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

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

¬˝ÊÁœ∑§Ê⁄U ‚ ¬˝∑§ÊÁ‡ÊÃ

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

‚ÊåÃÊÁ„U∑§

WEEKLY

la- 4]

ubZ fnYyh, tuojh 16—tuojh 22] 2011] 'kfuokj@ikS"k 26—ek?k 2] 1932

No. 4]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 16—JANUARY 22, 2011, SATURDAY/PAUSA 26—MAGHA 2, 1932

ß‚ ÷Êª ◊¥ ÁèÊãŸ ¬Îc∆U ‚¢ÅÿÊ ŒË ¡ÊÃË „ÒU Á¡‚‚ Á∑§ ÿ„U ¬ÎÕ∑§ ‚¢∑§‹Ÿ ∑§ M§¬ ◊¥ ⁄UπÊ ¡Ê ‚∑§

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

÷Êª IIóπá«U xó©U¬-πá«U (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] 11 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 196-—n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 (1974 dk

vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnz ljdkj Hkkjr ds vij lkWyhlhVj tujy

Jh gfju ih- jkoy dks dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks ekeyk la- vkjlh

8(,l)@1992@,lvkbZ;w&V@,lvkbZlh&II@ubZ fnYyh vkSj vkjlh 1

(,l)@1993 ls 48 (,l)@,lvkbZlh&IV@ubZ fnYyh&&v;ksè;k ds

lkewfgd ekeys esa vfHk;kstu lapkfyr djus ds fy, fo'ks"k yksd

vfHk;kstd ds :i esa ,rn~}kjk fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹la- 225@41@2010&,ohMh&IIº

vkj-ds- xqIrk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 11th January, 2011

S. O. 196.—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 Harin P. Raval,

62 GI/2011

(649)

Additional Solicitor General of India as Special Public Pros-

ecutor for conducting prosecution in CBI case No. RC 8

(S)/1992/SIU-V/SIC--II/New Delhi and RC. 1 (S)/1993 to 48

(S)/SIC.IV/ New Delhi Ayodhya Group of cases.

[No. 225/41/2010-AVD-II]

R. K. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 197-—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, vle jkT; ljdkj] jktuhfrd (,) foHkkx]

fnliqj dh vf/lwpuk la- ih,y, 222@2010@103 fnukad 17 flracj]

2010 }kjk izkIr lgefr ls vle jkT; ds ,u-lh- fgYl ftyk

(vc nhek glkoks ftyk) esa izfriwjd ou jksi.k ds fy, o"kZ] 2008

esa ioZrh; Lok;Ùk ifj"kn dks uS'kuy gkbZos vFkkWjVh }kjk vkoafVr

fuf/ ds voS/ LFkkukarj.k] fudklh vkSj nq£ofu;ksx ds laca/ esa

Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/fu;e] 1988 (1988 dk vf/fu;e la- 49)

dh /kjk 13 (2)] 13(1) (Mh) lifBr Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860

(1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 120 (ch)] 406 vkSj 409

ds v/hu lhvkbZMh ih,l ekeyk la- 46@2010 ds vUos"k.k ds

fy, vkSj mi;qZDr iz;klksa] nq"izsj.kksa rFkk "kM~;a=kksa ;k blh laO;ogkj

650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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 ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa rFkk

{ks=kkf/dkj dk foLrkj ,rn~}kjk lEiw.kZ vle jkT; ds lEcU/ esa

djrh gS A

¹la- 228@70@2010&,ohMh&IIº

vkj-ds- xqIrk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 12th January, 2011

S. O. 197.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

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

State Government of Assam, Political (A) Department,

Dispur vide Notification No. PLA. 222/2010/103 dated 17th

September 2010, hereby extends the powers and

jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of Assam for

investigation of CID PS Case No. 46/2010 under sections

120-B, 406 and 409 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No.

45 of 1860) read with Section 13 (2), 13 (1) (d) of the

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

relating to illegal transfer, withdrawal and misappropria-

tion of funds allocated by National Highway Authority of

India in the year 2008 to N.C. Hills Autonomous Council

for compensatory afforestation in N.C. Hills District (Now

Dima Hasao District) of the State of Assam and attempts,

abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in connection

with above mentioned offences and any other offence/

offences committed in the course of same transaction

arising out of same facts.

[No. 228/70/2010-AVD-II]

R. K. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 198-—n.M izfØ;k lafgrk] 1973 (1974 dh

vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&/kjk (8) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa

dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj dsjy mPp U;k;ky; esa fnYyh

fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk }kjk vUosf"kr ekeyksa esa ls mn~Hkwr ekeyksa dk

lapkyu djus gsrq Jh ih- pUnz'ks[kj fiYyS] vf/oDrk dks ,ukZdqye

fLFkr dsjy mPp U;k;ky; esa dsUnzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks ds fo'ks"k

ljdkjh vfHk;kstd ds :i esa ,rn~}kjk fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹la- 225@7@2010&,ohMh&IIº

vkj-ds- xqIrk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 13th January, 2011

S. O. 198.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

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

hereby appoints Shri P. Chandrasekhara Pillai, Advocate,

as Special Public Prosecutor of the Central Bureau of

Investigation in the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam for

conducting the cases arising out of the cases investigated

by the Delhi Special Police Establishment in the High Court

of Kerala.

[No. 225/7/2010-AVD-II]

R. K. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 14 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 199-—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk vijk/ izfØ;k

lafgrk] 1973 (1974 dk vf/fu;e la- 2) dh /kjk 24 dh mi&

/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fnYyh fo'ks"k

iqfyl LFkkiuk (lhchvkbZ) }kjk laLFkkfir ekeyksa ds vfHk;kstu ds

fy, mÙkjk[kaM jkT; lfgr lEiw.kZ mÙkj izns'k jkT; esa fof/ }kjk

LFkkfir ijh{k.k U;k;ky;ksa vkSj iqujh{k.k vFkok vihyh; U;k;ky;ksa

esa bu ekeyksa dh vihyksa] iqujh{k.kksa vFkok bu ekeyksa ls mn~Hkwr

vU; ekeyksa dk lapkyu djus ds fy, Jh gfjvkse fexykuh]

vf/oDrk dks yksd vfHk;kstd ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹la- 225@36@2010&,ohMh IIº

vkj-ds- xqIrk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 14th January, 2011

S. O. 199.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal

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

Government hereby appoints Shri Hari Om Miglani,

Advocate in Central Bureau of Investigation as Public

Prosecutor for conducting the prosecution of cases in the

entire State of Uttar Pradesh in addition to the State of

Uttarakhand instituted by the Delhi Special Police

Establishment (CBI) in trial courts and appeals, revisions

or other matters arising out of these cases in revisional or

appellate Courts, established by law.

[ No. 225/36/2010-AVD-II]

R. K. GUPTA, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 200-—Hkkjrh; LVsV cSad (leuq"kaxh cSad)

vf/fu;e] 1959 dh /kjk 26 dh mi/kjk 2(d) ds lkFk

ifBr /kjk 25 dh mi/kjk (1) ds [k.M (x d) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh Mh-ds-

tSu (tUe frfFk %) 20&09&1955)] ¯lxy ¯oMks vkijsVj] LVsV

cSad vkiQ chdkusj ,aM t;iqj dks vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls rhu

o"kks± dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok LVsV cSad vkiQ chdkusj ,aM t;iqj

ds deZdkj deZpkjh ds :i esa muds inHkkj NksM+ nsus rd vFkok

vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] LVsV cSad vkiQ

chdkusj ,aM t;iqj ds funs'kd e.My esa deZdkj deZpkjh funs'kd

ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹iQk-la- 8@8@2009&chvks&Iº

lqferk Mkojk] funs'kd

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Department of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 12th January, 2011

S. O. 200.—In pursuance of the clause (ca) of sub-

section (1) of Section 25 read with sub-section (2A) of

Section 26 of the State Bank of India (Subsidiary Banks)

Act, 1959, the Central Government hereby appoints

Shri D. K. Jain, (DoB : 20-09-1955), Single Window Opera-

tor, State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, as Workmen Employee

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

651

Director on the Board of Directors of State Bank of Bikaner

& Jaipur for a period of three years from the date of

notification or till he ceases to be a workmen employee of

the State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur, or until further orders,

whichever is the earliest.

[ No. 8/8/2009-BO-I]

SUMITA DAWRA, Director

lwpuk vkSj izlkj.k ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 201-—dsanz ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mifu;e

(4) ds vuqlj.k esa] vkdk'kok.kh egkfuns'kky;] ubZ fnYyh (lwpuk

vkSj izlkj.k ea=kky;) ds fuEufyf[kr v/huLFk dsanz@dk;kZy;]

ftlds 80» ls vf/d deZpkjho`Un us ¯gnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku

izkIr dj fy;k gS] dks vf/lwfpr djrh gS %&

1- vkdk'kok.kh] fr#ifr

¹iQk- la- bZ&11017@6@2010&¯gnhº

fiz;Eonk] funs'kd (jk-Hkk-)

MINISTRY OF INFORMATION AND

BROADCASTING

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S. O. 201.—In pursuance of Sub-Rule (4) of Rule

10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of

the Union) Rules, 1976, the Central Government hereby

notifies the following office under Directorate General of

All India Radio, New Delhi (Ministry of Information and

Boradcasting) more than 80% of the staff whereof have

acquired the working knowledge of Hindi :-

1. All India Radio, Tirupati

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

PRIYAMVADA, Director (O. L.)

lapkj ea=kky;

(Mkd foHkkx)

dkfydV] 7 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 202-—dsanz ljdkj] ds foHkkxh; tk¡p (lk{kh

mifLFkfr izorZu ,oa nLrkostksa dk izLrqrhdj.k) vf/fu;e] 1972

(1972 ds 18) ds rgr [k.M 4 dh mi[k.M (2) }kjk iznÙk vf/&

dkjksa ds iz;ksx ls ;g fofu£n"V fd;k tkrk gS fd Jherh ch- lq/k]

izca/d] jk"Vªh; LihM iksLV lsaVj] Jh eksgEen jiQh] iksLVeSu]

dkfydV esfMdy dkWyst ds fo#¼ foHkkxh; tk¡p esa mi;qZDr

vf/fu;e ds [k.M 4 ds mi[k.M (1) ds rgr Hkkjr ljdkj }kjk

fn;s x;s vf/dkjksa dk iz;ksx djus gsrq l{ke izkf/dkjh gSa A

¹la- vkbZ ,u oh@fofo/@eksgEen jiQh@2010º

gsear dqekj 'kekZ] iksLVekLVj tujy

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS

(Department of Posts)

Calicut, the 7th January, 2011

S. O. 202.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Departmental Inquiries

(Enforcement of Attendance of Witnesses and Produc-

tion of Documents) Act, 1972 (18 of 1972), the Central

Government hereby specifies that Smt. B. Sudha

Manager National Speed Post Centre as an authority to

exercise the power conferred on the Central Government

by sub section (1) of Section 4 of the said Act in respect of

Sri Mohammed Rafi, Postman, Calicut Medical College

against whom a Departmental inquiry is being held.

[No. INV/Misc/Mohd. Rafi/2010]

H. K. SHARMA, Postmaster General

LokLF; ,oa ifjokj dY;k.k ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 203-—dsanz ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e]

1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e ds vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] uker%&

2- ikafMpsjh fo'ofo|ky;] iqMqpsjh }kjk iznku dh tk jgh

nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar fpfdRlk

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 ds laca/

esa Øe la[;k 44 ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa

esa blds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k

tk,xk %&

bafnjk xka/h nar fpfdRlk foKku laLFkku] iqM~Mqpsjh

¶nar fpfdRlk ltZjh esa cSpyj

Mh ,l]

(;fn fnukad 19&8&2010

ikafMpsjh fo'ofo|ky;]

dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh

iqM~Mqpsjh**

xbZ gks)

¹iQk- la- oh-&12017@15@2005&Mh bZº

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2010

S. O. 203.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16

of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with

the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following

amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act,

namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against

Serial No. 44, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental

degrees awarded by Pondicherry University, Puducherry,

the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

‘‘Indira Gandhi Institute of Dental Sciences, Puducherry

652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Pondicherry

(if granted on or after 19-8-2010

University,

Puducherry”

[F. No. V. 12017/15/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 2 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 204-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e]

1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e ds vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] uker%&

2- egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld }kjk iznku

dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar

fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1

esa Øe la[;k 60 ds IV ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwn

izfof"V;ksa esa blds i'pkr~ ljdkjh nar fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; vkSj

vLirky] vkSjaxkckn] egkjk"Vª ds ckjs esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks

var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %&

^^izksLFkksMksafVDl ,aM Økmu

,e Mh ,l (izksLFkks-)]

,aM fczt(;fn fnukad

egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'o&

25&6&2010) dks ;k mlds

fo|ky;] ukfld¸

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks)

¹iQk- la- oh-&12018@2@2009&Mh- bZ-º

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 2nd December, 2010

S. O. 204.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation

with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the

following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the

said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against IV

of Serial No. 60 in respect of Government Dental College

and Hospital, Aurangabad, Maharashtra, in Part-I of the

Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining

to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Maharashtra

University of Health Sciences, Nashik, the following

entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

“Prosthodontics and

MDS, (Prostho.), Maharashtra

Crown & Bridge

University of Health Sciences,

(if Granted on or after

Nashik”

25-6-2010)

[ F. No. V-12018/2/2009-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 205-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e]

1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e ds vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] uker%&

2- jktLFkku LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj }kjk iznku

dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar

fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1

esa Øe la[;k 72 ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwn izfof"V;ksa esa

blds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %&

^^VI O;kl nar fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; rFkk vLirky tks/iqj

^^ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

(1) nar 'kY; fpfdRlk Lukrd

ch Mh ,l]

(;fn fnukad 21&9&2010 dks ;k

jktLFkku LokLF; foKku

mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ) A

fo'ofo|ky;] t;iqj**

¹iQk- la- oh-&12017@79@2005&Mh- bZ-º

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2010

S. O. 205.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation

with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the

following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the

said Act, namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against

Serial No. 72, in Part -I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental

degrees awarded by Rajasthan University of Health

Sciences, Jaipur, the following entries shall be inserted

thereunder :—

“VI. Vyas Dental College

& Hospital, Jodhpur

(i) Bachelor of Dental

BDS, Rajasthan University

Surgery

of Health Sciences,

(if Granted on or after

Jaipur.”

