on behalf of

the aforesaid concerned workman and it has been submitted

by himself that as per the office order of the management,

he has already been promoted from the post of Electrician

Cat. V to that of Supervisor/Asstt.Foreman (Electrical) T&S

Gr-C, for which the case was referred for adjudication.

Perused the case record. I find that the case was

running for filing a rejoinder on behalf of the workman, but

meanwhile the cause of the workman namely for his

regularisation as Electrical Supervisor in Gr-C has been

provided by the management as aforesaid office order of

the management itself on the very 5th January, 2008.

Under the circumstances, I do not find it proper

to proceed with the case. Hence, the case is closed and

accordingly order is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 38.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh-,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k @ Je U;k;ky; la-&2 /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

173@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

6&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@351@98&vkbZvkj(lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 38.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 173/

1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. B.C.C.L.and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

06-12-2010.

[No. L-20012/351/98-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD.

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 173 of 1999

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. BCCL and their workman

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : Mr. S. C. Gaur, Advocate.

On behalf of the employers: Mr. U. N. Lal, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 22nd November, 2010

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers confered on them under Section 10

(1) (d) of the I. D. Act. , 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order

No. L-20012/351/98-IR (C-I), dated , the 5th April, 1999.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of

M/s. BCCL, in not providing employment to the

F. 4807-6

MSS 301-342

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

dependant of Shri Sahdeo Turi ex-PRW on

compassionate ground is legal and justified ? If not,

to what relief the dependant is entitled to ?”

This case of the sponsoring union for the

petitioner Ramchandra Turi as dependant of his deceased

(late Sahdeo Turi) for his employment on compassionate

ground is that his father Sahadeo Turi had been working

as permanent P.R. worker since his appointment on

30-1-1973 by the BCCL. Firstly he was posted at Keshalpur

Colliery which was nationalised from 1-5-1973. The services

of the workman (deceased) was transferred by the BCCL

management to Sudamdih Shaft Mine at a distance of more

than 25 K.M. under the same Jharia field of BCCL. In the

year 1987, Sudamdih Mining Management issued Service

Excerpts to all its workmen including the workman

concerned Sahadeo Turi whose Service Excerpt has been

marked as Ext. W-2. It appears 20th August, 1944 as his

date of birth and designation as piece rated worker (PRW).

So he claims for superannuation at his 60 years of age on

2-8-2005. As a permanent Piece Rated Worker (PRW) his

P.F. Account No. D/547364 was allotted. The concerned

workman owing to constant working in the under ground

mine which is very dusty, contacted consequential troubles

including T. B. During the Holi of the year 1996, the

concerned workman had gone to his village home in the

Giridih District where he fell sick, resulting his confinement

to bed. On the morning of 29th March, 1996, during his

service tenure, he breathed his last due to complication of

his Pulmonary T.B. and Cardio respiratory failure, and he

left his wife Dulari Devi, two sons (including the petitioner)

and one daughter. Further pleaded that as per the provision

of NCWA-V, the widow applied with no objection for her

elder major son Ram Chandra Turi’s employment in the

proper form with full details and papers on 8-10-1996 to the

Dy. C.M.E. Project Officer. But the management of

Sudamdih Shaft Mines of M/s. BCCL regretted the

petitioners employment on vague and irrelevant issue,

hence the case has arisen for adjudication following its

reference to this Tribunal.

The dependant petitioner, who is the son of late

Sahadeo Turi (ex-employee of Sudamdih Shaft Mine of

M/s. BCCL, is entitled for his employment under clause

9-3-2 of NCWA-V after 30 days of filing of his employment

papers.

Whereas the case of the management is that the

issuance of Service Excerpts in favour of the petitioner’s

father late Sahadeo Turi (Ext.W-2) is admitted, conceding

to the facts of appointment and his superannuation as part

of the records of the company concerned. Denying

specifically the aforesaid facts of the case of the petitioner,

it has been pleaded on behalf of the management that

aforesaid Sahdeo Turi, Ex-PRW was chargesheeted

(Ext. M-1) for his unauthorised absence from 5-4-92 to

29-6-95 as per clause 26.1.1 of the Certified Standing Order

of the Company. Late Workman Sahadeo Turi had also

filed his reply to it as Ext.M-2. Finding his reply

unsatisfactory, the disciplinary authority concerned

decided to hold a domestic enquiry against him for the said

charges. Accordingly Shri H. K. Chaudhury, Dy. Personnel

Manager as Enquiry Officer with the aid of Shri T. K. Singh,

Grade-I Clerk as Presenting Officer held the enquiry on

31-7-95 in accordance with the law, and thereafter an enquiry

report, Ext.M-3 was submitted holding the concerned

workman guilty of habitual absentism. On perusal of the

aforesaid enquiry report as well as the note sheet (Ext.M-4)

the Disciplinary Authority having satisfied with the enquiry

report put the concerned workman in the Badli list as Badli

worker and accordingly the order of punishment to him

was issued to the workman by the Disciplinary Authority

(Ext.M-5). Further it has been stated on behalf of the

management that as per the CIL’s letter No. CIL/III/JBCCI/

556-61 dated 2-7-85 which was decided that the dependants

of the casual, temporary, badli worker who die or become

permanently disabled cannot claim the benefits of Clause

9.4.2 of NCWA-III, as they being not permanent employee

of the company; as per the policy decision of the CIL, the

management communicated of the decision to the petitioner

Ram Chandra Turi that since his father was a Badli worker

so his claim for employment on compassionate ground

was not tenable.

FINDING WITH REASONS

In this case WW-1 Ramchandra Turi, the petitioner

on behalf of the sponsoring union and MW-1 H.K.

Chaudhury on behalf of the management have been

examined. Each of them has proved their respective

documents available on the case record.

On going through the evidence, oral and

documentary both adduced on behalf of the parties, the

following facts are undisputable :-

The present petitioner’s father Sahdeo Turi,

P.R.M., P.No. 128 was a Miner/Loader at Sudamdih Colliery

under the employer. He was a permanent worker. His Service

Excerpt dated 11-6-87 (Carbon copy marked as Ext. W-2)

and I.D. Card (laminated) (I.D. Card in original as Ext. W-3)

both of which explicitly display 22nd August, 1945 and

31st January, 1973 as his date of birth and date of

employment in the aforesaid capacity respectively as well

as his C.M.P.F. Account No. D-/543764. The death

Certificate of Shri Sahadeo Turi as Ext. W-1 proves his

death on 29-3-1996 due to complications of Pulmonary T.

B. as well as Cardio Respiratory failure during the tenure of

his aforesaid permanent service as Miner/Loader under

the management concerned.

II.

The attendance of the employee/workman

Sahdeo Turi as P.R.M. in the last 3 years 1992, 1993 and

1994 were 123, 147 and 144 days respectively and in 1995

he again proceeded on 7 days E.O. on 28-3-95, came with

F. 4807-6

MSS 301-342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Medical sick certificate from 5-4-95 to 1-7-95 as apparent

from the note sheet marked as Ext.M-4 Photo-copy of the

alleged domestic enquiry conducted by H.K. Chaudhury,

the then Dy. P.M. (Administration).

III.

It is an admitted fact that in response to the

chargesheet dated 12-7-95 (Ext.M-1), the employee Sahadeo

Turi, P.R.M.submitted his reply on the following date i.e.

on the 13th July, 1995 under his L.T.I. (its pohto copy marked

as Ext.M-2) in connection with the alleged domestic enquiry

against him.

The Schedule of the dispute under adjudication

acts upon the consideration of its incidental/intrinsic point

whether the status of the permanent employee Sahadeo

Turi, PRW, reduced to that temporary employee under badli

list as per clause 17.8 of the Certified Standing Order (C.S.O)

at the time of his death during the tenure of his service by

holding alleged domestic enquiry against him.

In view of the case of the workman as sponsored

by the union concerned, oral and documentary evidence

as adduced on behalf of both the parties, namely the

petitioner Shri Ram Chandra Turi (WW-1) and the

management, the case involves the following two points

for proper adjudication, namely :

(a)

Whether the alleged domestic enquiry against

the then workman (Sahadeo Turi), father of the dependant

petitioner for his alleged misconduct of absentism was held

fairly, properly and in accordance with the principles of

natural justice.

(b)

Whether the action of the management in

refusing the employment to the dependant of aforesaid

Sahadeo Turi, Ex-PRW on compassionate ground was legal

or justified.

Point (a)

At this point, the evidence of solitary MW-1

Mr. H. K. Chaudhury, the then Dy. Personnel Manager

(Adminstration) as an Enquiring Officer manifests that the

aforesaid workman (Sahadeo Turi) was issued Chargesheet

(Ext.M-1) for remaining absent from duty unauthorisedly

in the year 1995, and the workman submitted his reply

(Ext.M-2); since his reply being unsatisfactory the

Disciplinary Authority decided to hold the domestic enquiry

against him and accordingly he (MW-1) appointed to

hold the domestic enquiry. Further that the witness has

stated that after completion of the domestic enquiry, he

had submitted the enquiry report as Ext. M-3, because he

was found guilty and accordingly the notesheet (Ext.M-4)

was prepared by the Disciplinary Authority, It bears the

singature of all authority concerned and accordingly the

order of punishment (Ext.M-5) was issued by the

Disciplinary Authority. To this witness, there is a circular

dated 2nd July, 1985 marked Ext.M-6 which stipulates that

“ the dependants of badli workman, who die cannot claim

the benefits of clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-III, they being not

permanent employees of the company”, so the management

did not provide employment to the dependant of the

deceased workman on compassionate ground. The perusal

of the aforesaid alleged circular (Ext.M-6) reveals that it is

a letter dated 2nd July, 1985 issued by the CIL, Coal Bhawan,

Kolkata-I and the same was issued in response to the

letter dated 18-7-1985 of Shri A. P. Singh, the Chief of

Personnel, E.C.L. Sanctoris.

On the scrutiny of the enquiry report (Ext.M-3), I

find that the aforesaid withess of the management has

not stated either in his evidence nor in his enquiry report

whether he had recorded the evidence of any witness on

behalf of the management in the domestic enquiry against

the aforesaid workman for the alleged charges of

misconduct. Besides that it is apparent from the

chargesheet (Ext.M-1), Sahadeo Turi was alleged to be

continuously absent from work for more than 10 days

without permission and satisfactory cause with effect from

5-4-95 to 29-6-95 and secondly he was charged with

habitual absence without leave or without sufficient cause.

But in view of the admitted facts as apparent from the

notesheet(Ext.M-4) the workman concerned had

proceeded on 28-3-95 on 7 days E.L. i.e. from 29-3-95 to

4-4-95 which was granted by the management. It is also

undisputable fact that the workman present with medical

sick certificate from 5-4-95 to 1-7-95 as stated in the

aforesaid notesheet (Ext.M-4) and the plea of submitting

the, medical certificate was for his seriously falling sick.

He also stated in his replay to the chargesheet (Ext.M-1).

So the alleged allegation of his absentism for the aforesaid

disputed period was properly seems to have justified by

him (Sahadeo Turi). From the nature of the domestic

enquiry against the workman Sahadeo Turi appears to be

against the settled and cardinal principles of natural

justice, because alleged domestic enquiry suffers from

unfairness, impropriety as well as malafide, because of

the fact that despite of the existence of continuous service

of the workman as defined under Section 25B of the I.D.Act

1947, his permanent status of (PRW) was reduced to that

of badli worker vide Ext.M-5. I am of the view that cardinal

principles of the labour jurisprudence enjoins upon the

employer to hold the domestic enquiry against the

workman honestly and bonafide and with care and

caution that such enquiry does not become empty

formality. The report of the enquirying officer is palpably

“ipse dixit” in otherwords he himself has stated it. The

instant act of the management is a glaring example of

injustice not only against the workman but also against

his son dependant.

Point (b)

Considering the aforesaid admitted facts, I find the

evidence of the petitioner Ram Chandra Turi appears to be

F. 4807-6

MSS 301-342

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

quite supportive to his claim for his employment on the

compassionate ground, he has submitted his prescribed

application form to the management along with the

enclosures namely the death certificate of his father

Sahadeo Turi (the workman) and his affidavit as well as the

affidavit of his mother Dulari Devi (wife of late Sahadeo

Turi (Ext.-4), (Ext.W-4/1) who declared her no objection to

it and this application lies under clause 9.4.2 of NCWA-III

which clearly provides for the employment of one dependant

like the present petitioner son of the deceased worker who

dies while in service. The Service Excerpt of the deceased

workman Sahadeo Turi (Ext.W-2) bears the name of the

petitioner Ram Chandra Turi as well as other heirs of the

deceased.

Mr. U. N. Lal, Ld. Advocate for the management

relying upon the authority 2004 (1) JLJR (employer in

relation to the management of Dharmaband Colliery -versus

Presiding Officer) page 365 (SB) submitted as held therein,

that in respect of compassionate appointment under

clause 9.4.3 of NCWA-III dependant of a casual worker

is not entitled for compassionate appointment. So the

Award of the Tribunal being wrongly directed was

quashed (paras 3 to 6). But in view of the aforesaid

finding by this Tribunal on the basis of the evidence

adduced on behalf of both the parties I find the aforesaid

authority appears to be inapplicable to the present case

under adjudication, because the workman concerned

namely, Sahadeo Turi, the father of Ram Chandra Turi

(the petitioner) was not a casual worker or temporary

worker rather he was a permanent worker as P.R.W.

(Miner/Loader) of the management concerned during

the career of his service.

On consideration of the aforesaid preceding facts as

well as the laws prevalent in the industrial areas, I find and

hold that the action of the management of M/s. BCCL in

not providing employment to Ram Chandra Turi, the

dependent of his deceased father Sahadeo Turi, Ex-PRW

on compassionate ground was not at all legal and justified.

The dependant of Sahadeo Turi is entitled to employment

on compassionate ground within a period of one month

from the date of publication of this Award in the Gazette of

India. Rupees ten thousand as compensation is awarded

in favour of the dependant but against the management for

intentional and malafide delaying his employment on

compassionate ground.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 39.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bZ- lh-

,y-ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

74@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&12&2010

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@86@2004&vkbZvkj(lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 39.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 74/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. E. C. L. and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 6-12-2010.

[No. L-20012/86/2004-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) DHANBAD

PRESENT

Shri Kishori Ram,

Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 74 of 2004

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of

Mugma Area of M/s. E.C.L. and their workmen.

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman : None

On behalf of the employers: None

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 22nd Nov., 2010

ORDER

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section

10 (1) (d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order

No. L-20012/86/2004-IR (CM-I), dated 2nd July, 2004.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of Hariajam

Colliery of M/s. ECL, in dismissing Sri Jugat B.P. UG

Loader from the services of the company vide order

F. 4807-6

MSS 301-342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dated 21/23-10-2003 is fair & legal ? If not to what

relief is the concerned workman entitled ?”

The case under reference relates to the

dismissal Shri Jugat B.P., U.G. Loader from the services of

the company/employer of Hariajam Colliery of M/s E.C.

Ltd.

Neither Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the

management is present nor Mr. K. Chakravorty, Ld.

Advocate for the workman is present, but to-day the

workman, employee himself appeared and filed a photo

copy of his previous petition dt. 10-11-09 along with a

photo copy of the Office Order dated 11-9-2010 of the Dy.

C.M.E. concerned, Khudia Colliery and submitted that he

is not in a position to contest the case, as he has been

reinstated or allowed to join duty as U.G. Loader at Khudia

Colliery with immediate effect.

Perused the case record. It is evident from it that

it has been fixed for evidence of the management on

preliminary point and registered notices were issued on

28-10-2010 to both the parties. The original petition of this

petitioner under his L.T.I. for not contesting the case is

also available on the case record.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances

I find that the industrial dispute under reference is not any

more in existence between the parites because he has been

allowed to join his duty as U.G. Loader at Khudia Colliery

with immediate effect as per order of the management

concerned. Accordingly the case is closed and order is

passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 40.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lh-,e-

ih-Mh-vkbZ- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

89@94) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&12&10

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@480@93&vkbZvkj(lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 40.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 89 /94)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. CMPDI and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on 6-12-

2010.

[No. L-20012/480/93-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s. 10(1) (d) (2A) of the I. D.

Act.

Reference No. 89 of 1994

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

M/s. Central Mine Planning and Design

Institute Ltd.,Ranchi

And

Their Workmen.

Present : Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer.

Appearances:

For the Employers: Shri B. K. Sinha, Dy. Manager (P).

For the Workman: Shri K. N. Singh, Asstt. General

Secretary, NCWC.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal.

Dated, the 24-11- 2010

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/480/93-IR (Coal-I), dated

8-4-1994 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal :

“ Whether the action of Management of M/s. Central

Mine Planning and Design Institute Ltd., Ranchi is

justified in terminating the service of Shri Om Prakash

w.e.f. 20-11-91 who has worked as Sweeper/Sweeper

Mate w.e.f. 3-5-88 to 20-11-91 through contractor

when other 17 junior contract labour engaged as

Sweeper have been regularised in Cat.I as Sweeper

w.e.f. 1-4-91? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled ?”

The case of the concerned workman, in short, is

that he rendered continuous and regular service w.e.f.

3-5-88 till he was arbitrarily, unreasonably and whimsically

prevented from attending his normal duties w.e.f. 20-11-91,

F. 4807-6

MSS 301-342

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

and without any notice and in gross violation of Section

25-F and 25-G of the I.D. Act, 1947. It has been submitted

that exactly in similar nature of job certain junior workman

who raised industrial dispute have been regularised. The

concerned workman was all along assured of his

regularisation and even on 20-11-91 while arbitrarily and

illegally preventing him from attending to his normal duties,

he was assured regularisation as was done in similar cases.

Having failed all efforts and hope of the management

finding reason, the workman raised an industrial dispute

which has been referred for adjudication. It has been stated

that the employment of the workman on jobs of sweeping

and cleaning through Contract Labour was prohibited w.e.f.

1-3-77 under the relevant Act. On or after 1-3-77, the Public

Sector, CMPDI could not have legally employed any

workman as so-called Contract Labour. The concerned

workman was working in prohibited category of job and

the alleged contractor was neither possessing any licence

nor the management possessing registration certificate as

per Contract Labour (R &A) Act, 1970. So the concerned

workman shall be deemed to the employee of the

management.

It has been prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal be

pleased to answer the reference in favour of the concerned

workman.

the case of the management, in short, is that

the present reference is not legally maintainable. It has

been stated that a memorandum of settlement was signed

on 7-10-91 and it was agreed upon between the parties of

the settlement except the concerned workman that the

claim of no other person will be raised by the union nor

will be considered by the management for regularisation/

appointment. At that time name of the concerned workman

was not brought to the notice of the management. The

concerned workman was employed as Supervisor by the

Contractor to get the work done by contractor’s labourers.

The management is having its own sufficient number of

sweepers and in addition to that Ranchi Municipal

Corporation provides their sweepers on payment for the

work of the management, as such, no further sweeper is

required by the management. It is not correct and strongly

denied that the concerned workman was doing the job of

sweeper. He was employed by the Contractor as a

supervisor, he was not an employee of the management.

There does not exist any master and servant relationship.

Being a Government Company it has to abide by the

provision of Employment Exchange (Compulsory

Notification) Act and appointment has to be taken

accordingly. Merely completion of 240 days attendance

does not create any right to regularisation . The concerned

workman was never employed by the management, as

such, there was no question of termination as alleged and

further there is no question of reinstatement as claimed.

It has been prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal be

pleased to pass an award in favour of the management

holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to any

relief.

Both the parties have filed their respective

rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of

the paragraphs of each other’s written statement.

During the pendency of the present case the

concerned workman, namely, Om Prakash Singh died on

8-2-1995 and in view of the death of the concerned

workman his wife, namely, Sita Devi substituted herself as

party to the proceeding.

On behalf of the concerned workman Smt. Sita

Devi, wife of late Om Prakash, has been examined as

WW-1. On behalf of the concerned workman WW-2, K.N.

Singh has been examined.

Management has produced MW-1, Binod Prasad.

The concerned workman has produced documents

which have been marked as Exts. W-1 to W-11.

The main argument advanced on behalf of the

concerned workman is that the concerned workman was

working in CMPDIL, Ranchi, as Sweeper alongwith 17 other

sweepers who have been regularised by the management

who are also contract labour, but the concerned workman

was not regularised. He was doing the permanent nature of

job as sweeper which cannot be done by the contract labour

as per Contract Labour (Regulation & Abolition), Act, 1970.

The representative of the management argued

that the concerned was an employee of the contractor and

he was not employed by the management. He was receiving

payment from the contractor and working under the

supervision and control of the contractor. So he cannot

be taken to be an employee of the management .

In this respect management’s witness MW-1, Binod

Prasad, has stated in his cross-examination that presently

all the aforesaid 17 workmen are working as sweeper under

the management and earlier to that they were working

under the contractor and used to perform miscellaneous

jobs, such as, sweeping, cutting the grass, removing the

bushes etc. This statement of MW-1 shows that other 17

workmen who were working as sweepers have been

regularised by the management, except the concerned

workman. It has also been argued that the concerned

workman was doing supervisory work, so he cannot be

regularised. He was working as munshi of the contractor to

supervise the work of sweepers who were working with

F. 4807-6

MSS 301-342

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

him. This will not effect his status as sweeper. Moreover,

17 persons, as per Ext.W-7, have been regularised by the

management which includes Ashok Paswan and Krishna

Sahu after entering into a settlement, before the tribunal in

Reference No. 36/91 arrived at by the workmen and the

management.

As per Ext.W-9, Contract Labour (Regulation

&Abolition) Act, 1970, clause 11.5 the contract labour has

been abolished regarding permanent nature of job and

sweeping work is permanent nature of job for which contract

labour cannot be employed. Ext.W-8 is settlement by the

management and the workman/union which has been

notified by the Govt. of India as per Ext.W-7.

10.

considering the facts and circumstances stated

above, I hold that the concerned workman, who died on

8-2-1995 as per Ext.W-1, was working with the management

under the contract labour as sweeper which is permanent

nature of job with 17 other persons. That job of sweeping

cannot be done by contract labour as it is prohibited

category of job and they should be deemed to be

employees of the management. Moreover, 17 workmen

doing similar nature of sweeping job, have been

regularised. So, the concerned workman is also entitled for

regularisation from the date of his termination of service

w.e.f. 20-11-1991 with full back wages till his death on

8-2-1995. According, the management is directed to pay

the dependent of the late concerned workman, namely, Sita

Devi full back wages from 20-11-91 to 8-2-1995 (date of

death) with all consequential benefits.

This is my Award.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 41.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

165@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

6&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@102@2001&vkbZvkj(lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 41.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 165/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s.B.C.C.L.and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 6-12-2010.

[No. L-20012/102/2001-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 165 of 2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Sudamdih Coal Washery of M/s. BCCL and their

workman.

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the workman : None

On behalf of the employers: Mr. D.K. Verma, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal.

Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th Nov., 2010

ORDER

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers confered on them under Section 10

(1) (d) of the I. D. Act., 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order

No. L-20012/102/2001-IR(C-I), dated, the 18-5-2001/

24-5-2001.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the demand of the BCKU from the

management of BCCL, Sudamdih Coal Washery for

regularising Shri Shankar Kumar to the post of Fitter

Helper in Excavation Cat. ‘E’ is justified ? If so, to

what relief is the workman entitled and from what

date ?”

This case relates to the regularisation of

Shri Shankar Kumar to the post of Fitter Helper in Excavation

Cat.‘E’ under the management of BCCL, Sudamdih Coal

Washery.

To -day Mr. D. K. Verma, Learned Advocate for

the management is present but neither Learned Advocate

for the workman nor any representative of the union is

present despite registered notices issued dated 29-10-2010.

F. 4807-6

MSS 301-342

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

Perused the case record. It has been pending for

hearing for order over the petition filed on behalf of the

workman on 16-11-09. Heard Ld. Counsel for the

management over it. It is submitted on his behalf that since

the petitioner has prayed in his aforesaid petition for

passing ‘No dispute’ Award on the ground that he is not in

a position to contest the case. It is also evident from the

case record that the petition was filed by the workman

Shri Shankar Kumar under his signature on the very 16th

day of November, 2009, mentioning therein about his

disinterestedness to contest the case. Under the

circumstances, it is useless to proceed with the case. Hence,

the case is closed and accordingly order is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 42.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh-,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

205@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

6&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@207@2001&vkbZvkj(lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 42.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 205/2001) of the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-

2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 06-12-2010.

[No. L-20012/207/2001-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2), DHANBAD

PRESENT : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 205 of 2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of

Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES

On behalf of the Workman : None

On behalf of the Employers: Mr. D.K. Verma, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 19th Nov., 2010

ORDER

The Government of India , Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers confered on them under Section 10

(1) (d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their order

No. L-20012/207/2001-IR (C-I), dated, the 11th July, 2001.

SCHEDULE

“ Whether the action of the management of BCCL,

Lodna Area in not regularising Sri Chandi Bourin as

Store Keeper is justified ? If not, to what relief is the

workman entitled and from what date ?”

This case relates to the regularisation of the

workman concerned Chandi Bourin as Srore Keeper under

Lodna Area of M/s. BCCL, Sudamdih Coal Washery.

To -day Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Advocate for the

management is present but neither the Ld. Advocate for

the concerned workman nor the representative of the

concerned workman appear despite registered notices

dated 29-10-2010. Since the case is pending for further

hearing for order over the petition filed on 3-3-09 on behalf

of the workman so fresh registered notices were issued to

both the parties for hearing over it. But even then the

concerned workman Chandi Bourin or his representing

union did not appear.

Heard the Ld. Advocate for the management over

the said petition. He has submitted that the petition has

been filed on behalf of the workman for passing ‘No dispute’

Award on the ground that the management agreed to

regularise him in clerical job subject to his undertaking for

withdrawal of his case.

It is evident from the case record that previously

the case was running for the evidence of workman since

13-6-2006 but meanwhile the present petition has been filed

on behalf of the workman with the prayer for permission of

this Tribunal to withdraw this case and accordingly for

passing ‘No dispute’ Award.

Since the case was referred by the Ministry for

adjudication there is no question of withdrawal. Under the

circumstances, the plea of withdrawal of the case under

reference is sustainable. However, in view of the nature of

the latest development prevailed upon between both the

parties it is obvious that neither the representative union

nor the workman is ready to contest the case. Under the

circumstances, the case is closed and accordingly order is

passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

F.No. 4807-7 Mss No. 343-378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 43 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

263@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&12&2010

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@228@2001&vkbZ vkj(lh&I)º

Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 43.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 263/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 6-12-2010.

[ No. L-20012/228/2001-IR (C- I)]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT: Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 263 of 2001

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Katras Area

of M/s. B.C.C.L and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the Workman : None

On behalf of the Employers : Mr. D. K. Verma,

Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 19 November, 2010

ORDER

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section

10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947, has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L -20012/228/2001- I.R. (C-I), dated, the 21st Sept., 2001.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Katras

Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Sijua, Dt. Dhanbad in not

regularising Shri T. K. Ojha, SDL Mazdoor as Loading

Clerk is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled and from what date ?’’

2. This case relates to the regularisation of Shri T. K.

Ojha, SDL Mazdoor as Loading Clerk under the management

of Katras Area of M/s. BCCL.

3. To-day Mr. D.K. Verma, Ld. counsel for the

management is present but none appears on behalf of the

workman (T. K. Ojha, S.D.L. Mazdoor), though registered

notices were issued on 29-10-2010. Perused the case record

and it stands clear that the case fixed for hearing or order

over the petition dated 23-1-2009 filed on 20-8-2010.

4. Heard the aforesaid Ld. Advocate for the

management over the petition who very submissively

expressed his no objection to the aforesaid petition of the

sponsoring union in which it is stated not to exist any

dispute whosoever on the ground of settlement of the

grievance of the workman/union. So the union does not

want to proceed with the case under reference in future. In

view of the aforesaid fact that the grievance of the workman/

union has been settled so no dispute whatsoever exists in

the case for adjudication and accordingly at the

disinclination of the union of the workman to preceed with

the present case, I think it proper to close the case and

accordingly order is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 44-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkj ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/

dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 232@2001)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&12&2010 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@338@2001&vkbZ vkj(lh&I)º

Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 44 .— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 232/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 6-12-2010.

[ No. L-20012/338/2001-IR (C- I)]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

F.No. 4807-7 Mss No. 343-378

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT: Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 232 of 2001

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management

of Sijua Kshetra of M/s. B.C.C.L and

their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None

On behalf of the employers : None

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad the 19 November, 2010

ORDER

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section

10 (1) (d) of the I. D. Act, 1947, has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L -20012/338/2001- IR (C-I), dated the 19th Sept., 2001.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of BCCL

in not regularising Sri Honnan Khan as Clerk is

justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled and from what date ?’’

2. This case relates to the regularisation of

Sri Honnan Khan as Clerk under the management of Sijua

Kshetra of M/s. BCCL.

3. None of the parties appear today despite registered

notices dated 29-10-2010.

4. Perused the case record, and it transpires that the

case was fixed for evidence of workman on 13-9-2006 and

the Pesiding Officer was on leave and again it was fixed for

evidence of the workman on 8-3-2007. Previously on

20-8-2010 it was ordered that there is no scope to proceed

with the case. Further in view of the petition dated

27-1-2009 filed on 10-5-2010 that there was likelihood of

settlement, so the sponsoring union declined to contest

the case and accordingly it was ordered no dispute award

be passed presuming non-existence of any dispute

between the parties. Hence, the case is closed and

accordingly order is passed presuming non-existence of

the industrial dispute between the parties.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 45 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

305@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&12&2010

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@424@2001&vkbZ vkj(lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 45.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 305/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 6-12-2010.

[ No. L-20012/424/2001-IR (C- I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT: Shri KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1) (d)

of the I.D. Act, 1947.

Reference No. 305 of 2001

PARTIES :

Employers in relation to the management

of West Jharia Washery Zone of

M/s. BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None

On behalf of the employers : Mr. D. K. Verma,

Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dhanbad, the 19th November, 2010

ORDER

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section

10 (1) (d) of the I. D. Act, 1947, has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide

their Order No.L-20012/424/2001-IR(C-I), dated, the

29th November, 2001.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether denial of regularisation of Sri Bishwajit

Chatterji in the post of clerk by the management of

Western Washery Zone Mohuda of M/s. BCCL is

justified ? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled and from what date ?’’

F.No. 4807-7 Mss No. 343-378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. This case relates to the regularisation of

Sri Bishwajit Chatterjee in the post of Clerk by the

management of Estern Washery Zone Mohuda of

M/s. BCCL.

3. To-day Mr. D. K. Verma, Ld. Counsel for the

management is present but none appears on behalf of the

workman (Bishwajit Chatterji).

4. Heard the Ld. Counsel for the management who

has expressed no objection to the petition dated 12-2-2009

filed on behalf of the workman on 20-8-2010, it has been

stated therein that the petitioner is not interested to contest

the case, so order be passed. It is obvious from the persual

of the case record that previously the case was running for

the cross-examination of MW-1 (Harendra Mishra) for the

management. Meanwhile, as the order sheet dated

12-5-2010 of the filed relates to the petition dated 12-2-2009

earlier filed on behalf of the workman/sponsoring union

for passing ‘No dispute’ Award. In view of the aforesaid

petition, Ld. Predecessor Presiding Officer, Incharge of the

Tribunal was pleased to pass an order that since the

workman/sponsoring union is not interested to contest

the case so there is no reason to drag on the case further

and the management also had no object. So accordingly

‘No Dispute’ Award be passed presuming non-existence

of any dispute between the parties.

Under the circumstances, I find that the petitioner is

not interested to contest the case for the reason best known

to him. Therefore, the case is closed and accordingly order

is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 46-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

251@94) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&12&2010

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@117@94&vkbZ vkj(lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 46.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.