21-9-2010)

[ F. No. V. 12017/79/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 206-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e]

1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e ds vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] uker%&

2- Hkkjr fo'ofo|ky;] psÂbZ }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar

fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar fpfdRlk

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa

Jh ckykth nar fpfdRlk dkWyst ,oa vLirky] psÂbZ ds laca/ esa

Øe la[;k 64 ds lkeus dWkye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa

blds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %&

^^(VI) isMksMksafVDl ,aM izhosfUVo

,e Mh ,l (isMksMksafVDl)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

653

MsafVLVªh (;fn fnukad

Hkkjr fo'ofo|ky;] psÂbZ**

30&3&2010) dks ;k mlds

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks)

¹iQk- la- oh-&12017@44@2006&Mh- bZ-º

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2010

S. O. 206.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation

with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the

following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the

said Act, namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against I

of Serial No. 64 in respect of Sree Balaji Dental College &

Hospital Chennai, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Den-

tists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of

dental degrees awarded by Bharat University, Chennai,

the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

“(VI) Paedodontics and

MDS, (Paedo.), Bharat

Preventive Dentistry

University Chennai’’

(if granted on or after

30-3-2010)

[ F. No. V-12017/44/2006-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 207-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e]

1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e ds vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] uker%&

2- MkW- ,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k]

vka/z izns'k }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk

nsus ds ckjs esa nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh

vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa Øe la[;k 50 ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh

ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa blds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks

var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %&

^^XVII th- iqYyk jsM~Mh nar

fpfdRlk dkyst ,oa vLirky]

dquZwy vka/z izns'k

nar fpfdRlk ltZjh esa

ch Mh ,l] MkW- ,u Vh vkj

cSpyj (;fn fnukad

LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

31&7&2010) dks ;k mlds

fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k A¸

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks)

¹iQk- la- oh-&12017@36@2003&Mh- bZ-º

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2010

S. O. 207.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation

with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the

following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the

said Act, namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against

Serial No. 50 in Part -I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental de-

grees awarded by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,

Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh,the following entries shall

be inserted thereunder :-

‘‘XVII. G. Pulla Reddy Dental

College & Hospital, Kurnool,

Andhra Pradesh

Bachelor of Dental

BDS, Dr. NTR University of

Surgery

Health Sciences, Vijayawada,

(if granted on or after

Andhra Pradesh’’

31-07-2010)

[ F. No. V-12017/36/2003-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 208-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e]

1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e ds vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] uker%&

2- MkW- ,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] fot;okM+k]

vka/z izns'k }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk

nsus ds ckjs esa nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh

vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa Øe la[;k 50 ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh

ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa blds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks

var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %&

^^XVIII es?kuk nar fpfdRlk

foKku laLFkku] futkekckn]

vka/z izns'k

nar fpfdRlk ltZjh esa

ch Mh ,l] MkW- ,u Vh vkj

cSpyj (;fn fnukad

LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;]

4&8&2010 dks ;k mlds

fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k A¸

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks)

¹iQk- la- oh-&12017@39@2003&Mh- bZ-º

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2010

S. O. 208.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation

with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the

following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the

said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against

Serial No. 50 in Part -I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental de-

grees awarded by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences,

Vijayawada, Andhra Pradesh,the following entries shall

be inserted thereunder :-

654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

’’XVIII. Meghna Institute of Dental

Sciences,, Nizamabad, Andhra Pradesh

Bachelor of Dental

BDS, Dr. NTR University of

Surgery

Health Sciences, Vijayawada,

(if granted on or after

Andhra Pradesh’’

04-08-2010)

[ F. No. V. 12017/39/2003-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 209-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e]

1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e ds vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] uker%&

2- dsjy fo'ofo|ky;] fr:ouUriqje] dsjy }kjk iznku

dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar

fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1

esa Øe la[;k 14 ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa

blds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %&

^^III vthft;k MsaVy foKku

dkWyst vkSj vuqla/ku]dksyke

dsjy

nar 'kY; fpfdRlk

ch Mh ,l] dsjy fo'ofo|ky;

Lukrd (;fn fnukad

fr:ouUriqje] dsjy**

24&9&2010) dks ;k mlds

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks)

¹iQk- la- oh-&12017@29@2004&Mh- bZ-º

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2010

S. O. 209.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation

with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the

following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the

said Act, namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against

Serial No. 14 in Part -I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental de-

grees

awarded

University

Kerala,

Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala, the following entries shall

be inserted thereunder :-

‘‘III. Azeezia College of Dental

Sciences & Research, Kollam, Kerala

Bachelor of Dental

BDS, University of Kerala

Surgery

Thiruvananthapuram,

(if granted on or after

Kerala’’

24-9-2010)

[ F. No. V. 12017/29/2004-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 210-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e]

1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls

ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e ds vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr

la'kks/u djrh gS] uker%&

2- nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;] bankSj }kjk iznku dh tk jgh

nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar fpfdRlk

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa Øe

la[;k 26 ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa blds

i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %&

^^II ekMZu nar fpfdRlk

egkfo'ofo|ky; ,aM fjlpZ lsaVj bankSj

ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

(VIII) isMksMksafVDl ,aM

,e Mh ,l] (isMksMksafVDl ,aM

izhosfUVo MsafVLVªh

izhosfUVo MsafVLVªh )

(;fn fnukad 21&5&2010

nsoh vfgY;k fo'ofo|ky;]

dks ;k mlds ckn iznku dh

bankSj¸

xbZ gks)

¹iQk- la- oh-&12017@13@2005&Mh- bZ-º

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2010

S. O. 210.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation

with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the

following amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the

said Act, namely :-

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against

Serial No. 26 in Part -I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act,

1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental de-

grees awarded by Devi Ahiliya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore,

,the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

‘‘II. Modern Dental College &

Research Centre, Indore

Master of Dental Surgery

(viii) Paedodontices and

MDS, (Paedodontics and

Preventive Dentistry

Preventive Dentistry)

(if granted on or after

Devi Ahiliya

21-5-2010)

Vishwavidyalaya, Indore’’

[ F. No. V. 12017/13/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

655

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 211-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh

gS] uker% %—

2- egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo Üofo|ky;] ukfld] egkjk"Vª }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa

nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa Øe la[;k 60 ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwn izfof"V;ksa esa

blds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %—

¶XXII oh ,l ih ,e nar fpfdRlk egkfo|ky; ,oa vuqla/ku laLFkku_ ukxiqj

ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

(i)

izksLFkksMksafVDl ,aM Økmu ,aM fczt

,e- Mh- ,l- (izksLFkksMkasfVDl ,aM Økmu ,aM fczt)] egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku

(;fn fnukad 6&7&2010 dks ;k mlds

fo Üofo|ky;] ukfld A

i'pkr iznku dh xbZ gS A)

(ii)

vksjy ,aM eSDlhyksiQsfl;y ltZjh

,e- Mh- ,l- (vksjy ,aM eSDlhyksiQsfl;y ltZjh) egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku

(;fn fnukad 25&6&2010 dks ;k mlds

fo Üofo|ky;] ukfld A

ckn iznku dh xbZ gS A)

(iii)

vksFkksZMksafVDl rFkk MsaVksiQsfl;y vksFkksZisafMDl

,e- Mh- ,l- (vksFkksZMksafVDl rFkk MsaVksiQsfl;y vksFkksZisafMDl) egkjk"Vª

(;fn fnukad 29&6&2010 dks ;k mlds

LokLF; foKku fo Üofo|ky;] ukfld A¸

ckn iznku dh xbZ gS A)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@72@2005&Mh- bZ-º

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2010

S.O. 211.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948(16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in

Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against Serial No. 60, in part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik,

Maharashtra, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘XXII VSPM’s Dental College & Research Centre, Nagpur,

Master of Dental Surgery

(i)

Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge

MDS (Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge),

(if granted on or after 6-7-2010)

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik.

(ii)

Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery

MDS (Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery),

(if granted on or after 25-6-2010)

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik.

(iii)

Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics

MDS (Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics),

(if granted on or after 29-6-2010)

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik.

[F. No.V-12017/72/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 212-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u

djrh gS] uker% %—

2- jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo Üofo|ky;] caxykSj] dukZVd }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs

esa nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa MkW- ';keyk jsM~Mh nar fpfdRlk dkyst] vLirky ,oa

656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vuqla/ku dsUæ] caxykSj] dukZVd ds laca/ esa Øe la[;k 49 dh vuqlwph XXVIII ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa blds

i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %—

^^izksLFkksMksafVDl ,aM Økmu ,aM fczt

,e- Mh- ,l- (izksLFkks-)] jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku fo Üofo|ky;]

(;fn fnukad 14&5&2010 dks ;k mlds

caxykSj] dukZVd**

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks A)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@49@2006&Mh- bZ-º

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2010

S. O. 212.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16

of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following

amendments in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against XXVIII of Serial No. 49, in respect of Dr. Syamala Reddy Dental

College, Hospital & Research Centre, Bangalore, Karnataka, in part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948)

pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka,

the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge

MDS (Prostho.), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

(if granted on or after 14-05-2010)

Sciences, (RGUOHS), Bangalore’’

[F. No.V-12017/49/2006-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 213-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u

djrh gS] uker% %—

2- egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo Üofo|ky;] ukfld] }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar

fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa Øe la[;k 60 ds VII ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa

esa blds i'pkr~ egkRek xka/h fo|k eafnj ds ch ,p nar fpfdRlk dkWyst ,oa vLirky] ukfld ds ckjs esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V

fd;k tk,xk %—

nar fpfdRlk ltZjh esa ekLVj

^^isfjvksMksaVksykWth

,e- Mh- ,l- (isfj-)

(;fn fnukad 6&7&2010 dks ;k mlds

egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld A

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks A)

vksjy esfMflu ,oa fofdj.k foKku

,e- Mh- ,l- (vksjy esfMflu)

(;fn fnukad 1&7&2010 dks ;k mlds

egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld A

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks A)

vksjy iSFkksykWth ,oa ekbØksck;ykWth

,e-Mh-,l-(vksjy iSFkksykWth)

(;fn fnukad 3&7&2010 dks ;k mlds

egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld A

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks A)

izksLFkksMksafVLd ,oa Økmu ,aM fczt

,e- Mh- ,l- (izksLFkks-)]

(;fn fnukad 29&6&2010 dks ;k mlds

egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld A

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks A)

vksFkksZMksafVDl ,oa MsaVksiQsfl;y ,oa vksFkksZisafMDl

,e- Mh- ,l- (vksFkksZ-)]

(;fn fnukad 25&6&2010 dks ;k mlds

egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld¸ A

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks A)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@127@2005&Mh- bZ-º

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

657

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2010

S. O. 213.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 0f 1948),

the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part-

I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against VII of Serial No. 60, in respect of Mahatma Gandhi Vidya

Mandir’s K. B. H. Dental College & Hospital Nashik, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948)

pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, the following

entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

Master of Dental Surgery

"Periodotology

MDS (Perio.), Maharastra University of Health

(if granted on or after 06-07-2010)

Sciences, Nashik

Oral Medicine & Radiology

MDS (Oral Medicine), Maharastra University of Health

(if granted on or after 01-07-2010)

Sciences, Nashik

Oral Pathology & Microbiology

MDS (Oral Path.), Maharastra University of Health

(if granted on or after 03-07-2010)

Sciences, Nashik

Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge

MDS (Prostho.), Maharastra University of Health

(if granted on or after 29-06-2010)

Sciences, Nashik

Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics

MDS (Ortho.), Maharastra University of Health

(if granted on or after 25-06-2010)

Sciences, Nashik’’

[F. No.V-12017/127/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 1 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 214-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nar fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u

djrh gS] uker %—

2- jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku] caxykSj] dukZVd }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar fpfdRlk

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa Øe la[;k 49 ds XXXV ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa

blds i'pkr~ jktkjkts'ojh nar dkWyst ,oa vLirky] caxykSj] dukZVd ds ckjs esa fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %—

^^vksFkksZMksafVDl ,aM MsaVksiQsfl;y vkFkksZisfMDl

,e- Mh- ,l- (vksFkksZ-)] jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku

(;fn fnukad 14&5&2010 dks ;k mlds

fo Üofo|ky;] caxykSj

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks A)

ihfj;ksMksaVksykWth

,e- Mh- ,l- (ihfj;ks-)] jktho xka/h LokLF; foKku

(;fn fnukad 14&5&2010 dks ;k mlds

fo'ofo|ky;] caxykSj

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks A)

vksjy ,aM esDlhyksiQsfl;y ltZjh

,e- Mh- ,l- (vksjy ltZjh)] jktho xka/h LokLF;

(;fn fnukad 14&5&2010 dks ;k mlds

foKku fo'ofo|ky;] caxykSj¸

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks A)

¹iQk- la- oh- 12017@55@2005&Mh- bZ-º

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 1st December, 2010

S. O. 214.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in

Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of column 2 & 3 against XXXV of Serial No. 49, in respect of Rajarajeswari Dental College

& Hospital Bangalore, Karnataka, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition

658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of dental degrees awarded by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore, Karnataka, the following entries

shall be inserted thereunder :—

Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics

MDS (Ortho.), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

(if granted on or after 14-05-2010)

Sciences, (RGUOHS), Bangalore

Periodontology

MDS (Perio.), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

(if granted on or after 14-05-2010)

Sciences, (RGUOHS), Bangalore

Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery

MDS (Oral Surgery), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

(if granted on or after 14-05-2010)

Sciences, (RGUOHS), Bangalore’’.

[F. No.V-12017/55/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 3 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 215 -—dsUæ ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) ds /kjk (10) dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx I esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u

djrh gS] uker %—

2- egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar

fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa Øe la[;k 60 ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa blds

i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %—

‘‘XXV. ¯lxn MsaVy egkfo|ky; vkSj vLirky] iq.ks

(i)

nar 'kY; fpfdRlk Lukrd

ch- Mh- ,l- egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld A ¸

(;fn fnukad 22&6&2010 dks ;k mlds

ckn iznku dh xbZ A)

¹iQk- la- oh-&12017@54@2005&Mh bZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 3rd December, 2010

S. O. 215.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in

Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 & 3 against Serial No. 60, in part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik,

Maharashtra, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘XXIV Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS Maharastra University of Health

(if granted on or after 22-06-2010)

Sciences, Nashik’’.

[F. No.V-12017/54/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 216 -—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx I esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u

djrh gS] uker% %—

2- MkW- Hkhe jko vacsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar fpfdRlk

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa Øe la[;k 58 ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa blds i'pkr~

fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %—

^^dkafr nsoh nar fpfdRlk dkyst ,oa vLirky] eFkqjk A

nar 'kY; fpfdRlk esa ekLVj

vksFkksZMksafVDl ,oa MsaVksiQsfl;y vksFkksZisafMDl

,e- Mh- ,l- vksFkksZMksafVDl ,oa MsaVksiQsfl;y vksFkksZisfMDl

(;fn fnukad 18&9&2010 dks ;k mlds

MkW- Hkhe jko vacsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk A

ckn iznku dh xbZ A)

isMksMks¯VDl

,e- Mh- ,l- (isMksMks¯VDl)

(;fn fnukad 18&9&2010 dks ;k mlds

MkW- Hkhe jko vacsMdj fo'ofo|ky;] vkxjk A¸

ckn iznku dh xbZ A)

¹iQk- la- oh-&12017@2@2007&Mh bZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

659

New Delhi, the 6th December, 2010

S. O. 216.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948),

the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part-I of the

Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 & 3 against Serial No. 58, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, the following

entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘Kanti Davi Dental College & Hospital, Mathura

Master of Dental Surgery

Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics

MDS (Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopedics),

(if granted on or after 18-09-2010)

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra.

Pedodontics

MDS (Pedodontics),

(if granted on or after 18-09-2010)

Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra.’’

[F. No.V-12017/2/2007-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 217-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph Hkkx I esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u

djrh gS] uker% %—

2- nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa Øe la[;k 91 ds ckn fuEufyf[kr Øe la[;k vkSj

izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %—

^^92- xq: ?kklhnkl fo'ofo|ky;] foykliqj

(i) U;w gksjhtksu MsaVy dkyst ,aM fjlpZ bULVhV~ÔwV] foykliqj]

NÙkhlx<+

nar 'kY; fpfdRlk Lukrd

ch Mh ,l] xqjQ ?kklhnkl

(;fn fnukad 31&8&2010 dks ;k

fo'ofo|ky;]

mlds ckn iznku dh xbZ gks A)

foykliqj

¹iQk- la- oh-&12017@30@2004&Mh bZº

vuhrk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S. O. 217.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948),

the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in

Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) after Serial No. 91, the following Serial number and

entries shall be inserted namely :—

‘‘92. Guru Ghasidas, University, Bilaspur

(i) New Horizon Dental College &

Research Institute, Bilaspur,

Chhattisgarh

Bachelor of Dental Surgery

BDS, Guru Ghasidas

(if granted on or after 31-08-2010)

University Bilaspur.’’

[F. No.V-12017/30/2004-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 218-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) ds /kjk (10) dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph Hkkx I esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u

djrh gS] uker% %—

660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2- Jh jktho xka/h vk;q£oKku fo'ofo|ky;] caxykSj] }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar

fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa ds ,y bZ ,l nar fpfdRlk foKku laLFkku] caxykSj ds laca/ esa Øe

la[;k 49 ds XVII ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa blds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %—

^^vksjy ,aM eSfDlyksiQsfl;y ltZjh

,e- Mh- ,l- (vksjyltZjh)] jktho xka/h vk;q£oKku fo'ofo|ky;]

(;fn fnukad 14&5&2010 dks ;k mlds

caxykSj A**

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks A)

¹iQk- la- oh&12017@52@2004&Mh bZº

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S. O. 218.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948),

the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in

Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 & 3 against XVII of Serial No. 49, in respect of K. L. E.’s Institute of Dental

Sciences, Bangalore, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental

degrees awarded by Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences, Bangalore, the following entries shall be inserted

thereunder :—

‘‘Oral & Maxillofacial Surgery

MDS (Oral Surgery), Rajiv Gandhi University of Health

(if granted on or after 14-05-2010)

Sciences (RGUOHS), Bangalore.’’