251/94) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government

on 6-12-2010.

[ No. L-20012/117/94-IR (C- I)]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1) AT DHANBAD

In the matter of an reference under Section 10 (1) (d) (2A)of

the I. D. Act,

Reference No. 251 of 1994.

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of

Nudkhurkee Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L

and

their workmen.

PRESENT: Shri H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the employers

Shri D. N. Prasad,

Advocate.

For the workman

: Shri N. G. Arun.

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, the 15th November, 2010

ORDER

By Order No. L -20012/117/94- IR (Coal-I), dated the

25th October, 1994 the Central Government in the Ministry

of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

‘‘Whether the action of the Chief General Manager,

Block-II Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Nawagarh

(Dhanbad) in denying employment to Smt. Basanti

Bhuini of late Sheo Prasad Bhuia, Miner/Loader is

justified ? If not, to what relief is the dependent

entitled ?"

2. Written statement has been filed on behalf of the

concerned workman stating that Sheo Prasad, concerned

workman was engaged in the capacity of miner/loader since

1977 in Nudkhurkee Colliery under Block-II Area of

M/s. BCCL. He became seriously indispose in the

September, 1979 and as an effect of his illness he died on

21-9-79. The concerned workman left behind his wife, Smt.

Basanti Bhuini and children and there is no one to look

after them. The matter was brought to the notice of the

colliery management for employment of the widow, Smt.

Basanti Bhuini. The widow had also submitted a petition

before the Area management on 21-12-90 for providing

employment under clause 9.4.2 of NCWA. Having failed to

receive any reply from the management the widow

approached the union of the workman, namely, Rashtriya

Colliery Mazdoor Sangh who took up to the matter with

the management but to no effect. Thereafter, the union on

behalf of the concerned lady raised an industrial dispute

vide letter dated 10-5-93 before the A.L.C. (C), Dhanbad,

which ended in failure and thereafter the dispute has

referred to this Tribunal for adjudication by the Govt. of

India, Ministry of Labour. It has been submitted that

F.No. 4807-7 Mss No. 343-378

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

Late Sheo Prasad Bhuia, miner/loader continued in

employment in Nudkhurkee Colliery during 1977, 1978 and

1979 respectively before he died on 21-9-79. On the basis

of the provision of NCWA the management ought to have

provided employment to his dependent, i.e. his widow,

Smt. Basanti Bhuini. But the management has not provided

employment to Smt. Basanti Bhuini. She has got no other

source of income nor has got any relative who can support

her in distress.

It has been prayed before this Hon’ble Tribunal to

pass an award by directing the management to provide

employment to Smt. Basanti Bhuini, widow of Late Sheo

Prasad Bhuia.

3. Writen statement has been filed by the management

stating the present reference is not legally maintainable as

there is employer employee relationship exists between

the management and Smt. Basanti Bhuini and as such no

industrial dispute can be raised on her behalf. It has been

submitted that Late Sheo Prasad Bhuiya was never a member

of the sponsoring union during his lifetime and as such the

sponsoring union has no locus standi to raise any dispute

on the matter of Late Sheo Prasad Bhuiya. Late Sheo Prasad

Bhuiya was a badli miner/loader and his employment was

depended on the exigencies of circumstances of temporary

vacancies from time to time. He had no right to demand for

regular employment of miner/loader and it was at the option

of the management to provide him job at its own discretion

during leave and sick vacancies of permanent miner/loader.

The concerned lady claims to be the wife of Late Sheo

Prasad Bhuiya cannot demand for her employment as his

depandent. The concerned lady cannot be employed in

the capacity of miner/loader in a coal mine and as such she

is unsuitable to be provided with employment as badli

miner/loader. Late Sheo Prasad Bhuiya had worked as badli

miner/loader in the years 1977 and 1978. He was never

made permanent. It has been alleged that he died on 21-9-

1979. The concerned lady never raised any dispute in the

past and for the first time the present dispute has been

raised at a belated stage.

It has been prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal be

pleased to pass the award holding that the concerned lady

is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective

rejoinders admitting and denying some of the contents of

each other’s written statement.

5. The concerned lady, Smt. Basanti Bhuini, examined

herself as WW-1 and produced documents which have

been marked as Exts. W-1 to W-7.

The management has produced MW-1, B.L. Srivas.

No document has been produced on behalf of the

management.

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the

concerned lady, Smt. Basanti Bhuini is entitled for

appointment on compassionate ground in place of her

husband, Late Sheo Prasead Bhuia, miner/loader as per

clause 9.4.2 of NCWA. Her application was recommended

and forwarded by the colliery management to Area

management. But when the management did not offer her

employment an industrial dispute was raised.

7. Management has argued that there is no employer

employee relationship between the management and the

concerned lady. Late Sheo Prasad Bhuiya was never a

member of the sponsoring union during his lifetime and as

such the sponsoring union has no locus standi to raise

any dispute. It has also been submitted that Sheo Prasad

Bhuiya was a badli miner/loader and his employment

depands on exigencies of temporary vacancies from time

to time. He had no right to demand for regular employment

of miner/loader and it was at the option of the management

to provide him job at its own discretion during leave and

sick vacancies of permanent miner/loader. As Late Sheo

Prasad Bhuiya has no existing right to demand for regular

employment, the wife of Late Sheo Prasad Bhuiya cannot

demand for her employment as his dependent. It has been

submitted that the concerned lady cannot be employed in

the capacity of miner/loader in a coal mine and as such she

is unsuitable to be provided with employment as badli

miner/loader, which post Late Sheo Prasad Bhuiya was

holding during his lifetime.

8. In this respect the evidence of WW-1, Smt. Basanti

Bhuini, is very much material. She has stated in cross-

examination that ‘‘I do not know his permanent home

address’’. This shows that it is doubtful if she was the wife

of Late Sheo Prasad Bhuiya or not. There is no paper which

has been filed by her to show that she was the wife of Late

Sheo Prasad Bhuiya. It has also been stated by her in cross-

examination that ‘‘I cannot say when he was employed. I

have filed paper regarding his death on 19-9-79’’. It shows

that she does not know the date of her husband’s death.

She has again stated ‘‘I cannot say my age. I do not know

the contents of my affidavit.’’ It only shows that she does

not seen to be the wife of Late Sheo Prasad Bhuiya. The

application does not show that she is the wife of Late Sheo

Prasad Bhuiya. No paper has been filed Late Sheo Prasad

Bhuiya which may show that his wife’s name is Smt. Basanti

Bhuini. Moreover, the lady cannot be employed as miner/

loader and there is no document which may show that

Sheo Prasad Bhuiya was the permanent employee of the

management. He was badli Miner/Loader. On death of such

an employee a dependent cannot claim employment in a

permanent nature of job.

9. Considering the above facts and circumstances I

hold that the action of the Chief General Manager, Block-II

Area of M/s. BCCL, P.O. Nowagearh, Distt. Dhanbad, in

denying employment to Smt. Basanti Bhuini of Late Sheo

Prasad Bhuiya, Miner/Loader, is justified and accordingly,

the concerned lady is not entitled to get any relief.

This is my award.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 47 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

F.No. 4807-7 Mss No. 343-378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

103@92) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&12&2010

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@14@92&vkbZ vkj(lh&I)º

Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 47.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 103/

92) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 06-12-2010.

[ No. L-20012/14/92-IR (C- I)]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 1) AT DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference M/s.10 (1) (d)(2A) of I.D. Act,

REFERENCE No. 103 of 1992.

Parties : Employers in relating to the management of

Tetulmari Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L Ltd.

AND

their workman.

PRESENT : Shri H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers

Shri H. Nath, Advocate

For the Workman

Shri U. P. Sinha,

Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, the 19th November, 2010

AWARD

By Order No. L -20012(14)/92- I.R. (Coal-I), dated

15-9-1992 The Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Tetulmari

Colliery in terminating the services of Shri Raj Kumar

Yadav alias Shri Gobardhan Mahto is justified ? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled ?"

2. According to the written statement of the

concerned workman, he was working in Tetulmari Colliery

much before the nationalisation of the colliery as Raj Kumar

Yadav and his father’s name is Dibakar Mahto alias Yadav.

Therefore, the management has failed to prove that the

concerned workman was working in that colliery by

impersonating himself as Raj Kumar Yadav. On the other

hand, there is material to show that the concerned workman

has got two names, one is Gobardhan Mahato and other

Raj Kumar Yadav, both son of Dibakar Mahato.

The management has failed to prove the alleged

misconduct of impersonating and deceiving the

management in any manner. The management has also not

produced any duty chart or attendance register to show

that the concerned workman was absent for more than ten

days without reasonable or sufficient cause.

In such circumstances the Tribunal decided the

reference case on 10-8-2006 in favour of the workman by

holding that he is entitled for reinstatement with full back

wages and other consequential benefits. Against that order

the management moved before the Hon’ble High Court by

writ petition No. W.P.(L) No. 1333 of 2007 upheld the order

passed by this Tribunal regarding reinstatement of the

concerned workman, but has directed regarding back wages

considering whether the workman was gainfully employed

during that period or not.

In this respect the concerned produced himself as

WW-1 (Raj Kumar Yadav) and he has stated that I was

working in Tetulmari Colliery since 1973 and dismissed in

the year 1988. He also stated that from the date of dismissal

till retirement he was not re-employed and never worked

anywhere. There is no evidence by the mangement that he

was re-employed or working anywhere.

3. Argument advanced on behalf of the management

that the concerned workman has got five sons, but that is

not the ground because a person who has got five sons,

was maintaining his family. There is no evidence produced

by the mangement to show that he was employed anywhere

or was working anywhere. In the circumstances it has been

proved he was not gainfully employed anywhere.

4. The concerned workman referred law laid down by

Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in (2009) Supreme Court

cases (I&S) 595 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down

that the burden to show that the workman was gainfully

employed during the interregnum period was on the

employer. The Supreme Court in a number of decisions

opined that grant of back wages is not authentic. The

burden of proof that he remained unemployed would be on

the workman keeping in view the provisions contained in

Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Once the employees

discharged their burden by deposing before the Tribunal

that they remained unemployed during the interregnum

period, the burden shifted to the employer to show that the

contention of the employees that they had not been

employed, was incorrect. No witness was examined on

behalf of the employer. There was even no pleading in that

behalf.

The fact that the workman survived and did not die

of starvation itself could not be ground for denying back

wages to them. Even an unemployed person has a right to

F.No. 4807-7 Mss No. 343-378

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

survive. He may survive on his past savings, He may beg

or borrow but so long as he has not been employed, back

wages, subject to just exception, should not be denied. So,

as per law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court the

concerned workman is entitled for full back wages as he

has discharged burden by proving and deposing that he

remained un-employed during the period of idleness. The

management is directed to pay the concerned workman full

back wages from the date of termination of service till re-

instatement.

This is my Award.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 48-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

190@29) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&12&2010

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@58@89&vkbZ vkj(lh&I)º

Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 48.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 190/89)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 6-12-2010.

[ No. L-20012/58/89-IR (C- I)]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT: Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Disputes under section 10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947.

REFERENCE No. 190 of 1989.

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the management of

Teturiya Colliery of M/s. B.C.C.L and their

workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : Mr. D. mukherjee,

Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union

On behalf of the Employers : None.

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad the 18th November, 2010

ORDER

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section

10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947, has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L -20012/58/89- IR (Coal-I), dated, the 27th November,

1989.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the management of M/s. BCC. Ltd. in

relation to Teturiya Colliery in Area No. III through

the General Manager Govindpur Area III is justified

in promoting the workman Shri Kameshwar Singh as

Lamp Room Incharge w.e.f. 13/19-1-88 and denying

the promotion to the workman Shri Banshi Barhi

Lamp Fitter on the post of Lamp Room Incharge ? If

not, to what relief Shri Banshi Barhi is entitled to ?"

2. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of the

concerned workman, it has been stated that Shri Bansi

Barhi has been working as Lamp Fitter since long with

unblemished record of service. He was sent by the

management for training about the Cap Lamp for Macmeill

& Magor Limited, Kilburn Division Disergarh and he has

completed his training successfully in the year 1969. The

management was taking the service of Cap Lamp Room

Incharge from the concerned workman due to his training

and experience. Thereafter the concerned workman

represented before the management for his regularisation

as Cap Lamp Room Incharge and the management

appreciating the legal claim of the concerned workman

assured him to regularise but at that time the management

showed its inability for regularisation of the concerned

workman to the post of Cap Lamp Room Incharge on the

ground of no vacancy. It has been alleged on behalf of the

concerned workman that though the management refused

to regularise the concerned workman as Cap Lamp Room

Incharge on the ground of no vacancy but one Kameshwar

Singh has been regularised/promoted to the post of Cap

Lamp Room Incharge in the same Area denying the claim

of the concerned workman.

3. It has been further alleged that the action of the

management in not regularising/promoting the concerned

workman to the post of Cap Lamp Room Incharge was not

only illegal and arbitrary but also vindictive in nature.

Thereafter the union of the concerned workman raised

industrial dispute before the ALC (Central), Dhanbad which

ultimately resulted reference to this Tribunal. It has been

prayed on behalf of the workman to pass an Award in favour

of the concerned workman directing the management to

promote him to the post of Cap Lamp Room Incharge atleast

w.e.f. 13/19-1-88 with all arrears of wages and consequential

benefits.

4. In the Written Statement filed on behalf of the

management it has been stated that the present reference

F.No. 4807-7 Mss No. 343-378

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is not legally maintainable. It has been furhter stated that

Tetturiya Colliery has got two Cap Lamp Cabins. In one

Cap Lamp Cabin, the concerned workman Shri Banshi Barhi

has been working as Cap Lamp Fitter under the control and

supervision of Shri K. C. Dhobi, the Cap Lamp Room

Incharge. In another Cap Lamp Cabin Shri Kameshwar

Singh was working as Cap Lamp Fitter. There was no Cap

Lamp Room Incharge in that cabin and the Asstt. Colliery

Manager was directly exercising supervision and control

over the said Cap Lamp Room. As Shri Kameshwar Singh

was matriculate and capable of maintaining records, he

was entrusted with the clerical jobs of a Cap Lamp Room

Incharge by the A.C.M. and subsequently authorised to

work as Cap Lamp Room Incharge with effect from 21-2-86.

He was regularised as Cap Lamp Room Incharge in Tech.

Grade-C by order dated 19-1-88. The concerned workman

Shri Banshi Barhi is not a matriculate and in capable to

maintain records of Cap Lamp Room. He was never

authorised to work as Cap Lamp Room Incharge. He is

continuing to work as Cap Lamp Fitter. Therefore, he cannot

claim for his regularisation as Cap Lamp Room Incharge.

5. It has been further stated by the management that

a workman may be appointed as Cap Lamp Fitter after

undergoing certain training course on Cap Lamp

maintenance jobs but for his promotion to the job of a Cap

Lamp Room Incharge, he must possess minimum

qualification of matriculation or must acquire sufficient

knowledge and pass the departmental written and practical

test to enable him to perform clerical jobs, like maintenance

of records and correspondence etc. D.P.C. is constituted

for consideration of promotion of Cap Lamp Fitters to the

post of Cap Lamp Room Incharge. As there is no scope for

comparison between S/Shri Kameshwar Singh and the

concerned workman Shri Banshi Barhi in the matter of

regularisation, the demand of the concerned workman for

the post of Cap Lamp Room Incharge as because Shri

Kameshwar Singh has been regularised is without any merit

and he is not entitled to any relief.

6. Both the parties have filed their respective

rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of

the paras of each other’s written statement.

7. Management side in order to substantiate their

claim have produced Vidyanand Prasad who has been

examined as MW-1. Workmanside has not produced any

witness.

8. It has been argued on behalf of the workmanside

that Shri Kameshwar Singh who is junior to the concerned

workman was promoted by the management as Cap Lamp

Room Incharge vide order dated 19-1-88 but the concerned

workman who is working as Cap Lamp Fitter has not been

promoted. In this respect it has been argued on behalf of

the management that qualification of matriculation is

essential for promotion to the post of Cap Lamp Room

Incharge because Cap Lamp Room Incharge performs the

duties of maintenance of records and making of

correspondence pertaining to Cap Lamp Room which

cannot be done by the concerned workman because he is

not matriculate. So he could not be promoted as Cap Lamp

Room Incharge.

9. There is no document filed on behalf of the

workmanside to show that the concerned workman has

passed the Matriculation examination so that his case may

be considered by the management for promotion in the

post of Cap Lamp Room Incharge.

10. Moreover, the concerned workman has not

appeared before this Tribunal to state on oath that he has

passed Matriculation examination. So in the circumstances

it shows that the action of the management is justified for

not promoting the concerned workman as Cap Lamp Room

Incharge from 19-1-88. In the result, the following Award is

rendered :—

‘‘The Management of M/s. BCC. Ltd. in relation to

Teturiya Colliery in Area No. III through the General

Manager, Govindpur Area No. III is justified in promoting

the workman Shri Kameshwar Singh as Lamp Room

Incharge w.e.f. 13/19-1-88 and denying the promotion to

the workman Shri Banshi Barhi Lamp Fitter on the post of

Lamp Room Incharge. Consequently, the concerned

workman Banshi Barhi is not entitled to get any relief.’’

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 49 -—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ us'kuy

iQjsV@dksUVsd VªkaliksVZ izk- fy-@iSxkll VªkaliksVZ izk- fy-@lfifM VªkaliksVZ

fyfeVsM@MksyfiQu eSfju bUVjizkbtst@ekfj;u iQkSjoks¯Mx

dkWjiksjs'ku@lqjs'k eSdsfudy oDlZ@dLrqjh VªkaliksVZ izk- fy- ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je

U;k;ky; 2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@2002) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18&11&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&31011@6@2002&vkbZ vkj(,e@ch II)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 49.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT-

2/61 of 2002) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court 2, Mumbai now as shown in

the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of M/s. National

Freight Carriers/M/s. contech Transport Pvt. Ltd./M/s.

Pegasus Transport Pvt. Ltd./M/s. Speedy Transport Ltd./

M/s. Dolphin Marine Enterprises/M/s. Maryan Forwarding

Corporation/M/s. Suresh Mechnical Works/M/s. Kasturi

F.No. 4807-7 Mss No. 343-378

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

Transport Pvt. Ltd. and their workmen, which was received

by the Central Government on 18-11-2010.

[ No. L-31011/6/2002-IR(M)/(B-II]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRTAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRlAL TRlBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

Shri A. A. LAD, Presiding Officer,

Reference No. CGIT 2/61 of 2002

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF :

(1) M/s. STC MOVERS LIMITED (Deleted)

(2)

The Director,

M/s. National Freight Carriers,

333/334/335, Vyapar Bhavan, 3rd Floor;

49, P.D’Mello Road, Carnac Bunder,

Mumbai-400 009.

(3)

The Managing Director,

M/s. Contech Transport Pvt. Ltd,

124, Kashiram Jamnadas Building, 1st floor;

5, P.D’Mello Road, Mumbai-400009.

(4)

The Managing Director,

M/s. Pegasus Transport Pvt. Ltd.,

C-4, Pegasus Transport Pvt. Ltd.

Dr. Shirodkar Marg, Parel (E)

Mumbai-400 012.

(5)

The Director,

M/s. Speedy Transport Ltd.,

BPT 1635, Mansion Road,

Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400 009.

(6)

The Managing Director,

M/s. Dolphin Marine Enterprises,

STC Building, 275, Reay Road,

Mumbai-400010.

(7)

The Managing Director,

M/s. Maryn Forwarding Corporation,

130, Vyapar Bhavan, P.D’Mello Road,

Mumbai-400009.

(8)

The Managing Director,

M/s. Suresh Mechanical Works,

124, Kashiram Jamnadas Bldg; 1st Flr;

5, P.D’Mello Road, Mumbai-400 009.

(9)

The Managing Director,

M/s. Kasturi Transport Pvt. Ltd.

301/302, Joshi Chambers,

Ahmedabad Street.

Carnac Bunder; Mumbai-400 009.

.........First Party

AND

Their Workmen

The President,

Transport & Dock Worker’s Union,

P. D’Mellow Bhavan, P.D’Mello Road,

Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400038.

......Second Party

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers

Mr. B.K. Ashok, Advocate

(5, 6 & 9)

For Employers(2)

Mr. S.N. Chinchwadkar,

Advocate

For the Employers

Mr. B.D. Birajdar, Advocate

(3,7& 8)

For the Employer (4)

No appearance

For the Workman

Ms. Gayatri Singh, Advocate.

Date of passing the Award: 13-08-2010.

AWARD

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the

proceedings are as under :

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by

its order No.L-31 0 11/6/2002-IR(M) dated 26th July, 2002

in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

“Whether the workmen of STC Movers and 9 other

Transport Operators, are justified in raising the

charter of demands related to wage revision? If yes,

to what relief the workman is entitled to?

2. Claim Statement is filed by the Union at Exhibit 16.

It is replied by 1st Party (1) by filing its Written Statement

at Exhibit 28, by 1st Party (2) at Exhibit 29, by 1st Party (9)

at Exhibit 30. Thereafter Written Statement is filed by 1st

Party (5) at Exhibit 59, 1st Party (3) and 1st Party (8) at

Exhibits 62 and 63 respectively after order passed “No

written statement” was against 1st Party (3) and 1st Party

(8) was set aside and the matter was posted for filing

affidavit by the Union.

3. In the meanwhile Union settled its demands with

1st Party (1) i.e. with M/s. STC Movers Ltd. and

accordingly Award was passed on 27-9-2007.

4. The Reference was on recording evidence of the

Union and though number of dates were taken by it to

lead evidence yet no steps taken nor nobody bothered to

appear which lead me to pass the following order:

ORDER

Reference is disposed off for want of prosecution.

Mumbai, the 13th August, 2010

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 50-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eS- neu f'kfiax

çk- fy- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;&II] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 119@2001)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 18&11&2010 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&31011@6@2001&vkbZ vkj(,e)@vkbZ vkj (ch&II)º

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S.O. 50.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 119 of

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure, in the industrial

dispute between the employees in relation to the

management of M/s Daman Shipping Pvt. Ltd. and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 18-11-2010.

[ No. L-31011/6/2001-IR (M)/IR(B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND LABOUR COURT

NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : A. A. LAD Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/119 of 2001

EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT

OF:

M/s. Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd.

205/206, Varma Chambers,

11 Homji Street, Fort,

Mumbai -400 001.

...First Party

V/s.

Their Workmen

The Bombay Transport &

Dock Workers Union, Shroff Mansion, 157 -B,

Room No. 25, 4th floor; P. D. Mellow Road,

Carnac Bunder, Mumbai-400 001.

...Second Party

APPEARANCE

For the Employer : Mrs. N.R. Patankar, Representative

For the Workmen : Mr. P.K. Sharma, Representative

Date of reserving the Award : 21-9-2010

Date of passing the Award

: 08-10-2010

AWARD

The matrix of the facts as culled out from the

proceedings are as under :

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour by

its Order No.L-31011/6/2001-IR(M) dated 22nd November,

2001 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

“Whether the demand of Bombay Transport and

Dock Workers’ Union, Bombay to regularise the

services of 53 workmen as appended in the list after

completion of 240 days of service with the

Management of Damani Shipping Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

and also demand for pay scales on par with similarly

placed workmen and to extend the benefit of weekly

off, Dock holidays, casual leave, uniform, pay

arrears, medical allowance etc. is legal and justified?

If so what relief the workmen are entitled to?’’

2. Claim Statement is filed by the Representative of

the Union at Exhibit 5 stating and contending that, workers

involved in the Reference, who are listed in the list annexed

with the Claim Statement, are the workers of the 1st Party

and are direct employees of the 1st Party. It is the case of

the Union that, they are not made permanent and are

deprived of benefits of permanency and benefits of

permanent employees. It is contended by the Union that,

though they have worked for more than 240 days they are

not made permanent employees and are not given benefits

as are given to the permanent employees. It is contended

by the Union that, there were number of Companies started

by the 1st party in different names like Damani Brothers,

Carriers Enterprises, Misuster, Crne Services, Demport

Transport, Transport Organization, Ami Enterprises etc.

and registered address of all these Companies is of 1st

Party. It is case of the Union that, though these Companies

are run in different names, muster rolls is maintained by

1st Party is monitored by 1st Party only. It is contended

by the Union that, major portion of the work of the 1st

Party and its sister Companies is confined to the Docks

and hence the employees of the 1st Party Companies have

to possess Entry Permits for performing their regular and

normal work. It is contended by the Union that, as per rule

attendance cadre and Dock Entry permits are to be returned

at the end of each month before obtaining new attendance

cards and Dock Entry Permits. It is contended by the

Union that, while Entry Petmits are issued by all the

Companies to the concerned workmen from time to time,

the attendance cards are issued only by M/s. Damani Bros.

till the end of December, 1988. It is contended by the

Union that, by demand letter dated 3-10-1998 and

22-1-2001 it raised dispute with the 1st Party and its

Directors to prepare seniority list of all the concerned

workmen and make them permanent from the day they

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

have completed 240 days with the 1st Party Companies. It

is case of the Union that, the pay, wages to the workers on

par with similarly placed workers as prescribed under the

law and applicable to the port and dock workers and also

are to be like as that paid to other similar placed workmen

doing identical and similar work etc. However, it is case of

the Union that, said demand is not considered by 1st

Party. So on this, dispute was raised by 2nd party with

Assistant Labour Commissioner (C),Mumbai, praying to

direct 1st Party to regularize the workers involved in the

Reference with benefits of permanency as well as direct

1st Party to pay their wages at par with other employees

who are working on the same post in other Companies. It

is contended that, out of those workers 25 were require

made permanent from the day on which they completed

240 days with other benefits of permanency. It also prayed

to direct 1st Party to give benefits of Casual leave, medical

benefit etc. as are made available to the permanent

employees on par which are available to other employees.

3. This is disputed by the 1 st Party by filing reply at

Exhibit 10 stating and contending that, there is no

‘employee’ ‘employer’ relationship between the concerned

workers and the 1st Party. It is stated that, in the original

References there were 53 employees. It is contended that,

however second time 25 employees are only praying relief

whose list is annexed with the Claims Statement. According

to 1st Party whose list is annexed by the 2nd Party, 9 are

bogus or benami persons. According to 1st Party workers

mentioned at 7,10,18 to 22 and 24, 25 are not the genuine

workers and persons alive and are not require to consider

as regular employees as per the demand of the 2nd Party

Union. It is further stated by the 1st party that, these 9

workers stopped for reporting on work. It is further stated

by the 1st party that, since 2nd Party is concerned with

only 16 employees, 2nd Party has no locus standi to

represent the workers and file Claims Statement for others.

It is stated that, Shri Vaijnath Poojari assisted by

Shri Sayyed M. Bellari are the licenced Contractors

engaged by the 1st Party to do casual work in the dock

premises for their clients and the said Contractors used to

engage the workers on casual basis and these workers

may be working as contract workers and they may be

casual workers engaged by the said Contractors. Since

there is no ‘employer’ ‘employee’ relationship these

workers cannot claim any relief against the 1st Party. It is

contended that, since Contractors Shri Vaijnath Poojari

assisted by Shri Sayyed M. Bellari are not made party

Reference of the 2nd Party is bad for nonjoinder of

necessary parties. It is stated that, 2nd Party has misled

this Court while filing Claims Statement. It is prayed that,

the Reference require to be rejected on this count alone. It

is also stated that, 2nd Party has claimed difference of

wages. According to 1st Party such prayer is made by the

2nd Party in the Application filed under Section 33(2)( C)

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and when it is pending

which bears Application No. LC-2/297 of 2001 said prayer

cannot be prayed in this form. It is stated that, this

Reference is concerned to 52 employees and 2nd Party is

representing only 25 employees and out of them some are

bogus who are not in existence. So it is prayed that, the

prayer prayed by 2nd Party to make the employees

permanent employees of the 1st party with benefits on par

with other employees who are working in the similar posts

in other companies, be rejected.

3. Rejoinder is filed by the 2nd Party at Exhibit 11

disputing the case of the 1st party and praying for grant

of the reliefs as prayed in the Claims Statement.

4. In view of the above following Issues were framed

at Exhibit 12 which I answer as follows:

ISSUES

FINDINGS

1. Whether the Management proves

that reference suffers from non-

joinder of necessary parties?

Yes

2. Whether management, company

proves that workers as appended

in the list are not its employees?

Yes

3. Whether management proves

that Reference is not maintainable

as averred in para 1 & 2 of the

Written statement?

Yes

4. Whether the demand of Bombay

Transport and Dock Workers

Union, Bombay to regularise the

services of 53 workmen as

appended in the list after

completion of 240 days of service

with the management-Company

is legal and justified?

5. Whether the demand of the Union

to make the scales on par with

similarly place workmen is legal

and justified?

6. Whether the demand of the

Union to extend the benefit of

weekly off, Dock holidays, casual,

uniforms, pay on par with

similarly places employees.

7. What order:

As per

the Order

passed

below.

REASONS :

Issues Nos. 1 to 7

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

5. By this Reference, 2nd Party pray to make

employees permanent who are listed in the Claims

Statement and request to give them benefit of permanent

employees at par with the workers who are working on

similar post in other Company. This is disputed by 1st

Party saying that, they are not its’ direct workers and

there is no ‘employee’ - ‘employer’ relationships

between them. It is case of the 1st Party that, they are

employees of the Contractors viz. Shri Vaijnath Poojari

assisted by Shri Sayyed M. Bellari who are not made

party to the Reference. It is stated that, absence of

Contractor in the Reference affect on the prayer and

Reference is bad for misjoinder of the necessary parties.

It is further stand of the 1st Party that, since there is no

‘employer’-‘employee’ relationship between the workers

involved in the reference and the 1st Party, prayed by

the Union cannot be granted.

6. To support that, no evidence of any type is led by

the 2nd Party though matter was adjourned time and again

on 7 occasions though it was fixed for leading evidence in

support of their claim. Since burden was on the 2nd Party

to establish that they are direct employees of the 1st Party.

and that relationship is challenged they are not entitled

for the regularization. In the absence of evidence Reference

of the 2nd Party does not sustain and require to reject by

answering the above Issues in favour of the 1st party

since burden was on 2nd Party which is not properly

discharged by leading evidence of any type. In view of

the above and the case made out by both I am of the view

that, 2nd Party is not entitled for any relief. Hence, the

order:

ORDER

Reference is rejected with no order as to its costs.

A.A. LAD, Presiding Officer

Mumbai,

8th October, 2010.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 51-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkWMZusUl iQSDVªh

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k]

ukxiqj

iapkV

(lanHkZ

la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,uthih@184@02) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&14011@2@2002&vkbZ vkj(Mh-;w-)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 51.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/

NGP/184/02) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of Ordnance

Factory and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 7-12-2010.

[ No. L-14011/2/2002-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

Lka[;k@No. 184/2002

nSfud/DAIRY

fnukad@Date çn'kZ la-

çxfr

Exhibit No.

Progress

(1)

(2)

(3)

45/29-09-10

Issued notice to both the

parties, the case is reopened

and fixed for final hearing/

Argument to19-11-2010. The

case is reopened as the award

was not passed by my

predecessor though it was

cleared for award.

46/19-11-10

Petitioner present, filed pursis

that he does not want to

proceed with the case further,

as he is getting regular pension.

Respondent

Counsel

present, Copy of pursis served

on him.

As the petitioner does not want

to proceed with the Case. The

case is closed and reserved for

award.

Petitioner : Shri Purushottam

Party No.1 B. Gajbhiye

Near Rajbhawan

Garden,

Khatikpura, Sadar,

Nagpur

Versus

Respondent/: The Senior

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

Party No. 2 GeneralManager,

Ordnance Factory,

Ambazari,

Nagpur-440021

The Central Government has

referred the industrial dispute

between the employers in

relation to the management of

Ministry of Defence, and their

workman, Shri Pursottam B.