[F. No.V-12017/52/2004-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 7 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 219-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx I esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/u djrh

gS] uker% %—

2- fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar fpfdRlk

vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa Øe la[;k 52 ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwn izfof"V;ksa esa blds i'pkr~

fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %—

^^ II fgekpy nar fpfdRlk egkfo|ky;] lqUnj uxj

ekLVj vkWiQ MsaVy ltZjh

isMksMksafVDl ,aM izhosfUVo MsafVLVªh

,e- Mh- ,l- (isMksMksafVDl ,aM izhosfUVo MsafVLVªh)

(;fn fnukad 31&8&2010 dks ;k mlds

fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk fgekpy izns'k A

ckn iznku dh xbZ A)

izksLFksMksfUVDl ,aM Økmu ,aM fczt

,e Mh ,l (izksLFksMksfUVDl ,aM Økmu ,aM fczt)

(;fn fnukad 31&8&2010 dks ;k mlds

fgekpy izns'k fo'ofo|ky;] f'keyk A**

ckn iznku dh xbZ A)

¹iQk- la- oh&12017@69@2005&Mh bZº

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S. O. 219—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948),

the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part-I of

the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 & 3 against Serial No. 52, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948

(16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla, the following

entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

661

‘‘II Himachal Dental College, Sundernagar.

Master of Dental Surgery

Paedodontics & Preventive Dentistry

MDS (Paedodontics & Preventive Dentistry),

(if granted on or after 31-08-2010)

Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla.

Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge

MDS (Prosthodontics and Crown & Bridge),

(if granted on or after 31-08-2010)

Himachal Pradesh University, Shimla.’’

[F. No.V-12017/69/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 220-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn ls ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/

u djrh gS] uker% %—

2- MkW- ,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo Üofo|ky;] fot;okM+k] vka/z izns'k }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk

nsus ds ckjs esa nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&I esa lh-ds-,l- rstk nar fpfdRlk foKku ,oa vuqla/ku]

laLFkku] fr#ifr] vka/z izns'k ds laca/ esa Øe la[;k 50 ds XIV ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa blds i'pkr~

fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k tk,xk %—

¶dUtjosfVo MsUVhLVªh ,aM bUMksMksfUVDl

,e- Mh- ,l- (dUtjosfVo MsUVhLVªh)

(;fn fnukad 29&4&2010 dks ;k mlds

MkW- ,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo Üofo|ky;] fot;okM+k A

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks )

vksFkksZMksufVDl ,oa MsaVksiQsfl;y

,e- Mh- ,l- (vksFkksZ-)

vkFkksZisfMDl]

MkW- ,u Vh vkj LokLF; foKku fo Üofo|ky;] fot;okM+k A

(;fn fnukad 29&4&2010 dks ;k mlds

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks )

¹iQk- la- oh-&12017@53@2005&Mh- bZ-º

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2010

S. O. 220.—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948),

the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in

Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 & 3 against XIV of Serial No. 50, in respect of C. K. S. Teja Institute of

Dental Sciences & Research, Tirupati, Andhra Pradesh, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948)

pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada, Andhra

Pradesh, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘Conservative Dentistry & Endodontics

MDS (Cons. Dent.), Dr. NTR University of Health

(if granted on or after 29-04-2010)

Sciences, Vijayawada.

Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopaedics

MDS (Ortho.), Dr. NTR University of Health

(if granted on or after 29-04-2010)

Sciences, Vijayawada.’’

[F. No.V-12017/53/2005-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 26 uoEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 221-—dsUnz ljdkj] nar fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh /kjk (10) dh mi&/kjk (2) }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, Hkkjrh; nUr fpfdRlk ifj"kn~ ls ijke'kZ djds] mDr vf/fu;e dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx 1 esa fuEufyf[kr la'kks/

u djrh gS] uker% %—

2- egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld] }kjk iznku dh tk jgh nar fpfdRlk fMfxz;ksa dks ekU;rk nsus ds ckjs esa nar

fpfdRlk vf/fu;e] 1948 (1948 dk 16) dh vuqlwph ds Hkkx&1 esa ,e , jaxwuokyk nar fpfdRlk foKku ,oa vuqla/ku dsUæ] iq.ks ds

laca/ esa Øe la[;k 60 ds XVI ds lkeus dkWye 2 rFkk 3 dh ekStwnk izfof"V;ksa esa blds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr izfof"V;ksa dks var£o"V fd;k

tk,xk %—

662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

¶II nar fpfdRlk ltZjh esa ekLVj

(i)

vksjy esfMflu ,oa fofdj.k foKku

,e Mh ,l (vksjy esfMflu)] egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku

(;fn fnukad 8&7&2010 dks ;k mlds

fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld A

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks)

(ii)

vksFkksZMksafVDl ,oa MsaVksiQsfl;y vksFkksZisfMDl

,e Mh ,l (vksFkksZ-) egkjk"Vª

(;fn fnukad 13&7&2010 dks ;k mlds

LokLF; foKku fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld A

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks)

(iii)

vksjy iSFkksykWth ,oa ekbØksck;ykWth

,e Mh ,l (vksjy iSFkksykWth ) egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku

(;fn fnukad 6&7&2010 dks ;k mlds

fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld A

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks)

(iv)

vksjy ,oa eSDlhyksiQsfl;y ltZjh

,e Mh ,l (vksjy ltZjh) egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku

(;fn fnukad 25&6&2010 dks ;k mlds

fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld A

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks)

(v)

izksLFkksMksafVDl ,oa Økmu ,oa fczt

,e Mh ,l (izksLFkks-)] egkjk"Vª LokLF; foKku

(;fn fnukad 1&7&2010 dks ;k mlds

fo'ofo|ky;] ukfld A**

ckn iznku dh xbZ gks)

¹iQk- la- oh&12017@19@2006&Mh bZº

vfurk f=kikBh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 26th November, 2010

S. O. 221 .—In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of Section 10 of the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of

1948), the Central Government, after consultation with the Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments

in Part-I of the Schedule to the said Act, namely :—

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 & 3 against XVI Serial No. 60, in respect of M. A. Rangoonwala College of

Dental Sciences & Research Centre, Pune, in Part-I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to

recognition of dental degrees awarded by Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, the following entries shall

be inserted thereunder :—

‘‘II. Master of Dental Surgery

(i)

Oral Medicine & Radiology

MDS (Oral Medicine),

(if granted on or after 8-7-2010)

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik.

(ii)

Orthodontics & Dentofacial Orthopaedics

MDS (Ortho.),

(if granted on or after 13-7-2010)

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik.

(iii)

Oral Pathology & Microbiology

MDS (Oral Path.),

(if granted on or after 6-7-2010)

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik.

(iv)

Oral & maxillofacial Surgery

MDS (Oral Surgery)

(if granted on or after 25-6-2010)

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik.

(v)

Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge

MDS (Prostho.),

(if granted on or after 1-7-2010)

Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik.’’

[F. No.V-12017/19/2006-DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

Hkkjh m|ksx vkSj yksd m|e ea=kky;

(Hkkjh m|ksx foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 14 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 222.—yksd ifj{ks=k (vuf/Ñr n[kydkj dh csn[kyh) vf/fu;e] 1971 (1971 dk 40) dh /kjk 3 }kjk iznÙk

'kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx djrs gq, vkSj yksd m|e foHkkx esa Hkkjr ljdkj dh vf/lwpuk la[;k dk-vk- 692] fnukad 8 iQjojh] 1988 ds vf/&

Øe.k esa] dsUæ ljdkj ,p,eVh fyfeVsM vkSj bldh lgk;d daifu;ksa vFkkZr~ ,p,eVh e'khu VwYl fyfeVsM] ,p,eVh okpst fyfeVsM]

,p,eVh fpukj okpst fyfeVsM vkSj ,p,eVh cs;¯jXl fyfeVsM ds fuEufyf[kr nh xbZ rkfydk ds dkWye (2) esa mfYyf[kr vf/dkfj;ksa]

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

663

tks ljdkj ds jktif=kr vf/dkjh ds lerqY; gS dks mi;qZDr vf/fu;e ds mís'; ls lEink vf/dkjh fu;qDr djrh gS vkSj mi;qZDr vf/dkjh

mi;qZDr rkfydk ds dkWye (3) esa lacaf/r izfof"V esa fu/kZfjr fd, x, {ks=k ds laca/ esa vius lacaf/r {ks=kkf/dkj dh LFkkuh; lhekvksa esa bl

vf/fu;e }kjk ;k blds v/hu iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk mi;ksx djsaxs vkSj lEink vf/dkfj;ksa dks fn, x, drZO;ksa dk fuokZg djsaxs A

rkfydk

Ø- la-

vf/dkjh dk inuke

lkoZtfud ifjljksa dh Js.kh vkSj {ks=kkf/dkj dh LFkkuh; bdkbZ

(1)

(2)

(3)

laink vf/dkjh] lkekU; lsok izHkkx]

,p,eVh fyfeVsM vFkok ,p,eVh e'khu VwYl fy-] csaxywj dkWEiysDl]

,p,eVh csaxywj] dukZVd

}kjk /kfjr ;k vf/xzfgr Fkk fdjk, ij yh xbZ Hkwfe] ifjlj] Hkouksa lfgr

iQSDVªh ifjlj] vuq"kafx;ka] tks fd mlds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu gSa vFkok

lkekU; lsok izHkkx] ,p,eVh fyfeVsM] csaxywj ds fu;a=k.k esa gSa ds lHkh

{ks=k 'kkfey gSa A

laink vf/dkjh] ,p,eVh fy-]

,p,eVh fy- vFkok ,p,eVh e'khu VwYl fy-]¯itkSj }kjk /kfjr] vf/&

¯itkSj dkEiysDl] ftyk&¯itkSj] vackyk]

xzfgr vFkok fdjk, ij yh xbZ Hkwfe] ifjlj vkSj Hkou lfgr ,p,eVh fy-]

gfj;k.kk vkSj ,p,eVh fyfeVsM eksgkyh]

¯itkSj dkEiysDl dh lHkh fc¯YMx vkSj lajpukvksa] Vkmuf'ki] dE;wfuVh

ftyk&jksiM+] iatkc

lsaVj] Ldwy fc¯YMx] ;wfu;u dk;kZy;] ,lMCY;w ,,l,lvks gkml]

fMLisaljh] ,p,eVh Dyc] iqjkuk Dyc vFkok LiksVZ~l Dyc vkSj vU;

lkoZtfud lqfo/k,a] eafnj] xq#}kjk] ckYehfd eafnj] [kkdh 'kkg etkj]

'kkafr ?kkV] dfczLrku tSls /k£ed LFky] vkfn] ds lkFk vkS|ksfxd 'ksM ua-

210] vkS|ksfxd {ks=k iQst 1] iapdqyk vkSj eksgkyh ftyk jksiM+] iatkc esa

fLFkr ,p,eVh fy-] }kjk /kfjr] vf/xzfgr vFkok fdjk, ij yh xbZ Hkwfe

vkSj Hkou tks fd blds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu gaS] 'kkfey gS A

laink vf/dkjh] Ms;jh e'khujh bdkbZ]

iQwM izksls¯lx e'khujh fMohtu] vkSjaxkckn }kjk /kfjr] vf/xzfgr vFkok

,p,eVh fy-] ,p&2] ,evkbZMhch]

fdjk, ij yh xbZ Hkwfe ifjlj vkSj fc¯YMx lfgr vkSj laiw.kZ {ks=k ftlesa

fpdyFkkuk vkS|ksfxd {ks=k U;w vkSjaxkckn

iQSDVªh ifjlj] Vkmuf'ki] dE;wfuVh lsaVj] vkfiQllZ Dyc] ;wfu;u dk;kZy;]

fMLisaljh] cSad fc¯YMx] xsLV gkml vkSj vU; lqfo/k,a] tks blds

iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu gSa] 'kkfey gS A

laink vf/dkjh] ,p,eVh e'khu VwYl]

,p,eVh e'khu VwYl fy-] dykelsjh }kjk /kfjr] vf/xzfgr vFkok

dykelsjh dkEiysDl] dsjy&683503

fdjk, ij yh xbZ Hkwfe ifjlj] fc¯YMx lfgr laiw.kZ {ks=k ftlesa iQSDVªh

ifjlj] vuq"kafx;ka Vkmuf'ki] ;wfu;u dk;kZy;] ,p,eVh gkfLiVy] Ldwy

fc¯YMx] Dyc] LiksV~Zl vkSj vU; lkoZtfud lqfo/k,a] tksfd blds

iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu gS] 'kkfey gS A

laink vf/dkjh] ,p,eVh e'khu VqYl]

,p,eVh fy-] vFkok ,p,eVh e'khu VwYl] fy- gSnjkckn }kjk /kfjr] vf/&

gSnjkckn&500054] vka/z izns'k

xzfgr vFkok fdjk, vFkok yht ij yh xbZ Hkwfe] ifjlj] fc¯YMx lfgr

laiw.kZ {ks=k ftlesa iQSDVªh] ifjlj] Vkmuf'ki] dE;wfuVh lsaVj] ;wfu;u dk;kZy;]

gkfLiVy] Ldwy fc¯YMx] Dyc] LiksV~Zl xzkm.M vkSj vU; lkoZtfud

lqfo/k,a] tksfd blds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu gS] 'kkfey gS A

laink vf/dkjh] izkxk izHkkx] ,p,eVh

,p,eVh e'khu VwYl fy-] izkxk izHkkx] gSnjkckn }kjk /kfjr] vf/xzfgr

e'khu VqYl fy-] gSnjkckn&500054]

vFkok fdjk, vFkok yht ij yh xbZ Hkwfe] ifjlj] fc¯YMx lfgr laiw.kZ

vka/z izns'k

{ks=k ftlesa iQSDVªh] ifjlj] tksfd blds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu gS] 'kkfey gS A

laink vf/dkjh] ,p,eVh e'khu VwYl

,p,eVh e'khu VqYl fy-] vtesj }kjk /kfjr] vf/xzfgr vFkok fdjk, ij

fy-] vtesj] jktLFkku

yh xbZ Hkwfe] ifjlj] fc¯YMx lfgr lEiw.kZ {ks=k ftlesa iQSDVªh] ifjlj]

vuq"kafx;ka Vkmuf'ki] dE;wfuVh lsaVj] ;wfu;u dk;kZy;] gkfLiVy] Ldwy

fc¯YMx] Dyc LiksV~Zl xzkm.M vkSj vU; lkoZtfud lqfo/k,a] tksfd blds

iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu gS] 'kkfey gS A

664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

laink vf/dkjh] ,p,eVh okpst fy-]

,p,eVh okpst fy-] okp iQSDVªh dkEiysDl] csaxywj] }kjk /kfjr] vf/xzfgr

okp iQSDVªh csaxywj] dkEiysDl]

vFkok fdjk, ij yh xbZ Hkwfe] ifjlj] fc¯YMx lfgr laiw.kZ {ks=k ftlesa

csaxywj] dukZVd

,p,eVh okp iQSDVªh] csaxywj dkEiysDl] Vkmuf'ki] LiksVZl xzkm.M vkSj

vU; lkoZtfud lqfo/k,a] tks fd blds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu gS] 'kkfey gS A

laink vf/dkjh] ,p,eVh okpst fy-]

,p,eVh okpst fy-] okp iQSDVªh rqedqj }kjk /kfjr] vf/xzfgr vFkok

okp iQSDVªh IV, rqedqj dukZVd

fdjk, ij yh xbZ Hkwfe] ifjlj] fc¯YMx lfgr lEiw.kZ {ks=k ftlesa iQSDVªh]

ifjlj] vuqa"kafx;ka Vkmuf'ki] dE;wfuVh lsaVj] ;wfu;u dk;kZy;] gkfLiVy]

Ldwy fc¯YMx] Dyc LiksVZl xzkm.M vkSj vU; lkoZtfud lqfo/k,a] tksfd

blds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu gS] 'kkfey gS A

10-

laink vf/dkjh] ,p,eVh okpst fy-]

,p,eVh okpst fy-] okp iQSDVªh jkuhckx uSuhrky }kjk /kfjr] vf/xzfgr

okp iQSDVªh V, jkuhckx] ftyk uSuhrky]

vFkok fdjk, ij yh xbZ Hkwfe] ifjlj] fc¯YMx] lfgr laiw.kZ {ks=k ftleas

mrjk[k.M

iQSDVªh ifjlj] Vkmu'khi] vkfiQllZ Dyc E;wfuVhdlsaVj] ;wfu;u dk;kZy;]

fMLisaljh] cSad fc¯YMx] xsLV gkml vkSj vU; lkoZtfud lqfo/k,a] tksfd

blds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu gS] 'kkfey gS A

11-

laink vf/dkjh] ,p,eVh fpukj okpst fy-]

1- tEew okp ,lsEcyh ;wfuV dk lEiw.kZ iQSDVªh ifjlj] ftlesa mlds

Jhuxj

iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu yht ij yh xbZ Hkwfe vFkok fofu£er {ks=k vkSj

dS.Vhu fc¯YMx] lsYl vkmVysV 'kkfey gS A

2- ,p,eVh fpukj okpst] Jhuxj dh iQSDVªh ifjlj dk lEiw.kZ {ks=k]

Vkmu'khi] adE;wfuVh lsaVj] vU; lqfo/kvksa lfgr jkT; ljdkj ls yht ij

yh xbZ Hkwfe vkSj vuq"kaxh Hkou tksfd orZeku esa lqj{kk cyksa ds vf/dkj

{ks=k esa gS A

12-

izeq[k iz'kklfud izca/d ,p,eVh fy-]

,p,eVh fy-] csaxywj }kjk /kfjr] vf/xzfgr vFkok fdjk, ij yh xbZ Hkwfe]

dkjiksZjsV dk;kZy;] csaxywj] dukZVd

ifjlj vkSj fc¯YMx lfgr 59] csYykjh jksM] csaxywj&560032 esa fLFkr

,p,eVh fy- dk dkiksZjsV dk;kZy;] 22@9] ,e-th- jksM] csaxywj dk dkiksZjsV

dk;kZy; ifjlj] tksfd blds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu gS] 'kkfey gS A

13-

iz'kklfud izca/d ,p,eVh e'khu

cEcbZ vkSj iq.ks esa fLFkr ,p,eVh e'khu VwYl fy-] }kjk /kfjr] vf/xzfgr

VwYl fy- ekdsZ¯Vx fMohtu] csaxywj]

dk;kZy; vkSj vkoklh; ifjlj vkSj fc¯YMx tksfd blds iz'kklfud

dukZVd

fu;a=k.kk/hu gS A

14-

iz'kklfud izca/d] ,p,eVh okpst fy-

ckVu lsaVj] ,e-th-jksM] csaxywj esa dke£'k;y fc¯YMx ds izFke ry ij 101

csaxywj] dukZVd

ua- dk lEiw.kZ {ks=k vkSj {ks=kh; izca/d (if'pe) }kjk /kfjr] daiuh dk

vkoklh; ÝySV] eqEcbZ oYMZ VªsM lsaVj dk lEiw.kZ {ks=k] ,p,eVh okpst fy-

}kjk /kfjr vFkok yht ij yh xbZ fdlh Hkh izdkj dh Hkwfe vFkok fc¯YMx

vFkok ÝySV ds {ks=k 'kkfey gSa A

15-

laink vf/dkjh] ,p,eVh fc;¯jx fy-]

eYdkfxjh baMªfLVª;y E;qfufliy fy- esa losZ la- 610 vkSj 615 esa iQSDVªh ifjlj

ekSyk vyh] gSnjkckn

dk lEiw.kZ {ks=k vkSj ckgjh nhokj ls f?kjs 29-33 ,dM+ dh Hkwfe vkSj

fc¯YMx dk {ks=k 'kkfey gS A

¹iQk-la- 5(10)@2005&ihbZ&Xº

gjHktu ¯lg] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HEAVY INDUSTRIES AND PUBLIC ENTERPRISES

(Department of Heavy Industry)

New Delhi, the 14th January, 2011

S. O. 222.—.In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971) and in supersession of the notification of the Government of India in the Department of

(1)

(2)

(3)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

665

Public Enterprises number S.O. 692, dated the 8th February, 1988, the Central Government hereby appoints the Officers

mentioned in column (2) of the Table given below, being the Officers of the HMT Limited and its Subsidiaries such as the

HMT Machine Tools Limited, HMT Watches Limited, HMT Chinar Watches Limited and HMT Bearings Limited, equivalent

to the rank of Gazetted Officers of Government, to be Estate Officers for the purpose of the said Act, and the said Officers

shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on Estate Officers by or under the said Act, within the

local limits of their respective jurisdiction in respect of the premises specified in the corresponding entry in column (3) of

the said Table.

TABLE

Serial

Designation of the Officer

Category of Public premises and

Number

local units of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

(3)

Estate Officer, Common Services

The entire area comprising of factory premises, ancillaries, and

Division, HMT Limited, Bangalore,

other civil amenities including the lands, premises and buildings

Karnataka

owned or acquired or hired by HMT Limited or HMT Machine

Tools Limited, Bangalore complex which are under its administrative

control or under the control of Common Services Division, HMT

Limited, Bangalore.

Estate Officer, HMT Limited, Pinjore

The entire area comprising of factory premises with entire building

Complex, Pinjore, Distt. Ambala,

and structures of HMT Limited, Pinjore complex, township,

Haryana and HMT Limited, Mohali,

community centre, school buildings. union officer SWASSO House,

Distt. Ropar, Punjab

Dispensary, HMT Club, old club or sports club and other civil

amenities, worship places like temple, gurudwara, Balmiki Mandir,

Khaki Shah Mazar, Shantighat, graveyard, etc., including the lands,

premises and buildings owned or acquired or hired by HMT Limited

or HMT Machine Tools Limited, Pinjore which are under

administrative Control including Industrial Shed number 210,

Industrial Area Phase I, Panchkula and land and buildings owned

or acquired or hired by HMT Limited at Mohali, Distt. Ropar, Pubjab.

Estate Officer,

The entire area comprising of factory premises, township, community

Dairy Machinery Unit, HMT Limited,

centre, officers club, union officer, dispensary bank building, guest

H-2, MIDC, Chikalthana Industrial

houses and other civil amenities including lands, premises and

Area, New Aurangabad

buildings owned or acquired or hired by Food Processing Machinery

Division, Aurangabad, which are under its administrative control.

Estate Officer,

The entire area comprising of factory premises, ancillaries, township,

HMT Machine Tools Limited,

community centre, union office dispensary, school building, club,

Kalamassery Complex, Kerala

sports ground and other civil amenities including land, premises

-683503.

and building owned or acquired or hired by HMT Machine Tools

Limited, Kalamassery, which are under its administrative control.

Estate Officer,

The entire area comprising of factory premises, township, union

HMT Machine Tools Limited,

office, HMT hospital, school building, club, sports ground and

Hyderabad - 500054, Andhra Pradesh.

other civil amenities including land, premises and buildings owned

or acquired or hired or leased out or hired by HMT Limited or HMT

Machine Tools Limited, Hyderabad, which are under its

administrative control.

Estate Officer, Praga Division

The entire area comprising of factory premises, including lands,

HMT Machine Tools Limited,

premises and buildings owned by HMT Machine Tools Limited,

Hyderabad - 500054, Andhra Pradesh

Praga Division, Hyderabad which are under its administrative

control.

666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Estate Officer, HMT Machine Tools

The entire area comprising of factory premises, ancillaries, township,

Limited, Ajmer, Rajasthan

community centre, union office, dispensary, school building, club,

sports ground and other civil amenities including land, premises

and building owned or acquired or hired by HMT Machine Tools

Limited, Ajmer, which are under its administrative control.

Estate Officer, HMT Watches Limited,

The entire area comprising of HMT watch factory, Bangalore

Watch Factory, Bangalore complex,

complex, township, sports ground and other factory premises land

Bangalore, Karnataka

and buildings owned or acquired or hired by HMT Watches Limited,

Watch factory complex, Bangalore, which are under its

administrative control.

Estate Officer,

The entire area comprising of factory premises, ancillaries, township

HMT Watches Limited, Watch factory

community centre, union office, dispensary, school building, club,

IV, Tumkur, Karnataka

sports ground and other civil amenities including land, premises

and buildings owned or acquired or hired by HMT Watches Limited,

watch factory, Tumkur, which are under its administrative control.

10.

Estate Officer,

The entire area comprising of factory premises, township, community

HMT Watches Limited, Watch factory

centre, officers club, union office, dispensary, bank building, guest

V, Ranibagh, Distt. Nainital,

houses and other civil amenities including land premises and

Uttarakhand

buildings owned or acquired or hired by HMT Watches Limited,

Watch factory, Ranibagh, which are under its administrative control.

11.

Estate Officer,

1. The entire factory premises of Jammu Watch Assembly Unit

HMT Chinar Watches Limited,

including canteen building, sales outlet including all land or built

Srinagar

up area on ownership of lease under its administrative control.

2. The entire factory premises of HMT Chinar Watches Limited,

Srinagar including township, community centre, other civil amenities

including land under lease from State Government and the ancillary

building presently under the occupation of security forces.

12.

Chief Administrative Manager, HMT

The entire area comprising of corporate office, HMT Limited, at

Limited, Corporate Office, Bangalore,

number 59, Bellary Road, Bangalore - 560032, the Corporate Office

Karnataka

premises at 22/9, M.G. Road, Bangalore including land, premises

and building owned or acquired or hired by HMT Limited at

Bangalore which are under its administrative control.

13.

Administrative Manager,

Office and residential premises and buildings owned or acquired

HMT Machine Tools Limited, Marketing by HMT Machine Tools Limited, at Mumbai and Pune which are

Division, Bangalore, Karnataka

under its administrative control.

14.

Administrative Manager,

The entire area bearing number 101 on the 1st floor of the commercial

HMT Watches Limited, Bangalore,

building at Barton centre, M.G. Road, Bangalore and the entire area

Karnataka

comprising of Mumbai World Trade Centres, residential flat of the

company occupied by the Regional Manager (West) and any other

land or building or flat owned, acquired or taken on lease by HMT

Watches Limited.

15.

Estate Officer,

The entire area comprising of factory premises in survey numbers

HMT Bearings Limited,

610 and 611 in Malkagiri Industrial Municipal Limits, building and

Moula Ali, Hyderabad.

land admeasuring 29.33 acres surrounded by compound wall.

[F. No. 5(10)/2005-P.E.-X]

HARBHAJAN SINGH, Jt. Secy.

(1)

(2)

(3)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

667

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 223-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi&fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud

C;wjks ,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd uhps vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud (dksa) esa la'kks/u fd;k x;k@fd;s x;s gaS %&

vuqlwph

Øe la- la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud dh la[;k

la'kks/u dh la[;k vkSj frfFk

la'kks/u ykxw gksus

vkSj o"kZ

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 13194% 1991 lwpuk

la'kks/u ua- 1] fnlEcj 2010

tuojh 2011

varjfofue; ds fy;s Hkkjrh;

fyfi lafgrk

bu la'kks/uksa dh izfr;k¡ 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] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn] t;iqj]

dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

frfFk 06&07&2011

¹lanHkZ % ,y vkbZ Vh Mh @ th&75º

u- flag] izeq[k (bysDVªkWfudh ,oa vkbZ Vh)

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2011

S.O. 223.—In pursuance of clause (b) of sub-rule (1) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules, 1987, the

Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that amendments to the Indian Standards, particulars of which are given in the

Schedule hereto annexed have been issued :

SCHEDULE

Sl.No.

No. and Year of the Indian

No. and Year of the

Date from which the

Standards

amendment

amendment shall

have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 13194 : 1991 Indian

Amendment No. 1,

January, 2011

Script Code for Information

December, 2010

Interchange -ISCII

Copy of this Standard/ 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, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai

and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur,

Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

Date : 06-07-2011

[Ref : LITD/G-75]

N. SINGH Head (Electronics & IT)

668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 224-—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi fu;e (1) ds [kaM ([k) ds vuqlj.k esa Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjkas

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrk gS fd vuqlwph esa fn;s x;s ekud (dksa) esa la'kks/u fd;k x;k @fd;s x;s gaS %&

vuqlwph

Øe la- la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud(dksa) dh la[;k]

la'kks/u dh la[;k

la'kks/u ykxw gksus

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

vkSj frfFk

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 13805&2004& vfouk'kh ijh{k.k

la'kks/u la[;k 1]

31 fnlEcj] 2010

esa yxs dkfeZdksa dk izek.ku vkSj ;ksX;rkvksa ds

fnlEcj 2010

fy, lkekU; izfreku (igyk iqujh{k.k)

bl la'kks/u dh izfr;ka Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks] ekud Hkou cgknqj 'kkg tiQj ekxZ] ubZ fnYyh& 110002] {ks=kh; dk;kZy;ksa %

ubZ fnYyh] dksydrk] p.Mhx<+] psUubZ] eqEcbZ rFkk 'kk[kk dk;kZy;ksa % vgenkckn] caxyw:] Hkksiky] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh]

gSnjkckn] t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % ,eVhMh 21 @ Vh&44º

ch- ds- eq[kksikè;k;] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa funs'kd (,eVhMh)

New Delhi, the 7th January, 2011

S.O. 224.—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

No. and Year of the

Date from which the

Standard (s)

amendment

amendment shall have

effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 13805 -2004 General standard for

Amendment no.1,

31 December, 2010

qualification and certification of non-

December, 2010

destructive testing personnel -

specification (first revision)

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, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune and Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: MTD 21 /T-44]

B. K. MUKHOPADHYAY, Sc.-‘E’ & Director (Met Engg.)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

669

ubZ fnYyh] 7 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 225.—Hkkjrh; ekud C;wjks fu;e] 1987 ds fu;e 7 ds mi fu;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 (dksa) esa la'kks/u fd;k x;k @fd;s x;s gaS %&

vuqlwph

Øe la- la'kksf/r Hkkjrh; ekud(dksa) dh la[;k

la'kks/u dh la[;k vkSj

la'kks/u ykxw gksus

o"kZ vkSj 'kh"kZd

frfFk

dh frfFk

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

vkbZ ,l 27 % 1992 fix lhlk & fof'kf"V

la'kks/u la[;k 2

31 fnlEcj] 2010

(pkSFkk iqujh{k.k)

fnlEcj] 2010

vkbZ ,l 209 % 1992 tLrk baxV & fof'kf"V

la'kks/u la[;k 2

31 fnlEcj] 2010

(pkSFkk iqujh{k.k)

fnlEcj] 2010

vkbZ ,l 1654 % 1992 lhlk&,UVheuh feJ /krq,a&

la'kks/u la[;k 1

31 fnlEcj] 2010

& fof'kf"V (rhljk iqujh{k.k)

fnlEcj] 2010

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] Hkqous'oj] dks;Ecrwj] xqokgkVh] gSnjkckn]

t;iqj] dkuiqj] ukxiqj] iVuk] iw.ks rFkk fr:ouUrkiqje esa fcØh gsrq miyC/ gSa A

¹lanHkZ % ,eVhMh 9@Vh&3] 6 vkSj 10º

ch- ds- eq[kksikè;k;] oSKkfud ^bZ* ,oa funs'kd (,eVhMh)

New Delhi, the 7th January, 2011

S.O. 225.—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

No. and Year of the

Date from whic the

Standards (s)

amendment

amendment shall

have effect

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

IS 27 : 1992 Pig Lead- Specification

Amendment No. 2

31 December,

(Fourth Revision)

December, 2010

2010

IS 209 : 1992 Zinc Ingot- Specification

Amendment No. 2

31 December,

(Fourth Revision)

December, 2010

2010

IS 1654 : 1992 Lead- Antimony Alloys -

Amendment No. 1

31 December,

Specification (Third Revision)

December, 2010

2010

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, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Chennai, Mumbai and also

Branch Offices: Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal, Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore, Guwahati, Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur,

Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram.

[Ref: MTD 9 /T-3, 6 &10.]