Gajbhiye (here-in-after referred

to as the ‘‘workman’’) for

adjudication in exercise of the

powers conferred by clause (d)

of sub-section (1) and sub-

section (2A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(14 of 1947) (the Act in short),

as per letter No.L-14011/2/2002-

IR(DU) dated 04-06-2002, with

the following schduled:—

19-11-10

‘‘Whether the action of the

management of Senior General

Manager, Ordnance Factory,

Ambazhari, Nagpur in awarding

punishment of alleged illegal

removal from service by

imposing the penalty of

compulsory retirement w.e.f.

15/6/2000 to Sh. Pursottam B.

Gajbhiye, Ex-Semi Skilled

Labourer is legal, proper &

Justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to and from

what date?’’

2. The petitioner, instead of filing any statement

of claim, filed the pursis stating that he does not want to

proceed with the case, as he is getting regular pension

from the management. Copy of the pursis has been served

on the advocate for the management. In view of the pursis,

the reference is dismissed. It may be treated as no award.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

BEFORE THE HON’BLE CENTRAL

GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT

NAGPUR

CGIT/NGP/18H/02

Party No. 1

The General Manager

Ordnance Factory

Ambazari

Versus

Party No. 2

Shri Purushottam Gaybhiye

PURSIS

That, the party No.2 workman does not want to

prosecute the matter. As he getting regular pension from

the party No.1 employer. Hence this pursis

Nagpur

Dated 19-11-2010

Sd/-

(Party No. 2 Workman)

I know and identify Party No. 2

workman Shri Purushottam Gajbhiye

Sd/-Illgible Advocate

Noted

Sd/- Illegible management

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 52-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947 dk

14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ftvksykWftdy losZ

vkWiQ bafM;k ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,uthih@83@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42011@93@99&vkbZ vkj(Mh;w)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 52.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/

NGP/83/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the employees in relation to

the management of Geological Survey of India and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 7-12-2010.

[ No. L-42011/93/99-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/83/2000

Date: 15-11-2010

Petitioner/

Shri Vinod Jivtuji Gajbhiye,

Party No.1

Sahapur, Ambedkar Ward,.

Bhandara

Versus

(1)

(2)

(3)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Respondent/

The Drilling Incharge, Geological

Party No.2

Survey of India, Unit No.332, Camp:

Warora, Chandrapur-442907.

AWARD

(Dated: 15th November, 2010)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Geological Survey of India (“GSI” in short)

and their workman, Shri Vinod Jivtuji Gajbhiye (“the

workman” in short) for adjudication, as per letter No.L-

42011/93/99-IR(DU) dated 13-3-2000, with the following

schedule:-

“Whether the action of the management of Director

(Drilling)/Drilling-in-Charge, Geological Survey of

India, Calcutta/Warora Camp in not reinstating, in-

to services with full back wages of Sh. Vinod Jivtuji

Gajbhiye is legal and justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled and from which date?”

2. The workman filed his statement of claim pleading

inter alia that he was working with the management of

Geological Survey of India, Camp at Warora, District

Chandrapur since July, 94 as a daily wager (helper) till the

date of his oral termination dt. 19-4-99 and he was getting

wages at the rate of Rs. 1323 per month and he was working

without any break since his appointment, but instead of

making him permanent after completion of 240 days, the

management terminated his service orally without any

bonafide reason and the establishment at Warora is still

functioning and the management has appointed two new

persons w.e.f. 20-4-1999 namely, Shri Sharad Ghuttar and

Shri Prashant Dange and though he was senior to many

helpers working with the management, instead of

retrenching junior-most employee, the management

retrenched him arbitrarily and without any justification.

The workman had prayed to set aside the order of

termination and to reinstate him in service and for making

him permanent and to grant all the benefits of a permanent

employee.

3. The management filed the written statement stating

that the petitioner was working as a casual worker and he

was not working from July,94 till 19-4-99 continuously and

he was engaged only for 182 days from December,96 to

May,97, 121 days from December, 97 to March,98, 157 days

from November,98 to 6-4-99 and for 11 days from 9-4-99 to

19-4-99 and wages was paid to him for the work done by

him and there was a ban on fresh recruitment imposed by

the Government in all cadres which was applicable to GSI

as well and as the applicant was a casual worker, there was

no need whatsoever to follow any legal procedure for

termination of his service and as the service of the applicant

was no longer necessary, it was terminated and as such,

the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

4. It is necessary to mention here that the advocate

for the workman filed a pursis stating that the applicant,

Shri Vinod Jivtuji Gajbhiye has already expired and as such,

the case be disposed of accordingly. As the applicant is

already dead and no substitution of the legal heir of the

deceased petitioner has been made, there is no necessity

for the adjudication of the dispute referred by the

Government. Hence, the reference is disposed of without

adjudication due to death of the workman. This may be

treated as no award.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 53-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch-,l-,u-,y

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] y[kumQ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 45@2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&10 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@49@2005&vkbZ vkj(Mh-;w-)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 53.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.45/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Lucknow as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in realtion to the

management of BSNL and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 7-12-2010.

[ No. L-40012/49/2005-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT, LUCKNOW

PRESENT : Dr. Manju Nigam, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 45/2005

Ref. No. L- 40012/49/2005-IR(DU) dated 10-11-2005

BETWEEN

Shri Lal Chand Pal S/o Shri Ram Bahal,

Vill. & Post Dudhaura,

Basti.

AND

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

1. The General Manager Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Basti.

2. The Sub Divisional Officer,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Basti.

AWARD

DATE : 22-11-2010

1. By order No. L- 40012/49/2005-IR(DU) dated

10-11-2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of

Labour, New Delhi in exercise of powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947)

referred this industrial dispute between Shri Lal Chand Pal

S/o Shri Ram Bahal, Vill. & Post Dudhaura, Basti and the

General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Basti & the

Sub-Divisional Officer, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Basti

for adjudication.

2. The reference under adjudication is:

“Whether the action of the management of BSNL

in terminating the services of Shri Lal Chand Pal,

Daily Mazdoor/Lineman w.e.f. 10-10-2004 is just

and legal? If not to what relief the workman is

entitled?”

3. The case of the workman, in brief, is that he was

engaged as daily mazdoor/lineman by the Sub-Divisional

Officer in January, 2000 and he was paid at the rate of

Rs. 600 per month. The workman has further submitted

that he worked as such from January, 2000 to 10-10-2004

without any break for more than 240 days in every year. It

has been alleged by the workman that his services were

terminated by the management arbitrarily on 10-10-2004

without any notice or notice pay in lieu thereof in violation

of Section 25 F; and also, the management appointed some

other person in his place which contravened the provisions

contained in Section 25 H of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. Accordingly, the workman has prayed that his oral

termination order dated 10-10-2004 be set aside and he be

reinstated with all consequential benefits, including back

wages.

4. The management of the BSNL has disputed the

claim of the workman by filing its written statement wherein

it has specifically submitted that the applicant was never

engaged as workman by the management of BSNL

therefore, there arise no question of making him any

payment or terminating his services at any point of time;

and accordingly it has prayed that the claim statement is

liable to be rejected as not maintainable, without any relief

to the workman.

5. The workman has filed its rejoinder wherein he

has not brought any new fact apart from reiterating the

averments made by him in his statement of claim.

6. The workman filed documentary evidence in

support of his claim vide list of documents dated

10-03-2006. No evidence was field by management.

Consequently, the case was ordered to proceed ex-parte

against the management vide order dated 11-7-2006 and

accordingly, the workman filed its oral evidence on affidavit

on 21-04-2009 and further, he filed an additional oral

evidence on affidavit of Shri Barsati, in support of his

case. Since the case was proceeding ex-parte against the

management, the next date i.e. 15-03-2010 was fixed for

arguments. The management again did not turn up

continuously on various dates i.e. 15-03-2010, 19-04-2010,

14-06-2010, 29-07-2010, 19-08-2010, 27-09-2010 and

26-10-2010. Workman filed its written arguments, oral

submission were also advanced. Keeping in view long

absence of management since inception of the case, the

case was reserved for award after hearing representative

of the workman.

7. Heard representative of the workman and perused

evidence on record.

8. It is the case of the workman that he worked

continuously since January, 2000 up to 10-10-2004 for more

than 240 days in every year and in the event of denial by

the management of the same, it was incumbent upon the

workman to come forward with the cogent evidence to

prove the same; likewise, to prove that his services were

terminated in violation of provisions of Section 25 F, he

was to prove that he worked for 240 days in preceding

twelve months from the date of his alleged termination i.e.

on 10-10-2004.

9. The workman has discharged his burden and has

proved that he worked for 240 days in preceding twelve

months from the date of his alleged termination on

10-10-2004 by way of his affidavit as well as affidavit of

another witness viz. Shri Barsati, Lineman, Pandey Bazar

Basti Telephone Exchange; wherein the deponent i.e. Shri

Barsati has categorically stated that the workman, Lal

Chand had worked with him from 2001 upto 10-10-2004 at

Pandey Bazar Exchange and after dispensing the services

of workman one Shri Balram Yadav was engaged and he is

still working in Pandey Bazar Exchange since 2005. The

above statement of a witness who is ‘presently’ a regular

employee of the BSNL, corroborates the version of the

workman that he worked continuously from January, 2000

to 10-10-2004 without any break, for more that 240 days in

every year and his services were terminated by the

management in contravention of the provisions of Section

25 F and also the management of BSNL violated the

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

provisions of Section 25 H by appointing another person

in his place.

10. In view of the law laid down by Hon’ble Apex

Court in (2006) 3 SCC 276 State of U.P. vs. Sheo Shanker

Lal Srivastava & others the statement of the witness,

having not been controverted would be deemed to be

admitted. In the present case the workman has sustained

his case of having worked for 240 days in every calander

year by filing his affidavit as well as affidavit of another

person who is an employee of the management itself and

in view of non-filing of any affidavit by the management

in rebuttal to controvert the statement of workman’s

witnesses there is no reason to disbelieve the statement

of the workman’s witnesses given on oath.

11. In the present case though the management has

disputed the claim of the workman by filing its written

statement but it failed to prove the same on the other hand

the workman succeeded to establish that he worked for

more than 240 days in preceding twelve months from the

date of his alleged termination on 10-10-2004 and his

services were terminated in violation of provisions

contained in Section 25 F of the Industrial dispute in as

much as the management also violated the provisions of

Section 25 H, by appointing another person in his place

without affording him an opportunity for engagement.

12. Now, it is to be considered whether the workman

is entitled for reinstatement. From the evidence produced

by the workman it is not proved that his appointment was

as a regular worker. Even the statement, of workman himself

as well another witness viz. Shri Barsati, it reveal that he

worked as daily mazdoor on daily wages. Admittedly, the

services of the workman were terminated on 10-10-2004.

In (2005) 5 SCC 591; 2005 SCC (L&S) 716 between Haryana

Roadways vs. Rudhan Singh Hon’ble Apex Court while

considering the question regarding award of back wages

has observed:

‘‘There is no rule of thumb that in every case where

the Industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the

termination of service was in violation of Section

25 F of the Act, entire back wages should be awarded

However, where the total length of service rendered

by a workman is very small, the award of back wages

for the complete period i.e. from the date of

termination till the date of the award, which our

experience shows is often quite large, would be

wholly inappropriate. Another important factor,

which required to be taken into consideration: is the

nature of employment. A regular service of

permanent character cannot be compared to short

or intermittent daily wage employment though it may

be for 240 days in a calendar year.”

13. In 2008 (119) FLR 877 Deepak Ganpat Tari vs.

N.E. Theater Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble Bombay High Court relying

on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s judgment in 2008 (117) FLR

1086 (SC) A P V K Brahmandandam 2008 (118) FLR 376

(SC) Telephone DM vs. Keshab Deb 2006 (111) FLR 1178

(SC) JDA vs. Ram Sahai, while awarding compensation

of Rs. 15,000 to the concerned workman considering his

daily wages as Rs. 45 in view of the fact that the workman

had put in about 3 years of service, has observed as

under :

“It is apparent that termination of services of a daily

wager does not amount to retrenchment and for

violation of Section 25 F in such circumstances, the

employee cannot be given benefit of reinstatement

with continuity and back wages. Hon’ble Apex Court

has hold that in such circumstance employee is

entitled to benefit of compensation only.’’

14. Also, in Jagbir Singh vrs. Haryana State

Agriculture Mktg. Board (2009) 15 SCC 327 : (2010) 1

SCC (L&S) 545: Senior Superintendent Telegraph

(Traffic), Bhopal vrs. Santosh Kumar Seal and Others

(2010) 2 SCC (L&S) 309 Hon’ble Apex Court has observed

as under:

“However, in recent past, there has been a shift in

the legal position and in a along line of cases, this

Court has consistently taken the view that relief

by way of reinstatement with back wages is not

automatic and may be wholly inappropriate in a

given fact situation even though the termination

of an employee is in contravention of the

prescribed procedure. Compensation instead of

reinstatement has been held to meet the ends of

justice.

The award of reinstatement with full back wages in a

case where the workman has completed 240 days of

work in a year preceding the date of termination,

particularly, daily wagers has not been found to be

proper by this Court and instead compensation has

been awarded.”

15. In the light of principle laid down in

aforementioned case laws, it would not be just and proper

to direct that the workman be reinstated in service. The

ends of justice would meet by paying compensation to

the workman instead in place of relief of reinstatement in

service.

16. Having regards to these facts that the workman

has worked as daily mazdoor only and he was getting

Rs. 600 per month at the time of his alleged termination

and keeping in view the entire facts of the case and the

law, the interest of justice would be subserved, if,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

management is directed to pay lump sum amount of

compensation only.

17. Accordingly, the management is directed to pay

a sum of Rs. 25,000 (Rupees Twenty Five Thousand only)

to the workman as compensation for termination of his

services in violation of Section 25 F of the I.D. Act. The

said amount shall be paid to the workman within 08 weeks

of publication of the award, failing which; the same shall’

carry interest @ 8% per annum.

18. The reference is answered accordingly.

Dr. MANJU NIGAM, Presiding Officer

Lucknow

22-10-2010.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 54-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nwjlapkj foHkkx

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,y lh@vkj&42@96) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 7&12&10 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@200@94&vkbZ vkj(Mh;w)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 54.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. CGIT/LC/

R/42/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Department of Telecom and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 07-12-2010.

[ No. L-40012/200/94-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/42/96

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASHAN

Shri Baliram, S/O Ajabrao,

Village Samaria,

PO Ghat Biroli,

Tehsil Multai,

Distt. Betul (MP)

...Workman/Union

Versus

Chief General Manager,

Telecom (R.E) Project,

66, Bajaj Nagar,

Nagpur

...Management

AWARD

Passed on this 19th day of November, 2010

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No.L-40012/200/94-IR(DU) dated 30-1-96

has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this

tribunal :—

“ Whether the action of the management of the Chief

General Manager, Telecom (RE) Project, 66 Bajaj

Nagar in stopping Shri Baliram S/o Shri Ajabrao,

casual labour from his duties in October, 1990 is

justified and legal? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled?”

2. The workman did not appear in spite of notice and

therefore the then Tribunal proceeded ex parte against the

workman on 13-3-2007.

3. The case of the management in short is that the

workman was engaged as casual labour on daily wages

but he was never engaged 240 days in a calendar year. His

service does not come within the meaning of continuous

service of one year under the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947. He was engaged on exigency of project work and

after completion of the project, he was not engaged. It is

submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the

management.

4. The issue is framed as under-

I. Whether the action of the management in

stopping the workman from his duties is legal

and justified?

5. Issue No. I

To prove the case, the management has examined

one witness.The management witness Shri I. Wasudeo,

Divisional Engineer was in the said project. He has stated

that the workman was never engaged 240 days in a year.

He was engaged on need and exigencies of project work

on daily basis for specific period. His evidence is

unrebutted. There is no reason to disbelieve his evidence.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

His evidence shows that he comes under the purview of

Section 2 (oo) (bb) of the Industrial Dispute Act and was

not retrenched. This shows that the management was

justified to discontinue him after the specified period on

completion of the project. The issue is thus decided in

favour of the management and the reference is answered.

6. In the result, the award is passed without any

order to costs.

7. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment

as per rules.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 55-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh-ih-MCY;w-Mh-

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ua- I] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 19@2009) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&10 dks izkIr gqvk

Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42011@56@2008&vkbZ vkj(Mh-;w-)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 55.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 19/2009) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of CPWD and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 7-12-2010.

[ No. L-42011/56/2008-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. Y ADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL No. 1. KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI.

ID. No 19/2009

The General Secretary,

CPWD Mazdoor Union, Room No. 95,

Barracks No.1/1 0, Jam Nagar House,

Shahjahan Road, New Delhi. 110011.

. . .Workman

Versus

The Executive Engineer (E),

Electrical Divn.-I,CPWD,

IP.Bhawan, New Delhi-110002

. . .Management

AWARD

Central Public Works Department (hereinafter

referred to as the management) engaged an Assistant

Wireman in its Electrical Division-1, CPWD, New Delhi.

Shri Prem Prakash was engaged on 18-6-1982 whose

services came to an end on 21-10-83. He was engaged

again on 24-12-83 and his services were dispensed with

on 12-2-1984. He raised an industrial dispute, through his

union, challenging action of the management. It was

referred to this Tribunal for adjudication. Award dated

20-1-04 was passed and his services were reinstated on

17-1-2005. In between, a few juniors to him were regularized

in service. His claim of regularization was discarded. He

again approached CPWD Mazdoor Union, who raised a

dispute in that regard too. Since conciliation proceedings

failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to

this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. L-42011/56/

2008-IR(DU),New Delhi dated 16-2-2009 , with following

terms:

“Whether the demand of the CPWD Mazdoor Union

for regularization of the services of Shri Prem Parkash

by the management of CPWD is legal and justified?

If yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to and

from which date?”.

2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri Prem

Parkash pleading that he was initially employed as

Asstt.Wireman w.e. f. 18-6-1982. His services were

terminated on 12-2-1984 by the management. A dispute,

so raised, was referred to this Tribunal for adjudication.

Award dated 20-1-2004 brought relief of reinstatement with

continuity of service in his favour. He was reinstated on

job as Wireman on 17-1-2005 and posted in Sub-division

V, Electrical Division-1, of the managment, since category

of Assistant Wireman was merged with Wireman vide

memorandum dated 7-5-97 with effect from 1-1-1973. In

the meantime his juniors in the category of Asstt. Wireman

(now Wireman) were regularized in the category of Wireman.

It has been projected that S/Shri Darshan Singh was

appointed on 19-6-82 on muster roll and regularized on

31-3-93 in ED-XII Division, Ravinder Singh was appointed

on 14-9-82 on must roll and regularized on 31-3-93 in ED-II

Division, Janardhan Prasad was appointed on 1-1-83 on

muster roll and regularized on 11-2-93 in ED-XII Division,

Amar Nath joined in January, 85 on muster roll and

regularized on 29-4-93 in ED-1 Division and Hari Shanker

was appointed on 30-6-82 on muster roll and regularized

on 31-3-93 in ACD-III of the. management. It has been

agitated that Shri Prem Prakash was paid arrears of back

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

wages in lower pay scale of asstt. category with effect

from 12-2-84 to 31-12-95 and thereafter on 1-1-96 his pay

was fixed in the scale of Wireman. He is entitled to pay and

allowances in the scale of Wireman. A claim has been made

that Prem Parkash is entitled to be regularized as Wireman

w.e.f. 31-3-93 , when his juniors were regularized as such.

3. Contest was given to the claim pleading that the

management has its own policy of regularization, which is

meant for work charge establishments and subject to

availability of vacancy of a particular post. There is no

policy of regularization from Initial date of engagement as

daily wager. Under these circumstances the claim is not

maintainable. The management unfolds that Prem Parkash

was initially appointed as Asstt. Wireman on muster roll

basis w.e.f. 18-6-82 and his services came to an end on

21-10-1983. He was re-engaged afresh w.e.f. 24-12-83 and

his services were terminated w.e.f. 12-2-84. In pursuance

of award dated 20-1-2004 passed by this Tribunal, he was

reinstated as Asstt.Wireman w.e.f. 12-2-84 and was paid

all his dues. His past services till 21-10-83 cannot be

counted for the purpose of seniority, as continuity of

services was broken when he was engaged afresh on

24-12-83.

4. The management agitates that the claimant has

misinterpreted the office memorandum dated 7-5-1997 .

which clarifies that merger is applicable only in respect of

employees under work-charged categories who were on

roll of CPWD on 1-4-81 and not in respect of any kind of

daily rated workers. The claimant was initially engaged on

18-6-82 , viz after the prescribed date of 1-4-81. Moreover,

he was re-engaged as Asstt. Wireman as daily rated/muster

roll worker and not on the rolls of the management. He

does not fall within the purview of merger of assistant

categories to main categories, as per Arbitration Award,

1988. No junior to him has been regularized. Even as per

seniority list Shri Ram Kripal, who is senior to the workman,

has not yet been regularized. Hence, the claimant would

be regularized as and when his turn matures, subject to

availability of vacant post. Management further projects

that pay of the claimant was erroneously fixed in the scale

of Rs.950-1500 in the category of Wireman, whereas it

should have been fixed in the pay scale of Rs.800 (pre-

revised) in assistant category. Recovery of excess amount

paid to him, due to wrong fixation of pay, is under process.

It has been claimed that Shri Hari Shankar etc. are senior

to the workman. His seniority is to be considered w.e.f.

24-12-83 , the date of his re-employment and not from his

initial engagement, for there was no continuity of service.

His allegation that his juniors were regularized is wrong.

Rather his seniors are still in the queue for regularization.

It has been claimed that the claimant has no cause in his

favour.

5. Shri Prem Parkash (WW1) examined himself in

support of his case. Shri B.K. Prasad (WW2) tendered his

affidavit as evidence. He was cross-examined on behalf of

the management. Shri Rajan Aggarwal, Executive Engineer,

examined himself on behalf of the management. No other

witness was examined by either of the parties.

6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri B. K. Prasad,

authorised representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant. Shri Sanjeev Yadav, authorised

representative, filed his written submissions on behalf of

the management. I have given my careful considerations

to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously

perused the record. My findings on issues involved in the

controversy are as follows:—

7. Shri Rajan Aggarwal, Executive Engineer, testified

that Prem Parkash was initially appointed on 18-6-82 . His

services were terminated on 21-10-83. He was again

employed as Wireman on 24-12-83 His services were again

terminated on 12-2-84. He projected that claim of the

claimant that break in service should be counted with

continuity is wrong. Employees are regularized on the basis

of their seniority that too on availability of vacancy for

the same. He proved seniority list Ex.WW1/M1 . He stated

that since the workman is a muster roll employee, hence

arbitration award dated 31-12-88 does not apply to him.

Case of Devender Singh is on different footing than Prem

Parkash. During the course of his cross-examination he

projects that there is no assistant category for work-

charged employees, since it has been merged with full

category. Muster roll employee is to be regularised on

work charged establishment. He disputes that list Ex.WW1/

M1 was not prepared in accordance with the terms of the

arbitration award. He could not affirm or deny that Amar

Nath is working in his division and has been regularized

w.e.f. 29-4-93, on work charged establishment. Devender

Singh got an award in his favour which is Ex.MW1/W1.

He was regularised on the directions of the High Court.

Office memorandum Ex.WW2/3 is applicable since 1985

and refers to employees who do not have any break in

service. He admitted that workman was paid in semi-skilled

category from 12-2-84 to 31st of December,95. He does not

dispute office order dated 7-1-09 , which is Ex.WW2/4 . He

admitted document Ex.WW1/2, which enlists the days on

which claimant worked from 18-6-82 till 18-2-84. He had

not disputed that Hari Shankar has been regularized w.e.f.

31-3-93. He disputes that Hari Shanker and Devinder Singh

were junior to Prem Parkash. He stated that case of

Devinder Singh rests on different footing than the case of

Prem Parkash. Award Ex.MW1/W1 has been implemented.

8. Claimant unfolds in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A that

initially he was engaged as Asstt. Wireman on 18-6-82. He

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

concedes, during the course of his cross examination that

his services came to an end on 21-10-83. He was engaged

afresh on 24-12-83 and his services were terminated on

12-2-84. He raised an industrial dispute, which was

answered in his favour by this Tribunal, vide award dated

20-1-2004 which is Ex.MW1/1. He was reinstated in

services w.e.f. 12-2-2004 with full back wages and continuity

of services. Post of Asstt. Wireman was abolished and

merged with main category viz. Wireman w.e.f. 1-1-1973

retrospectively. After office memorandum dated 7-5-97

post of Asstt. Wireman is not in existence. Many of his

juniors in category of Asstt. Wireman were regularized in

the category of Wireman, during the period when his

services were dispensed with. Hari Shankar was initially

appointed on 30-6-82 and his services were regularized

w.e.f. 31-3-93 He was paid arrears of back wages w.e.f.

12-2-84 to 31-12-95 in the pay scale of Asstt.Wireman and

his pay was fixed in the scale of Wireman w.e.f. 1-1-1996.

He is entitled to be regularized as wireman w.e.f. 31-3-93,

the date when Hari Shankar was regularized. He admits

that his services w.e.f. 18-6-82 to 21-10-83 were not counted

for the purpose of seniority.

9. Shri B K. Prasad reiterates facts testified by the

claimant. He presents that Amar Nath was employed as

Asstt.Wireman on muster roll in January,1985, whose

services has been regularized on 29-4-93. Claimant is

entitled for regularization of his services, from the date

when his juniors were regularized. During the course

of his cross-examination he presents that Devinder, who

was junior to the claimant, has been regularized. He

also proves office memorandum dated 7-5-97 as

Ex.WW2/1.

10. When facts testified by rival parties are

appreciated, it came to light that office memorandum

Ex.WW2/1 was issued by the management for merger of

asstt.category with the main category in pursuance of

arbitration award dated 31-1-88. It was provided therein

that the memorandum is applicable in respect of workman

working under work charged categories and those who

were on the rolls of the CPWD on 1-4-81 and was not

applicable to any kind of daily rated workers. Shri Rajan

Aggarwal had made it clear that muster roll employees are

to be regularized on work charged establishment and

thereafter they would be entitled to merger with the main

category in pursuance of the office memorandum

Ex.WW2/1. He admits that w.e.f. 1-1-96 the claimant has

been given his wages in the scale of Rs.3050. However, he

projects that the payment was wrongly made to him. As

emerge out of office memorandum, an employee is entitled

to merger in case he is on work charged category and on

the rolls of the management w.e.f. 1-4-81 . Here in the case

the claimant was on muster roll, when his services were

dispensed with on 12-2-84. He was ordered to be reinstated

in the service vide award Ex.WW1/1. In that award case of

his regularization on work charged category was not under

consideration. Therefore, on the date of his reinstatement

he continued to be on muster roll. Under that situation

office memorandum Ex.WW2/2 nowhere come for his

rescue.

11. However, Shri Prasad projects that Shri Amar

Nath who was appointed on muster roll in January,1985

has been regularized on 29-4-93. Neither during the course

of his cross-examination nor by positive evidence through

the testimony of Rajan Aggarwal the management could

show that Shri Amar Nath was appointed against work

charged category. Consequently Shri Prasad could

establish that Shri Amar Nath, who was muster roll

employee and junior to the claimant, was regularized w.e.f.

29-4-93. Therefore, it is evident that the case of the claimant

is to be assessed on the standards whether he was granted

equality before law or was discriminated by the

management.

12. Equality before law and equal protection of laws

are fundamental rights of every person, ordains Article 14

of the Constitution. The guiding principles laid in Article

14 are that persons, who are similarly situated, shall be

treated alike both in privileges conferred and liability

imposed, which means that amongst equals the law should

be equal and should be equally administered and that like

should be treated a like. Article 16 of the Constitution

guarantees equality of opportunities for all citizens in

matters relating to employment or appointment to any

office under the State. What is guaranteed is the equality

of opportunity. Like all other employers, Government is

also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large

number of candidates offering themselves for employment.

But the selection process must not be arbitrary. The

guarantee given by clause (a) of Article 16 of the

Constitution will cover (a) initial appointments (b)

promotions (c) termination of employment (d) and matters

relating to salary, periodical increments, leaves, gratuity,

pension, age of superannuation etc. Matters relating to

employment or appointments include all mattes in relations

to employment both prior and subsequent to the

employment which are incidental to the employment and

form part of the terms and conditions of such employment.

13. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14

forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification

or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of

discretion. Classification is the recognition of the relations,

and in making it the Government must be allowed a wide

latitude of discretion and judgment. In a way, the

consequences of such classification would undoubtedly

be to differentiate persons belonging to that class from

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

others. The classification must be founded on an

intelligible differentia which distinguishes persons or

things that are grouped together from others left out of

the group and the differentia must have a rational relation

to the object sought to be achieved. Classification may be

made according to the nature of persons, nature of

business, and may be based with reference to time.

14. Concept of equality guaranteed by Article 16 of

the Constitution is something more than formal equality

and enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share

by having more than equal chance and enables the State

to give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving

real equality with reference to social needs. ‘Protection

discrimination’ enabled the State to adopt new strategy to

bring underprivileged at par with the rest of the society,

by providing all possible opportunities and incentives to

them. Therefore, a class may be allowed to have preferential

treatment in the matter relating to employment or

appointment. There cannot be rule of equality between

members of separate and independent group of persons.

Persons can be classified in different groups, based on in

terms of nature of persons, nature of business and with

reference to time.

15. Shri Amar Nath was appointed as muster roll

employee in January,85 , whose services were regularized

by the management on 29-4-93 . Amar Nath stands on the

same padestal on which the claimant is placed. The

management could not project that Amar Nath was in a

category different than the claimant. Therefore, it is evident

that claimant as well as Amar Nath were placed in the same

bracket, on the date when services of the latter were

regularized.

16. Can management be permitted to treat equals

differently? Answer lies in negative. In Bal Kishan [1990

(I) LLJ 61] the Apex Court announced that no junior shall

be confirmed or promoted without considering the case of

his senior. The observations made by the Apex Court are

reproduced thus :

“In service, there could be only one norm for

conferment or promotion of persons belonging to

the same cadre. No junior shall be confirmed or

promoted without considering the case of his senior.

Any deviation from this principle will have

demoralizing effect in service apart from their being

contrary to Article 16(1) of the Constitution.’’

17. The management projected that in Uma Devi

[2006(4) SCC1] the Apex Court ruled that a person who

entered service dehors the rules has no right for

regularization or continuance in service. The principle of

law laid by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case is not a

matter of dispute. Whether the law so laid would allow the

management to discriminate the claimant from Shri Amar

Nath, who was junior to him and placed on similar

padestal? Such a proposition was considered by the Apex

Court in Pooran Chandra Pandey [2007 (12) Scale 304],

wherein it was announced that precedent in Uma Devi

(supra) cannot be applied mechanically without

considering facts of a particular case. In Uma Devi it was

ruled that a person, who entered the Government service

dehors rules cannot claim as right for continuance or

regularization of service. However, the said decision

nowhere speaks of a case where regularization in service

has been sought in pursuance of fundamental rights

guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. In Pooran

Chandra Pandey (supra) there were two sets of employees

who were daily wagers, that is (i) the original employees

of the U.P.State Electricity Board and (ii) the employees of

the society, who subsequently became employees of the

Electricity Board. The High Court ruled that there was no

ground for discriminating between the two sets of

employees. When issue reached the Apex Court it was

ruled that since the parties were all appointed in the society

before 4th of May,1990, they cannot be denied benefit of

the decision of the Electricity Board dated 28th of

November, 1996, permitting regularization of the employees

of the Electricity Board who were working from before 4-5-

1990. It was announced that to take a contrary view would

violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The courts cannot

read Uma Devi case in a manner which will make it in

conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus the Apex

Court made it clear in Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra) that

when regularization is to be ordered in pursuance of Article

14 of the Constitution precedent laid down in Uma Devi

will not come in between.

18. Relying law laid in Pooran Chandra Pandey

(supra), it is announced that it does not lie in the mouth of

the management to seek refuse in the principles of law laid

in Uma Devi with a view to deny equality to the claimant.

Therefore, it is commanded that claimant Prem Parkash be

regularized in the service by the management on the same

standards on which Shri Amar Nath was regularized. He

would be regularized from the date whenever vacancy ,

was available for him and in any eventuality not latter

from the date when services of Amar Nath was regularized.

He would be entitled to merger in the main category in

pursuance of office memorandum Ex,WW2/2 from the

date of his regularization and would be paid his wages in

the category of Wireman. An Award is, accordingly,

passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for

publication,

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 17-9-2010

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 56-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh ih MCY;w Mh

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je

U;k;ky; ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 87@2006) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42011@42@2006&vkbZ vkj(Mh ;w)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 56.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 87/2006) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of CPWD and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 07-12-2010.

[ No. L-42011/42/2006-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

No. 1, AT KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI

I.D. No. 87/2006

Shri Sudesh Kumar S/o Shri Jeevan Lal, Beldar,

C/o CPWD Mazdoor Union, Room No. 95,

Barracks No. 1/10, Jam Nagar House,

Shahjahan Road, New Delhi-110011.

. . .Workman

Versus

The Executive Engineer, V. Division,

Central Public Works Department,

Sarojni Nagar, New Delhi-110003.

. . .Management

AWARD

Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred

to as the management engaged a beldar on hand receipt

basis in its V Division, located at A-106/110, Sarojni Nagar,

New Delhi Shri Sudesh Kumar was engaged by the

management on 18-2-86 who was granted temporary status

on 1-6-93. Shri Ram Prasad Tiwari was employed as beldar

on muster roll on 11-1-91. Though Shri Tiwari was junior to

Shri Sudesh Kumar, yet his services were regularized by

the management on 5-8-2002. When services of Shri Tiwari

were regularized, Shri Sudesh Kumar raised a demand for

regularization of his services, which demand was not

conceded to. He approached CPWD Mazdoor Union,

(hereinafter referred to as the Union) for redressal of his

grievance. The Union raised an industrial dispute before

the Conciliation Officer in that regard. Since conciliation

proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No. 42011/42/2006-IR (DU), New Delhi dated 31-10-2006

with the following terms:

‘‘Whether the demand of the CPWD Mazdoor Union

for regularization of the services of Shri Sudesh

Kumar Beldar w.e.f.18-2-86 is legal and justified? If

yes, to what relief the workman is entitled to and

from which date ?’’

2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of Shri Sudesh

Kumar pleading that he was engaged as beldar on hand

receipt basis w.e.f 18-2-86 by the management. He was

granted temporary status on 1-9-93. The Apex Court in

Surinder Singh’s Case desired that daily rated workers after

completion of six months of service would be regularized

in time scale applicable to them. In pursuance of the

observations of the Apex Court, 8982 posts were created

by the Central Government on 1-9-82, out of which 2651

posts of beldar were there for regularization of services of

daily rated workers. Services of Sudesh Kumar were not

regularized. The management has also agreed to regularize

daily rated beldars in pursuance of settlement dated 2nd

of December, 2002 . Though post was available, yet services

of Shri Sudesh Kumar were not regularized Shri R.P. Tiwari,

who was employed on 11-1-91 was regularized in service

arbitrarily on 5-8-2002. He is posted in Division No. 23,

PWD, Government of N.C.T. Delhi. It has been claimed that

Sudesh Kumar is entitled for regularization of his services

at least from the date when his junior was regularized in

service by the management.

3. Contest was given to the claim statement by the

management pleading that the claimant has no right of

regularization of his services automatically or otherwise.

His services are to be regularized in accordance with the

recruitment rules. Management does not dispute that

Shri Sudesh Kumar joined its services on 18-2-86, who was

granted temporary status on 1-9-93. It has been pleaded

that creation of post by the Government in pursuance of

observations made by the Apex Court in Surender Singh’s

Case were for the employees who were engaged prior to

1985. Since the claimant was engaged in February, 86, he

was not coverd within the policy of regularization, so

framed. It has been pleaded that his seniority falls at

Sl. No. 96 in the cadre and no vacancy is available for

regularization of his services. Management asserts that in

the absence of details relating to Shri Ram Prasad Tiwari, it

can not comment in respect of regularization of his services.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

It has been pleaded that claim projected is liable to be

dismissed, being devoid of merits.

4. Shir Sudesh Kumar examined himself in support of

his claim. Shri A.K. Singh, Executive Engineer, was examined

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,

authorised representative, advanced arguments on behalf

of the claimant . Shri A.S. Singh, authorised representative,

assisted by Shri A.K. Singh, Executive Engineer, raised

submissions on behalf of the management. I have given

my careful consideration to the arguments advanced to

the bar and cautiously perused the record. My findings on

issues involved in the controversy are as follows:—

6. Shri Sudesh Kumar unnfolds that he joined services

with the management on 18-2-86 as beldar on muster roll.

In September, 92, temporary status was accorded to him.

He had rendered continuous service for 240 days with the

management. In pursuance of decision of the Apex Court

in Surender Singh’s case, he is entitled for regularization of

his services on completion of 240 days of continuous

service. No steps were taken by the management for

regularization of his service. Shri Ram Prasad Tiwari, who

joined services with the management on 11-1-91, was

regularized in services on 5-8-2002. Shri Tiwari is working

in Division No. 23, PWD, Government of NCT, Delhi. He is

entitled for regularization of his service at least from the

date when Shri Tiwari was regularized. During the course

of his cross examination he projects that Anil Kumar,

Randhir Singh and Smt. Raj Bala were regularized in service

after 2002. He feigned ignorance whether their services

were regularized in compliance of orders passsed by Central

Administrative Tribunal (in short the CAT) on 18-9-2001

and 5-8-2002 respectively.

7. Shri A.K. Singh swears in his affidavit Ex. MW1/A

that claimant joined services with the management on

18-2-86 who was accorded temporary status on 1-9-93. He

presents that regularization of services of the claimant

cannot be done, since recruitment rules does not provide

automatic absorption in service. His seniority falls at

Sl. No. 45 of the list. His appointment was not in accordance

with the rules, hence his services cannot be regularized

after pronouncement of the Apex Court in Uma Devi Case

[2006 (4) S.C. C.1]. He presents that 8982 posts were created

for regulariazation of the workers, who were engaged prior

to 1985. He unfolds that Anil Kumar, Ram Prasad Tiwari,

Randhir Singh and Smt. Raj Bala were regularized in service

in pursuance of command given the CAT. He concedes

during the course of his cross examination that the aforsaid

employees were engaged after 19-11-85, the date when

ban was imposed.

8. When facts testified by Shri Sudesh Kumar and

Shri Singh are appreciated, it came to light that the claimant

was engaged as beldar on hand receipt basis on 18-2-86.

He was granted temporary status on 1-9-93. Shri Ram Prasad

Tiwari was engaged by the management on 11-1-91, whose

services were regularized on 5-8-2002. It has also emerged

that Shri Anil Kumar, Randhir Singh and Smt. Raj Bala were

also regularized in service by the management in pursuance

of orders passed by the CAT on 18-9-2001 and 5-8-2002

respectively. However, the management opted not to give

dates of engagement of Anil Kumar, Randhir Singh and

Smt. Raj Bala. It seems that they were engaged as beldar

after Shri Sudesh Kumar. Consequently it is emerging over

the record that person junior to the claimant were

regularized in services by the management. The

management wants to take refuse in the orders passed by

the CAT. Question for consideration comes as to whether

the management can assess the case of the claimant on

standards different than on which cases of his juniors were

considered.

9. Equality before law and equal protection of laws

are fundamental rights of every person, ordains Article 14

of the Constituion. The guiding principles laid in Article 14

are that persons, who are similarly situated , shall be treated

alike both in privileges conferred and liability imposed,

which means that amongst equals the law should be equal

and should be equally administered and that like should be

treated a like. Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees

equality of opportunities for all citizens in matters relating

to employment or appointment to any office under the State.

What is guaranteed is the equality of opportunity. Like all

other employers, government is also entitled to pick and

choose from amongst a large number of candidates offering

themselves for employment. But the selection process must

not be arbitrary. The gurantee given by clause (a) of Article

16 of the Constitution will cover (a) initial appointments

(b) promotions (c) termination of employment (d) and

matters relating to salary, periodical increments, leaves

gratuity, pension, age of superannuation etc. Matters

relating to employment or appointments include all matttes

in relations to employment both prior and subsequent to

the employment which are incidental to the employment

and form part of the terms and conditions of such

employment.

10. Fundamental rights guranteed by Article 14

forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification

or differentiation which rests upon reasonbale ground of

discretion. Classification is the recognition of the relations,

and in making it the government must be allowed a wide

latitude of discretion and judgment. In a way, the

consequences of such classification would undoubtedly

be to differntiate persons belonging to that class from

others. The classification must be founded on an intelligible

differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are

grouped together from others lefts out of the group and

the differentia must have a rational relation to the object

sought to be achieved. Classification may be made

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

according to the nature of persons, nature of business,

and may be based with reference to time.

11. Concept of equality guranteed by Article 16 of

the Constitution is something more than formal equality

and enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share

by having more than equal chance and enables the state

to give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving

real equality with reference to social needs. ‘Protection

discrimination’ enabled the state to a dopt new strategy to

bring underprivileged at par with the rest of the society, by

providing all possible opportunities and incentives to them.

Therefore a class may be allowed to have preferential

treatment in the matter relating to employment or

appointment. There cannot be rule of equality between

members of separate and independent group of persons.

Persons can be classified in different groups, based on in

terms of nature of persons, nature of business and with

reference to time.

12. Shri Ram Prasad Tiwari was engaged in service

on 11-1-91 as beldar on muster roll. His services were

regularized on 5-8-2002. In the same manner Shri Anil

Kumar, Randhir Singh and Smt. Raj Bala were engaged on

a date subsequnet to the date of which the claimant was

engaged by the management. Their services were also

regularized on 18-9-2001 and 5-8-2002 respectively, in

pursuance of command given by the CAT. It is evident that

the management could not show that these employees

were placed in a different category than the one in which

the claimant was placed. Therefore, it is evident that the

claimant as well as the aforsaid employees were placed

in the same bracket, on the dates when their services were

regularized.

13. Can management be permitted to treat equals

differently? Answer lies in negative. In Bal Kishan [1990

(1) LLJ 61] the Apex Court announced that no junior shall

be confirmed or promoted without considering the case of

his senior. The observations made by the Apex Court are

reproduced thus:

‘‘In service, there could be only one norm for

conferment or promotion of persons belonging

to the same cadre. No junior shall be confirmed

or promoted without considering the case of his

senior. Any deviation from this principle will have

demoralizing effect in service apart from their

being contrary to Article 16 (1) of

the Constitution”.

14. The management projected that in Uma Devi [2006

(4) SCC 1] the Apex Court ruled that a person who entered

service dehors the rules has no right for regularization or

continuance in service. The principle of law laid by the

Apex Court in the aforsaid case is not a matter of dispute.

Whether law laid in Uma Devi (supra) allow the

management to discriminate the claimant from Shri Anil

Kumar, Randhir Singh and Ram Prasad Tiwari and Raj Bala,

who were junior to him and placed on similar pedestal?

Such a proposition was considered by the Apex Court in

Pooran Chandra Pandey [2007 (12) Scale 304], wherein it

was announced that precedent in Uma Devi (supra) cannot

be applied mechanically without considering facts of a

particular case. In Uma Devi it was ruled that a person, who

entered the government service dehors rules cannot claim

as right for continuance or regularization of service.

However, the said decision nowhere speaks of a case

where regularization in service has been sought in

pursuance of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14

of the Constitution. In Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra)

there were two sets of employees who were daily wagers,

that is (i) the original employees of the U.P. State Electricity

Board and (ii) the employees of the society, who

subsequently became employees of the Electricity Board.

The High Court ruled that there was no ground for

discriminating between the two sets of employees. When

issue reached the Apex Court it was ruled that since the

parties were all appointed in the society beofore 4th of

May, 1990, they cannot be denied benefit of the decision

of the Electricity Board dated 28th of November, 1996,

permitting regularization of the employees of the Electricity

Board who were working from before 4-5-1990. It was

announced that to take a contrary view would violate Article

14 of the Constitution. The courts cannot read Uma Devi

case in a manner which will make it in conflict with Article

14 of the Constitution. Thus the Apex Court made it clear in

Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra) that when regularization

is to be ordered in pursuance of Article 14 of the

Constitution precedent laid down in Uma Devi will not

come in between.

15. Relying law laid in Pooran Chandra Pandey

(supra), it is announced that it does not lie in the mouth of

the management to seek refuse in principles of law laid in

Uma Devi with a view to deny equality to the claimant.

Therefore, it is commanded that claimant Sudesh Kumar

be regularized in service by the management on the same

standards on which Shri Anil Kumar, Randhir Singh, Ram

Prasad Tiwari and Raj Bala were regularized. He would be

regularized from the date whenever vacancy was available

for him and in any eventuality not latter than 18-9-2001,

when his juniors were regularized. An Award is, accordingly,

passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for

publication.

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated 17-9-2010.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 57-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ch ,l ,u ,y

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; dksydkrk ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 12@2008)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@107@93&vkbZ vkj(Mh ;w)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 57.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 12/

2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court Kolkata as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of BSNL and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 7-12-2010.

[ No. L-40012/107/93-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 12 of 2008

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of

BSNL, Kolkata

AND

Their workman.

Present : Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

On behalf of the Management

: None

On behalf of the Workmen

None

State: West Bengal

Industry; Telephones

Dated : 26th November, 2010.

AWARD

By Order No. L-40012/107/1993-IR (DU) dated

23-04-2008 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in

exercise of its powers under Section 10(1)(d) and (2A) of

the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited in terminating the service of

Shri Sukhendu Bikash Nath from 1-1-89 is justified?

To what relief the person concerned is entitled to?”

2. On call today, none of the parties responds. It is

found from record that the notice to the workmen union

was returned back with the postal note ‘‘Not claimant”. It

is also found that after issue of fresh notice on my joining

here, though the management side appeared through its

Ld. Lawyer on some occasions, workmen union never

appearned on the five dates fixed by this time which were

adjourned. On the last occasion the workmen side was

given with an opportunity to file their statement of claim

and other relevant materials as a matter of last chance. Still

then none is appearing from the side of the workmen union.

3. The conduct of the workmen union goes to show

that it is not interested at present to proceed with the present

reference and reluctancy on its part is very much evident.

4. In such circumstances, it is presumed that actually

no industrial dispute is prevailing at present and so this

reference is not needed to be proceeded with any further.

So, the present reference is disposed of as having no

industrial dispute and an Award is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer

Kotkata, Dated 26th November, 2010.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 58-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nwj lapkj foHkkx

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je

U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,ylhvkbZMh&260@2004)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40025@6@2010&vkbZ vkj(Mh ;w)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 58.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.No. LCID-

260/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Department of Telecom and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 7-12-2010.

[ No. L-40025/6/2010-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURTS

AT HYDERABAD

Present:- Shri Ved Prakash Gaur Presiding Officer

Dated the 29th day of September, 2010

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No.260/2004

BETWEEN :

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Sri T. Deva Krupavaram,

S/o Devadanam,

C/o Sri A.V. Rama Rao,

1-9-34/6/2, Ram Nagar,

Hyderabad-48. ....Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

Telecom, A.P. Circle,

Hyderabad-1.

The General Manager,

Telecom Circle, Ongole,

Prakasam District.

The Divisional Engineer,

Telecom District, Ongole,

Prakasam District.

The Sub-Divisional Officer,

Telecom Sub-Division,

Ongole Prakasam District. . . .Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner

M/s. P. Krishna Reddy &

A.V. Rama Rao Advocates

For the Respondent :

Sri V. Rajeswara Rao Advocate

AWARD

The workman Sri T. Deva Krupavaram has filed this

petition under Sec. 2 A (2) of the I.D. Act 1947 in light of the

judgment of the Hon’ble High 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 his termination dated

2-8-2002 and to reengage him in the service with temporary

status.

2. It has been submitted that he has worked for more

than 240 days continuously and he has worked for more

than 1000 total days. He was engaged as casual mazdoor in

the year 1983. He requested the management to regularize

his services but instead of regularization he was

disengaged and was not allowed to attend duty from

2-8-2002. He made several representations but the same

was turned down. Workman was disengaged from work

on 2-8-2003 without observing provisions of Sec. 25F,

25(H) and 25(G) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. He

has further contended that casual mazdoor who were placed

in similar circumstances filed OA No. 216/96 and OA No.

1049/97 and that OA was disposed off with the direction

that the name of the casual labour should be entered in

The Petitioner is also similarly situated person as such, he

may also be reinstated in the services.

4. Respondent has filed counter statement wherein

they have stated that the Petitioner has worked under

SDOT, Ongole for 36 days only from October to November,

1985 where he approached with a certificate that he worked

during 1-1-86 to 31-12-91 in RE Project. The said certificate

was found to be false. The Petitioner was asked to prove

genuineness of the certificate but even after affording

sufficient time to prove the genuineness of the record the

workman could not produce the genuineness of the

certificate or prove the veracity of the record of his service,

his temporary services were terminated w.e.f. 1-4-1994.

5. The Respondent has further submitted that no

juniors to the Petitioner was reengaged. There was scheme

to confer temporary status and regularization of casual

labourers as on 1-10-1989, as per scheme temporary status

was to be conferred on all the casual labourers who were

working on 1-10-1989 and who have rendered a continuous

service of atleast one year prior to 1-10-1989 and who have

worked for a period of 240 days. The Petitioner worked for

36 days during October and November, 1985. He did not

fulfill the condition required for confering temporary status.

His claim that he worked for 1716 days and the photo copy

submitted by him to this extent is false and baseless. There

was a ban on recruitment or engagement of the casual

labour vide letter No. 270/6/84-STN/New Delhi dated

30-3-1985 and 12-2-99. Consequently, the powers of all

officers to engage casual labour either daily or monthly

wages basis were withdrawn. It has also been submitted

that a 30 days notice was given by SDM, Ongole to

workman vide E-196/TMS/92-93 dated 17-12-93 and on

receipt of the reply the SDM, Ongole has terminated the

services. The claim is baseless, unfounded and deserves

to be dismissed.

6. The Petitioner has filed xerox copies of documents

Ex. W1 to W9 showing the total number of 4181 days served

with the department. He has further filed order of Hon’ble

Central Administrative Tribunal as Ex. W10 passed in OA

No. 1380/95 in the matter of Sk. Basheer Vs. CGM, Telecom

and another copy of OA No. 1232/95 in the matter of

Ch. Srinivasulu Vs. CGM, Telecom and his own affidavit

whereas the Respondent has filed counter affidavit of

Sri K.V;. Ramaiah, SDE, Telecom, Ongole and documents

Ex. M1 to M3.

7. The Petitioner has produced himself for cross

examination and Respondent has also produced their

witness for cross examination.

8. I have heard counsel for both the parties and have

gone through the material available on the record.

9. It has to be argued by the Learned Counsel for the

workman that the Petitioner was daily mazdoor. He has

worked under the department of Telecom/Bharat Sanchar

Nigam Ltd., from 1985 to upto the order Ex. W2 and his

services were terminated orally on 2-8-2002 without

assigning any reason, or without giving any notice, or

without payment of any retrenchment compensation as

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

such, the order of termination is illegal, arbitrary and

violative of principles of natural justice. Against this

argument it has been argued by the Learned Counsel for

the Respondent that the alleged service certificate

produced by the Petitioner workman is bogus and forged

document. Petitioner was offered a position as casual

mazdoor on the basis of his previous experience and

certificate produced by him. He was required to prove the

genuineness of the experience certificate which he could

not prove and therefore his services were disengaged by

letter dated 2-4-1994 on the ground that he produced bogus

and forged certificate for getting the job of general mazdoor.

After his disengagement in the year 1993 he was never

engaged nor his services were terminated in the year 2003.

The petition has been field after much delay and latches

and deserves to be dismissed.

10. On the basis of the arguments advanced by

parties, this tribunal has to consider,

(i)

Whether the Petitioner’s services were terminated

on 2-4-1994 or in the year 2003 as alleged by the

Petitioner without affording any apportunity to him

or without giving any notice or retrenchment

compensation?

(ii)

If yes, to what relief the Petitioner is entitled?

11. Point No. (I): The Petitioner has contended that

he has served the department for 4181 days and suddenly

he was asked not to attend the duties form 2-8-2002.

Against this contention of the Petitioner the Respondent

claim that the Petitioner was terminated w.e.f. 1-4-93 vide

letter No. E-196/TMS/92-93 dated 28-3-94. A copy of which

is annexed with the counter statement i.e. Ex. M1, in this

connection the statement of the Petitioner workman is

relevant. In his cross examination, the Petitioner workman

has stated that he was terminated orally and no letter was

given. Copy of Ex. M1 was not served on him nor the copy

of show cause notice Ex. M2 was served on him. However,

he has admitted that he has given a representation dated

16-9-1993 as he was not engaged on 16-9-1993. He has

further admitted that Respondent has not engaged him for

a period of 15 days prior to 16-9-1993. Therefore he

requested through Ex. M3 representation to engage him

for granting of termporary status, Ex. M3 is the

representation of the Petitioner to take him into the service

because he was already disengaged from the service

3 months prior to this letter. He moved letter for granting

temporary status card. This prove that the Petitioner was

disengaged in the year1993 itself. Thereafter he was

reengaged but since he could not provide the proof of the

genuineness of the service certificate, his service were

terminated by order and notice dated 28-3-1994. Earlier to

this letter a notice dated 17-12-1993 was issued to him to

substantiate the genuineness of the record produced by

him which he could not produce Ex. M2 on the record.

There is no other record from the side of the Petitioner to

prove that he has worked up to the year 2002 neither by

way of attandance register nor by way of payment slips or

payment vouchers.

12. As per the case law reported in 2005 (3) ALD

page 35(SC) in the matter of Dhrampur Sugar Mills Ltd.,

Vs. Bhola Singh, wherein Hon’ble Supreme Court has held

that when a workman is appointed in terms of a scheme on

daily wages, he does not derive any legal right to be

regularized in his service. It is now well known that

completion of 240 days of continuous service in a year

may not by itself be a ground for directing regularization

particularly in a case when the workman has not been

appointed in accordance with the extant rules. This case

lawfully apply in the present case. More over, there was a

ban on the engagement or employment of casual labourers

by office memorandum dated 15-6-95. In the light of the

ban imposed by the Department of Telecom for engagement

of the temporary or daily wage workers this tribunal is of

the opinion that Petitioner could not have been appointed

or engaged after the order of the said ban order. More

over there is no appointment order and the mode of

appointment, the Petitioner was employed as casual labour,

who obtained job on the basis of the bogus certificate as

such, the termination of his service on the ground of the

production of ther bogus certificate was legal and justified.

The Petitioner has not worked after the order dated

1-4-1994 and his claim that he worked upto 2003 is baseless

and unfounded. Petitioner claims that his case stood on

par with Sri Sk. Basheer who filed OA before Hon’ble

Central Administrative Tribunal but Petitioner has not been

able to prove that he was illegally or arbitrarily terminated

from the service. He was disengaged for production of a

bogus service certificate on the basis of which he got the

employment, he was asked to prove the genuineness of

the certificate but he could not do. Thus, his case can not

be equated with that of Sri Sk. Basheer and he is not entitled

for reinstatement. Point No. (I) is decided accordingly.

12. Point No. (II) : Petitioner has not been able to

prove that he was terminated or disengaged on 2-8-2002 it

appears that he was disengaged on 1-4-1994. He filed this

petition in the year 2004 i.e. after lapse of 10 years, he has

not been able to prove that his services has been

terminated illegally or arbitrarily or without giving any notice

as such, he is not entitled for any relief. Point No.(II) is

decided accordingly.

Award passed accordingly, Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 29th day of

September, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

WW1: Sri T. Devakrupavaram

MW1: Sri K.V. Ramanaiah

MW2: Sri C. Ramakoteswara

Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. W1:

Copy of service certificate dt. 8-6-92

Ex. W2:

Copy of service certificate

Ex. W3:

Copy of service certificate

Ex. W4:

Copy of service certificate

Ex. W5:

Copy of service certificate

Ex. W6:

Copy of service certificate

Ex. W7:

Copy of service certificate

Ex. W8:

Copy of service certificate

Ex. W9:

Copy of representation by WW1 to SDE

Telecom, Ongole dt . 10-4-2003

Ex. W10:

Copy of order in OA No. 1380/95

Ex. W11:

Copy of order in OA No. 1232/95 dt.

18-10-95

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M1:

Copy of lr. dt. 28-3-94 reg. termination

of services for the production of bogus

certificates.

Ex.M2:

Copy of lr. dated 17-12-93 reg. termination

of services for the production of bogus

certificates to WW1

Ex. M3:

Copy of representation of WW1 to

Respondent dt. 16-9-1993

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 59-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj MCY;w lh ,y ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 121@02) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@183@2001&vkbZ vkj(lh,e&II)º

Mh ,l ,l Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 59.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 121/02) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Tandsi Project of

WCL, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 07-12-2010.

[ No. L-22012/183/2001-IR (CM-II)]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/121/02

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

Authorised Representative of

M.P.K.K.M.P. (HMS),

Kanhan Area, PO Junnardeo,

Chhindwara Workman/Union

Versus

The Manager,

Tandsi Project of WCL,

Kanhan Area,

PO Rampur Bhata Junnardeo,

Chhindwara Management

AWARD

Passed on this 24th day of November 2010

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No. L-22012/183/2001-IR (CM-II)

dated 27-8-2002 has referred the following dispute

for adjudication by this tribunal:-

‘‘Whether the action of the Manager,Tandsi Project

of WCL, PO Parasia, Distt. Chhindwara (MP) in not

correcting the date of birth of Shri Mehtaru S/o

Chhoteylal, Electrical Fitter of Tandsi Project as

20-12-54 instead of 1-7-46 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?”

2. The case of the union/workman in short is that

the workman Shri Mehtaru was initially appointed

with the management of WCL in the year 1975

and due to mistake his date of birth was

incorrectly recorded as 1-7-1946. On the quarries

by the management in the year 1982, the workman

in reply submitted the School Certificate showing

his date of birth as 20-12-1954. Thereafter the

management issued a notice No. 89/89 whereby

the application was invited for correction of date

of birth. The workman is said to have submitted a

detail representation supported with documents

and prayed to correct the date of birth. When

nothing was done for a long period, the workman

submitted representations/reminders to the

Competent Authority. The workman is said to

have approached the competent authority well in

time to correct the date of birth. The Union had

also raised issue of his date of birth in a meeting

with the management (Annexure A/8). It is

submitted that the management be directed to

correct his date of birth with cost of the suit.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

3. The management appeared and filed Written

Statement to contest the reference. The case of

the management, interalia, is that the workman

was working under the control of Chief Engineer,

Regional Workshop, WCL, Kanhan Area and was

not working under Manager, Tandsi project. It is

admitted that the workman was initially appointed

as Electrical helper in the year 1975. He was going

to be completed 60 years as on 1-7-2006. He has

raised the dispute of his age at very belated stage

though opportunity was given to him for raising

the dispute of age in the year 1982 and 1987. It is

stated that Form B and other statutory records of

his service show that his date of birth is 1-7-46.

He had himself declared his age as 1-7-1946 at the

time of initial appointment. It is submitted that the

date of birth of the workman as 1-7-1946 be

declared legal, proper and justified.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties,

the following issues are settled for adjudication—

Whether the age of the workman Shri Mahtaru

is 20-12-1954 or 1-7-1946?

II. What relief, if any, the workman is entitled to?

5. Issue No. I

Before discussing the point for consideration, it

is necessary to know the procedure for

determination of age of the employees. It is an

admitted fact that there is Implementation

Instruction No. 76 whereby there is procedure for

determination/verification of age of employees.

The clause B (i) (a) is the procedure for

determination of age on arising any dispute of

the employees who are already in the employment

of the management. The said clause runs as

follows—

‘‘(B) Review/determination of date of birth in

respect of existing employees—

(i) (a) In the case of the existing employees

Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary

Certificate issued by the recognised

Universities or Board or Middle Pass Certificate

issued by the Board of Education and/or

Department of Public Instruction and admit cards

issued by the aforesaid bodies should be treated

as correct provided they were issued by the said

Universities/Boards/Institutions prior to the date

of employment.”

6. In the light of such instruction now let us examine

the evidence adduced by the parties.The

workman Shri Mehtroo is examined in the case.

He has stated that his date of birth is 20-12-1954.

He has stated that he passed Class VIIIth from

M.P. Board and had received Board Certificate of

Class VIII. The Instruction No. 76 says that the

certificate issued by the recognised University or

Board of Middle Pass Certificate issued by the

Board of Education and/or Department of Public

Instruction should be treated as correct provided

they were issued prior to the date of employment.

The workman has filed photocopy of middle

certifcate appears to have been issued by Public

Instruction Department prior to the employment.

The said photocopy is denied by the management.

Thus the said copy cannot be relied as a proof of

age. The workman has filed original copies of

marksheets of Class Vth, VIIth, IXth and Xth.

These marksheets appear to have been issued by

the schools and is not issued by Board of

Department of Public Instruction. As such these

marksheets cannot be the basis for determination

of age as per Instruction No. 76. The workman

has failed to file the class VIIIth original certificate

alleged to have been issued by the department of

Public Instruction. There is no evidence on the

record that the original has been lost. In absence

of such original certificate, the date of birth cannot

be said to be correct as has been stated by the

workman.

7. On the other hand, the management has also

adduced oral and documentary evidence. The

management witness Shri Satish Kumar Dubey is

Senior Personnel Officer,WCL, Tandsi Project,

Kanhan Area. He has supported the case of the

workman. He has stated that the date of birth of

the workman is1-7-46 as per service record. The

original service Register of the workman is filed

which shows that his date of birth is 1-7-46. The

said service record was signed by the workman.

This shows that he had knowledge of the date of

birth as has been recorded in the records of the

management. The management has also filed

photocopies of Form B which were verified from

the original. Form B also corroborates the age as

has been alleged by the management. Since the

workman has failed to prove his age as 20-7-1954,

there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence of

the management. Considering the entire oral and

documentary evidence on the record, I find that

the date of birth recorded by the management

as1-7-46 is to be treated as correct. Thus this

issue is decided in favour of the management.

8. Issue No. II

Considering the discussion made above, it is clear

that the date of birth as has been recorded in the

service record of the workman is correct and the

management is justified in not correcting the date

of birth as has been stated by the workman. The

reference is, accordingly answered.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

order to costs.

10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment as per rules.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 60-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l bZ lh ,y ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 104@2002) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@302@2001&vkbZ vkj(lh,e&II)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 60.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 104/2002)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of SECL, Raigarh Area,

and their workmen, received by the Central Government on

07-12-2010.