B. K. MUKHOPADHYAY, Sc-‘E’ & Director (Met Engg.)

670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dks;yk ea=kky;

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 12 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 226-—dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj eas dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad

dk-vk- 3263 rkjh[k 1 uoEcj] 2007 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k ds Hkkx&II] [k.M&3] mi&[k.M (ii) rkjh[k 10 uoEcj] 2007 esa izdkf'kr gksus

ij mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe vkSj ,slh Hkwfe esa] ;k ml ij ds vf/dkj] (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k gS)]

mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd :i esa dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gks x, FksA

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd osLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] ukxiqj (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ljdkjh

daiuh dgk x;k gS) ,sls fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± dk] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/jksfir djuk vfpr le>s] vuqikyu djus ds fy,

jtkean gS _

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh

gS fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe vkSj ml Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkj] rkjh[k 10 uoEcj] 2007 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj

fufgr cus jgus dh ctk,] fuEufyf[kr fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/hu jgrs gq,] mDr ljdkjh daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~ %µ

ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/kas ds v/hu ;Fkk vo/kfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkuh vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr

fd, x;s lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh _

'krZ (1) ds v/hu ljdkjh daiuh }kjk dsUæh; ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kj.k djus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ,d vf/dj.k

dk xBu fd;k tk,xk vkSj ,sls fdlh vf/dj.k vkSj vf/dj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/ esa mixr lHkh O;;]

mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs vkSj bl izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds fy, ;k muds laca/ esa tSls vihy

vkfn lHkh fof/d dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] blh izdkj mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs _

ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa dh] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; ds laca/ esa {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl izdkj fufgr

mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo:¼ fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/ esa

vko';d gks_

ljdkjh daiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk] mDr Hkwfe dks fdUgha vU; O;fDr;ksa dks varfjr djus dh

'kfDr ugha gksxh _ vkSj

ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk ikyu djsxh] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V

{ks=kksa ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/jksfir fd, tk,a A

¹iQk- la-&43015@2@2005&ih vkj vkbZ MCY;w&Iº

,l- lh- HkkfV;k] funs'kd

MINISTRY OF COAL

ORDER

New Delhi, the 12th January, 2011

S.O. 226.— Whereas, on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal

number S.O. 3263, dated the 1st November, 2007, published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section (ii) dated

the 10th November, 2007, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referrred to as the said Act), the land and all rights in or over the land

described in the Schedule appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the

Central Government free from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the Western Coalfields Limited, Nagpur (hereinafter

referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central Government

thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the said lands and rights in or over the said lands so vested shall with effect from

10th November, 2007 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company,

subject to the following terms and conditions, namely :—

The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of

compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act ;

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

671

A Tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government

by the Government Company under conditions (1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and

persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred

in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said lands, so vested,

shall also be borne by the Government Company ;

The Government Company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure

that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding

the rights in or over the said lands so vested ;

The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the lands to any other persons without the

previous approval of the Central Government ; and

The Government Company shall abide by such direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by the

Central Government for particular areas of the said lands, as and when necessary.

[F. No.-43015/2/2005-PRIW-I]

S. C. BHATIA, Director

vkns'k

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 227-—dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr

vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh dh xbZ Hkkjr ljdkj eas dks;yk ea=kky; }kjk vf/lwpuk la[;kad

dk-vk- 1491 rkjh[k 4 twu] 2010 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k ds Hkkx&II] [k.M&3] mi&[k.M (ii) rkjh[k 12 twu] 2010 esa izdkf'kr gksus ij

mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr Hkwfe vkSj Hkwfe esa] ;k ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkj] (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr Hkwfe dgk x;k

gS)] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 10 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj] vkR;afrd :i ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr

gks x, Fks A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd lkÅFk bLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM] fcykliqj (NRrhlx<+) (ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr ljdkjh daiuh dgk x;k gS) ,sls fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± dk] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj bl fufeÙk vf/jksfir djuk mfpr le>s] vuqikyu

djus ds fy, rS;kj gS _

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 11 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funs'k nsrh

gS fd bl izdkj fufgr mDr 29-287 gsDVj Hkwfe vkSj ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkj] rkjh[k 12 twu] 2010 ls dsUnzh; ljdkj esa bl izdkj fufgr

cus jgus dh LFkku ij] fuEufyf[kr fuca/uksa vkSj 'krks± ds v/hu jgrs gq,] mDr ljdkjh daiuh esa fufgr gks tk,axs] vFkkZr~ %µ

ljdkjh daiuh] mDr vf/fu;e ds mica/kas ds v/hu ;Fkk vo/kfjr izfrdj] C;kt] uqdlkuh vkSj oSlh gh enksa dh ckcr

fd, x;s lHkh lank;ksa dh dsUnzh; ljdkj dks izfriwfrZ djsxh A

mDr ljdkjh dEiuh }kjk 'krZ (1) ds v/hu dsUnzh; ljdkj dks lans; jdeksa dk vo/kj.k djus ds iz;kstu ds fy, ,d

vf/dj.k dk xBu fd;k tk,xk vkSj ,sls fdlh vf/dj.k vkSj vf/dj.k dh lgk;rk djus ds fy, fu;qDr O;fDr;ksa ds laca/ esa mixr

lHkh O;;] mDr dEiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs vkSj blh izdkj fufgr mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkj ds fy, ;k mlds laca/ esa tSls

vihy vkfn lHkh fof/d dk;Zokfg;ksa dh ckcr mixr] lHkh O;; Hkh] blh izdkj mDr ljdkjh daiuh }kjk ogu fd;s tk;saxs _

mDr ljdkjh daiuh] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa dh] ,sls fdlh vU; O;; dh {kfriwfrZ djsxh] tks bl izdkj fufgr

mDr Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds ckjs esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k mlds in/kfj;ksa }kjk ;k muds fo:¼ fdUgha dk;Zokfg;ksa ds laca/ esa

vko';d gks _

mDr ljdkjh daiuh dks] dsUnzh; ljdkj ds iwoZ vuqeksnu ds fcuk] mDr Hkwfe dks fdlh vU; O;fDr dks varfjr djus dh

'kfDr ugha gksxh _ vkSj

mDr ljdkjh daiuh] ,sls funs'kksa vkSj 'krks± dk] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj }kjk] tc dHkh vko';d gks] mDr Hkwfe ds fof'k"V {ks=kksa

ds fy, fn, tk,a ;k vf/jksfir fd, tk,a ikyu djsxhA

¹iQk-la-&43015@5@2007&ih vkj vkbZ MCY;w&Iº

,l- lh- HkkfV;k] funs'kd

672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ORDER

New Delhi, the 13th January, 2011

S.O. 227.— Whereas, on the publication of the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal

number S.O.1491, dated the 4th June, 2010, published in the Gazette of India, Part-II, Section-3, Sub-section (ii) dated the

12th June 2010, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development) Act,

1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the lands as all rights in or over the land described in the Schedule

appended to the said notification (hereinafter referred to as the said land) vested absolutely in the Central Government free

from all encumbrances under sub-section (1) of Section 10 of the said Act;

And whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that the South Eastern Coalfields Limited, Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh)

(hereinafter referred to as the Government Company) is willing to comply with such terms and conditions as the Central

Government thinks fit to impose in this behalf ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the all rights of 29.287 hectares land in or over the said lands so vested shall with effect

from 12th June, 2010 instead of continuing to so vest in the Central Government, shall vest in the Government Company,

subject to the following terms and conditions, namely :—

The Government Company shall reimburse to the Central Government all payments made in respect of

compensation, interest, damages and the like, as determined under the provisions of the said Act ;

A Tribunal shall be constituted for the purpose of determining the amounts payable to the Central Government

by the Government Company under conditions (1) and all expenditure incurred in connection with any such tribunal and

persons appointed to assist the tribunal shall be borne by the Government Company and similarly, all expenditure incurred

in respect of all legal proceedings like appeals, etc. for or in connection with the rights, in or over the said lands, so vested,

shall also be borne by the Government Company ;

The Government company shall indemnify the Central Government or its officials against any other expenditure

that may be necessary in connection with any proceedings by or against the Central Government or its officials regarding

the rights in or over the said lands so vested ;

The Government Company shall have no power to transfer the said lands to any other persons without the

previous approval of the Central Government ; and

The Government Company shall abide by such direction and conditions as may be given or imposed by the

Central Government for particular areas of the said lands, as and when necessary.

[F. No.-43015/5/2007-PRIW-I]

S. C. BHATIA, Director

ubZ fnYyh] 14 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 228-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us] dks;yk /kjd {ks=k (vtZu vkSj fodkl) vf/fu;e] 1957 (1957 dk 20) (ftls blesa blds

i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e dgk x;k gS) dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;k

dk-vk- 1490 rkjh[k 4 twu] 2010 }kjk tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k Hkkx&II] [k.M&3] mi&[k.M (ii) rkjh[k 12 twu] 2010 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ

Fkh ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V 935-461 gsDVs;j ;k 2311-52 ,dM+ ifj{ks+=k dh Hkwfe vkSj ml ij ds lHkh vf/dkjksa dk

vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh _

vkSj l{ke izkf/dkjh us mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 8 ds vuqlj.k esa dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS _

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dk iwoksZDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ vkSj eè; izns'k ljdkj ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku

gks x;k gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa of.kZr 935-461 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 2311-52 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh Hkwfe ds lHkh vf/dkj

vftZr fd, tkus pkfg,a _

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk

djrh gS fd vuqlwph esa ;Fkk of.kZr 935-461 gsDVs;j (yxHkx) ;k 2311-52 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh Hkwfe esa ds ;k ml ij ds lHkh

vf/dkj vftZr fd, tkrs gaS A

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

673

bl vf/lwpuk ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=k ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e (ih,yth) @Hkwfe@ 393 rkjh[k 4 vDVwcj]

2010 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] vuqiiqj vkSj 'kgMksy (eè; izns'k) ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd 1] dkamfly gkml LVªhV]

dksydkrk & 700001 ds dk;kZy; esa ;k lkmFk bZLVuZ dksyiQhYM~l fyfeVsM (jktLo vuqHkkx)] lhir jksM] fcykliqj&495006 (NÙkhlx<+)

ds dk;kZy; esa fd;k tk ldrk gS A

vuqlwph

cVqjk foLrkj CykWd] lksgkxiqj {ks=k

ftyk&vuwiiqj vkSj 'kgMksy (eè; izns'k)

¹js[kkad la- ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@393] rkjh[k 4 vDVwcj] 2010º

lHkh vf/dkj %

(d)

jktLo Hkwfe %

Øe

xzke dk

iVokjh

cankscLr

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k gsDVj

fVIi.kh

la-

uke

gYdk uEcj

la[;k

esa

jkeiqj

107

889

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

533-836

Hkkx

csfy;k

107

722

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

191-039

Hkkx

[kkaMk

184

vuwiiqj

131-274

Hkkx

dqy {ks=k %& 856-149 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 2115-54 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

([k)

ou Hkwfe %

Øe

ou dEikVZesaV la[;k

jsat

fMohtu

{ks=k gsDVj

fVIi.kh

la-

esa

ih & 174 II

ds'kokgh

nf{k.k 'kgMksy

79-312

Hkkx

dqy {ks=k %& 79-312 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 195-98 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

dqy ;ksx (d$[k) %& 935-461 gsDVj (yxHkx)

;k 2311-52 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

xzke jkeiqj (Hkkx) esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k %&1158(Hkkx)] 1159 ls 1164] 1181 ls 1245] 1271 ls 1276]

1277(Hkkx)] 1278 ls 1285] 1300(Hkkx)] 1301 ls 1361] 1362(Hkkx)] 1377 ls 1447] 1450] 1465(Hkkx)] 1466(Hkkx)] 1467 ls 1487]

1565 ls 1568] 1570 ls 1574] 1575(Hkkx)] 1576 ls 1886] 1886@1[k] 1887 ls 1889] 1890(Hkkx)] 1891] 1892] 1892@2 ls 1892@5]

1893 ls 2211] 2213(Hkkx)] 2214(Hkkx)] 2215(Hkkx)] 2216 ls 2228] 2229(Hkkx)] 2230(Hkkx)] 2248(Hkkx)] 2249] 2250]

2602(Hkkx)] 2603(Hkkx)] 2604(Hkkx)] 2605] 2607 ls 2671] 2684(Hkkx)] 2685(Hkkx)] 2689(Hkkx)] 2690 ls 2701] 2702(Hkkx)]

2708(Hkkx)] 2709(Hkkx)] 2712(Hkkx)] 2713] 2718(Hkkx)] 2721 ls 3244] 3245(Hkkx)] 3246(Hkkx)] 3247 ls 3266] 3267(Hkkx)]

3273(Hkkx)] 3274 ls 3278] 3279(Hkkx)] 3280 ls 3296] 3297(Hkkx)] 3298(Hkkx)] 3305] 3306] 3309 ls 3320] 3322] 3323(Hkkx)]

3324 ls 3340] 3341(Hkkx)] 3343 A

xzke csfy;k (Hkkx) esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k %&21@1@2(Hkkx)] 21@4(Hkkx)] 21@7(Hkkx)] 21@10(Hkkx)]

51@1] 51@2(Hkkx)] 51@3] 51@4] 51@6] 52] 53@1] 53@2] 53@3[k] 53@4] 53@6 ls 53@8] 55 (Hkkx)] 55@4(Hkkx)] 56@1] 56@@2] 57 ls 63]

674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

136 ls 173] 174(Hkkx)] 175 ls 178] 179(Hkkx)] 180(Hkkx)] 181] 188(Hkkx)] 191(Hkkx)] 195(Hkkx)] 195@7] 196(Hkkx)] 196@11]

196@13(Hkkx)] 197(Hkkx)] 209(Hkkx)] 211(Hkkx)] 212(Hkkx)] 213(Hkkx)] 242(Hkkx)] 243 ls 253] 254(Hkkx)] 255(Hkkx)] 256]

257(Hkkx)] 258(Hkkx)] 259 ls 325] 325@1] 325@7 326 ls 330] 331@1 ls 331@4] 332@1 ls 332@3] 333 ls 340] 341@1 ls 341@3] 342

ls 349] 349@1] 350 ls 354] 355(Hkkx)] 357(Hkkx)] 358(Hkkx)] 359(Hkkx)] 406(Hkkx)] 407 ls 414] 415@1] 415@2] 416] 417@2 ls

417@5] 418 ls 484] 485(Hkkx)] 486(Hkkx)] 488(Hkkx)] 489(Hkkx)] 491] 492] 500] 501] 508] 511 ls 517 A

xzke [kkaMk (Hkkx) esa vftZr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k %&140 ls 146] 148 ls 153] 163(Hkkx)] 164(Hkkx)] 167 ls

218] 219(Hkkx)] 220(Hkkx)] 223(Hkkx)] 225(Hkkx)] 234(Hkkx)] 235(Hkkx)] 236] 237(Hkkx)] 238 ls 264] 265(Hkkx)] 266 ls 294]

295(Hkkx)] 296(Hkkx)] 297] 298(Hkkx)] 299 ls 301] 302(Hkkx)] 303(Hkkx)] 312(Hkkx)] 320(Hkkx)] 321 ls 340] 341(Hkkx)] 342

ls 344] 345(Hkkx)] 347(Hkkx)] 390 ls 399] 400(Hkkx)] 401(Hkkx)] 402(Hkkx)] 403(Hkkx)] 471(Hkkx)] 1349] 1364 A

lhek o.kZu %&

d&[k js[kk fcUnq ^^d** ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj xzke jkeiqj&[kkaMk ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^[k** ij feyrh

gS A

[k&x js[kk xzke jkeiqj ds IykV la[;k 1890] 1575 ls gksdj 1574] 1572] 1571] 1570] 1568] 1567] 1565] 1484] 1485] 1487]

1475 ds nf{k.kh lhek vkSj 1466] 1465 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^x** ij feyrh gS A

x&?k js[kk xzke jkeiqj ds IykV la[;k 1465] 1466 ls gksdj 1467] 1447] 1450] 1377 ds if'peh] 1362] 1369] 1158 ls gksdj

1159] 1160 ds nf{k.kh] 1160] 1164] 1285 ds if'peh] 1277 ds nf{k.kh ] rFkk 1277 ls xqtjrh gS fiQj 1273] 1271] 1245]

1181] 1182] 1183] 2209] 2211 ds if'peh] 2213] 2214] 2215 ls gksdj 2221] 2250] 2249 ds if'peh] 2248] 2229]

2230 ls gksdj 2228] 2721 ds if'peh] 2718 ls gksdj 2713 ds if'peh] 2712] 2709] 2708] ls xqtjrh gS fiQj 2785]

2786 ds if'peh] 2702] 2689] 2685] 2684 ls gksdj 2670] 2671 ds if'peh] 2604] 2603] 2602 ls gksdj 3322 ds

if'peh] 3323 ls gksdj xzke csfy;k esa izos'k djrh gS vkSj IykV la[;k 406] 359] 358] 357] 355] 21@1@2] 21@4] 21@7]

21@10] ls gksdj 51@2 ds if'peh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^?k** ij feyrh gS A