[ No. L-22012/302/2001-IR (CM-II)]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

NO. CGIT/LC/R/104/2002

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

Shri Ramayan, Secretary,

Samyuktha Koyala Mazdoor Sangh,

Qtr. No. M/77,

SECL, Qtrs, Chaal Sub Area,

Distt. Raigarh,

Chhattisgarh . . . Workman/Union

Versus

The Sub Area Manager,

SECL, Raigarh Area,

Distt. Raigarh (Chhattisgarh),

Chhattisgarh . . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 18th day of November, 2010

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No. L-22012/302/2001-IR (CM-II)

dated 25-7-2002 has referred the following dispute

for adjudication by this tribunal :—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of SECL,

Raigarh Area in not granting promotion to Shri A.K.

Guin to the higher post is fair and justified? If not, to

what relief is Shri A.K. Guin entitled and from what

date ?”

2. In this reference, the workman appeared in person

on 12-4-05. The ordersheet shows that the

statement of claim was filed but no such

statement of claim is on the record. Rather the

copy filed before Assistant Labour Commissioner

(Central), Bilaspur regarding his claim was filed.

Subsequently he became absent, therefore the

reference proceeded exparte against the Union/

workman on 17-12-2008.

2. The management appeared and filed Written

Statement. The case of the management in short

is that the workman Shri Ashok Kumar Guin was

initially appointed w.e.f. 13-8-1976 at Hasdeo Area

of SECL. He was promoted time to time. While he

was working as clerk Grade I at Jhimer colliery of

Hasdeo Area he made request to transfer him to

Raigarh Area of SECL. His application was

sympathetically considered by the management.

He was transferred from Hasdeo Area to Raigarh

Area vide order dated 7-9-1995 with conditions

that the seniority would be counted from the date

of joining at the transferred place. He was

accordingly relieved vide order dated 13-9-95. The

workman submitted his joining at Raigarh Area

on 20-9-95. However the workman was eligible for

service linked upgradation (SLU) as per NCWA-

IV and V and he was given promotion to the post

of clerk Grade -I, special Grade w.e.f. 1-1-96. The

claim of the workman that his juniors were given

promotion is not correct as he came at Raigarh

Area on request transfer. It is submitted that the

action of the management is legal and justified.

4. The following issues are framed for adjudication—

Whether the action of the management in not

granting promotion to Shri A.K. Guin to higher

post at Raigarh Area is legal and justified?

II. What relief, if any, is the workman entitled to?

5. Issue No. I

To prove the case, the management has adduced

oral and documentary evidence. Shri D.D. Tripathy

is management witness and is working as CME/

sub Area Manager in Raigarh Area. He has

suported the management case. He has stated

that the workman Shri Guin had requested the

management to transfer him from Hasdeo Area to

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

Raigarh Area. The management sympathetically

considered his request and transferred him from

Hasdeo Area to Raigarh Area vide order dated

7-9-95. The said order is filed which is marked as

Exhibit M/3. The said order clearly shows that

the seniority would be counted from the date of

joining at Raigarh Area. He has further stated that

he was released vide order dated 13-9-95 and the

workman joined on 20-9-95 vide joining report

dated 20-9-95. These documents are filed and

are marked as Exhibits M/4 and M/5 respectively.

This clearly shows that the workman had

accepted the transfer at his sweet will to loose

his seniority. There is no other evidence in rebuttal

to the evidence of the management. I do not find

any reason to disbelieve the evidence of the

management. This issue is thus decided in favour

of the management.

6. Issue No. II

On the basis of discussion made above, it is clear

that the workman is not entitled to any relief and

the action of the management is justified. The

reference is, accordingly, answered.

7. In the result, the award is passed without any

order to costs.

8. Let the copies of the award be sent to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment as per rules.

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 61-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,e- lh- ,y-

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@

Je U;k;ky; Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 18@2006) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@149@2005&vkbZ vkj(lh,e&II)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 61.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 18/2006) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the management of Mahanadi

Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 07-12-2010.

[ No. L-22012/149/2005-IR (CM-II)]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

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. 18/2006

L-22012/149/2005-IR(CM-II), dated 14-08-2006

Date of Passing Order-26th November 2010

BETWEEN:

The Management of the Director (Personnel),

Mahanadi Coal Fields Limited, Jagruti Vihar,

UCE Burla, Sambalpur, Orissa. ...1st Party-Management

AND

Their Workmen represented through the

General Secretary, Brajrajnagar Coal Mines Workers Union,

At./Po. Orient Colliery, Via-Brajrajnagar,

Distt. Jharsuguda, Orissa. ..... 2nd Party-Union

APPEARANCES :

Shri Raghumani Dash,

....

For the 1st Party-

Legal Inspector

Management

None

.....

For the 2nd Party-

Union

AWARD

Case taken up today beofore Lok Adalat. Authorized

representative for the 1st Party-Management is present.

None has turned up on behalf of the 2nd Party-Union.

This reference was received in this Tribunal on

31-8-2006. Since then several notices have been issued to

the 2nd Party-Union for filing the statement of claim, but

no statement of claim has still been filed. More than four

years have elapsed since receipt of this reference. Notice

for today’s date was also issued to the 2nd Party Union

but it choose to abstain itself from appearing in the

Tribunal. As such the case cannot be allowed to remain

pending for long without any purpose. It seems that the

2nd Party-Union is no more interested in pursuing the

case. Therefore the reference is liable to be returned to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour for taking

necessary action at their end.

The reference is returned to the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour for taking necessary action at their

end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 62-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,oa ,e- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 15@2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@232@2004&vkbZ vkj(lh,e&II)º

Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 62.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 15/2005) of

the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Orient Area, Mahanadi

Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the

Central Government on 07-12-2010.

[ No. L-22012/232/2004-IR (CM- II)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

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. 15/2005

L-22012/232/2004-IR (CM-II), dated 29-06-2005

Date of Passing Order- 26th November, 2010

BETWEEN :

The management of the General Manager,

Orient Area, Mahanadi Coalfields Limited,

At./Po. Brajrajnagar, Jharsuguda.

... 1st Party-Management

AND

Their Workmen represented through the

General Secretary, Brajrajnagar Coal Mines

Workers Union, Po. Orient Colliery,

Via-Brajrajnagar, Jharsugauda.

...2nd Party-Union

APPEARANCES :

Shri S. S. Lal,

For the 1st Party-

Personnel Manager

Management.

None

For the 2nd Party-Union.

ORDER

Case taken up today before Lok Adalat. The 1st Party-

Management is present through authorized representative.

None is present for the 2nd Party-Union though notice to

the 2nd Party-Union was issued through Regd. Post. Earlier

to it, several notices were issued to the 2nd Party-Union

for filing of the statement of claim but no response was

received and the 2nd Pary-Union took no chance to file the

statement of claim. Therefore the reference cannot be kept

pending indefinitely without any purpose. The reference

is pending for more than 5 years. It will be a futile attempt

to keep it pending any more.

Therefore the reference is returned to the

Government of India, Ministry of Labour without any

adjudication for taking necessary action at their end.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 63-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,oa MCY;w- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

122@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

7&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@293@2001&vkbZ vkj(lh,e&II)º

Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 63.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 122/2002)

of the Central Government Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Sillewara Sub Area,

WCL and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 7-12-2010.

[ No. L-22012/293/2001-IR (CM- II)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/122/2002

Dated : 26-11-2010

Petitioner/

: Shri Chandra Shekher Seshrao Dorle,

Party No. 1

R/o Parsodi, Tahsil-Parsheoni,

Distt. Nagpur.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

Versus

Respondent/ : The Sub Area Manager,

Party No. 2

WCL, Sillewara Mines, Tah. Saoner,

Distt. Nagpur

AWARD

Dated : 26th November, 2010

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (‘‘the Act’’ in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Sillewara Sub Area WCL (‘‘WCL’’ in short)

and their workman, Shri Chandra Shekhar Dorle (‘‘the

workman’’ in short) for adjudication, as per letter No.

L-22012/293/2001- IR (CM-II), dated 09-7-2002, with the

following schedule :-

‘‘Whether the action of the management of WCL,

Sillewara Sub Area, in dismissing Sh. Chandra

Shekhar Dorle, at Parsodi, Distt. Nagpur from the

service w.e.f. 24-03-1999 is legal, proper and justified?

If not, to what relief is the said workman entitled ?’’

2. Though, in this case, the reference was received

by the Tribunal on 13-9-2002 and the workman was directed

to file his statement of claim, till 26-11-2010, statement of

claim was not filed by the workman. Instead of filing any

statement of claim, the workman filed a petition for

amendment on 10-7-2007.

On 28-10-2010, a last chance was given to the

workman to file his statement of claim and for hearing on

the amendment petition and the case was posted to

26-11-2010. The workman did not take any step, so, the

petition for amendment was rejected and the case was

closed for passing award.

3. In this case, as no statement of claim has been

filed by the workman and the management also did not

appear before the Court from 15-4-2009, it is found that

they are not interested to proceed with the case. Hence it is

necessary to pass a no dispute award. Hence, it is ordered

ORDER

The case be treated as ‘‘no dispute award’’, due to

the default of the parties.

J. P..CHAND, Presding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 64-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,oa fjtuy

bULVhV~;wV vkWiQ ,tqds'ku ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 15@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@248@2005&vkbZ vkj(lh,e&II)º

Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 64.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 16/2006) of

the Central Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Regional Institute of

Education, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 7-12-2010.

[ No. L-42012/248/2005-IR (CM- II)]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

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. 16/2006

L-42012/248/2005-IR (CM-II), dated 17-08-2006

Date of Passing Order- 26th November, 2010

BETWEEN :

The Management of the Principal,

Regional Institute of Education,

P.O. R.I.E. Campus, Sachivalaya Marg,

Bhubaneswar -751 022.

... 1st Party-Management

AND

Their Workman represented through the

President, Regional Institute of Workers Union,

At-2RA-50, Road No.4, Unit-IX,

Bhubaneswar -751 007.

...2nd Party-Union

APPEARANCES

Shri U.K. Nanda,

For the 1st Party-

Principal

Management.

None

For the 2nd Party-Union

ORDER

Case taken up today before Lok Adalat. The 1st Party-

Management is present through its Principal, who has filed

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

hazira. None is present on behalf of the 2nd Party-

Union.

The case is fixed for further orders today. The 2nd

Party-Union has sent a withdrawal petition dated 25-1-2010

to this Tribunal by post stating that the Management is

taking some steps to consider the matter of the disputant-

workmen as the same posts are lying vacant.

The 1st Party-Management represented through the

Principal has filed a memo that the case of one disputant

involved in this case has already been considered and he

was given temporary status as per letter dated 8-6-2010;

copy of which has been enclosed and the cases of the rest

of the disputant -workmen have been referred to the Head

Office i.e. NCERT at New Delhi for approval. After getting

the approval from the council their cases will be considered

by the 1st Party-Management. Therefore the case may be

closed.

The 2nd Party-Union has not been attending the

Tribunal after sending the withdrawal petition.

Therefore it seems that the 2nd Party-Union is no more

interested in pursuing the case. Several notices to the

2nd Party-Union were also sent but no response has

been received. As such it will be expedient in the interest

of justice to allow the withdrawal petition of the 2nd

Party-Union.

Reference is decided as withdrawn and no dispute

award is passed accordingly.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Offier

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 65-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,oa ,l- lh- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 97@2004)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22012@319@2003&vkbZ vkj(lh,e&II)º

Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 65.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 97/

2004) of the Central Government Govt. Indus. Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial Dispute between the management of

M/s. Singareni Collieries Co. Ltd., and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 07-12-2010.

[ No. L-22012/319/2003-IR (CM- II)]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

Present : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 2nd day of September, 2010

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 97/2004

BETWEEN :

The Area Secretary,

(Sh. Bandari Satyanarayana),

Singareni Collieries Employees Union(CITU),

Mandamarri - 504231.

. . . .Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Mandamarri Division,

Mandamarri - 504231

. . .Respondent

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner

: M/s. C. Nagaiah, V.

Subramanyam &

B.V. Chandra Sekhar, Advocates

For the Respondent : M/s. P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijayalaxmi

Panguluri, Advocates

AWARD

This case has been registered in this tribunal on the

basis of reference received from the Government of India,

Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-22012/319/2003-

IR(CM-II) dated 30-6-2004 under Section l0(l)(d) of the

I.D. Act, 1947 to adjudicate the dispute between

Sri T. Kanakaiah, Coal filler and the management of

Mis. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. The term of

reference is as under :

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the General Manager,

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri

Division in not regularizing the services of

Sh. T. Kanakaiah, Coal Filler in the post of General

Mazdoor Cat.I working continuously since 8 years

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.

No. 97/2004 and notices were issued to the parties. Parties

were directed to file their respective statements.

2. The workman union has filed claim statement

stating therein that he was working as General Mazdoor

since 1997. He was reverted/discharged/dismissed/

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

retrenched/terminated from the service from September,

2004. At that time he was drawing a wage of Rs. 6000 to

Rs.7000 per month.

3. The workman union raised a dispute on 16-4-2001

before Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) for absorption

of Petitioner workman as general mazdoor but the dispute

was not settled amicably and matter was referred to the

Government of India. He has further stated that Petitioner

was entitled to be absorbed as general mazdoor in terms

of memorandum of settlement dated 31-7-97 entered into

between the five major unions and the management.

4. He has submitted that he was appointed as badli

filler and then coal filler in the year 1998 and 1990. Although

he was appointed as coal filler, he was engaged to work as

general Mazdoor in General Shift. As such, he became

entitled for absorption as general mazdoor, though the

pay of general mazdoor is less than coal filler, after

absorption as general mazdoor Petitioner workman can

improve his career.

5. Petitioner workman applied for regularization in

pursuance of the discussions dated 3-10-1996. Further,

the company issued a circular dated 16-7-92 laying down

the terms and conditions of regularization of coal filler/

badli fillers who have completed 190 musters. The

Petitioner workman has put in more than 190 musters

working as general mazdoor, he put in more than 200 musters

in every calendar year.

6. The standing order of company stipulates that all

those employees who have completed 240 days of work

shall be regularized in their respective jobs. The

management did not regularize the Petitioner as general

mazdoor. He was forced to file W.P.No.6803/1999 before

Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. The said W.P.

was finally decided on 31-12-2001 directing the Petitioner

to approach Labour Court.

7. Petitioner filed CF No. 1028/200 1 before the

Labour Court which was dismissed by the Labour Court.

Then Petitioner again approached the Labour Enforcement

Officer(C) and the matter was referred to this tribunal.

Petitioner has contended that the action of management

in passing reversion order is illegal and unjustified. It is

violative of Sec.25F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it is

also in violation of Sec.25 G and H of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947, as such, it should be quashed and Petitioner be

directed to be regularized or absorbed as general mazdoor.

8. Respondent management filed counter statement

stating therein that provision of Sec.25F, G and H of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 are not attracted to the

present case. Petitioner workman was working as coal filler.

He was engaged mainly for the purpose of coal filling,

drafting. Though he filed W.P.No.21453/2001, the same

was dismissed by Hon’ble High Court of A.P., Hyderabad

by order dated 22-4-2002. The Petitioner has neither been

reverted/retrenched/terminated or disengaged, as such,

he is not entitled for any relief. He has not worked, he was

neither appointed as general mazdoor nor he worked

continuously as general mazdoor as he is claiming, he was

appointed as badli filler and later on he was absorbed as

coal filler. The claim is unjustifiable, deserves to be

dismissed.

9. Both the parties were directed to file their evidence.

Petitioner workman has filed order dated 30-6-2004, minutes

of conciliation proceeding, copy of letter addressed to

Assistant Labour Commissioner(C), his salary slip, letter

addressed to the Assistant Labour Commissioner(C). He

has filed his affidavit, but has not appeared for cross

examination, as such, cross examination and evidence were

forfeited. Respondent management has filed four

documents. Copy of order passed in WP No.6803/99, Copy

of order passed in unregistered ID of 2001 dated

26-9-2001, order in WP No.21453/2001, copy of office order

dated 4-4-2003 and copy of settlement dated 31-7-1993

and filed affidavit of Sri P. Venkateshwar, Dy. Personnel

Manager and produced him for cross examination, but

Petitioner has not take care to cross examine the

Respondent’s witness.

10. The Petitioner did not appear for argument, only

Respondent’s counsel appeared and argued on behalf of

the Respondent. 1 have heard Learned Counsel for the

Respondent and I have gone through the record.

11. This tribunal has to consider,

(I) Whether the action of the General Manager M/s.

Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., Mandamarri Division

in not regularizing the services of Sh. T. Kanakaiah, Coal

Filler in the post of General Mazdoor Cat. I working

continuously since 8 years is legal and justified?

(II) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?”

12. Point No. (I) : The Petitioner’s contention is that

he has worked as a general mazdoor for a long period as

such, he is entitled to be absorbed as general mazdoor. In

support of his claim he has filed letter of Singareni Collieries

Employees Union dated 5-2-2002 and 16-11-2001. He filed

an affidavit but he did not appear for his cross examination

or for marking of the documents. Even if it can be presumed

that Petitioner’s union made representation to Assistant

Labour Commissioner (C) complaining that the

management is not regularizing the Petitioner as general

mazdoor, in the light of undisputed facts that Petitioner

was appointed as badli filler later on he was promoted as

coal filler it is the bounden duty of the Petitioner to prove

that even after absorption and promotion as coal filler he

worked as general mazdoor. There is no evidence on the

record to prove that the Petitioner has not worked as coal

filler but from the very beginning he worked as general

mazdoor it can not be presumed that the Petitioner worked

as general mazdoor. As against this, the Respondent’s

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

witness Sri P. Venkateswarlu, Dy. Personnel Manager has

stated in his counter affidavit that in the year 2002

Petitioner put in 137 days as coal filler and 19 days as

acting mazdoor. In the year 2000, 2002 and 2003 he worked

as coal filler for 114 days and as acting mazdoor he put in

82 days. During the year 2004, he worked as coal filler for

90 days and 112 days as acting mazdoor and in the year

2005 he worked for 73 days as coal filler and 14 days as

acting mazdoor. This statement of the Respondent witness

has not been challenged by the Petitioner workman, as

such, from the statement and the uncontroverted affidavit

of the Respondent’s witness it is amply proved that the

Petitioner’s contention that he regularly worked as general

mazdoor and he was not working as coal filler is incorrect.

The affidavit goes to show that the Petitioner has put in

higher musters as coal filler in the year 2001, 2002, 2003,

2004, 2005 and 2006, as such, the management has

committed no illegality in not regularizing the Petitioner as

general mazdoor.

13. Petitioner was appointed as badli filler but later

on promoted as coal filler as such he can not claim to work

as general mazdoor as a matter of right. He was not able to

show the term of the agreement entered into between the

union and the management, as such, he has not been able

to prove that the action of the management is illegal and

unjustifiable. Point No. I is answered accordingly.

14. From the discussion of Point No. I and from the

claim and counter statement it is undisputed fact that

Petitioner was neither reverted nor retrenched/dismissed/

disengaged from the services. He was not working as

general mazdoor nor he was appointed as general mazdoor

nor he desired to be absorbed as general mazdoor. He is a

coal filler and working as coal filler. The management has

not reverted or retrenched the Petitioner neither because

workman has worked as general mazdoor nor he was

appointed as general mazdoor, as such, he is not entitled

for absorption and regularization as general mazdoor.

Thereby he is not entitled for relief claimed by him. The

action of management is fully justified. Point No.II is

decided accordingly.

15. From the above discussion, this tribunal is of the

considered opinion that there is no force in the claim

statement and Petitioner is not entitled for relief claimed.

Hence, this award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her corrected and pronounced by me on

this the 2nd day of September, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR , Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the

Witnesses examined for

Petitioner

the Respondent

WW 1: Sri T. Kanakaiah

MWl: Sri P. Venkateswarlu

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 66-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,l- lh- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 32@2004)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&22013@1@2010&vkbZ vkj(lh&II)º

Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 66.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 32/2004) of

the Central Government Govt. Indus. Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of SCCL and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 7-12-2010.

[ No. L-22013/1/2010-IR (C- II)]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALl-CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

Present:

Shri Ved Prakash Gaur

Presiding Officer

Dated the 7th day of September, 2010

M.P.No.32/2004

BETWEEN:

The Vice President,

A.P. Colliery Mazdoor Sangh,

INTUC, Manugur.

Khammam District.

. . . ..Petitioner/Union

AND

The General Manager (Project),

M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd.,

Manugur

Khammam District - 507 123.

. . . .Respondent/Management

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner:

M/s. G. Vidya Sagar, K. Udaya Sri, P.

Sudheer Rao, B. Shiva Kumar & D.

Madhusudhan, Advocates

For the Respondent: M/s. K. Srinivasa Murthy, V. Uma

Devi, C. Vijay Sekhar Reddy & S.

Vijay Venkatesh, Advocates

ORDER

The Vice President of A.P. Colliery Mazdoor Sangh

has (filed this application under Sec.33C(2) of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of the

difference of wages of workman Sri N. Srinath as ordered

by Hon’ble High Court of A.P.

2. It has been stated in the claim petition that

workman was dismissed from the service. He filed I.D. 55/

1999 before Industrial Tribunal-I, Hyderabad which passed

award dated 5-10-2001, which was challenged by the

management before the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.,

through WP No.7561/2002. Hon’ble High Court stayed

the further proceeding of the award imposing condition

that the management shall make payment of Rs.3500 per

month to the Petitioner workman and also deposit the back

wages calculated at 25% per month w.e.f. 29-7-1996 to

30-4-2002 within a period of 4 weeks.

3. It has been stated that the management has

started paying Rs.3500 per month under orders of the

Hon’ble High Court and has deposited a sum of

Rs.44406.63 ps. before the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal- I,

Hyderabad which is less than actual amount towards

25% of the back wages.

4. It has been alleged that the workman was not

paid a sum of Rs.16844 towards 25% wages from

29-7-1996 to 30-4-2002. The Respondent workman made

representation but has not been paid by the management

as such, amount be computed by this court and be paid

along with interest.

5. The management has contended that they have

deposited the amount of Rs.44406.63 ps in compliance of

the order of Hon’ble High Court passed in WP No.7561 of

2002 which has been withdrawn by the Petitioner workman.

No amount is due towards 25% of the wages as ordered

by the Hon’ble Industrial Tribunal or Hon’ble High Court.

The application and petition is misconceived. The

Petitioner has not given the details of amount due to him

and this tribunal can not enter into the question of

determination of the amount under Sec.33C(2) of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947. Petition deserves to be dismissed.

6. Both the parties has produced their evidence. The

workman has filed affidavit of Sri N. Srinath and produced

himself for cross-examination. The Respondent has filed

affidavit of Sri G. Murali Sagar Kumar, Dy. Personnel

Manager at Manuguru Area and produced him for cross-

examination.

7. I have gone through the evidence on record,

claim statement and counter statement of the parties. It

has to be considered whether the workman is entitled

under orders of the Hon’ble High Court to receive more

than Rs.44406.63 ps. It was the duty of the Petitioner

workman to give a detailed statement of the pay and

allowances he was drawing on the date of his dismissal

from the service because the back wages could be

calculated on the basis of pay and allowances last drawn

by workman. What was the last pay drawn by the

Petitioner workman has not been disclosed by the

Petitioner either in his claim or in his examination in chief.

How the amount of Rs.16844 as difference of the wage

has been calculated by the Petitioner is also not clear.

What is the basis of this difference has not been disclosed

by the workman. Against this, the Respondent has

deposited Rs. 44406.63 ps, though the Respondent has

also not filed any detailed calculation of amount. This

tribunal can not go into the merits of calculations arrived

at by the Respondent because, the matter of entitlement

of the Petitioner is sub-judice before Hon’ble High Court

in the WP No.9433/2002. It is under the interim order of

the Hon’ble High Court that the proceeding before this

tribunal has been stayed and one of the term of condition

of the stay of the proceeding before this tribunal is

deposited 25% of the back wages by the Respondent,

i.e., management. The management alleges that 25% of

the back wages comes to a sum of Rs.44406.63 ps. In that

case if the Petitioner workman feel or if he is aggrieved

that the amount arriv.ed at, by the Respondent is not

correct, he must have complained to this effect before

Hon’ble High Court that the Respondent has not

complied with the order of the Hon’ble High Court and

stay order should be vacated. Since the matter is sub-

judice before Hon’ble High Court and workman has not

given any detailed statement of the pay and allowances

he has drawn on the last date of his termination, this

tribunal is not in a position to compute the difference of

wages Rs.16844 alleged to be computed by the workman

through this petition.

8. From the above discussion this court is of the

opinion that the petition is misconceived and Petitioner

is not entitled to get any computation made through this

court if he has got any grievance regarding non-payment

of 25% wages as ordered by Hon’ble High Court, he

could approach the Hon’ble High Court of A.P.,

Hyderabad for further direction and suitable orders.

Petitioner is not entitled for any relief and computation,

100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed

as such.

Ordered accordingly.

Dictated to the Personal Assistant, transcribed by

her corrected and pronounced by me on this the 7th day

of September, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined

Witnesses examined for the

for the Petitioner:

Respondents:

WWl: Sri N. Srinath

MWl: Sri G. Murali Sagar Kumar

Documents marked for the Petitioner/Workman

Ex.Wl:

Copy of notification dt.13-11-2006

Ex.W2:

Copy of award in ID No. 55/1999 dt. 5-l0-200l

Ex.W3:

Copy of order in WPMP No. 9433/2002 in

WP No. 7561/2002 dt. 22-4-2002

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.Ml:

Copy of charge sheet dt.14-l0-95

Ex.M2:

Copy of dismissal order dt.

Ex.M3:

Copy of award in ID No.55/1999 dt.5-l0-200l

Ex.M4:

Copy of order in WPMP No.9433/2002 in WP

No. 7561/2002 dt. 22-4-2002

Ex.M5:

Copy of 25% back wages calculation sheets

Ex.M6:

Copy of Demand Draft for Rs.44406.63 in

favour of Chairman, Industrial Tribunal-I,

Hyderabad.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 67-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k jsyos ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@

Je U;k;ky;] pSUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&41012@18@2008&vkbZ vkj(ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 67.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 24/2008) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the management of Southern Railway and

their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 7-12-2010.

[ No. L-41012/18/2008-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT, CHENNAI

Monday, the 15th November, 2010

Present : A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 24/2008

(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 Southern Railway and their

Workman)

BETWEEN

A. Narayanan

Petitioner/1st Party

Vs.

The General Manager

Southern Railway Moore

Market Complex,

Chennai-600003

Respondent/ 2nd Party

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner M/s S. Meenakshi &

For the 2nd Party/

N. Sumathy

Management

Sri P. Srinivasan

AWARD

The Central Government Ministry of Labour vide

its Order No. L-41012/18/2008-IR(B-I) dated 22-5-2008

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

“Whether the action of the management of

Southern Railway in terminating the services of

Sri A. Narayanan vide order dated 4-1-2007, is

legal and justified? To what relief is the workman

concerned entitled?”

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this

Tribunal has numbered it as ID 24/2008 and issued notices

to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Reply

Statement as the case may be.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

101

3. The Claim Statement averments are as follows:

The petitioner appointed as Substitute Bungalow

Laskar as per order dated 12-1-2004 of the Southern

Railway to work in the bungalow of B. Singaiah, Deputy

Chief Vigilance Officer/Accounts on pay-scale Rs. 2550-

3200 w.e.f. 12-1-2004 with last drawn wage of Rs. 5,100

above medical benefits, HRA and Free Pass and with

temporary status conferred as on 11-5-2004 was issued a

Show Cause Notice on 13-12-2006 alleging unauthorized

absence from 7-8-2006 and from 6-12-2006 also imputing

insincerity in duty as reported by his Officer. He submitted

reply on 26-12-2006. Without an enquiry he was terminated

from service as per order dated 4-1-2007 without notice or

retrenchment compensation. On 9-1-2007 he was directed

to return the ID Card, Medical Card and Bicycle. The appeal

submitted on 29-1-2007 to the General Manager was

informed rejected on 2-4-2007. I.D. was raised which having

failed the present reference. The termination is illegal,

unjustified, unfair and arbitrary. He is a workman. He has

not committed any misconduct. No charges remain proved

against him. Even if it is assumed to be not a punitive

termination it amounts to retrenchment in the absence of

notice or compensation rendering it void being contrary

to Section-25F and Section-25N, I.D. Act. The petitioner is

therefore entitled to all benefits under Section-25N(7) of

the ID Act. The Respondent’s action is also violative of

Section-25G and Section-25H in as much as his juniors

have been retained in service. He has worked for 240 days

in a Calendar Year. The termination cannot be made when

the requirement of Bungalow Laskar continues. He remains

unemployed thereafter. Hence the claim for reinstatement

with all benefits.

4. The Reply Statement averments briefly read as

follows :

Claim Statement allegations except specifically

admitted are denied. Petitioner was appointed subject to

conditions mentioned in the order of Asstt. Personnel

Officer No. 04/2004 dated 12-1-2004. The terms and

conditions were made known to petitioner which he

accepted without protest. As per 1st condition, his service

will be temporary for 3 years, the period of probation. 2nd

condition stipulates termination of his service if not

satisfactory or no longer required by Deputy Chief Vigilance

Officer/Accounts or Successor or any Administrative

Officer within 3 years. On completion of 120 days of

continuous service he was granted temporary status w.e.f.

11-5-2004. He was informed about his unsatisfactory

performance by Show Cause Notice dated 13-12-2006 for

his reply. Reply was not satisfactory in terms of the

conditions of appointment and Para-1502 of the IREM,

Volume-I (1989 edition). Despite warnings he continued to

be absent. From 8-11-2004 to 16-11-2004 and 18-11-2004 to

21-11-2004 he submitted leave applications only on

19-11-2004 with 7 other similar instances. After leaving

Bungalow on 6-8-2006 without information or about his

whereabouts he was absent till 11-08-2006. He was not

regular in duty despite advice. He had lack of commitment

to work. He was terminated from service as per Section-

25F of ID Act also. There is no truth that he was retrenched

without notice. His mercy appeal was rejected on proper

grounds. He cannot have comparison with any others

appointed with his vague statements, since the charges

are different. His termination is as per the stipulations.

Substttute Bungalow Laskars are engaged in Railways to

assist the Administrative Grade Officers in their

Bungalows. Their services cannot be used at offices

regularly. The petitioner is not fit to hold any other post in

Railways. It is not practicably admissible to re-engage him

in any service. Bungalow Laskars are directly engaged by

the Senior Officers without routing through the recruitment

channel at their choice. A duty is owed by them to serve

the masters satisfactorily. He was issued Show Cause

Notice before termination. There is no violation of

principles of natural justice or any statutory provisions.

ID is to be dismissed.

5. Points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the action of the Management in

terminating the services of the petitioner is

legal and justified?

(ii)

To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?

6. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of

petitioner examined as WW1 and EX.W1 to EX.W9 on the

petitioner’s side and the oral evidence of MW1 and EX.M1

to EX.M5 marked on the Respondent’s side.

Points (i) and (ii)

7. Heard both sides and perused the records and

documents and the written submissions of the Respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued against the

termination of the workman from service as Bungalow Peon

under the Southern Railway after efflux of a duration of

just below 3 years. The allegation against him is

unauthorized absence and lack of sincer in work. The

action of termination was one to which recourse was made

without holding of any enquiry, which is illegal. If it is not

a case of termination based on misconduct or penalty still

the conditions under Section-25(F) of the ID Act are to be

followed, which has not been done. The requirement of

the provision under Section-25(H) viz. last come first go

has also not been followed admittedly. Petitioner has been

awarded temporary status. A Show Cause Notice of

termination was thereafter issued to him. The termination

order issued to him does not say regarding payment of

any retrenchment compensation to the workman which

was actually not paid to him. The termination cannot be

found to be an order of termination simplicitor but is

discernibly an order imposing penalty for which a

102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

departmental enquiry is a pre-requisite, the wanting of

which violates Article-309 of the Constitution of India. If

at all it is assumed that the termination is not as a penalty

then it is retrenchment for which compensation was to

have been given. The Indian Railway is a major

establishment in which more than 100 employees being

employed, there is violation of Section-25(N) of ID Act for

the absence of prior permission of government as

contemplated under Section-25(N)(7). Hence the

termination is void on that score also. It is so under Section-

25(G) of the ID Act as well. Ever since his termination he

remains unemployed and he is to be reinstated with full

back wages. The petitioner was appointed on 12-01-2004

and was terminated on 04-01-2007 just before completion

of service of 3 years. He is entitled to the benefits under

Section-25(F) of the ID. Act which is a mandatory

requirement of law, which has not been complied with.

The learned counsel for the petitioner would further argue

that the termination is void and is non-est in the eye of

law. If the petitioner had been only a domestic servant and

in spite of that contention of the Management the reference

by the Ministry does not stand challenged. The petitioner

was leveled with baseless and frivolous allegations. No

documents such as EX. M1 to EX. M5 suggest any

unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner. Admittedly

retrenchment compensation was not paid to the petitioner.

Payment of wages is admitted. No evidence of any warning

given to the petitioner has been produced. The case is

that the petitioner was given oral warning and counseling

which is to be specifically proved in the absence of any

tangible materials to substantiate the same which has not

been done. There is violation of Section-25(F),

Section-25(N)(7), Section-25(G) and 25(H). The learned

counsel continued to argue that the petitioner had been

properly appointed by Railway and has been paid by the

Railway Administration. He has been given temporary

status, after termination he remains unemployed and he is

to be reinstated into service with all benefits.

8. In support of petitioner’s contentions the learned

counsel invited this Court’s attention to a number of

decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court as are

mentioned as follows :

In the case of ANOOP SHARMA VS.

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH

DIVISION-I, PANIPAT (2010-5-SCC-497)

Supreme Court held that “leaving aside the legal

semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that

termination of service of an employee by way of

retrenchment without complying with the

requirement of giving one month’s notice or pay

in lieu thereof and compensation in terms of

Sections-25F(a) and (b) has the effect of rendering

the action of the employer as nullity and the

employee is entitled to continue in employment

as if his service was not terminated”.

In the case of NAR SINGH PAL VS. UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS (2000-3-SCC-588) Supreme

Court held “applying the above principles, the

order in the instant case, cannot be treated to be

a simple order of retrenchment. It was an order

passed by way of punishment and, therefore, was

an order of dismissal which, having been passed

without holding a regular departmental enquiry,

cannot be sustained”.

In the case of MOHANLAL VS. BHARAT

ELECTRONICS L TD. (1981-2-LLJ-70) Supreme

Court held “we hold that the termination of service

of the appellant was ab initio void and inoperative

and a declaration is made that he continues to be

in service with all consequential benefits, namely,

back wages, in full and other benefits, if any”.

In the case of THE MANAGER,

GOVERNMENT BRANCH PRESS AND

ANOTHER VS. D.B. BELLIAPPA (1979-1-SCC-

477) Supreme Court held "it is true that the

competent authority had a discretion under the

conditions of service governing the employee

concerned to terminate the latter's employment

without notice. But, such discretion has to be

exercised in accordance with the reason and fair

play and not capriciously. Bereft of rationality and

fairness, discretion degenerates into arbitrariness

which is the very antithesis of the rule of law on

which our democratic polity is founded. Arbitrary

invocation or enforcement of a service condition

terminating the service of a temporary employee

may itself constitute denial of equal protection

and offend the equality clause in articles 14 and

16(1)".

In the case of DILIP HANUMANTHRAO

SHIRKE AND OTHERS VS. ZILA PARISHAD,

YAVATMAL AND OTHERS (1990-1-LLJ-445)

High Court of Bombay held "to make

appointments for specific periods did not absolve

the management from complying with the

conditions stipulated under Section-25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act at the time the period of

employment comes to an end. The benefit of law

laid down by the Supreme Court was extended to

all the workmen, even to those who were employed

for specific work or for a particular job and even

to casual labourers who were engaged merely to

complete casual nature of work”.

In the case of K. RAJENDRAN VS.

DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL), PROJECT AND

EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD.,

NEW DELHI AND ANOTHER (1992-1-LLN-150)

Madras High Court held "in view of the

discussion, there is no difficulty in coming to the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

103

conclusion that the termination of service of the

petitioner in this case amounts to retrenchment

within the meaning of S.2(00) of the Act and that

that the respondent has not complied with the

mandatory provision of S. 25F of the Act by

paying the retrenchment compensation to the

petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order of

the respondent terminating the service of the

petitioner is bad in law and the same is liable to be

set aside”.

In the case of D.K. YADAV VS. J.M.A.

INDUSTRIES LTD. (1993-3-SCC-259) Supreme

Court held “the cardinal point that has to be borne

in mind, in every case, is whether the person

concerned should have a reasonable opportunity

of presenting his case and the authority should

act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially It is

not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly,

namely, the procedure adopted must be just, fair

and reasonable in the particular circumstances of

the case. In other words application of the

principles of natural justice that no man should

be condemned unheard intends to prevent the

authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the

rights of the concerned person”.

In the case of DHARMANAND AND

ANOTHER VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

(2004-10-SCC-609) Supreme Court held “we are

of the view that if these petitioners should have

been treated as government servants, the

services could not have been terminated on the

ground that their services were no longer

required. The only ground stated for terminating

service was that it was only for 5 years' tenure

and their services were not longer required. We

hold that termination was illegal and the

petitioners are entitled to be reinstated in service

forthwith. The petitioners are also entitled to get

consequential benefits".

In the case of L. ROBERT D' SOUZA VS.

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY

AND ANOTHER (1982-1-SCC-645) Supreme

Court held “absence without leave is a misconduct

and termination of service on such ground

without complying with minimum principles of

natural justice would not be justified”,

In the case of MANAGER (P&A), ONGC

LTD., CHENNAI VS. G. RADHAKRISHNAN

(2005-2-LLN-881) High Court of Madras held "on

a plain reading of S.2(00)(bb), it is quite clear that

such term based employment would fall out side

the scope of “retrenchment” is long as the

requirement of such fixed period of employment

was bona fide required by the employer. It was,

therefore, repeatedly pointed out that such

excepted categories required a rigorous test rather

than accepting the plea of employer on its face

value or otherwise it would cause serious

prejudice to an employee, who can be taken for a

ride by unscrupulous employers by contending

that the term of employment was for specific period

though as a matter of fact such period of

employment lasted quite for a long spell".

In the case of M/s J.K. COTTON SPINNING

AND WEAVING MILLS COMPANY LTD. VS.

THE LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF

INDIA, IIIrd BRANCH, LUCKNOW AND

OTHERS (AIR-1964-SC-737) Supreme Court held.

“while we are dealing with this point, it is

necessary to bear in mind that the bungalow are

owned by the appellant and they are allotted to

the officers as required by the terms and condwons

of the officers employment. Since the bungalows

are allotted to the officers, it is the duty of the

appellant to look after the bungalows and take

care of the gardens attached to them. If the terms

and conditions of service require that the officers

should be given bungalows and gardens are

attached to such bungalows, it is difficult to see

why in the cas-e of Malis who are employed by

the appellant, are paid by it, and who work subject

to its control and supervision and discharge the

function of looking after the appellant’s property,

it should be said that the work done by them has

no relation with the industry carried on by the

appellant. The employment is by the appellant,

the conditions of service are determined by the

appellant, the continuance of service depends

upon the pleasure of the appellant, subject, of

course, to the Standing Orders prescribed in that

behalf and the work assigned to the Malis is the

work of looking after the properties which have

been allotted to the officers of the appellant. Like

the transport amenity provided by the factory to

its employees, bungalows and gardens are also a

kind of amenity supplied by the employer to his

officers and the drivers who look after the buses

and the Malis who look after the gardens must,

therefore, be held to be engaged in operations

which are incidentally connected with the main

industry carried on by the employer”.

In the case of V.P. AHUJA VS. STATE OF

PUNJAB AND OTHERS (2000-3-SCC-239)

Supreme Court held “a probationer like a

temporary servant, is also entitled to certain

protection and his services cannot be terminated

arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated

104

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in a punitive manner without complying with

principles of natural justice".

9. The contra contentions on behalf of the

Respondent advanced by its learne counsel are that

petitioner being engaged as a Bungalow Laskar cannot

claim the benefits as a matter of right. His engagement is

not under the force of a statutory rule. His appointment is

of contractual nature. In his case Article-311 of the

Constitution is not attracted. His appointment was for 3

years whose service if not satisfactory during the

interregnum can be terminated. Provisions of Section-25(F)

or Section-25(G) are not attracted. Though the appointment

was with the approval of the General Manager, the

appointment was not as per the rules, norms or the

recruitment procedure in vogue. He cannot therefore be

regularized. The domestic service does not cover service

under an industry. There cannot be invocation of the ID

Act provisions by the petitioner. The claim is not

maintainable. The petitioner cannot be said to be a Railway

Servant. He was only engaged as a Substitute Bungalow

Laskar under the Dy. Chief Vigilance Officer/Accounts. The

appointment was on the clear instruction of liability to

termination of service for unsatisfactory performance, etc.

Show Cause Notice for termination was issued on

13-12-2006. His reply was not acceptable. It is continued to

argue that not holding of an enquiry in the case of the

petitioner cannot be bad since the termination order of the

authority is for unsatisfactory performance of the workman.

Senior Railway Officers being with investiture of authority

and thus privileged to appoint Bungalow Peon are clothed

with ultimate authority to allow the Peon to continue or to be

discharged on their personal satisfaction. The termination

of the service of the petitioner is not retrenchment being

only as per the terms of the Appointment Order. It is a case

of termination simplicitor for unsatisfactory performance not

warranting departmental enquiry. There is no violation of

principles of natural justice. There is no legal requirement to

hold an enquiry when the petitioner was disengaged on the

grounds of unsatisfactory work.

10. In the case of UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

VS. A.P. BAJPAI AND OTHERS (2003-2-SCC-433) the apex

Court held “mere fact that in response to the challenge the

employer states that the services were not satisfactory

could not ipso-facto mean that the service of the petitioner

were being terminated by way of punishment.”

11. The learned counsel for the Respondent further

relied on the decision in ONGC AND OTHERS VS. MD.S.

ISKANDAR All (1980-3-SCC-428) where it is held by the

Supreme Court that it is well settled by a long course of

decisions of this Court that in the case of a probationer or

a temporary employee, who has no right to the post such a

termination of the services is valid and does not attract

Article-311 of the Constitution.

12. In SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA

AND OTHERS VS. UMA DEVI AND OTHERS (2006-4-

SCC-1) Supreme Court held, inter alia, that “no

regularization to those not.appointed as per rules can be

given”. It further reads “appointments made on contract

basis or on daily wages and in violation of statutory rules

or rules framed under proviso to Article-309 of the

Constitution, being void ab initio and thus nullities,

question of regularizing their services would not arise”.

13 In the present reference the termination from

service of the petitioner-workman appointed as Substitute

Bungalow Laskar by the General Manager of the Southern

Railway is in challenge. The noteworthy contentions on

behalf of the petitioner precisely are that the termination

was one brought about without holding an enquiry

renderning it illegal and void ablnitio. The impugned

termination cannot be found to be an order of termination

simplicitor but is a punitive one for which departmental

enquiry is a sine-quanon. Even if it is not a punitive one, it

could only be a retrenchment for which compensation was

to have been given but has not been paid. The termination

was made just before completion of 3 years service and the

petitioner is thereby entitled to wages by way of

compensation. The termination is also void and is non-est

in the eye of law. He is appointed by a Railway Authority.

The termination of the petitioner in any view of the matter

is illegal, unjust, arbitrary and against the principles of

natural justice. It lacks bonafides. The ground for the

termination held out as unsatisfactory performance of the

petitioner is not at all established by any evidence, which

reason alone enables to terminate him from service. But

that does not mean that the petitioner is to be treated as

though he is not subject to any rule of law. The so-called

reason for termination such as unsatisfactory performance

does not stand established. An instance of stray absence

with or without permission during a given period and in

quick succession thereafter being read as unsatisfactory

performance of work is too illogical and unethical. Going

by Ex.W1-Appointment order issued to the petitioner it

could be gathered that the appointment of the petitioner as

Bungalow Laskar constitutes another like of recruitment

independent of the normal recruitment rules applicable

generally to the Railway Administration. A Bungalow Laskar

after having been once appointed, as to what shall be the

career progression avenues that may enure to him and the

norms and conditions of his services are also provided. It

includes grant of temporary status by which he is entitled

to all rights and privileges admissible to temporary railway

servants. He will be eligible for regularization against Group'

‘D’ vacancies in the open line field units subject to medical

fitness after completion of 3 years continuous service from

the date of temporary status. After absorption if he is not

required for any reason such as transfer of the Officer or

by his successor he will be transferred to the unit where

his lien is to be maintained. The very provisions as above

amply go to show that Bungalow Laskar is not to be thrown

out simplicitor. The ground for termination is unsatisfactory

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

105

work within 3 years. From the above norms and conditions

of service of Bungalow Laskar it could well be found that

the decision of the Apex Court in Uma Devi's case has no

application to the facts of this case. The termination of

petitioner from service cannot be understood to be one

due to any unsatisfactory work or performance of the

petitioner. It discernibly was the outcome of absence of

the petitioner on leave for a few days allegedly with no

applications in advance. Understandably this situation

moved his Officer to be arrogant and hostile towards him

to turn him out from service which is an-in-humanitarian

conduct and is much against all notions of justice equity

and good conscience. It is quite arbitrary. It is quite illegal.

It is a malafide action. That the petitioner was only a

Bungalow Laskar, always to be and at his beck and call

does not mean that he could be dealt with by the very

Officer in any way he pleases. Even though a menial, the

constitutional guarantee of fundamental rights, freedom

and right to dignity and decent living could never be

negated to him. He cannot but be subjected to Certified

Standing Orders of the Management when an action is

proposed to be taken against him. It is good to remember in

this context the settled law on the fact that Certified Standing

Orders have statutory force which do not expressly exclude

the application of the principies of natural justice (1993-3-

SCC-259 of the Apex Court already quoted above). The

post in which the petitioner is borne cannot be read as one

to which he has no right of a lien in as much as the Ex.W1-

Appointment Order clearly intends the career progression

of the petitioner once he entered into service as a Bungalow

Laskar. His entitlement to continue in service though purely

temporary in nature with liability to be discharged within 3

years for unsatisfactory work and coupled with insincerity

in work when he is discharged for that reason that very

reason should be substantiated by the Management before

he is terminated. Here the absence of enquiry is quite illegal

and arbitrary and it springs much against the Management's

highly in human action. The issuance of termination notice

to the petitioner could not be said to be an efficacious

substitute for a proper enquiry holding of which is a

mandatory requirement of all canons of rule and the

principles of natural justice. The decisions relied on by the

learned counsel for the petitioner fully support the above

view. The decisions relied on by Respondent's Learned

Counsel are not relevant. The absence of holding an enquiry

and allowing servants like the petitioner being terminated

from service in an arbitrary manner is totally unjust. It will

lower the condition of employment of such workmen

subject to the sweet will and pleasure of his employer,

whoever he is, relegating it to the ancient concept of

employment by kings, former rulers of erstwhile kingdom

known as “pleasure tenure” with a transient life, last for a

time until only the workman or employee is able to keep his

employer exhilarated in any situation irrespective of

whether or not that could be really possible of being done

by the employee invariably. It is quite improper in a refined

Society and for a civilized life. It is too undemocratic an

approach to be sustained. Non-compliance of S.25(F),

25(N), 25(G) and 25(H) also renders the action void and

non-est. Therefore, it is only to be held that the termination

of service of the petitioner is illegal and unjustified. The

same is set aside. The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated

into service forthwith with full backwages, continuity of

service and all attendant benefits.

14. Thus 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 15th November, 2010)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the I Party/Petitioner

WW1, Sri A. Narayanan

For the II Party/Management MW1, Sri V. Sreenivasan

Documents marked

On the side of the Petitioner

Ex.No

Date

Description

Ex. W 1

12-1-2004

Appointment Order

Ex. W 2

13-12-2006

Show Cause Notice

Ex. W 3

26-12-2006

Explanation to the Show

Cause Notice

Ex. W 4

4-1-2007

Order of termination

Ex. W 5

29-1-2007

Appeal filed against the order

of termination

Ex. W 6

2-4-2007

Order rejecting the appeal

Ex. W 7

20-11-2006

Medical Record

Ex.W 8

24-11-2006

Medical Record

Ex. W 9

5-12-2006

Medical Record

On the side of the Management

Ex. No

Date

Description

Ex. M 1

12-1-2004

Appointment Order

Ex. M 2

2-4-2007

Appeal Disposal Order

Ex. M 3

12-12-2002

Policy instruction issued by

Chief Personnel Officer

Ex. M 4

15-9-2004

Order granting temporary

status

Ex. M 5

Nil

Abstract of Section-2(OO)

and 25(F) (as amended by

Act 49 of 1986 of the

Industrial Disputes act, 1947)

106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 68-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; LVsV

cSad ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 22@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@12@2008&vkbZ vkj(ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 68.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.

No. 22/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure, in

the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of State Bank of India and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 7-12-2010.

[No. L-12011/12/2008-IR (B- I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/22/2008 Dated : 29-11-2010

Petitioner/

The Dy. General Secretary,

Party No. 1

State Bank of India Staff Union

(Mumbai Circle) Branch,

S.V. Patel Marg,

NAGPUR.

Versus

Respondent/

The Dy. General Manager,

Party No. 2

State Bank of India, Zonal Office,

Kingsway, S. V. Patel Marg,

Nagpur.

AWARD

(Dated : 29th November, 2010)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Central Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Nagpur

(“SBI” in short) and their workman, Shri D.J.Pande (“the

workman” in short) for adjudication, as per letter

No.L-12011/12/2008-IR(B-I) dated 10-07-2008, with the

following Schedule :—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of State

Bank of India in awarding punishment of dismissal

w.e.f. 25-11-2005 to Shri D. J. Pande, ex-Assistant

from the Bank’s service is proper, legal and justified?

If not, to what relief is the workman concerned

entitled?”

2. Though, in this case, the reference was received

by the Tribunal on 17-7-2008 and the workman was directed

to file his statement of claim, till 25-10-2010, statement of

claim had not been filed by the workman. However, in the

interest of justice, on 25-10-2010, a last chance was given

to the workman to file the statement of claim on

29-11-2010.

3. On 25-10-2010, a last chance was given to the

workman to file his statement of claim and the case was

posted to on 29-11-2010, also neither the workman

appeared, nor filed the statement of claim. Hence the case

was closed for passing award.

4. As no statement of claim has been filed by the

workman and the management also did not appear before

the Court from 1-12-2008, it is found that the parties are

not interested to proceed with the case. Hence, it is

necessary to pass a ‘no dispute award’. Hence, it is

ordered:

ORDER

The case be treated as “no dispute award”, due to

the default of the parties.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 69-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj mÙkj jsyos ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn eas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 36@2005) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&41012@140@2004&vkbZ vkj(ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S.O. 69.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref.

No. 36/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court-1, Chandigarh as shown in the

Annexure, in the industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of Northern Railway and

their workman, received by the Central Government on 7-

12-2010.

[No. L-41012/140/2004-IR (B- I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

107

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT.

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR

COURT-1, CHANDIGARH

Case l. D. No. 36/2005

Sardool Singh C/o The Divisional Secretary, Uttar Railway

Karamchari Union, Himmatpura Colony, Railway Colony,

Ambala Cantt. ( Haryana)-

...Applicant

Versus

The Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, DRM

Complex, Ambala Cantt. Haryana.

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

For the Workman

: Shri R.P. Rana.

For the Management : Shri N.K. Zakhmi.

AWARD

Passed on : 26-11-2010

Government of lndia,vide notification No.

L-41012/l40/2004-(IR(B-I), dated 28th of July, 2005 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 Northern

Railway, Ambala Division, Ambala Cantt. in not

granting seniority to Shri Sardul Singh w.e.f.

15-7-1989 after promoting him and taking work as

Jeep Driver who was responsible for traffic rules

etc. and paid wages accordingly is just and legal? If

not, to 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 joined the

railway department as T-Mate on 01-07-1984. He was

screened in Class-IV category in the year 1987 and he was

regularized as T-Mate in the year 1988. He was matric pass

and, accordingly, he was promoted as a Driver w.e.f.

15-07-1989. He qualified the trade test for the post of Driver

on 14-12-1989 conducted by AEN, Ambala Division.

Initially his seniority was fixed as per the trade test

conducted by the management and passed by him on

14-12-1989, but to his surprise, he was again trade tested

on 30-03-1990 and his seniority was again refixed as per

the second trade test. The workman has prayed for his

seniority as a Driver with effect from 15-07-1989 from the

day he joined the department as a Driver.

The management opposed the claim of the workman

by filing written statement. Preliminary objections were

raised that his claim is bad by delay and latches. The

workman has raised the claim after 10 years without

showing any reasons for raising the industrial dispute

after abnormal delay. On merits, the management has also

denied any illegality in giving the seniority to the workman.

The management has referred Rule 302 of the regulation

relating to seniority of non-gazetted railway servants which

is in Chapter IIIrd of the Regulations.

It is further contended by the management that

workman was trade tested on 30-03-1990 and he was given

the seniority w.e.f. 16-08-1990 as per the above mentioned

rules.

Both of the parties were afforded the opportunity

for adducing evidence. Witnesses of the parties filed their

respective affidavits but no one was cross-examined. Order

dated 29-10-2009 makes it clear that workman was available

for cross-examination but no one was present for the

management. Accordingly, the opportunity for cross-

examination of workman was closed. As the management

failed to ensure presence of any witness, the evidence of

the management was also closed. Documents filed by the

workman have not been denied by the management. Rather

it is accepted that two trade tests for the post of Driver

were conducted and workman qualified both of the tests.

I have heard the parties and their learned counsel at

length. It is the contention of learned counsel for the

workman that workman was working as a Driver from

15-07-1989 and he qualified the trade test for the Post of

Driver on 14-12-1989. He is entitled for the seniority as a

Driver from 15-07-1989. The second trade test conducted

by the management on 30-03-1990 was illegal. On the other

hand learned counsel for the management has argued that

as per rule 302, of the Regulation seniority was correctly

maintained w.e.f. 16-08-1990. It is admitted by learned

counsel for the management that workman was paid salary

of Driver w.e.f. 15-07-1989 and qualified the trade test for

the post of Driver on 14-12-1989, but the first trade test

dated 14-12-1989 was not validly conducted. Accordingly,

as per the rules, another trade test was conducted or 30-

03-1990 and when the workman passed the same he was

given the seniority w.e.f. 16-08-1990.

As stated earlier, I have heard the parties at length

and perused the entire materials on record. I have also

gone through the rules relating to the seniority for initial

recruits. It is specifically mentioned in Rule 302 that unless

specifically stated otherwise, the seniority among the

incumbent of a post in a grade is governed by the date of

appointment in the grade. The grant of pay higher than

the initial pay should not, as a rule, confer on the railway

servant seniority above those who are appointed against

regular posts. In categories of the posts partially filled up

by direct recruitment and partially by promotion the criteria

for determination of seniority should be the date of the

regular promotion after the process in the case of promotee

108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

and the date of joining the working post after due process

in the case of the direct recruitment subject to maintenance

of inter se seniority of these promotees and direct recruits

among themselves.

There is no dispute that workman was working as a

driver w.e.f. 15-07-1989. For regularization of his services

as a driver a trade test wasconducted on 14-12-1989. He

qualified the trade test. The workman appointed as a

permanent T-mate in the Railway department. The work of

a driver from a T-mate was taken by the department. ipso

facto shows that the post of driver, was lying vacant. For

regularizing him against the post of driver as per the rules,

a trade test was conducted. He appeared to the trade test

and was declared pass on 14-12-1989. Thus, as per the

rules the workman cannot claim his seniority from the date

of his working as a driver w.e.f. 15-07-1989 but he is entitled

for his seniority from the date of passing the trade test as

a driver that too w.e.f. 14-12-1989. Rule 302 makes it

specifically clear that in categories of the posts by

promotion, the criteria for determination of seniority should

be the date of regular promotion after the due process in

the case of promotee. Conducting the trade test is a due

process for promotion to the posts the trade test was

conducted. The result of the trade test was also declared

and the management has acted upon the result of the trade

test. The workman has given the seniority as per the trade

test conducted by the management and passed by the

workman on 14-12-1989. But reasons known to the

management workman was again asked to appear for the

trade test on 30-03-1990 which he again qualified. If a test

has been conducted earlier, the same test cannot be

conducted again unless the previous one has not been

set aside for cogent reasons by the management. The

management has not taken any decision or passed any

order on the trade test conducted by it and passed by the

workman on 14-12-1989. Thus, conducting the same test

again for the same post and that too in the circumstances

where the workman was working on the same post which

he qualified in first trade test conducted on 14-12-89, will,

be, void and illegal as per the provision of rule 302 of the

Regulations contained in Chapter-III.

The workman was working as a driver since

15-07-1989. His trade test was conducted on 14-12-1989.

He was declared pass in the test. The management acted

upon on the result of the trade test. There was no reason

before the management to conduct the trade test against

the workman again conducted the same and disturbed his

seniority. Accordingly, act of the management conducting

the trade test on 30-03-1990 was against rule 302 of the

Regulations and the same is liable to be quashed. The

workman shall be given seniority and all consequential

benefits from the date he qualified the trade test on dated

14-12-1989. The management is directed to correct the

seniority list and give the benefit of seniority to the

workman w.e.f. 14-12-1989. It is hereby made clear that

name of the workman shall be last among drivers in the

same zone already appointed or promoted permanently as

a driver prior to 14-12-89. All the drivers appointed after

14-12-1989 shall be juniors to the workman. Management

is further directed to correct the seniority list and to give

all the consequential benefits to the workman within one

month from the date of publication of the award. Let

Centra1 Govt. be informed for publication of award and

thereafter, file be consigned to record room.

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

Chandigarh

Dated: 26-11-10

ubZ fnYyh] 8 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 70-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k jsyos ds

sizca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 27@2008) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 7&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&41012@16@2008&vkbZ vkj(ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 8th December, 2010

S.O. 70 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.

27/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court-1, Chennai as shown in the Annexure,

in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Southern Railway and their

workman, received by the Central Government

on 7-12-2010.

[No. L-41012/16/2008-IR (B- I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

CHENNAI

Monday, the 15th November, 2010

Present : SHRI A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 27/2008

(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 Southern Railway and their Workman)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

109

BETWEEN :

Sri Surender Singh Panwar :

1st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

The General Manager

Southern Railway

Moore Market Complex

Chennai-600003

2nd Party/Respondent

Appearance :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: M/s S. Meenakshi &

N. Sumathy

For the 2nd Party/Management

: Sri J. Kalyan

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide

its Order No. L-41012/16/2008-IR(B-I) dated 23-05-2008

referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Southern

Railway in terminating the services of Sri Surender

Singh Panwar vide Order No. 172 of 2007 dated

12-07-2007, is legal and justified ? To what relief is

the workman concerned entitled’’.

2. After the receipt of industrial dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as ID 27/2008 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

advocates and filed their Claim Statement and Counter

Statement as the case may be.

3. The allegations in the Claim Statement are as

follows :

The petitioner was appointed as a Substitute

Bungalow Laskar by the General Manager, Southern

Railway on 15-09-2005. It was finding him medically fit to

work. He was attached to the Bungalow of Mr. Rajendra

Prasad, CPDE/Madras, Officer. The order contemplates

conferment of temporary status after 4 months continuous

work and eligibility for regularization as Group ‘D’ after

completion of 3 years continuous service from date of

temporary status. His last drawn salary was Rs. 6,573 per

month. He was granted temporary status as per order dated

23-03-2006. On 29-06-2006 he was transferred together with

his Officer to the Construction Department in existing

vacancy. From 16-02-2007 he availed 20 days leave with

permission and left for his village in Uttaranchal availing

Privilege Pass from Madras to Haridwar. He had to take

care of his infant son affected with Pneumonia who

evenfually died on 13-03-2007. Thereupon he made a special

request on 11-03-2007 and 21-03-2007 to his Officer through

STD calls to Mobile No. 09444089930 for leave extension

which was originally granted. When he reported for duty

on 02-04-2007 he was startled to hear that another was

employed in his place no more requiring his services. He

had not been paid salary for March, 2007. His oral requests

were not replied to. On 01-06-2007 a Show Cause Notice

was issued to him charging about his unsatisfactory and

lack of interest in work since September, 2006. His integrity

has also been questioned. He was alleged of unauthorized

absence from work since 16-02-2007. Another charge is

that he mixed insecticide with food, which related to

September, 2006. But Show Cause Notice was issued only

on 01-06-2007. It was only an afterthought to cover up for

the unjust action of denial of work. Insecticide mixing

incident is false going by cavalier manner of his disclosure

with no other details of consequences, etc. Show Cause

Notice was issued by the Officer and not CAO. On

13-06-2007 he gave a reply denying all charges. On

12-07-2007 he received letter of termination with 2 cheques

of Rs. 6,573 and Rs. 3289 towards one month salary in lieu

of notice. Performance was rated unsatisfactory.

Termination Order was issued without enquiry or without

a fair or independent application of mind. The ID was

raised which on failure the reference is occasioned. The

termination is wholly unfair, illegal and arbitrary. The

petitioner is a workman who has not committed any

misconduct.The charges remain not proved. Allegations

are false. The termination assumed to be not punitive

amounts to retrenchment in the absence of notice and

compensation. There is violation of Section-25N of ID Act

as well. Petitioner is entitled to benefits under Section-

25N of ID Act. The Action is also violative of Sections-

25G and Section-25H. He has worked for 240 days in a

Calendar Year. The need for Bungalow Lasker continues.

He remains unemployed after termination. Termination

being illegal and unjustified, he is to be reinstated with all

benefits.

4. The contentions in the Counter Statement are as

follows :

While denying the allegations except those

specifically admitted it is submitted that Bungalow Laskar

is to do domestic service in the residence of the Officer. It

is a post of choice of the officer on whose recommendation

the candidate is appointed. Petitioner was engaged in the

residence of Sri Rajendra Prasad, then CPDE/MAS. His

service is purely temporary in nature with liability to be

dischaged within 3 years without any reason or notice,

Petitioner is not a workman and cannot invoke ID Act

provisions. Industry does not cover domestice service.

ID is to be dismissed inlimine. Central Administrative

Tribunal, Principal Bench observed that it has been

conceded by counsel on either side that Bungalow

Khalasis were not railway employees and could be

terminated in terms of their contract in the absence of

temporary status acquired. It is further observed that after

bungalow Peon acquires temporary status on completion

of continuous service prescribed by the General Manager,

he requires temporary status. After temporary status his

service can be terminated for unsatisfactory work without

enquiry and it is not bad or illegal for want of notice before

termination. In such termination, he may be entitled to get

paid for in lieu of notice. Petitioner had been engaged as

110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Substitute Bungalow Laskar on 15-09-2005. It was under

clear instructions that service are liable to be terminated

for unsatisfactory work within 3 years and that his

engagement did not confer on him any title or claim for

absorption. When his Officer was transferred as Chief

Engineer (Construction), Egmore, the petitioner was also

transferred on 01-07-2006. On completion of 6 months

service he was granted temporary status on 23-03-2006.

On 15-03-2007 his Officer informed unsatisfactory

performance of the petitioner and about his unauthorized

absence from 16-02-2007 with advise to terminate him.