?k&Ä js[kk xzke csfy;k ds IykV la[;k 51@2 ls gksdj 51@3] 51@4] 53@7] 53@6 ds mRrjh lhek] 55] 55@4 ls gksdj 61] 62] 63]

136] 137] 138 ds mRrjh] 179] 180 ls gksdj 181] 173 ds mRrjh] 188] 191] 195@7] 195] 505] 195] 196@13] 196] 197]

258] 257] 255] 254] 211] 209] 213 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^M-** ij feyrh gS A

Ä&p js[kk xzke csfy;k ds IykV la[;k 213] 212] 242] 489] 488] 485] 486 ls gksdj xzke jkeiqj esa izos'k djrh gS vkSj IykV

la[;k 3245 ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^p** ij feyrh gS A

p&N&t js[kk xzke jkeiqj ds IykV la[;k 3245] 3246 vkSj fcUnq ^^N** ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^t** ij feyrh gS A

t&> js[kk xzke jkeiqj ds IykV la[;k 3246] 3267 3273] 3341] 3273] 3298] 3279] 3298 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^>** ij feyrh

gS A

>&×k js[kk xzke jkeiqj ds IykV la[;k 3297 ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^×k** ij feyrh gS A

×k&V js[kk xzke [kkaMk & csfjgk ds Hkkxr% lfEefyr lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ^^V** ij feyrh gS A

V&d js[kk xzke [kkaMk ds IykV la[;k 401] 471] 402] 403 ls gksdj 403 ds nf{k.kh] 395] 394 ds iwohZ] 394] 390 ds nf{k.kh

lhek] 265] 303] 302] 298] 312] 296] 295] 320 ls gksdj 339] 340 ds nf{k.kh lhek] 341] 345] 347] 235] 234] 237]

225] 223] 220] 219 ls gksdj xqtjrh gS fiQj 140] 143] 144] 145] 146] 152] 153] 167 ds nf{k.kh lhek vkSj 164] 163]

251 ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq ^^d** ij feyrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 43015@24@2008&ih vkj vkbZ MCY;w&Iº

,l- lh- HkkfV;k] funs'kd

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

675

New Delhi, the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 228.— Whereas , by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1490

dated the 4th June, 2010, issued under sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and

Development) Act, 1957 (20 of 1957), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazette of India, Part-II,

Section 3, Sub-section (ii) dated the 12th June, 2010, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire 935.461

hectares or 2311.52 acres land as all rights in or over such land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification;

And whereas, the competent authority in pursuance of Section 8 of the said Act has made his report to the Central

Government;

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the aforesaid report and after consulting the Government

of Madhya Pradesh, is satisfied that the land measuring 935.461 hectares (approximately) or 2311.52 acres (approximately)

as all rights in or over such land as described in schedule appended hereto, should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 9 of the said Act, the Central

Government declares that the land measuring 935.461 hectares (approximately) or 2311.52 acres (approximately) as all

rights in or over such land as described in Schedule are hereby acquired.

The Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/CGM(PLG)/LAND/393 dated the 4th October, 2010 of the area covered by

this notification may be inspected at the Office of the Collector, Anuppur and Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh) or at the Office

of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700001 or at the Office of the South Eastern Coalfields

Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur- 495006 (Chhattisgarh).

SCHEDULE

Batura Extension Block, Sohagpur Area

District- Anuppur and Shahdol (Madhya Pradesh)

[Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/CGM(PLG)/LAND/393 dated the 4th October, 2010 ]

All Rights :

(A)

Revenue Land :

Sl.

Name of

Patwari halka

Bandobast

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

No.

Village

number

Number

Hectares

Rampur

107

889

Sohagpur

Shahdol

533.836

Part

Beliya

107

722

Sohagpur

Shahdol

191.039

Part

Khanda

184

Anuppur

131.274

Part

Total :—856.149 Hectares (approximately) or 2115.54 acres (approximately)

(B)

Forest Land :

Sl.

Forest

Range

Division

Area in

Remarks

No.

Compartment

Hectares

Number

P - 174 II

Keswahi

South Shahdol

79.312

Part

Total :—79.312 Hectares (approximately) or 195.98 acres (approximately)

Grand Total (A+B) :- 935.461 Hectares (approximately)

or 2311.52 acres (approximately)

1. Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Rampur (Part): 1158(P), 1159 to 1164,1181 to 1245, 1271 to 1276,

1277(P), 1278 to 1285, 1300(P), 1301 to 1361, 1362(P), 1377 to 1447, 1450, 1465(P), 1466(P), 1467 to 1487,1565 to 1568, 1570 to

676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

1574, 1575(P), 1576 to 1886, 1886/1kh, 1887 to 1889, 1890(P), 1891, 1892, 1892/2 to 1892/5, 1893 to 2211, 2213(P), 2214(P),

2215(P), 2216 to 2228, 2229(P), 2230(P), 2248(P), 2249, 2250, 2602(P), 2603(P), 2604(P), 2605, 2607 to 2671, 2684(P), 2685(P),

2689(P), 2690 to 2701, 2702(P), 2708(P), 2709(P), 2712(P), 2713, 2718(P), 2721 to 3244, 3245(P), 3246(P), 3247 to 3266, 3267(P),

3273(P), 3274 to 3278, 3279(P), 3280 to 3296, 3297(P), 3298(P), 3305, 3306, 3309 to 3320, 3322, 3323(P), 3324 to 3340, 3341 (P),

3343.

2. Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Beliya (Part):- 21/1/2(P), 21/4(P), 21/7(P), 21/10(P), 51/1, 51/2(P), 51/3,

51/4, 51/6, 52, 53/1, 53/2, 53/3kh, 53/4, 53/6 to 53/8, 55(P), 55/4(P), 56/1, 56/2, 57 to 63, 136 to173, 174(P), 175 to178, 179(P),

180(P), 181, 188(P), 191(P), 195(P), 195/7, 196(P), 196/11, 196/13(P), 197(P), 209(P), 211(P), 212(P), 213(P), 242(P), 243 to 253,

254(P), 255(P), 256, 257(P), 258(P), 259 to 325, 325/1, 325/7, 326 to 330,331/1 to 331/4, 332/1 to 332/3, 333 to 340, 341/1 to

341/3, 342 to 349,349/1, 350 to 354, 355(P), 357(P), 358(P), 359(P), 406(P), 407 to 414, 415/1, 415/2, 416, 417/2 to 417/5, 418 to

484, 485(P), 486(P), 488(P), 489(P), 491, 492, 500, 501, 508, 511 to 517.

3. Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Khanda (Part):- 140 to 146, 148 to 153, 163(P), 164(P), 167 to 218, 219(P),

220(P), 223(P), 225(P), 234(P), 235(P), 236, 237(P), 238 to 264, 265(P), 266 to 294, 295(P), 296(P), 297, 298(P), 299 to 301, 302(P),

303(P), 312(P), 320(P), 321 to 340, 341 (P), 342 to 344, 345(P), 347(P), 390 to 399, 400(P), 401 (P), 402(P), 403(P), 471 (P), 1349,

1364.

Boundary Description:

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ and passes along partly common boundary of villages Rampur - Khanda and meets at

point ‘B’,

B-C

Line passes in village Rampur through plot number 1890, 1575, southern boundary of plot number

1574,1572,1571,1570,1568,1567,1565,1484,1485, 1487, 1475, through 1466, 1465 and meets at point ‘C’.

C-D

Line passes in village Rampur through plot number 1465, 1466, western boundary of plot number 1467, 1447, 1450,

1377, through 1362, 1369, 1158, southern boundary of plot number 1159, 1160, western boundary of plot number

1160, 1164, 1285, southern boundary of plot number 1277, through 1277, western boundary of plot number

1273,1271,1245,1181,1182,1183,2209,2211, through 2213, 2214, 2215, western boundary of plot number 2221, 2250,

2249, through 2248, 2229, 2230, western boundary of plot number 2228, 2721, through 2718, western boundary of

plot number 2713, through 2712, 2709, 2708, western boundary of plot number 2785, 2786, through 2702, 2689,

2685, 2684, western boundary of plot number 2670, 2671, through 2604, 2603, 2602, western boundary of plot

number 3322, through 3323 then enter and passes in village Beliya through plot number 406, 359, 358, 357, 355, 21/

1/2, 21/4, 21/7, 21/10, western boundary of plot number 51/2 and meets at point ‘D’.

D-E

Line passes in village Beliya through plot number 51/2, northern boundary of plot number 51/3, 51/4, 53/7, 53/6,

through 55, 55/4, northern boundary of plot number 61,62,63, 136, 137, 138, through 179, 180, northern boundary

of plot number 181,173, through 188, 191, 195/7, 195,505,195,196/13,196,197,258,257,255, 254,211,209,213 and

meets at point ‘E’.

E-F

Line passes in village Beliya through plot number 213, 212, 242, 489, 488, 485, 486 then enter and passes in village

Rampur through plot number 3245 and meets at point ‘F’.

F-G-H

Line passes in village Rampur through plot number 3245, 3246, point ‘G’ and meets at point ‘H’.

H-I

Line passes in village Rampur through plot number 3246, 3267, 3273, 3341, 3273, 3298, 3279, 3298 and meets at

point ‘I’.

I-J

Line passes in village Rampur through plot number 3297 and meets at point ‘J’.

J-K

Line passes along partly common boundary of villages Khanda - Bairiha and meets at point ‘K’.

K-A

Line passes in village Khanda through plot number 401, 471, 402, 403, southern boundary of plot number 403,

eastern boundary of plot number 395, 394, southern boundary of plot number 394, 390, through 265, 303, 302,

298, 312, 296, 295, 320, southern boundary of plot number 339,340, through 341, 345, 347, 235, 234, 237, 225, 223,

220, 219, southern boundary of plot number 140, 143, 144, 145, 146, 152, 153, 167, through 164, 163, 251 and

meets at starting point ‘A’.

[F. No. 43015/24/2008-PRIW-I]

S. C. BHATIA, Director

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

677

isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 229-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky; ds dk-vk- 2185 fnukad 20 vxLr] 2010] }kjk izsVªksfy;e

vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962 (1962 dk 50) (ftls mlds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e

dgk tk,xk) dh /kjk 3(1) ds v/hu vf/lwpuk izdkf'kr dj] jeu eaMh (iatkc jkT; esa) ls cgknqjx<+ (gfj;k.kk jkT; esa) rd]

isVªksfy;e mRikn ds ifjogu ds fy, fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ^^th th ,l vkj mRikn fu"Øe.k ifj;kstuk jeu eaMh ls

cgknqjx<+ isVªksfy;e ikbiykbu** ds lEcU/ esa mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fu£n"V rglhy jksgrd ftyk jksgrd jkT; gfj;k.kk dh

Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj ds vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh]

vkSj mDr vf/lwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks fnukad 29 uoEcj] 2010 dks miyC/ djk nh xbZ Fkha]

vkSj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds vuqlk.k esa l{ke izkf/dkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS A

vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa mi;ksx dk

vf/dkj vftZr djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS A

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g ?kks"k.kk djrh

gS fd bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/dkj vftZr fd;k tkrk gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (4) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd mDr

Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/dkj dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus dh ctk,] lHkh fcYyxeksa ls eqDr gksdj fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM

esa fufgr gksxkA

vuqlwph

rglhy % jksgrd

ftyk % jksgrd

jkT;&gfj;k.kk

Øe la-

xkao dk uke

gncLr

eqLrfry

[kljk@fdyk

{ks=kiQy

la[;k

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZehVj

1- czkã.kokl

9/1

9/2

2 edjkSyh dyka

3 fdykSbZ [kkl

186

¹iQk-la-vkj-&31015@9@2009&vksvkj&IIº

,- xksLokeh] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 229.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,

published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 2185 dated the 20th August, 2010, issued under sub-section (1) of

section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of user in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter

referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified

in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum

Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana by the Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited for implementing the “GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh”

in Tehsil Rohtak, District Rohtak, in Haryana State;

678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

And whereas, copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 29.11.2010.

And whereas, the Competent Authority has under sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, has submitted his

report to the Central Government.

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the

land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

acquired;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest

from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : ROHTAK

District: ROHTAK

State: HARYANA

Name of Village

Hadbast

Mustatil

Khasra/

Area

No.

Killa No.

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre.

1 Brahmanwas

9/1

9/2

2 Makrauli Kalan

3 Kiloi Khas

186

[F. No. R-31015/9/2009-OR-II]

A. GOSWAMI, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 230-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky; ds dk-vk- 2182 fnukad 3 vxLr] 2010] }kjk izsVªksfy;e

vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962 (1962 dk 50) (ftls mlds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e

dgk tk,xk) dh /kjk 3(1) ds v/hu vf/lwpuk izdkf'kr dj] jeu eaMh (iatkc jkT; esa) ls cgknqjx<+ (gfj;k.kk jkT; esa) rd]

isVªksfy;e mRikn ds ifjogu ds fy, fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ^^th th ,l vkj mRikn fu"Øe.k ifj;kstuk jeu eaMh ls

cgknqjx<+ isVªksfy;e ikbiykbu** ds lEcU/ esa mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fu£n"V rglhy ljnqyx<+]+ ftyk ekulk] jkT; iatkc

dh Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj ds vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh]

vkSj] mDr vf/lwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks fnukad 12 uoEcj] 2010 dks miyC/ djk nh xbZ Fkha]

vkSj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds vuqlj.k esa l{ke izkf/dkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS A

vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa mi;ksx dk

vf/dkj vftZr djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS A

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

679

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd

bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/dkj vftZr fd;k tkrk gS A

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (4) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd mDr

Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/dkj dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gksdj fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM

esa fufgr gksxkA

vuqlwph

rglhy % ljnwyx<+ ftyk % ekulk

jkT;&iatkc

xkao dk uke

gncLr

eqLrfry

[kljk@fdyk

{ks=kiQy

la[;k

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZehVj

1- tVkuk dyka

147

¹iQk-la-vkj-&31015@11@2009&vks-vkj-&IIº

,- xksLokeh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 230.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural

Gas, published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 2182 dated the 03 Aug. 2010, issued under sub-section (1) of

Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), (hereinafter

referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in the land specified

in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum

Products from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh in the State of Punjab by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited for

implementing the “GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to Bahadurgarh’’ in Tehsil Sardulgarh

District Mansa in Punjab State;

And whereas, copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 12-11-2010.

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

report to the Central Government.

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the

land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

acquired;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest

from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil :SARDULGARH

District: MANSA

State: PUNJAB

Name of Village

Hadbast

Mustatil

Khasra/

Area

No.

Killa No.

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre

1. Jatana Kalan

147

[F.No. R-31015/11/2009-OR-II]

A. GOSWAMI, Under Secy.

680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 231-—dsUnzh; ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky; ds dk-vk- 2186 fnukad 20 vxLr] 2010] }kjk isVªksfy;e

vkSj [kfut ikbiykbUl (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962 (1962 dk 50) (ftls mlds i'pkr~ mDr vf/fu;e

dgk tk,xk) dh /kjk 3(1) ds v/hu vf/lwpuk izdkf'kr dj]jeu eaMh (iatkc jkT; esa) ls cgknqjx<+ (gfj;k.kk jkT; esa) rd]

isVªksfy;e mRikn ds ifjogu ds fy, fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ^^th th ,l vkj mRikn fu"Øe.k ifj;kstuk jeu eaMh ls

cgknqjx<+ isVªksfy;e ikbiykbu** ds lEcU/ esa mDr vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fu£n"V rglhy jfr;k ftyk iQrsgkckn jkT; gfj;k.kk

dh Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj ds vtZu ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk dh Fkh _

vkSj mDr vf/lwpuk dh izfr;ka turk dks fnukad 26 uoEcj] 2010 dks miyC/ djk nh xbZ Fkh]

vkSj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu l{ke izkf/dkjh us dsUnzh; ljdkj dks viuh fjiksVZ ns nh gS]

vkSj] dsUnzh; ljdkj us mDr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa mi;ksx dk

vf/dkj vftZr djus dk fofu'p; fd;k gS _

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ?kks"k.kk djrh gS fd

bl vf/lwpuk ls mikc¼ vuqlwph esa fofufnZ"V Hkwfe esa ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mi;ksx dk vf/dkj vftZr fd;k tkrk gS _

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 6 dh mi&/kjk (4) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] ;g funsZ'k nsrh gS fd mDr

Hkwfe esa mi;ksx dk vf/dkj dsUnzh; ljdkj esa fufgr gksus ds ctk,] lHkh foYyaxeksa ls eqDr gks dj fgUnqLrku isVªksfy;e dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM

esa fufgr gksxkA

vuqlwph

rglhy % jfr;k

ftyk % iQrsgkckn

jkT;&gfj;k.kk

Øe la-

xkao dk uke

gncLr

eqLrfry

[kljk@fdyk

{ks=kiQy

la[;k

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZehVj

lkgju

109

4/2

ea<

108

102

103

141

23/1

23/2

24/2

147

7/1

vgjok

127

210

25/2

232

234

5/2

¹iQk-la-vkj-&31015@15@2009&vks-vkj-&IIº

,- xksLokeh] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

681

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 231.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Petroleum and

Natural Gas, published in the Gazette of India vide number S.O. 2186 dated the 20th August, 2010, issued under sub-

section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of

1962), (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right of user in

the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation

of Petroleum Products from Raman Mandi in the State of Punjab to Bahadurgarh in the State of Haryana by the Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited for implementing the “GGSR Products Evacuation Project pipeline from Raman Mandi to

Bahadurgarh” in Tehsil Ratiya, District Fatehabad, in Haryana State;

And whereas, copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the public on 26.11.2010.