Show Cause Notice was issued on 01-06-2007 to which he

gave explanation dated 13-06-2007 which being

unsatisfactory, his services are liable to be terminated. He

was paid retrenchment compensation of Rs. 1,299 as per

Section-25(F)(h) of ID Act and Rs. 6,573 as wages in lieu

of notice period on 12-07-2007. Under Para-1502(1) of

IREM, Volume-I ‘‘a person without leave on a permanent

post is not entitled to notice of Termination’’. Railway

Board or General Manager could make rules or issued

instructions for appointment of substitute on terms and

conditions. ‘Substitute’ appointment is for stop-gap

arrangement. Such persons are not entitled to any right

under IREM. Para-1515 of IREM is applicable only to casual

labour with temporary status. Hence Para-1515 is not

applicable in this case. Government can terminate his

service simplifier temporary government servant. He is

not entitled to pay for March, 2007 since he was

unauthorizedly absent. His reason in his explanation dated

30-05-2007 is not acceptable. He has no right over the

post being in temporary status. Question of disciplinary

proceeding does not arise Supreme Court held that the

case of a probationer or a temporary employee with no

right to the post termination does not attract Article-311

of the Constitution. Section-25(F) and Section-25(N) are

not applicalbe but on humanitarian grounds notice and

retrenchment compensation were granted to him. his

discharge is justified.

5. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the termination of service of the

petitioner is legal and justified?

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

6. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of WW1

and Ex.W1 to Ex.W12 on the petitioner’s side and the

testimony of MW1 and Ex.M1 to Ex.M7 on the

Respondent’s side.

Points (i) & (ii)

7. Heard both sides and perused the records and

documents and the written submissions of the Respondent.

The learned counsel for the petitioner argued against the

termination of a workman from service as Bungalow Peon

under the Southern Railway after efflux of a duration of

1 year and 10 months. The allegation against him is

unauthorized absence and mixing up of poison in the food

of his boss at his Bungalow. The action of termination

was one to which recourse was made without holding of

any enquiry, which is illegal. If it is not a case of termination

based on misconduct or penalty still the conditions under

Section-25(F) of the I.D. Act are to be followed, which has

not been done. The requirement of the provision under

Section-25(H) viz. last come first go has also not been

followed admittedly. Petitioner has been awarded

temporary status as evidenced by Ex.W2 by the

Respondent. Ex.W3 is the Railway Privilege Pass has been

issued to him. On 16-02-2007 he applied for leave for 20

days. It was to proceed to his native place to attend his

sick child who was sick. For the same reason he could not

return to duty. Therefore, he made telephonic calls to his

boss on 11-03-2007 and 21-03-2007. His 1 year old Son

expired as is evidenced from Ex.W4-Death Certificate.

When he reported for duty on 02.04.2007 he was denied

work and he was startled to find a substitute working in

his place. He further submitted Ex.W7, Ex.W8 and

Ex.W10 representations to the authorities but he was being

issued a Show Cause Notice of termination after Ex.W8

representation. For the allegation of mixing of insecticide

with food of his Officer, 4 months time was taken.

Thereafter he was issued Ex.W11-Termination Order which

does not say payment of any .retrenchment compensation

to the workman. Until termination there has not had been

any complaint against the petitioner. The Claim Statement

only finds mention in it a sum of Rs. 3,289 without any

details thereof having been paid over and above a sum of

Rs. 6,573. The termination cannot be found to be an order

of termination simplicitor but is discernibly an order

imposing penalty for which a departmental enquiry is a

pre-requisite, the wanting of which violates Article-309 of

the Constitution of India. If at all it is assumed that the

termination is not as a penalty then it is retrenchment for

which compensation was to have been given. The Indian

Railway is a major establishment in which more than 100

employees being employed. There is violation of Section-

25(N) of I. D. Act in the absence of prior permission of

government as contemplated under Section-25(N)(7).

Hence the termination is void on that score also. It is so

under Section-25(G) of the I.D. Act as well. Ever since his

termination he remains unemployed and he is to be

reinstated with full backwages. It is further continued to

argue by the learned counsel that it is alien to

comprehension why full salary was paid to the petitioner

if he had been absent during February, 2007 as evidenced

by Ex.W12-Salary Slip of Petitioner. The case of the

Management revealed through the testimony of MW1 is

that petitioner’s was terminated as per Ex.M1 which is

only a complaint. There is no complaint that petitioner

fabricated any pass. While the Appointment Order was

issued to the petitioner by the Administrative Officer, the

order termination of the petitioner is seen made by his

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

111

Officer. The petitioner was appointed on 15-09-2005 and

was terminated on 12-07-2007 after completion of more

than a year so he is entitled to the benefits under Section-

25(F) of the I.D. Act which is a mandatory requirement of

law, which has not been complied with in litera scripta of

the provision. Payment of anything short of the statutory

requirement cannot protect the authority bound by the

provision to act as really envisaged. The learned counsel

for the petitioner would further argue that the termination

is void and is non-est in the eye of law. If the petitioner

had been only a domestic servant and in spite of that

contention of the Management the reference by the

Ministry does not stand challenged. Again for the same

reason it is in dark as to why Ex.M1 complaint was written

by Chief Engineer. Ex.M2-Termination Order negatives that

the petitioner is domestic servant alone. Ex.M7-Receipt

for payment of retrenchment compensation does not

mention that whatever paid by way of compensation was

on humanitarian grounds as claimed by the Management.

There has not been any previous warning or anything so

against the petitioner. The petitioner was leveled with

baseless and frivolous allegations.

8. In support of petitioner’s contentions the learned

counsel invited this Court’s attention to a number of

decisions of the Supreme Court and High Court as are

mentioned below :

In the case of ANOOP SHARMA VS. EXECUTIVE

ENGINEER, PUBLIC HEALTH DIVISION-I, PANIPAT

(2010-5-SCC-497) Supreme Court held that “leaving aside

the legal semantics, we have no hesitation to hold that

termination of service of an employee by way of

retrenchment without complying with the requirement of

giving one month’s notice or pay in lieu thereof and

compensation in terms of Sections-25F(a) and (b) has the

effect of rendering the action of the employer as nullity

and the employee is entitled to continue in employment as

if his service was not terminated”.

In the case of NAR SINGH PAL VS. UNION OF

INDIA AND OTHERS (2000-3-SCC-588) Supreme Court

held “applying the above principles, the order in the instant

case, cannot be treated to be a simple order of

retrenchment. It was an order passed by way of

punishment and, therefore, was an order of dismissal which,

having been passed without holding a regular departmental

enquiry, cannot be sustained”.

In the case of MOHAN LAL VS. BHARAT

ELECTRONICS LTD. (1981-2-LLJ-70) Supreme Court held

“we hold that the termination of service of the appellant

was ab initio void and inoperative and a declaration is

made that he continues to be in service with all

consequential benefits, namely, back wages, in full and

other benefits, if any”.

In the case of THE MANAGER, GOVERNMENT

BRANCH PRESS AND ANOTHER VS. D.B. BELLIAPPA

(1979-1-SCC-477) Supreme Court held “it is true that the

competent authority had a discretion under the conditions

of service governing the employee concerned to terminate

the latter’s employment without notice. But, such

discretion has to be exercised in accordance with the reason

and fair play and not capriciously. Bereft of rationality and

fairness, discretion degenerates into arbitrariness which

is the very antithesis of the rule of law on which our

democratic polity is founded. Arbitrary invocation or

enforcement of a service condition terminating the service

of a temporary employee may itself constitute denial of

equal protection and offend the equality clause in articles

14 and 16(1)”.

In the case of DILIP HANUMANTHRAO SHIRKE

AND OTHERS VS. ZILA PARISHAD, YAVATMAL AND

OTHERS (1990-1-LLJ-445) High Court of Bombay held “to

make appointments for specific periods did not absolve

the management from complying with the conditions

stipulated under Section-25F of the Industrial Disputes

Act at the time the period of employment comes to an end.

The benefit of law laid down by the Supreme Court was

extended to all the workmen, even to those who were

employed for specific work or for a particular job and even

to casual labourers who were engaged merely to complete

casual nature of work”. In the case of K. RAJENDRAN

VS. DIRECTOR (PERSONNEL), PROJECT AND

EQUIPMENT CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD., NEW

DELHI AND ANOTHER (1992-1-LLN-150) Madras High

Court held “in view of the discussion, there is no difficulty

in coming to the conclusion that the termination of service

of the petitioner in this case amounts to retrenchment within

the meaning of s.2(oo) of the Act and that the respondent

has not complied with the mandatory provision of S. 25F

of the Act by paying the retrenchment compensation to

the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order of the

respondent terminating the service of the petitioner is bad

in law and the same is liable to be set aside”.

In the case of D.K. YADAV VS. J.M.A. INDUSTRIES

LTD. (1993-3-SCC-259) Supreme Court held “the cardinal

point that has to be borne in mind, in every case, is whether

the person concerned should have a reasonable

opportunity of presenting his case and the authority

should act fairly, justly, reasonably and impartially. It is

not so much to act judicially but is to act fairly, namely, the

procedure adopted must be just, fair and reasonable in the

particular circumstances of the case. In other words

application of the principles of natural justice that no man

should be condemned unheard intends to prevent the

authority from acting arbitrarily affecting the rights of the

concerned person”.

In the case of DHARMANAND AND ANOTHER

VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS (2004-10-SCC-609)

Supreme Court held “we are of the view that if these

petitioners should have been treated as Government

servants, the services could not have been terminated on

112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the ground that their services were no longer required.

The only ground stated for terminating service was that it

was only for 5 years’ tenure and their services were no

longer required. We hold that termination was illegal and

the petitioners are entitled to be reinstated in service

forthwith. The petitioners are also entitled to get

consequential benefits”.

In the case of L. ROBERT D’ SOUZA VS.

EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, SOUTHERN RAILWAY AND

ANOTHER (1982-1-SCC-645) Supreme Court held

“absence without leave is a misconduct and termination

of service on such ground without complying with

minimum principles of natural justice would not be

justified”.

In the case of MANAGER (P&A), ONGC LTD.,

CHENNAI VS. G. RADHAKRISHNAN (2005-2-LLN-881)

High Court of Madras held “on a plain reading of

S.2(00)(bb), it is quite clear that such term based

employment would fall outside the scope of

“retrenchment” as long as the requirement of such fixed

period of employment was bona fide required by the

employer. It was, therefore, repeatedly pointed out that

such excepted categories required a rigorous test rather

than accepting the plea of employer on its face value or

otherwise it would cause serious prejudice to an employee,

who can be taken for a ride by unscrupulous employers

by contending that the term of employment was for specific

period though as a matter of fact such period of

employment lasted quite for a long spell”.

In the case of M/s J.K. COTTON SPINNING AND

WEAVING MILLS COMPANY LTD. VS. THE LABOUR

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL OF INDIA, Illrd BRANCH,

LUCKNOW AND OTHERS (AIR-1964-SC-737) Supreme

Court held “while we are dealing with this point, it is

necessary to bear in mind that the bungalow are owned

by the appellant and they are allotted to the officers as

required by the terms and conditions of the officers’

employment. Since the bungalows are allotted to the

officers, it is the duty of the appellant to look after the

bungalows and take care of the gardens attached to them.

If the terms and conditions of service require that the

officers should be given bungalows and gardens are

attached to such bungalows, it is difficult to see why in

the case of Malis who are employed by the appellant, are

paid by it, and who work subject to its control and

supervision and discharge the function of looking after

the appellant’s property, it should be said that the work

done by them has no relation with the industry carried on

by the appellant. The employment is by the appellant, the

conditions of service are determined by the appellant, the

continuance of service depends upon the pleasure of the

appellant, subject, of course, to the Standing Orders

prescribed in that behalf and the work assigned to the

Malis is the work of looking after the properties which

have been allotted to the officers of the appellant. Like the

transport amenity provided by the factory to its employees,

bungalows and gardens are also a kind of amenity supplied

by the employer to his officers and the drivers who look

after the buses and the Malis who look after the gardens

must, therefore, be held to be engaged in operations which

are incidentally connected with the main industry carried

on by the employer”.

In the case of V.P. AHUJA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB

AND OTHERS (2000-3-SCC-239) Supreme Court held “a

probationer like a temporary servant, is also entitled to

certain protection and his services cannot be terminated

arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated in a

punitive manner without complying with principles of

natural justice”.

9. The contra contentions on behalf of the

Respondent advanced by its learned counsel are that

petitioner being engaged as a Bungalow Laskar cannot

claim the benefits as a matter of right. His engagement is

not under the force of a statutory rule. His appointment is

of contractual nature. In his case Article-311 of the

Constitution is not attracted. His appointment was for 3

years whose service if not satisfactory during the

interregnum can be terminated. Provisions of Section-25(F)

or Section-25(G) are not attracted. He has been paid

compensation as evidenced by Ex.M2 and Ex.M7. His

appointment is a backdoor entry. Though the appointment

was with the approval of the General Manager, the

appointment was not as per the rules, norms or the

recruitment procedure in vogue. He cannot, therefore, be

regularized. The domestic service does not cover service

under an industry. There cannot be invocation of the I.D.

Act provisions by the petitioner. The claim is not

maintainable. The petitioner cannot be said to be a Railway

Servant. He has been paid retrenchment compensation.

He was only engaged as a Substitute Bungalow Laskar

under Sri Rajendra Prasad, CPDE/MAS on 15.09.2005. The

appointment was on the clear instruction of liability to

termination of service for unsatisfactory performance, etc.

The Officer-in-Charge informed about his unsatisfactory

performance and unauthorized absence from 16-02-2007.

On his Ex.M1 letter, Show Cause Notice for termination

was issued on 01-06-2007. His reply was not aceptable.

10. The learned counsel for the Respondent relied

on the decision in ONGC AND OTHERS VS. M.D.S.

ISKANDAR ALI (1980-3-SCC-428) where it is held by the

Supreme Court that it is well settled by a long course of

decisions of this Court that in the case of a probationer or

a temporary employee, who has no right to the post such

a termination of the services is valid and does not attract

Article-311 of the Constitution.

11. In SECRETARY STATE OF KARNATAKA AND

OTHERS VS. UMA DEVI AND OTHERS (2006-4-SCC-1)

Supreme Court held, inter alia, that “no regularization to

those not appointed as per rules can be given”. It further

reads “appointments made on contract basis or on daily

wages and in violation of statutory rules or rules framed

under proviso to Article-309 of the Constitution, being

void ab initio and thus nullities, question of regularizing

their services would not arise”.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

113

12. In the present reference the termination from

service of the petitioner-workman appointed as Substitute

Bungalow Laskar by the General Manager of the Southern

Railway w.e.f. 15-09-2005 is in challenge. The noteworthy

contentions on behalf of the petitioner precisely are that

the termination was one brought about without holding

an enquiry rendering it illegal and void ab initio. The

impugned termination is not an order of termination

simplicitor but is a punitive one for which departmental

enquiry is a sine-qua-non. Even if it is not a punitive one,

it could only be a retrenchment for which compensation

was to have been given but has not been paid. The

existence of proof of payment of some amount in

compliance of Section-25(F) of the I.D. Act not meeting

the requirement of the provision in full cannot be a valid

compliance of the conditions stipulated thereunder. The

termination was made after completion of 1 year and 10

months’ service and the petitioner is thereby entitled to 2

months’ wages by way of compensation whereas what is

paid is only a meager sum of Rs. 3,289 as a quantum the

manner of liquidation of which is beyond comprehension

and also as to the yardstick employed. The termination is

also assailed as void and is non-est in the eye of law. He is

appointed by a Railway Authority but his termination order

is seen issued by his own Officer. There has not had been

any complaint or warning against the petitioner before.

He was granted temporary passes which are not assailed

as fabricated passes. That whatever was paid by way of

Retrenchment Compensation is not shown to be paid to

the petitioner on any humanitarian consideration, as

claimed by producing any material. He was on leave for

his personal and domestic purpose during which he had

to overstay at his native place in connection with the

sickness of his Son who eventually expired. It is proved

that the petitioner has had made a telephonic conversation

with his Officer for extension of leave whereafter when he

reported for duty he found out to his embarrassment that

a substitute is working in his place and he has been denied

employment which virtually was a termination of his

service. It is strange to note that in spite of his

unauthorized absence during February, 2007 his full salary

has been paid to him. The termination of service of the

petitioner in any view of the matter is illegal, unjust,

arbitrary and against the principles of natural justice. It

lacks bona fides. The ground for the termination held out

as unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner is not at

all established by any evidence, which reason alone

enables to terminate him from service. The other reason of

alleged mixing of insecticide in the food of the Officer from

the nature of its very mentioning as a ground appears

totally unconvincing. But that does not mean that the

petitioner is to be treated as though he is not subject to

any rule of law. The so-called reasons for termination such

as Unauthorized Absence and mixing up of poison in the

food of the Officer do not stand established on any sound

edifice. For the allegation of mixing of insecticide in the

food in September 2006, a Show Cause Notice emanates

only on 01-06-2007. The disclosure regarding mixing of

insecticide in food is not with the delineation as to its

adverse consequences or repercussions. The said

allegation is only apt to be discredited together with the

other ground of unauthorized absence stated as reason

for the termination which have not actually prevailed upon

the Officer to terminate his services. Discernibly, the

reasons made known ostensibly cannot be regarded as

the real reasons that may have tempted his termination

from service which emerged from his own Officer whereas

his original appointment order was issued by the Asstt.

Personnel Officer. Going by Ex.W1-Appointment Order

issued to the petitioner it could be gathered that the

appointment of the petitioner as Bungalow Laskar

constitutes another line of recruitment independent of the

normal recruitment rules applicable generally to the Railway

Administration. A Bungalow Laskar after having been once

appointed, as to what shall be the career progression

avenues that may enure to him and the norms and

conditions of his services are also provided. It includes

grant of temporary status by which he is entitled to all

rights and privileges admissible to temporary railway

servants. He will be eligible for regularization against

Group ‘D' vacancies in the open line field units subject to

medical fitness after completion of 3 years’ continuous

service from the date of temporary status. After absorption

if he is not required for any reason such as transfer of the

Officer or by his successor he will be transferred to the

unit where his lien is to be maintained. The very provisions

as above amply go to show that Bungalow Laskar is not

to be thrown out simplicitor. The ground for termination is

unsatisfactory work within 3 years. From the above norms

and conditions of service of Bungalow Laskar it could

well be found that the decision of the Apex Court in Uma

Devi’s case has no application to the facts of this case.

The so-called reasons for termination of the petitioner

from service could only be afterthought cover-up for the

unjust denial of work to the petitioner. As aiready

mentioned above, there is no case of petitioner having

availed any leave previously except one mentioned in this

Claim Statement which was continued by the petitioner

by overstayal. Overstayal was due to the fact of his Son

being sick and who is proved to have eventually met with

a death. It is at or about this point of time that the petitioner

has had to detain himself there in his native place and

could not return to his place of duty. He was, therefore,

making telephonic calls to his Officer as has been proved

before this Tribunal. It is at or about this time that his

Officer presumably in an inhuman and arrogant attitude

towards the petitioner sent Ex.M1—Camplaint against the

petitioner which eventually turned out to be cause for the

termination of the petitioner from service. The termination

of petitioner from service cannot be understood to be one

due to any unsatisfactory work or performance of the

petitioner. It discernibly was the outcome of obsence of

the petitioner on leave for a few days during February,

2007 at which time he has had to leave for his native place

in connection with his personal and domestic constraints.

Understandably this situation moved his Officer to be

arragant and hostile towards him to turn him out from

service which is in humanitarian, a conduct and is much

114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

against all notions of justice equity, good conscience. It is

quite arbitrary. It is quite illegal. It is a mala fide action.

That the petitioner was only a Bungalow Laskar, proved

appointed on the recommendation of his very Officer does

not mean that he could be dealt with by the very Officer in

any way he pleases. Even though a menial, constitutional

guarantee of fundamental rights, freedom and right to

dignity and decent living could never be negated to him.

He cannot but be subjected to Certified Standing Orders

of the Management. It is good to remember in this context

the settled law on the fact that Certified Standing Orders

have statutory force which do not expressly exclude the

application of the principles of natural justice (1993-3-SCC-

259 of the Apex Court already quoted above). The post in

which the petitioner is borne cannot be read as one to which

he has no right of a lien inasmuch as the Ex.W1-Appointment

order clearly intends the career progression of the petitioner

once he entered into service as a Bungalow Laskar. His

entitlement as admitted by the Management regarding

service though purely temporary in nature and is with

liability to be discharged within 3 years for unsatisfactory

work, when he is discharged for that reason that should be

substantiated by the Management before he is terminated.

The termination is not one simplicitor but is punitive. Here

the absence of enquiry is quite illegal and arbitrary and it

springs much against the Management’s highly inhuman

action. The issuance of termination notice to the petitioner

could not be said to be an efficacious substitute for a proper

enquiry holding of which is a mandatory requirement of all

canons of rule including Certified Standing Orders and the

principles of natural Justice. The decisions relied on by the

learned counsel for the petitioner fully support the above

view. The decisions upon which reliance was placed by

Respondent’s Learned Counsel are not squarely applicable

to the facts. The absence of holding an enquiry and allowing

servants like the petitioner being terminated from service in

an arbitrary manner is totally unjust. It will lower the

condition of employment of such workmen subject to the

sweet will and pleasure of his employer, whoever he is,

relegating it to the ancient concept of employment by kings,

former rulers of erstwhile kingdom known as “pleasure

tenure’’ with a transient life, last for a time until only the

workman or employee is able to keep his employer exhilarated

in any situation irrespective of whether or not that could be

really possible of being done by the employee invariably. It

is quite improper in a refined Society and for a civilized life.

It is also too undemocratic an approach to be sustained.

Hence, it is only to be held that the termination of service of

the petitioner is illegal and unjustified. The same is set aside.

The petitioner is ordered to be reinstated into service

forthwith with full back wages, continuity of service and all

attendant benefits.

13. Thus 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 15th November, 2010)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the I Party/Petitioner

: WW1, Sri Surender

Singh Panwar

For the II Party/Management : MW1, Sri B. Karthikeyan

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

15-09-2005

Appointment Order

Ex.W2

23-03-2006

Order granting temporary status

to the petitioner.

Ex.W3

14-2-2007

Free Railway Pass issued to the

petitioner.

Ex.W4

Death Certificate of the

petitioner’s son and English

Translation of the same.

Ex.W5

21-03-2007

STD Call Bill

Ex.W6

25-04-2007

Petitioner’s representation to the

Chief Administrative Officer

Ex.W7

22-05-2007

And

Petitioner’s representation to

Ex.W8

30-5-2007

Ex.W9

01-06-2007

Show Cause Notice

Ex.W10 13-06-2007

Explanation to the Show Cause

Notice

Ex.W11 12-07-2007

Order of Termination

Ex.W12 Feb. 2007

Salary Slip

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.M1

15-03-2009

Termination letter

Ex. M2

Retrenchment Compensation

paid and acknowledgement

receipt.

Ex. M3

IREM Rule 1502

Ex.M4

12-02-1999

Copy of judgment of Central

Administrative Tribunal in OA

896/95.

Ex.M5

30-05-2007

Representation from Surender

Singh Pawar to the General

Manager.

Ex.M6

Showing that Termination Order

issued by the Officer in whose

bungalow the petitioner worked

and not by Dy. Chief Personnel

Officer.

Ex.M7

Receipt for making payment of

retrenchment compensation

which has been received by the

petitoner and signed by him.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

115

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 71-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Mkd &foHkkx ds

izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/ esa

fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je

U;k;ky;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 7@10) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&40012@86@2009&vkbZ vkj(Mh ;w)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2010

S.O. 71.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 7/10)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Department of Post and their workman,

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

2010.

[ No. L-40012/86/2009-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

PRESENT : N. K. PUROHIT Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 7/10

Reference No. L-40012/86/2009-IR(DU) dated 8-2-2010

Shri Prabhu Singh,

S/o Shri Uday Singh Rawat,

R/o Village Bar, Tehsil Bheem,

Rajsamand.

Versus

1. The Supreintendent,

Post Office, D/o Posts,

Bhilwara Mandal, Bhilwara,

2. The Posts Master General,

D/o Posts, Head Post Office,

Ajmer.

3. I.P.O., D/o Posts,

Gulabpura, Bhilwara.

AWARD

Dateded : 26-11-2010

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of sub-sections 1& 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referrd

the following Industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication which runs as under :—

‘‘Whether the action of the management of

Superintendent (Post Offices), Indian Postal

Department, Bhilwara Division, in terminating the

services of their workman Shri Prabhu Singh w.e.f

2-8-2007 is legal and justified? If not, what relief the

workman is entitled to ?’’

2. Pursuant to the receipt of reference order, the

registered notices were issued to both the parties. The

representative on behalf of the workman put his appearance

on 19-4-2010 and sought time for filing claim statement. On

subsequent dates 25-5-10 & 19-7-10 claim statement was

not filed. On 19-7-10 last opportunity for filing the claim

statement was given to the workman, but on next date i.e.

6-9-10 neither any claim statement was filed nor workman

or his representative appeared. On 9-11-10 none appeared

on behalf of both the parties,despite this one more

opportunity to file claim was given on next date i.e. 25-11-10,

but again on the said date none appeared on behalf of the

both parties. Hence, case was reserved for award.

3. Since, the workman has not appeared to file his

claim statement, there is no material on record to adjudicate

the reference under consideration on its merit. It appears

that the workman is not willing to contest the case further.

Under such circumstances the ‘‘No Claim Award” is passed

in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

4. Award as above.

N.K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 72-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fnYyh MoyiesUV

vkWFkksfjVh ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 10@2007) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10&12&2010 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42011@87@2006&vkbZ vkj(Mh ;w)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2010

S.O. 72.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 10/2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court No. 1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Delhi Development Authority and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 10-12-2010.

[ No. L-42011/87/2006-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

116

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER ,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. NO. 10/2007

The General Secretary,

Municipal Employees Union,

Agarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road,

Tis Hazari, Delhi-110054

...Workman

Versus

The Secretary,

Delhi Development Authority,

Vikas Sadan, INA Market,

New Delhi

...Management

AWARD

A beldar was engaged by the Delhi Development

Authority (hereinafter referred to as the Authority) on

24-5-83 on muster roll. His services were dispensed with in

March, 1991. He raised an industrial dispute, which was

referred to a Labour Court, constituted by Government of

N.C.T. Delhi. The labour court adjudicated the dispute in

his favour and passed an award dated 23-5-2001. The

Authority assailed the award before High Court of Delhi

by way of writ petition being No.5905/2003. On 12th of

September, 2003, High Court issued notice to the opposite

party on a limited issue of back wages payable in the

matter. Relief of reinstatement, granted by the labour court,

was held to be above reproach. Accordingly, the beldar

was reinstated in service. In between persons, who were

junior to that beldar, were regularized in service. He raised

a demand for regularization of his services which was not

conceded to. He approached Municipal Employees Union

(hereinafter referred to as the Union), who raised an

industrial dispute in the matter. Since conciliation

proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No. L-42011/87/2006-IR(DU) dated 1-2-2007,with following

terms:

‘‘Whether the demand of the Municipal Employees

Union for regularisation of services of Shri Jai Parkash

w.e.f. 24-5-83 is legal and justified? If yes, to what

relief the workman is entitled to and from which

date ?’’

2. Claim statement was filed pleading that Shri Jai

Parkash joined services of the Authority on 24-5-83 as a

beldar. He was treated as a daily rated/muster roll employee.

He was paid minimum wages while his counter-parts were

paid scaled wages, besides allowances admissible to them.

In March, 1991 his services were terminated without

assigning any valied reason. He assailed that action and

an industrial dispute was referred to a labour court,

constituted by the Government of N.C.T. Delhi. The labour

court passed an award on 23-5-2001, wherein it was

announced that action of termination of his services was

illegal and unjustified. He was ordered to be reinstated

with continuity and 50% of back wages, besides all

consequential benefits. The Authority filed a writ petition

being WP(C) No. 5905/2003 against the award referred

above. High Court, vide its order dated 12-9-2003, stayed

the order relaing to grant of back wages, while confirmed it

in respect of reinstatement of service. He was reinstated in

service w.e.f. 28-4-2005. In between Smt. Javitri W/o Shri

Madan Lal, Shri Ranbir Singh and Shri Kishan, besides

others, who were juniors to him, were regularized in service

and he was meted out with hostile discrimination. It has

been claimed that action of non regularization of his services

amounts to violative of Articles 14, 16 and 39(d) of the

Constitution. He has acquired status of regular employee

on completion of 90 days of continuous service, as provided

in Model Standing Orders framed under Industrial

Employment (Standing) Orders Act, 1946. On completion

of 240 days of continuous service, he acquires a status of

permanent employee. It has been claimed that an award

may be passed in his favour holding that he is entitled to

be regularized in service from the date of his initial

employment and the Authority may be commanded to pay

him difference of salary since that date.

3. Contest was given to the claim petition pleading

that the matter is subjudice before High Court of Delhi. It

has further been projected that case of the claimant has

not been espoused by any union, hence it is not

maintainable. However, the Authority does not dispute that

the claimant was engaged on muster roll initially on 16-5-83

as beldar. He worked intermittently and was paid at the

rates fixed by the appropriate Government. Since he was a

daily wager and as such not entitled to be treated at par

with regular employees. The Authority agitates that the

claimant was negligent towards his duties, since he

absented himself from service w.e.f. 16-3-91, without any

intimation to the Authority. It is not a matter of dispute that

when his services were dispensed with an industrial dispute

was raised,which culminated in to an award dated

23-5-2001. The Authority projects that the persons who

were regularized in service had fulfilled terms and conditions

of regular employee. Since the claimant failed to fulfil those

terms and conditions his services cannot be regularized. It

has been pleaded that his claim, being devoid of merits,

may be dismissed.

4. Claimant has examined himself and Shri Surender

Bhardwaj in support of his claim. The Authority examined

Shri Gajraj Singh, Assistant Director, in support of its defence.

No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

117

5. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Mohd.

Farrukh, authorised representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. Written arguments were filed on

behalf of the Authority. I have given my careful

considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar ad

cautiously perused the record. My findings on issues

involved in the controversy are as follows.

6. At the outset it was agitated on behalf of the

Authority that no industrial dispute was raised, since there

was no espousal of the dispute by any union. However,

this issue is dispelled by the claimant, who examined

Shri Surender Bhardwaj in that regard. Shri Bhardwaj swears

in his affidavit Ex. WW2/A that in July, 2005 claimant

approached the Union for redressal of his grievances. He

alleged that he was not regularized by the Authority.

A meeting was held on 16-8-2005 in which a resolution was

passed to espouse the cause of the claimant. The resolution,

so passed, is Ex. WW1/3. Shri Jai Parkash also gives

confirmation to these facts and unfolds that he raised a

dispute before the Conciliation Officer through the Union.

Union decided to espouse his dispute vide resolution dated

16-8-2005, copy of which is Ex. WW1/3. Therefore, out of

facts projected by Shri Surender Bhardwaj and reaffirmed

by Shri Jai Parkash, it came to light that in May, 2003

Shri Jai Parkash approached the union for redressal of his

grievances. The Union conducted a meeting and passed a

resolution to espouse his cause, which resolution is

Ex WW1/3.

7. Provisions of Section 10 of the Act, make it clear

that the appropriate Government may refer an existing or

apprehended dispute to the Industrial Tribunal for

adjudication Industrial dispute has been defined by clause

(k) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in

short the Act). Definition given in the said sub-section

encompasses within its sweep any dispute or difference

between the employer and employers, or between

employer and workmen or between workmen and workmen,

which is connected with the employment or non

employment or terms of employment or with the conditions

of labour of any person. The Act is a legislation relating to

what is known as ‘‘collective bargaining” in the economic

field. This policy of the legislature is also implicit in the

difinition of the industrial dispute.

8. The Apex Court in Bombay Union of Journalists

[1961 (II) LLJ 436] has observed that in each case in

ascertaining whether an individual dispute has acquired

the character of an industrial dispute, the test is whether at

the date of reference, the dispute was taken up as supported

by the union of the workmen of the employer against whom

the dispute is raised by an individual workman or by an

appreciable number of workman. In order, therefore, to

convert an ‘‘individual dispute” into an ‘‘industrial dispute”,

it has to be established that it had been taken up by the

union of employees of the establishment or by an

appreciable number of the employees of the establishment.

As far as union of the workman of establishment itself is

concerned, the problem of espousal by them generally

presents little difficulty, as the workman who are members

of such unions generally have a continuity of interest with

an individual employee who is one of their fellow workman.

But the difficulties arise when the cause of a workman, in a

particular establishment, is sponsored by a union which is

not of the workmen of that establishment but is one of

which membership is open to workmen of their

establishment as well in that industry. In such a case a

union which has only microscopic number of the workmen

as its member, cannot sponsor any dispute arising between

the workmen and the management. Representative

character of the union has to be gathered from the strength

of the actual number of co workers sponsoring the dispute.

The mere fact that a substantial number of workmen of the

establishment, in which the concerned workman was

employee, were also members of the union would not

costitute sponsorship. It must be shown that they were

connected together and arrived at an understanding by a

resolution or by other means and collectively supported

the dispute.

9. What a substantial or considerable number of

workmen would in a given case depend on particular facts

of the case. The fact that an ‘‘industrial dispute”, is

supported by other workmen will have to be established

either in the form of a resolution of the union of which

workman may be member or of the workmen themselves

who support the dispute or in any other manner. Form

the mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an

‘‘industrial dispute” concerning an individual workman is

referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the workmen

of the establishment as its members, it cannot be inferred

that the individual dispute has been converted into an

‘‘industrial dispute”. The Tribunal has, therefore, to

consider the question as to how many of the fellow workman

actually espoused the cause of the concerned workman

by participating in the particular resolution of the Union.

In the absence of a such a determination by the Tribunal, it

cannot be said that the individual dispute acquired the

character of an industrial dispute and the Tribunal will not

acquire jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the dispute.

Nevertheless, in order to make a dispute an industrial

dispute, it is not necessary that there should always be a

resolution of substantial or appreciable number of workmen.

What is necessary is that there should be some express or

collective will of a substantial or an appreciable member of

the workmen treating the cause of the individual

workman as their own cause. Law to this effect was laid

in P. Somasundrameran [1970 (1) LLJ 558].

118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

10. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is

a registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once

it is shown that body of substantial number of workmen

either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored

the workman’s cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an

industrial dispute. In Pradeep Lamp Works [1970 (1) LLJ

507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were

filed before the conciliation officer by the individual

workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently

taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co-

workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was

not registered or recoginzed, the workmen elected five

representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed

workmen. Thus the cases of the dismissed workmen were

espoused by the new union, yet unregistered and

unrecognized. The Apex Court held that the fact that these

disputes were not taken up by a registered or recognized

union does not mean that they were not ‘‘industrial

dispute”.

11. It is not expedient that same union should remain

incharge of that dispute till its adjudication. The dispute

may be espoused by the workmen of an establishment,

through a particular union for making such a dispute an

‘‘industrial dispute”, while the workman may be represented

before the Tribunal for the purpose of Section 36 of the Act

by a number of executive or office bearer of altogether

another union. The crux of the matter is that the dispute

should be a dispute between the employer and his workmen.

It is not necessary that the dispute must be espoused or

conducted only by a registered trade union. Even if a trade

union ceases to be registered trade union during the

continuance of the adjudication proceedings that would

not affect the maintainability of the order of reference. Law

to this effect was laid by the High Court of Orissa in Gammon

India Limited [1974 (II) LLJ 34]. For ascertaining as to

whether an individual dispute has acquired character of an

individual dispute, the test is whether on the date of the

reference the dispute was taken up as supported by the

union of the workmen of the employer against whom the

dispute is raised by the individual workman or by an

appreciable number of the workman. In other words, the

validity of the reference of an industrial dispute must be

judged on the facts as they stood on the date of the

reference and not necessarily on the date when the cause

occurs. Reference can be made to a precedent in Western

India Match Co. Ltd. [1970 (II) LLJ 256].

12. As detailed above, Shri Bhardwaj and the

claimant could bring it over the record that the claimant

approached the Union for redressal of his grievance, who

opted to espouse his dispute. In meeting dated 16-8-2005 it

was resolved that an industrial dispute would be raised in

favour of Shri Jai Parkash, in respect of his regularization in

service w.e.f. 24-5-83 and for payment of his wages in proper

pay scale with allowances admissible under the rules.

Consequently it is evident that Union adapted the cause

of the claimant and raised a dispute before the Conciliation

Officer. It acquired a status of industrial dispute when

resolution Ex. WW1/3 was passed by the Union. It cannot

be said that the claim raised remained an individual dispute

and the claimant cannot knock the door of this Tribunal.

Submissions made by the Authority in that regard are

hereby, discarded.

13. Though engagement of Shri Jai Parkash on

muster roll w.e.f. May, 1983 is an admitted fact, yet the

Authority tried to assert that he worked for intermittent

periods. During the course of cross examination of Shri Jai

Parkash, he was confronted with various periods for which

he served the Authority. A case was projected that from

May, 1983 till 16-3-1991 Shri Jai Parkash attended his duties

intermittently and not continuously. This issue was raised

before the Labour Court which was adjudicated in favour

of the claimant Award Ex. WW1/1adjudicated an sue as to

whether the claimant abandoned his services w.e.f.

16-3-91 . It was announced therein that the Authority could

not establish that the claimant abandoned his services. A

finding was recorded by the Labour Court that the claimant

rendered continuous service for a period more than one

year before termination of his services by the Authority on

16-3-91.

14. Can the Authority be permitted to reagitate this

issue or it is estopped on application of principles of res-

judicata? For an answer to this proposition, it is expedient

to consider as to whether principles of res-judicata can be

invoked. It is well setted that entire Code of Civil Procedure,

1908 (in short the Code) is not applicable to an industrial

adjudication, yet principles of res-judicata laid down under

Section 11 of the Code are applicable wherever possible.

In Straw Board Manufacturing Company Ltd. [1974(1)LLJ

499] the Apex Court observed :

‘‘This is so since multiplicity of litigation, agitation

and re-agitation of the same dispute at issue between

the same employer and his employees will not be

conducive to industrial peace which is principle

object of all labour legislation bearing on industrial

adjudication but in holding that the principles of res-

judicata is applicable to a particular case, operating

consideration is whether a matter in dispute in a

subsequent case had earlier been directly and

substantially in issue between the same parties and

the same has been heard and fully decided by the

Tribunal. The earlier question of issue must be

relevant and germain in determining question of res-

judicata in subsequent proceedings. The real

character of the controversy between the parties is

the determining factor and in complex and manifold

one relation between the labour and capital giving

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

119

rise to diverse kind of ruptures of verying nuances

no cast iron rule can be laid down. Some distinction

of whatever shade of magnitude may have to be

borne in mind in compliance of the principles of res-

judicata in industrial adjudication in contravention

to civil proceedings.”

15. In Hindustan Liver Ltd. (1984 Lab. I.C. 276) the

Apex Court laid that ‘‘though this is highly technical

concept of civil justice may be kept in precise confined

limits in the field of industrial adjudication which must as

far as possible be kept free from such technicalities which

thwart resolution of industrial dispute. It can safety be

said that principle analogous to res-judicata can be availed

of to scuttle any attempt at raising industrial disputes

repeatedly in defiance of operative settlements and

awards”.

16. In Punjab Cooperative Bank Ltd. [1975 (II) LLJ

373] the Apex Court upheld the validity of the application

of principles of res-judicata to an issue raised in subsequent

proceedings under Section 33(C) (2) of the Act which had

already been decided by a competent labour court in that

regard in earlier industrial dispute. In Bombay Gas Company

Ltd. [1975 (II) LLJ 345] the Apex Court had gone to the

extent of even applying priciples of constructive res-

judicata. Justice Alagiriswami, speaking for the court

observed:

‘‘The doctrine of res-judicata is a wholesome one

which is applicable not merely to matters covered by

the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure but to

all litigations. It proceeds on the principles that there

should be no unnecessary litigation and whatever

claims and defences are open to parties should all be

put forward at the same time, provided no confusion

is likely to arise by so putting forward all such

claims.”

17. In Mumbai Kamgar Sabha [1976 (II) LLJ 186],

commenting on the above case justice Krishna lyer

observed that, ‘‘it is clear law, so long as the above ruling

stands, that industrial litigation is no exception to the general

principle underlying the doctrine of res-judicata”. The court

entertained a doubt about.‘‘the extension of the

sophisticated doctrine of constructive res-judicata to

industrial law which is governed by special methodology

of conciliation, adjudication and considerations of peaceful

industrial relations. where collective bargaining and

pragmatic justice claim precedence over formalised rules

of decision based on individual contests, specific causes

of action and findings on particular issues”, but Bombay

Gas Company Ltd. case (supra) was distinguished on the

basis of the observations in that case that ‘‘If the workers

are dis-satisfied with any of the items in respect of which

their claim has been rejected , it is open to them to raise a

fresh dispute”. This observation was interpreted to mean

that ‘‘ if a fresh dispute had been raised, after teminating a

prior award, no bar of res-judicata could have been urged”.

For the purpose of attracting principles of res-judicata, the

issue in the two proceedings must be common. The real

character of controversy between the parties is the

determining factor. An award relating to termination of

services of a workman , after being given the effect to,

does not impose any continuing obligation on the workman

or the employer. The award, therefore, becomes final and

shall not cease to be operative after lapse of one year. It

cannot be terminated by a notice under sub-section (6) of

Section 19 of the Act. That dispute cannot be referred to

adjudication subsequently. The principles of res-judicata,

as enunciated in Burn & Company Ltd. [1957 (I) LLJ 226]

would apply to such a case with full force.

18. Award Ex.WW1/1records a finding that the

claimant rendered continuous service with the Authority

and the Authority failed to establish that he had abondoned

his services on 16-3-91. Findings on those issues were

assailed before High Court of Delhi but a jolt was received

by the Authority when High Court opted to hear the matter

relating to payment of back wages of back only. Despite

pendency of the writ petition for adjudication, the Authority

was constrained to reinstate the claimant inservice.

Consequently it is evident that as far as abandonment of

service of the claimant is concerned, the facts recorded by

the labour court reached finality. The Authority cannot

reagitate those very issues now. Consequently, the

Authority is estopped to reagitate those very issues by

way of application of principles of resjudicata in the matter.

Contention so advanced by the Authority is, hereby,

brushed aside.

19. It was pleaded on behalf of the claimant that his

juniors, namely, Smt. Javitri Devi w/o Madan Lal, Ranbir

Singh and Shri Kishan were regularized in services by the

Authority. On those facts the Authority does not dispute

regularization of their services, but pleads in its written

statement that their services were regularized on their

fulfilment of terms and conditions of a regular employee.

No facts were unfolded as to whether the claimant was on

different pedestal than the employees, whose services were

regularized by the Authority. Therefore, it is evident that in

written statement no specific denial on that issue was

made by the Authority

20. In his testimony, the claimant projects that Smt.

Javitri, Ranbir Singh and Shri Kishan, besides others who

were junior to him were regularized in service.They were

regularised w.e.f. 1989. During the course of his cross

examination, no efforts were made by the Authority to

highlight that the aforesaid employees were not junior to

him or were placed in a different bracket than the claimant.

Consequently it is emerging over the record that the

120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

claimant could show that his juniors were regularized in

service by the Authority w.e.f. 1989. Shri Gaj Raj Singh

admits in his testimony that the aforesaid employees were

regularized on 19th of September, 1989. They joined

services of the Authority in 1983. He could not dispel that

the aforesaid employees joined services of the Authority

prior to 24th of May, 83, the date when the claimant was

initially engaged in service.Therefore, it is evident that

juniors to the claimant were regularized in the services by

the Authority.

21. Equality before law and equal protection of laws

are fundamental rights of every person, ordains Article 14

of the Constitution. The guiding principles laid in Article

14 are that persons, who are similarly situated, shall be

treated alike both in privileges conferred and liability

imposed.which means that amongst equals the law should

be equal and should be equally administered and that like

should be treated a like. Article 16 of the Constitution

guarantees equality of opportunities for all citizens in

matters relating to employment or appointment to any office

under the State. What is guaranted is the equality of

opportunity . Like all other employers, government is also

entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large number

of candidates offering themselves for employment. But the

selection process must not be arbitrary. The guarantee

given by clause (a) of Article 16 of the Constitution will

cover (a) initial appointment (b) promotions(c) termination

of employment (d) and matters relating to salary, periodical

increments, leaves, gratuity, pension, age of

superannuation etc. Matters relating to employment or

appointment include all matters in relations to employment

both prior and subsequent to the employment which are

incidental to the employment and form part of the terms

and conditions of such employment.

22. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14

forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification

or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of

discretion. Classification is the recognition of the relations,

and in making it the government must be allowed a wide

latitude of discretion and judgment. In a way, the

consequences of such classification would undoubtedly

be to differentiate persons belonging to that class from

others. The classification must be founded on an intelligible

differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are

grouped together from others left out of the group and the

differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought

to be achieved. Classification may be made according to

the nature of persons, nature of business, and may be

based with reference to time.

23. Concept of equality graranteed by Article 16 of

the Constitution is something more than formal equality

and enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share

by having more than equal chance and enables the state to

give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving real

equality with reference to social needs. ‘Protection

discrimination’ enabled the state to adopt new strategy to

bring underprivileged at par with the rest of the society, by

providing all possible opportunities and incentives to

them. Therefore a class may be allowed to have preferential

treatment in the matter relating to employment or

appointment. There cannot be rule of equality between

members of separate and independent group of persons.

Persons can be classified in different groups, based on in

terms of nature of persons, nature of business and with

reference to time.

24. As projected by the claimant Smt. Javitri w/o

Shri Madan Lal, Ranbir Singh and Shri Kishan, juniors to

him were regularized in service on 19-9-89. This fact has

been reaffirmed by Shri Gaj Raj Singh. Therefore, it is

evident that the aforesaid employees, who were juniors

to the claimant were regularized in service by the Authority

on 19-9-89. It is evident that the Authority has not been

able to show that these employees were placed in a different

category or group than the one in which the claimant was

placed. Consequently, it is evident that the claimant as well

as the aforesaid employees were of the same class and act

of regularization in service of the latter discriminates the

claimant.

25. Can management be permitted to treat equals

differently? Answer lies in negative. In Bal Kishan [1990 (I)

LLJ 61] the Apex Court announced that no junior shall be

confirmed or promoted without considering the case of his

senior. The observations made by the Apex Court are

reproduced thus :

‘‘In service, there could be only one norm for

conferment or promotion of persons belonging to

the same cadre. No junior shall be confirmed or

promoted without considering the case of his senior.

Any deviation from this principle will have

demoralizing effect in service apart from their being

contrary to Article 16 (1) of the Constitution”.

26. The management projected that in Uma Devi [2006

(4) SCC.1] the Apex Court ruled that a person who entered

service dehors the rules has no right for regularization or

continuance in service. The principle of law laid by the

Apex Court in the aforesaid case is not a matter of

dispute.Whether law laid in Uma Devi (supra) allow the

management to discriminate the claimant from Smt. Javitri

w/o Shri Madan Lal, Shri Ranbir Singh and Shri Kishan and

various others, who were junior to him and placed on similar

pedestal? Such a proposition was considered by the Apex

Court in Pooran Chandra Pandey [2007 (12) Scale 304],

wherein it was announced that precedent in Uma Devi

(supra) cannot be applied mechanically without considering

facts of a particular case. In Uma Devi it was ruled that a

person, who entered the governemnt service dehors rules

cannot claim as right for continuance or regularization of

service. However, the said decision nowhere speaks of a

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

121

case where regularization in service has been sought in

pursuance of fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14

of the Constitution. In Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra)

there were two sets of employees who were daily wagers,

that is (i) the original employees of the U.P. State Electricity

Board and (ii) the employees of the society, who

subsequently became employees of the Electricity Board.

The High Court ruled that there was no ground for

discriminating between the two sets of employees. When

issue reached the Apex Court it was ruled that since the

parties were all appointed in the society before 4th of May,

1990, they cannot be denied benefti of the decision of the

Electricity Board dated 28th of November, 1996, permitting

regularization of the employees of the Electricity Board

who were working from before 4-5-1990. It was announced

that to take a contrary view would violate Article 14 of the

Constitution. The courts cannot read Uma Devi case in a

manner which will make it in conflict with Article 14 of the

Constitution. Thus the Apex Court made it clear in Pooran

Chandra Pandey (supra) that when regularization is to be

ordered in pursuance of Article 14 of the Constitution

precedent laid down in Uma Devi will not come in between.

27. Relying law laid in Pooran Chandra Pandey

(supra), it is announced that it does not lie in the mouth of

the management to seek refuse in principles of law laid in

Uma Devi with a view to deny equality to the claimant.

Therefore, it is commanded that claimant Jai Parkash be

regularized in service by the management on the same

standards on which Smt. Javitri w/o Shri Madan Lal, Shri

Ranbir and Shri Kishan were regularized. He would be

regularized from the date whenever vacancy was available

for him and in any eventuality not latter than 19-9-1989,

when his juniors were regularized. An Award is, accordingly,

passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for

publication.

Dated: 29-10-2010

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 10 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 73-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lh ih MCY;w Mh

ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp] vuqca/

esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esas dsUæh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k

ua- 1] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 33@2010) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 10&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42011@24@2010&vkbZ vkj(Mh ;w)º

tksgu rksiuks] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 10th December, 2010

S.O. 73.— In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. 33/2010) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-No.1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the

industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of CPWD and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 10-12-2010.

[ No. L-42011/24/2010-IR (DU)]

JOHAN TOPNO, Under Secy.

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL- NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DEHI

I.D. No. 33/2010

Shri Dhanpal Sharma, Operator (Retd).,

C/o All India CPWD(MRM) Karamchari Sangathan,

House No. 483, Gali No. 13, Balbir Nagar Extension,

Shahdara, Delhi-110032. Workman

Versus

The Superintending Engineer (Elect.),

CPWD, Outer Delhi Elect. Circle,

East Block-1, R.K. Puram,

New Delhi. Management

AWARD

To ensure at least one promotion to Group ‘C’ and

‘D’ employees a scheme was introduced vide OM No. F.No.

10(1)/E/III/88, Department of Expenditure, Ministry of

Finance, Government of India, New Delhi dated 13th of

September, 1991, which scheme was applicable to (i)

employees who are directly recruited to a group ‘‘C’ or

group ‘‘D” post (ii) employees whose pay on appointment

to such a post, is fixed at the maxima of the scale, and (iii)

employees who have not been promoted on regular basis

even after one year on reaching maxima of the scale of

such post. The scheme, so formulated, have following basic

features :—

(a) Grade ‘‘C” and ‘‘D” employees who fulfil the

conditions mentioned at (i), (ii) and (iii) above will be

considered for promotion in situ to the next higher

scale. (b) Promotion in situ will be allowed after

following due process of promotion with reference

to seniority-cum-fitness.

next higher scale available to them in the normal line/

hierachy of promotion. Promotions made on the basis

of a qualifying or competitive department examination

or subject to possessing or acquiring higher

qualifications will not be treated as promotions in

the normal line/hierarchy for the purpose of these

instructions. In cases where no promotional grade is

available, promotional scale will be decided by the

Ministry of Finance. The promotional grade in case

122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of Staff Car Drivers in the scale of Rs. 950-20-1150-

EB-25-1500 will be Rs. 1200-30-1440-EB-30-1800.

(d) Group ‘D’ employees will retain the benefit of

retirement at 60 years even after they are promoted

in situ to the scale of Rs. 825-15-900-EB-20-1200. On

promotion in situ to any higher group

‘C’ scale, the retirement age of 58 will apply.

(e) In case recruitment to any category of posts

(Group ‘C’ or ‘D’) is made both by direct recruitment

and by promotion, a promotee will be considered for

promotion in situ from the date a direct recruit, junior

to him in that cadre becomes eligible for in situ

promotion even though in his case (in case of

promotee) it will be the second promotion. Similarly,

a direct recruit who was not fixed at the minimum of

the scale at the time of appointment will also be

considered for promotion in situ from the date a direct

recruit junior to him and fixed at the minimum of the

scale becomes eligible for promotion.

(f) Employees given promotion in situ will continue

to be borne on the seniority list of the lower cadre/

post and will be considered for functional promotion

against available vacancies as per provisions of the

Recruitment Rules.

(g) Even though promotion under this scheme, which

is in situ, may not involve assumption of higher duties

and responsibilities, the benefit of FR 22(1) (a)(1)(Old,

FR 22-C) will be allowed while fixing his pay on

promotion as a special dispensation. However, such

benefit will not be allowed again at the time of

functional promotion in the same scale.

(h) In case of Group ‘D’ employees, the stagnation

increment(s), being drawn will be taken into account

in fixation of pay in the event of promotion in situ

under the scheme as a one time dispensation.

2. A dispute relating to interpretation of clause (e)

referred above has been raised by the parties in the present

controversy. As borne out of the record claimant was

granted in situ promotion w.e.f. June, 1998 in the scale of

Rs. 4000-6000 , which promotion was withdrawn by the

Central Public Works Department (hereinafter referred to

as the management) on 4th of September, 2008. Recovery

was effected from the claimant, who made payment of the

recovery amount under protest. He raised an industrial

dispute in that regard before the Conciliation Officer

through All India CPWD (MRM) Karamchari Sangathan

(hereinafter referred to as the Union). Since the management

did not give up its stand, the conciliation proceedings

failed. On consideration of the failure report submitted by

the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government

referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide

order No. L-42011/24/2010-IR(DU), New Delhi dated

20-6-2010, with the following terms:

‘‘Whether the demand by All India CPWD (MRM)

Karamchari Sangathan for grant of in situ promotion

w.e.f. 1-6-1998 to Shri Dhanpal Sharma by the

management of Superintending Engineer (Elect.),

CPWD, is legal and justified? If yes, what relief the

workman is entilled to?”

3. Claim statement was filed pleading therein that

Shri Dhanpal Sharma was initially appointed as Khalasi

with the management on 9-8-66. He was promoted to the

post of Assistant Operator on 8-6-90, in the scale of Rs. 85-

110. On implementation of the Arbitration Award 1988 Asstt.

categories were merged with the main categories and

consequent to that merger Shri Dhanpal Sharma became

an operator. He became eligible for grant of selection grade

w.e.f 1-1-81 in the pay scale of Rs. 330-480, which was

revised to Rs. 1200-1800 and subsequently revised to Rs.

4000-6000. He was eligible for A.C.P. w.e.f. 9th of August,

1999. He was granted in situ promotion vide order dated

20-2-08. w. e.f. 1-6-98. His in situ promotion was withdrawn

vide order dated 4-2-08, since the management wrongly

construed clause (e) of the scheme, referred above. He

projects that though juniors to him have been granted in

situ promotion, hence action of the management

withdrawing his promotion is arbitrary and unjustified. He

superannuated from the service of the management w.e.f.

31-1-2006. He claims that in situ promotion may be granted

to him w.e.f. 1-6-98 to 8-8-99, second ACP may be granted

to him w.e.f. 9-8-99 and thereafter he may be granted pay

scale recommended by Sixth Central Pay Commission,

besides benefits of pay fixation.

4. In its written statement the management does not

dispute appointment of Shri Dhanpal as Khalasi w.e.f.

9-8-66 and his promotion to the post of assistant operator

on 8-6-70. It is also not disputed that assistant operator

category was merged with operator w.e.f. 1-1-73, in

pursuance of Arbitration Award 1988. It is also not disputed

that the claimant superannuated from services on 31-1-06.

It has been pleaded that claimant was granted in situ

promotion inadvertantly w.e.f. 1-6-98, in the pay scale of

Rs. 4000-6000. The mistake, so committed, was rectified

vide order dated 2-9-88, since the claimant did not fulfil the

criteria laid down in the scheme. It has been projected that

the employees who have got one promotion are not eligible

for grant of in situ promotion unless situation detailed in

clause (e) of the scheme referred above occurs. It has been

projected that the claimant was granted second ACP in the

pay scale of Rs. 3200-4900 vide order dated 20-2-2008 w.e.f.

9-8-99. When in situ promotion was withdrawn he was

directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 2537 vide letter dated

4-2-2009, which amount has been deposited by him vide

receipt dated 27-10-2009. It has been pleaded that claim put

forward by Shri Dhanpal Sharma is not maintainable, hence

it may be dismissed.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 1] 2011@ikS"k 11] 1932

123

5. Claimant has examined himself in support of his

claim. Shri Hem Parkash,Executive Engineer, appeared in

the witness box on behalf of the management. No other

witness was examined by either of the parties.

6. Arguments were heard at the bar Shri Satish Kumar

Sharma, athorised representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the claimant. Shri Hem Parkash, Executive

Engineer, raised submissions on behalf of the management.

I have given my careful considerations to the arguments

advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record.

My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as

follows:-

7. Shri Dhanpal testified that he was appointed as

khalasi in Hindon Central Electrical Division of the

Management on 9-8-66, He was promoted to the post of

assistant operator on 8th of June, 1970, in the scale of Rs.

85-110. On 8-6-77 he reached maxima of the time scale of

Rs. 3050-4590. Arbitration Award 1988 came in force and

on the strength of the said award all posts of assistant

category were merged with full category w.e.f. of January,

1973. In pursuance of the said award, he was granted merger

with the post of operator w.e.f. 1-1-73 and all benefits were

accorded to him. On 10th of March, 2008 he was granted in

situ promotion w.e.f. 1-6-98 in the scale of Rs. 4000-6000.

On 4th of September, 2008 in situ promotion was withdrawn,

vide order dated 4-9-2008, copy of which order is Ex. WW1/

1. Baljeet Singh, Budh Singh and Kashmir Singh, who were

appointed as assistant operator directly and junior to him,

were granted in situ promotion in 1998, vide order dated

20-9-05, copy of which order is Ex. WW1/3. Their in situ

promotion was never withdrawn. On 9th of August, 99

A.C.P. was granted to him in the scale of Rs. 3200-4900,

vide order dated 10-3-2008, copy of which order is Ex. WW1/

4. Recovery of a sum of Rs. 3757 was effected from him

when his promotion was withdrawn. He deposited that

money under protest. He is entitled to insitu promotion as

well as fixation in 6th Central Pay Commission.

8. Shri Hem Parkash unfolds that claimant was not

entitled for in situ promotion, since he did not comply

conditions mentioned in scheme Ex. WW1/M1. His in situ

promotion was withdrawn, vide order dated 2-9-08, copy

of which is Ex. MW1/1. However, he does not dispute that

Baljit Singh, Budh Singh and Kashmir Singh, who were

direct appointee and juniors to the claimant, were granted

in situ promotion which was never withdrawn.

9. When facts unfolded by the witnesses referred

above are appreciated it came to light that Baljit Singh,

Budh Singh and Kashmir Singh, who were direct appointee

and juniors to the claimant, were granted in situ promotion

which was never withdrawn. Therefore, it is evident that

though direct recruits who were junior to the claimant were

granted in situ promotion, yet promotion of the claimant

was withdrawn on the ground that he does not fulfil

requirements laid down in the scheme, referred above. It

has been agitated that the claimant got one promotion and

was not eligible for in situ promotion under the scheme. It

is emerging over the record that the management became

oblivious of the fact that juniors to the claimant were

granted in situ promotion. Clause (e) of the scheme referred

above makes it clear that where recruitment to any category

of post (group ‘‘C” or ‘‘D”) is made both by direct

recruitment and promotion, a promotee will be considered

for promotion in situ from the date a direct recruit junior to

him in that category becomes eligible for in situ promotion,

even though in the case of the promotee it may be his

second promotion. As conceded by Shri Hem Parkash, Baljit

Singh, Budh Singh and Kashmir Singh, who were direct

appointee and juniors to the claimant were granted in situ

promotion vide order dated 20-9-95 which is Ex. WW1/3.

10. Perusal of Ex. WW1/3 makes it clear that Shri Baljit

Singh and Budh Singh were granted in situ promotion w.e.f

. 1-1-98 while Shri Kashmir Singh was granted in situ

promotion w.e.f. 1st of June, 1998. All of them are direct

appointee, who were juniors to the claimant. Therefore,

claimant was entitled for in situ promotion from 1st of January

1998, the date when Baljit Singh and Budh Singh were

granted in situ promotion. Scheme became applicable

to his case, when juniors were granted in situ promotion.

Contention made by the management is untenable in that

regard.

11. Order No. 19/17/2010-ECX, New Delhi dated 29th

of October, 2010 was passed by Section Officer, Directorate

General of Works of the management wherein it was

conceded that the claimant was entitled for benefit of

in situ promotion w.e.f. January, 1998. On the strength of

the said order,it became evident that the management

concedes the claim put forward by Shri Dhanpal Sharma

for in situ promotion. In view of these facts it is evident

that Dhanpal Sharma is entitled for in situ promotion w.e.f.

1-1-98. Consequently it is apparent that demand raised by

the Union for grant of in situ promotion to Dhanpal Sharma

w.e.f. 1-6-98 is legal and justified.

12. Claimant Dhanpal Sharma is entitled for insitu

promotion w.e.f. 1-1-98, the date when Shri Baljit Singh and

Budh Singh his juniors were granted in situ promotion.

The management is commanded to grant in situ promotion

to the claimant w.e.f. 1st of January, 1998, besides

implementation of Sixth Central Pay Commission in his case.

An award is accordingly passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 02-11-2010

ubZ fnYyh] 14 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 74-—deZpkjh jkT; chek vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948

dk 34) dh /kjk&1 dh mi /kjk&(3) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk 01 tuojh] 2011 dks ml

rkjh[k ds :i esa fu;r djrh gS] ftldks mDr vf/fu;e ds

124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 1, 2011/PAUSA 11, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vè;k;&4 (44 o 45 /kjk ds flok; tks igys ls izo`Ùk gks pqdh gS)

vè;k;&5 vkSj 6 ¹/kjk &76 dh mi /kjk&(1) vkSj /kjk&77] 78]

79 vkSj 81 ds flok; tks igys gh izo`Ùk dh tk pqdh gSº ds mica/

rfeyukMq jkT; ds fuEufyf[kr {ks=kksa esa izo`Ùk gksaxs] vFkkZr~ %

dsUæ

fuEu {ks=k ds varxZr vkus

okys jktLo xkWo

dkaphiqje ftyk ds

(d) fl:ekaxkMq

lqaxqokj lfÙkje]

([k) lUnosYywj

Jhis:Eiqnwj rkyqd

(x) fr:eaxye

(?k) lqaxqokj lfÙkje

¹la[;k&,l&38013@43@2010&,l ,l&1º

,l- Mh- tsfo;j] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th December, 2010

S.O. 74 .— In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees’ State

Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government

hereby appoints the 1st January, 2011 as the date on

which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44

and 45 which have already been brought into force) and

Chapter-V and VI [except Sub-Section (1) of Section 76

and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been

brought into force] of the said Act shall come into force

in the following areas in the State of Tamil Nadu

namely :—

Centre

Areas Comprising the

Revenue Villages of

Sunguvarchatram

(a) Sirumangadu

Sriperumbudur Taluk,

(b) Sandhavellore

Kancheepuram District

(d) Sunguvarchatram

[ No. S- 38013/43/2010-SS-I]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press, Ring Road, Mayapuri, New Delhi-110064

and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi-110054.