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

report to the Central Government.

And whereas, the Central Government after considering the said report is satisfied that the right of user in the

land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification should be acquired;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that the right of user in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is

acquired;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby directs that the right of users in the said land shall instead of vesting in the Central Government, vest

from the date of publication of this declaration, in the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited free from all encumbrances.

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : RATIYA

District : FATEHABAD

State : HARY ANA

Name of Village

Hadbast

Mustatil

Khasra/

Area

No.

Killa No.

Hectare

Are

Square

Metre

Saharan

109

4/2

Madh

108

102

103

141

23/1

23/2

24/2

147

7/1

Ahearwa

127

210

25/2

232

234

5/2

[F. No. R-31015/15/2009-OR-II]

A. GOSWAMI, Under Secy.

682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 232-—dsUæh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d

izrhr gksrk gS fd ikjknhi (mM+hlk) ls jk;iqj (NÙkhlx<+) ,oa jk¡ph

(>kj[k.M) rd isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy, bafM;u

vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ¶ikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jk;iqj&jk¡ph

ikbiykbu¸ fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,_

vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj dks mDr ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu

ds fy, ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,lh Hkwfe] ftlds uhps

ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/lwpuk ls

mikc¼ vuqlwph esa o£.kr gS] esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu fd;k

tk,_

vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu

(Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962 (1962

dk 50) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] muesa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus ds

vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS_

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe esa fgrc¼ gS]

ml rkjh[k ls ftldks Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa ;Fkk izdkf'kr bl

vfèklwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kj.k turk dks miyC/ djk nh tkrh gS]

bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj] Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds

fy,] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus ds laca/ esa Jh izse

pUæ oekZ] l{ke izkf/dkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

ikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jk;iqj&jk¡ph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk] xzkmaM Ýyksj]

ch&CykWd] 'kkgnso Vkoj] ih- ih- dEikmUM] jk¡ph&834001

(>kj[kaM) dks fyf[kr :i esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxk A

vuqlwph

vapy % tyMsxk

ftyk % fleMsxk

jkT; % >kj[k.M

xk¡o dk uke

IykWV la-

{ks=kiQy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Mksaxkikuh&17

2191

2188

2077

2079

2075

2074

2068

2062

2056

2055

2057

2041

2043

2025

Mksaxkikuh&17

2023

2019

2028

2029

2033

2030

2031

2018

2017

cksaxsjk&16

992

973

990

988

978

979

980

955

952

953

954

951

950

949

944

859

862

860

858

853

726

727

723

718

714

713

703

704

702

696

1181

1180

1179

1178

1175

1171

2637

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

683

cksaxsjk&16

2655

2656

2660

2661

2662

2702

2701

2817

2820

2819

2649

2639

2640

2641

2622

2621

2619

2560

2559

2507

2506

2505

2277

2502

2501

2888

2890

2891

2892

2893

2930

2929

2928

2508

2324

2318

2325

2327

2335

2338

2340

2345

2342

2382

2378

2379

cksaxsjk&16

2381

2367

2364

2365

2366

2361

2927

2563

yeMsxk&35

5034

5036

5037

5038

5039

5040

5042

5043

5059

5060

5058

5057

5062

5069

5195

5185

4971

4974

4976

4975

4970

4982

4989

4986

4985

4870

4860

4861

4862

4863

4859

4858

4838

4836

4833

4832

4799

4796

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

yeMsxk&35

4127

4129

4126

4132

4137

4136

4138

4147

4148

4150

4149

4082

4081

4079

4078

4080

4089

4077

4076

4060

4059

4057

4052

4054

4055

4035

4151

4056

yeMsxk&37

135

131

133

130

103

104

106

107

1102

647

648

645

649

644

yeMsxk&37

657

656

654

664

665

724

723

719

667

721

720

717

714

712

758

808

806

805

769

775

799

777

776

779

129

127

655

669

668

673

676

675

677

759

766

807

771

774

760

761

gqVwVqvk&36

2306

2305

2307

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

685

gqVqVqvk&36

2303

2746

2743

2744

2745

2736

2757

2756

2766

2758

2792

2767

2780

2781

2779

3308

3309

3307

3239

3240

3241

3143

3226

3244

3225

3223

3245

3224

3220

3247

3216

3217

3215

3213

3214

3212

3060

3062

3061

3114

3065

3066

3067

3068

3013

3071

gqVqVqvk&36

3070

3072

3075

3073

3074

3078

3077

3095

3080

3083

3082

2993

3407

2970

2967

2966

2959

2961

2957

2962

Vafxvk&63

402

667

406

403

404

405

407

663

441

423

424

426

437

427

428

2628

576

573

570

568

567

536

538

539

537

535

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Vafxvk&63

534

1007

1008

1009

1011

1013

1082

1032

1031

1030

1141

1142

1146

1147

1149

1150

1156

1155

1154

1153

1161

1198

1197

1152

1207

1196

1211

1212

1260

1233

1232

1225

1224

tyMsxk&64

3741

3742

3746

3747

3748

3762

3749

3753

3754

3755

3756

3757

3758

tyMsxk&64

3867

3848

3926

3844

3898

3895

3899

3901

3900

3905

3906

3851

2257

2256

2255

2250

1310

1314

1338

1312

1339

1340

1480

1341

1342

1345

1346

1354

1355

1356

1357

1358

1359

1381

1389

1388

1413

4250

1414

1415

1416

1418

1419

1420

1427

1421

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

687

tyMsxk&64

1422

1426

1423

1424

1425

1478

1476

1475

ifrvEck&77

1861

1863

1873

1878

1879

1920

1919

1877

1921

1960

1922

1961

2047

2048

2045

2083

2082

2081

2080

2107

2067

2106

2103

2105

2104

2204

2203

2122

2123

2124

2125

4368

4366

4364

4365

4363

4357

4358

ifrvEck&77

4359

4360

4361

4348

4347

4345

4346

4344

4343

4342

3894

3897

3898

3899

3896

3902

3913

3922

3895

3900

3912

3914

3960

3959

3941

3955

3946

3846

3848

3843

3845

3836

3833

3818

3820

3785

3787

3788

3789

3790

3791

3844

3834

fdfujdsyk&79

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

688

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

fdfujdsyk&79

112

338

333

337

336

388

341

386

384

385

383

382

380

374

450

449

476

477

473

478

472

471

479

467

506

509

510

514

513

512

525

1085

fdfujdsyk&79

1098

1100

1105

1106

1107

1108

1115

1114

1113

468

470

1104

dkjhekVh&80

¹iQk- la- vkj&25011@50@2010&vks- vkj-&1º

ch- ds- nÙkk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 232.—Whereas, it appears to the Central

Government that it is necessary in the public interest that

for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip

(Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh)& Ranchi (Jharkhand), a

“Paradip—Sambalpur—Raipur—Ranchi Pipeline” should

be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that

for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary

to acquire the right of user in the land described in the

schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by Sub-

section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962

(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its

intention to acquire the right of user therein;

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

689

Any person interested in the land described in the said

schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on

which the copies of this notification, as published in the

Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public,

object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user

therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri

Prem Chandra Verma, Competent Authority, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited,Paradip—Sambalpur—Raipur—

Ranchi Pipe Line Project, Ground floor, B-Block, Shahdeo

Tower, P.P. Compound, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand).

SCHEDULE

Anchal : Jaldega District : Simdega State : Jharkhand

Name of the Village Plot No. Area

Hectare Are

Sq. mtr

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Dongapani-17

2191

2188

2077

2079

2075

2074

2068

2062

2056

2055

2057

2041

2043

2025

2023

2019

2028

2029

2033

2030

2031

2018

2017

Bongera-16

992

973

990

988

978

979

980

955

952

953

Bongera-16

954

951

950

949

944

859

862

860

858

853

726

727

723

718

714

713

703

704

702

696

1181

1180

1179

1178

1175

1171

2637

2655

2656

2660

2661

2662

2702

2701

2817

2820

2819

2649

2639

2640

2641

2622

2621

2619

2560

2559

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bongera-16

2507

2506

2505

2277

2502

2501

2888

2890

2891

2892

2893

2930

2929

2928

2508

2324

2318

2325

2327

2335

2338

2340

2345

2342

2382

2378

2379

2381

2367

2364

2365

2366

2361

2927

2563

Lamdega-35

5034

5036

5037

5038

5039

5040

5042

5043

5059

5060

5058

Lamdega-35

5057

5062

5069

5195

5185

4971

4974

4976

4975

4970

4982

4989

4986

4985

4870

4860

4861

4862

4863

4859

4858

4838

4836

4833

4832

4799

4796

4127

4129

4126

4132

4137

4136

4138

4147

4148

4150

4149

4082

4081

4079

4078

4080

4089

4077

4076

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

691

Lamdega-35

4060

4059

4057

4052

4054

4055

4035

4151

4056

Lamdega-37

135

131

133

130

103

104

106

107

1102

647

648

645

649

644

657

656

654

664

665

724

723

719

667

721

720

717

714

712

758

808

806

805

769

775

Lamdega-37

799

777

776

779

129

127

655

669

668

673

676

675

677

759

766

807

771

774

760

761

Hututua-36

2306

2305

2307

2303

2746

2743

2744

2745

2736

2757

2756

2766

2758

2792

2767

2780

2781

2779

3308

3309

3307

3239

3240

3241

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Hututua-36

3143

3226

3244

3225

3223

3245

3224

3220

3247

3216

3217

3215

3213

3214

3212

3060

3062

3061

3114

3065

3066

3067

3068

3013

3071

3070

3072

3075

3073

3074

3078

3077

3095

3080

3083

3082

2993

3407

2970

2967

2966

2959

2961

2957

2962

Tangia-63

402

667

406

403

404

405

407

663

441

423

424

426

437

427

428

2628

576

573

570

568

567

536

538

539

537

535

534

1007

1008

1009

1011

1013

1082

1032

1031

1030

1141

1142

1146

1147

1149

1150

1156

1155

1154

1153

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

693

Tangia-63

1161

1198

1197

1152

1207

1196

1211

1212

1260

1233

1232

1225

1224

Jaldega-64

3741

3742

3746

3747

3748

3762

3749

3753

3754

3755

3756

3757

3758

3867

3848

3926

3844

3898

3895

3899

3901

3900

3905

3906

3851

2257

2256

2255

2250

1310

1314

1338

1312

Jaldega-64

1339

1340

1480

1341

1342

1345

1346

1354

1355

1356

1357

1358

1359

1381

1389

1388

1413

4250

1414

1415

1416

1418

1419

1420

1427

1421

1422

1426

1423

1424

1425

1478

1476

1475

Patiamba-77

1861

1863

1873

1878

1879

1920

1919

1877

1921

1960

1922

1961

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Patiamba-77

2047

2048

2045

2083

2082

2081

2080

2107

2067

2106

2103

2105

2104

2204

2203

2122

2123

2124

2125

4368

4366

4364

4365

4363

4357

4358

4359

4360

4361

4348

4347

4345

4346

4344

4343

4342

3894

3897

3898

3899

3896

3902

3913

3922

3895

3900

3912

3914

3960

Patiamba-77

3959

3941

3955

3946

3846

3848

3843

3845

3836

3833

3818

3820

3785

3787

3788

3789

3790

3791

3844

3834

Kinirkela-79

112

338

333

337

336

388

341

386

384

385

383

382

380

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

695

Kinirkela-79

374

450

449

476

477

473

478

472

471

479

467

506

509

510

514

513

512

525

1085

1098

1100

1105

1106

1107

1108

1115

1114

1113

468

470

1104

Karimati-80

[F. No. R-25011/50/2010-OR-1]

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 233-—dsUæh; ljdkj dks yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d

izrhr gksrk gS fd ikjknhi (mM+hlk) ls jk;iqj (NÙkhlx<+) ,oa

jk¡ph (>kj[k.M) rd isVªksfy;e mRiknksa ds ifjogu ds fy,

bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ¶ikjknhi& lEcyiqj&

jk;iqj&jk¡ph ikbiykbu¸ fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,_

vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj dks mDr ikbiykbZu fcNkus ds iz;kstu

ds fy, ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd ,slh Hkwfe] ftuds uhps

ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/lwpuk ls

mikc¼ vuqlwph esa o£.kr gS] esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu fd;k

tk,_

vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj] isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu

(Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962 (1962

dk 50) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] muesa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus ds

vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS_

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe esa fgrc¼ gS]

ml rkjh[k ls ftldks Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa ;Fkk izdkf'kr bl

vfèklwpuk dh izfr;ka lk/kj.k turk dks miyC/ djk nh tkrh gS]

bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj] Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbZu fcNk, tkus ds

fy,] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus ds laca/ esa Jh izse

pUæ oekZ] l{ke izkf/dkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM]

ikjknhi&lEcyiqj&jk;iqj&jk¡ph ikbiykbu ifj;kstuk] xzkmaM Ýyksj]

ch&CykWd] 'kkgnso Vkoj] ih- ih- dEikmUM] jk¡ph&834001

(>kj[kaM) dks fyf[kr :i esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxk A

vuqlwph

vapy % ckuk

ftyk % fleMsxk

jkT; % >kj[k.M

xk¡o dk uke

IykWV la-

{ks=kiQy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

NksVdsrqaxk&89

404

203

202

204

210

211

209

212

213

217

218

238

332

380

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

NksVdsrqaxk&89

377

379

378

381

375

456

457

460

458

459

454

466

479

478

472

dksulksns&88

1610

1611

1609

1626

1628

1631

1632

1633

1636

1635

1634

1638

1745

1753

1754

1755

1756

1765

1762

1763

1764

1761

1370

1369

1362

1811

1812

1813

1361

1814

1818

dksulksns&88

1817

1816

1824

1815

1826

1827

1829

1831

1266

1264

1267

1265

603

602

601

600

604

599

607

608

638

639

644

645

699

700

698

740

701

702

706

737

736

746

756

755

749

753

754

752

751

794

780

779

785

781

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

697

dksulksns&88

783

784

790

791

814

815

813

810

808

809

807

786

703

787

fcjrk&91

2098

2099

2100

2103

2096

2105

2127

2128

1890

2129

2130

2133

2136

2139

2137

1891

1817

1816

1818

1819

1838

1820

1821

1823

1826

1518

1802

1801

1563

1564

1569

1570

fcjrk&91

1568

1567

1589

1590

1595

1607

1596

1597

1606

1605

1604

1603

1602

1601

1680

1678

1639

1640

1641

1653

1650

1652

1655

1656

1657

520

518

519

528

516

517

499

500

498

497

501

478

495

494

1661

cksjkslsrk&85

1850

1849

1848

1847

1846

1841

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

698

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

cksjkslsrk&85

1840

1838

1837

1810

1809

1808

1807

1778

1805

1804

1774

1775

1773

1708

1698

1697

1701

1703

1704

1705

1562

1606

1596

1590

1589

1588

1565

1577

1576

1575

1574

1573

1570

1572

1571

1277

1280

1281

1499

1282

1283

1132

1131

1130

1129

576

cksjkslsrk&85

578

583

580

590

598

599

602

606

609

604

605

640

639

638

652

644

651

650

649

732

731

733

734

728

741

719

718

708

709

703

702

699

710

698

687

696

692

691

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

699

cksjkslsrk&85

1777

lsegkrw&84

2504

2501

2499

2496

2493

2485

2492

2491

2494

2450

2449

2451

2429

2453

2391

2427

2500

dsVdk&83

1262

1261

1260

1259

1256

1258

1257

1252

1238

1247

1248

1245

1100

1101

1098

1097

dsVdk&83

1105

1111

1031

1030

1024

1023

1029

1027

1025

1026

991

993

990

989

1128

986

988

983

987

976

974

973

972

971

970

969

942

868

869

870

875

876

874

901

902

903

900

912

913

914

2101

2100

2106

2105

2097

2107

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dsVdk&83

2108

2110

2104

2090

2089

2152

2153

2155

2154

2168

2169

2171

2184

2172

2174

2175

2177

2178

2179

2621

2619

2620

2618

2228

2229

2259

2258

2257

2252

2251

2244

2246

2245

2298

2300

2301

2302

2304

2267

407

406

402

403

404

401

400

dsVdk&83

388

390

393

391

392

394

378

377

364

363

362

365

366

368

367

370

337

338

331

2180

1265

¹iQk- la- vkj&25011@1@2011&vks- vkj-&1º

ch- ds- nÙkk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th January, 2011

S.O. 233.—Whereas, it appears to the Central

Government that it is necessary in the public interest that

for the transportation of petroleum products from Paradip

(Orissa) to Raipur (Chhattisgarh)& Ranchi (Jharkhand), a

“Paradip—Sambalpur—Raipur—Ranchi Pipeline” should

be laid by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government

that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is

necessary to acquire the right of user in the land described

in the schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred

by Sub section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and

Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land)

Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby

declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the

said schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date

on which the copies of this notification, as published in

the Gazette of India, are made available to the General Public,

object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user

therein for laying of the pipeline under the land to Shri

Prem Chandra Verma, Competent Authority, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited Paradip—Sambalpur—Raipur—

Ranchi Pipe Line Project, Ground floor, B-Block, Shahdeo

Tower, P.P. Compound, Ranchi-834001 (Jharkhand)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

701

SCHEDULE

Anchal : Bano District : Simdega State : Jharkhand

Name of the Village Plot No.

Area

Hectare Are

Sq. mtr

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

Chhotketunga-89

404

203

202

204

210

211

209

212

213

217

218

238

332

380

377

379

378

381

375

456

457

460

458

459

454

466

479

478

472

Konsode-88

1610

1611

1609

1626

1628

1631

1632

1633

1636

1635

1634

1638

1745

Konsode-88

1753

1754

1755

1756

1765

1762

1763

1764

1761

1370

1369

1362

1811

1812

1813

1361

1814

1818

1817

1816

1824

1815

1826

1827

1829

1831

1266

1264

1267

1265

603

602

601

600

604

599

607

608

638

639

644

645

699

700

698

740

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Konsode-88

701

702

706

737

736

746

756

755

749

753

754

752

751

794

780

779

785

781

783

784

790

791

814

815

813

810

808

809

807

786

703

Birta-91

787

2098

2099

2100

2103

2096

2105

2127

2128

1890

2129

2130

2133

2136

2139

Birta-91

2137

1891

1817

1816

1818

1819

1838

1820

1821

1823

1826

1518

1802

1801

1563

1564

1569

1570

1568

1567

1589

1590

1595

1607

1596

1597

1606

1605

1604

1603

1602

1601

1680

1678

1639

1640

1641

1653

1650

1652

1655

1656

1657

520

518

519

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

703

Birta-91

528

516

517

499

500

498

497

501

478

495

494

1661

Boroseta-85

1850

1849

1848

1847

1846

1841

1840

1838

1837

1810

1809

1808

1807

1778

1805

1804

1774

1775

1773

1708

1698

1697

1701

1703

1704

1705

1562

1606

1596

1590

1589

1588

1565

1577

Boroseta-85

1576

1575

1574

1573

1570

1572

1571

1277

1280

1281

1499

1282

1283

1132

1131

1130

1129

576

578

583

580

590

598

599

602

606

609

604

605

640

639

638

652

644

651

650

649

732

731

733

734

728

741

719

718

708

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Boroseta-85

709

703

702

699

710

698

687

696

692

691

1777

Semhatu-84

2504

2501

2499

2496

2493

2485

2492

2491

2494

2450

2449

2451

2429

2453

2391

2427

Semhatu-84

2500

Ketka-83

1262

1261

1260

1259

1256

1258

1257

1252

1238

1247

1248

1245

1100

1101

1098

1097

1105

1111

1031

1030

1024

1023

1029

1027

1025

1026

991

993

990

989

1128

986

988

983

987

976

974

973

972

971

970

969

942

868

869

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

705

Ketka-83

870

875

876

874

901

902

903

900

912

913

914

2101

2100

2106

2105

2097

2107

2108

2110

2104

2090

2089

2152

2153

2155

2154

2168

2169

2171

2184

2172

2174

2175

2177

2178

2179

2621

2619

2620

2618

2228

2229

2259

2258

2257

2252

2251

Ketka-83

2244

2246

2245

2298

2300

2301

2302

2304

2267

407

406

402

403

404

401

400

388

390

393

391

392

394

378

377

364

363

362

365

366

368

367

370

337

338

331

2180

1265

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

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 234-—dsUæh; ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd

yksdfgr esa ;g vko';d gS fd xqtjkr jkT; esa lyk;k ls mÙkj

izns'k jkT; esa eFkqjk rd iSVªksfy;e ØwM ds ifjogu ds fy,

¶lyk;k&eFkqjk ikbiykbu ds vUrxZr Mh&ckWVyus¯dx ifj;kstuk¸

ds dk;kZUo;u gsrq bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ,d

ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,_

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

706

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vkSj dsUæh; ljdkj dks mDr ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu

ds fy, ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa] ftlds Hkhrj

mDr ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus dk izLrko gS vkSj tks bl vf/lwpuk

ls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr gS] mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu fd;k

tk,_

vr% vc] dsUæh; ljdkj] iSVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut ikbiykbu

(Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962 (1962

dk 50) dh /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk

iz;ksx djrs gq,] mDr Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus

ds vius vk'k; dh ?kks"k.kk djrh gS_

dksbZ O;fDr] tks mDr vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe ls fgrc¼ gS]

ml rkjh[k ls ftldks] Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa ;Fkk izdkf'kr bl

vfèklwpuk dh izfr;ka tulk/kj.k dks miyC/ djk nh tkrh gSa]

bDdhl fnu ds Hkhrj] mlesa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu djus

;k Hkwfe ds uhps ikbiykbu fcNk, tkus ds laca/ esa Jh Hkhe ¯lg]

l{ke izkf/dkjh] bafM;u vkW;y dkWiksZjs'ku fyfeVsM] ikbiykbu

izHkkx] 33 eqDrkuan uxj] xksikyiqjk ckbZikl] t;iqj&302018

(jktLFkku) dks fyf[kr :i esa vk{ksi Hkst ldsxk A

vuqlwph

rglhy % lkstr

ftyk % ikyh

jkT; % jktLFkku

xzko dk uke

[kljk la-

{ks=kiQy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ ehVj

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

1. cxM+h

5062 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

5061

5061/5208

5053 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

5039

5038

5035

5033 (lk-fu-fo-)

5028

4885

4881

4886

5011

5012 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

5010

5019

5005

4930

4923

4924

4920

4917

fiiykn

780 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

776

532 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

509

513

514

515

517

519

516

520

521

500

368

370

367

366

365

364

361

362

363

359

358

357

356

354

323 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

295

296

298

299

307

197 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

122

123

106

107

108 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

dsyokn

17 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

707

dsyokn

83 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

103

110

nsoyh gqYyk

89 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

137 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

168

166

167

161

158

156

155

209

215

216

217

214

235

313

319

325

326

341 (lk-fu-fo-)

418

418/1

417

416/876

416

407

406

402

401

377 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

602

603 (xzke iapk;r Hkwfe)

¯lxiqjk

27 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

27/696

28 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

27/687

37 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

402 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

¯lxiqjk

401

401/697

400

397 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

396 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

395

33 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

412 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

417

418

419

432

436

441

444

445 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

446

448

563 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

563/694

562

561

558

557 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

557/577 (ljdkjh Hkwfe) 00

6. jk;ajk dyka

327 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

326

323 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

324

321 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

¹iQk- la- vkj&25011@2@2011&vksvkj&1º

ch- ds- nÙkk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 17th January, 2011

S.O. 234.—Whereas, it appears to the Central Government,

that it is necessary in the public interest that for the

transportation of petroleum crude a pipeline from Salaya in

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the State of Gujarat to Mathura in the State of Uttar Pradesh,

(Under Salaya-Mathura Pipeline De-bottelenecking Project)

Should be laid by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas, it appears to the Central Government that

for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary

to acquire the right of user in the land under which the said

pipeline is proposed to be laid, and which is described in

the Schedule annexed to this notification;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-

section (1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals

Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in land) Act, 1962

(50 of 1962), the Central Government hereby declares its

intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said

schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on

which the copies of this notification issued under sub-

section (1) of Section 3 of the said Act, as published in the

Gazette of India, are made available to the general public,

object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user

therein or laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri

Bhim Singh, Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation

Limited (Pipeline Division), 33, Muktanand Nagar,

Gopalpura Bypass, Jaipur,-302018 (Rajasthan).

SCHEDULE

Tehsil : Sojat District : Pali State : Rajasthan

Sl.

Name of the Khasra No.

Area

No. Village

Hectare Are

Sq. Mtr

(1) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

Bagri

5062(Govt. Land)

5061

5061/5208

5053(Govt. Land)

5039

5038

5035

5033(P.W.D.)

5028

4885

4881

4886

5011

5012(Govt. Land)

5010

5019

5005

4930

4923

4924

4920

4917

Piplad

780(Govt. Land)

776

532(Govt. Land)

509

513

514

515

517

519

516

520

521

500

368

370

367

366

365

364

361

362

363

359

358

357

356

354

323(Govt. Land)

295

296

298

299

307

197(Govt. Land)

122

123

106

107

108(Govt. Land)

Kelwad

17(Govt. Land)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

709

Kelwad

83(Govt. Land)

103

110

Devli Hulla

89(Govt. land)

137(Govt. land)

168

166

167

161

158

156

155

209

215

216

217

214

235

313

319

325

326

341 (P.W.D)

418

418/1

417

416/876

416

407

406

402

401

377(Govt. Land)

602

603(Gram Panchayat

Land)

5. Singpura

27(Govt. Land)

27/696

28(Govt. Land)

27/687

37(Govt. Land)

5. Singpura

402(Govt. Land)

401

401/697

400

397(Govt. Land)

396(Govt. Land)

395

33(Govt. Land)

412(Govt. Land)

417

418

419

432

436

441

444

445(Govt. Land)

446

448

563(Govt. Land)

563/694

562

561

558

557(Govt. Land)

557/577(Govt. Land)

6. Rayla

327(Govt. Land)

Kalan

326

323(Govt. Land)

324

321 (Govt. Land)

[F. No. R-25011/2/2011-OR-1]

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 27 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 235.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM 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] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 187@2002)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27&12&2010 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40025@7@2010&vkbZvkj(Mh ;w)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 27th December, 2010

S.O. 235.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 187/

2002) 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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 27-12-2010.

[No. L-40025/7/2010-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT:- SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR,

Presiding Officer.

Dated the 23rd day of November, 2010

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 187/2002

Between:

Sri B. Eresh,

S/o. B. Veeranna,

C/o M/s. B.S.A. Satayanarayana,

H.No. 2-2-1121/3/E, Nallakunata,

Hyderabad - 500 044.

....Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Telecom District,

Ananthapur- 515 055.

The T.D.M.,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Telecom District,

Ananthapur - 515 055.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner

M/s. B.S.A. Satayanarayana K.

Venkateswara Rao & V. G. Raju,

Advocates.

For the Respondent:

Sri R.S. Murthy, Advocate.

AWARD

This is a case taken under Sec. 2A (2) of the I.D. Act,

1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of

Andhra Pradesh reported in W.P. No. 8395 of 1989 dated

3-8-95 between Sri U. Chinnappa and M/s. Cotton

Corporation of India and two others.

2. Sri B. Eresh, workman has filed this petition u/s

2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to declare his

retrenchment/dismissal from service dated 31-3-2002 as

illegal and invalid with request to reinstate him in the same

post with all consequential service benefits.

3. It has been stated in the claim petition that the

Petitioner was initially appointed as casual mazdoor in the

office of G.M., Telecom district, Ananthapur on 1-4-1993

and worked up to 15-2-95. Again he was reengaged w.e.f.

1-7-96 and he worked up to 31-3-2002. However, the services

of Petitioner were retrenched without complying the

mandatory provisions of Sec. 25F and 25G of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 on 31-3-2002. Petitioner filed

departmental appeal No. 652/96 which was disposed off on

13-6-1996. He was paid pro-rata wages @ 1/30th of every

month pay and allowances payable to a Gr. D. employee.

He was paid an amount of Rs. 1630 as arrears vide letter

dated 22-5-2001. Petitioner was reengaged from 1996 up to

1999. But, in order to create artificial breaks, the services of

this Petitioner were disengaged and he was later on

reengaged as casual labour. It has been stated that the

Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in every year

since 1996 onwards up to 31-3-2002 and has become entitled

to be regularized as departmental employee Gr. D with all

consequential benefits. In support of his claim, the

Petitioner has submitted copies of payment voucher and

copy of the judgement of Hon’ble C.A.T., Hyderabed in

OA No. 652/96 dated 13-6-96 and copy of the letter No.

TY. Advance/SDE(PR)/2001-02, dated 22-5-2001 along with

a statement of duty particulars for the years pertaining to

1993 and 1999. For rest of the years the duty particulars is

not being filed because the Respondent has not maintained

record of the duty particulars. The services of the Petitioner

were retrenched w.e.f. 1- 4-2002 without any notice or

without compensation, as such, the action of Respondent

is neither legal nor valid and is liable to be quashed.

4. Respondent has filed their counter statement. It

has been stated that due to absenteesim of regular

employee and ban on filling of the Group ‘D’ posts and

meeting emergent situations casual labour were engaged

on daily wages and their continuance was dependent on

the availability of the work including the urgency hence,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

711

engagement for more than 240 days is irrelevant. The

engagement of a workman for extending 240 days on daily

wage basis do not confer any right for continuity and

regularization in the service. The provision of Sec. 25F are

not applicable in the present case. Petitioner filed

departmental appeal No. 652/96 which was disposed off on

13-6-1996. The same was disposed off with direction to

reengage in future if the work is available. The Petitioner

again filed OA No. 143/2001 which was disposed off on

12-6- 2001 with direction to pay minimum wages of 1/30th

and to consider for grant of temporary status. The said

direction was implemented by paying him Rs. 1630 but

granting temporary status could not be allowed as there

was no scope to grant temporary status. There is no scope

either for engagement or for grant of temporary status

under the scheme. It was one time settlement for person

who has been in service in 1986. There is total ban on

engagement of casual labours vide D.O.T. order O.M. No.

269-4/93-STN (Pt.) dated 12-2-99 and subsequently

amended D.O.T. Memo. Even No. dated 12-1-1999 the hiring

of labourers for not more than 30 days at a time and not

extending 100 days in a year. The petition has got no merit

and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Both the parties were directed to produce their

evidence. The Petitioner has filed Xerox copy of the

enhanced amount in view of the judgement. Xerox copy of

the order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal,

Hyderabad in OA No. 652/96 dated 13-6-96 between Sri B.

Eresh and Telecom District Manager, Ananathapur. Xerox

copy of letter No. TY. Advance/SDE(PR)/2001-02, dated

22-5-2001 for making advance payment to favour casual

workers in which name of B. Eresh does not find place.

Apart from the above documentary evidence, Petitioner

B. Eresh has filed his affidavit. He has been cross-examined

by the Respondent. In his cross-examination he has stated

that his name is Eresh and department has his name as

Veeresh, that is why he did not get any difference in wages.

Workman has further filed affidavti of Sri B. Abdul Khader

as WW2 who and also produced affidavit of Sri K. Ravindra

as WW3 but they were not cross-examined.

6. Respondent has filed affidavit of Sri G.V.R. Setty

and Sri C. Suryachandra Rao, A.G.M.(Legal) in support of

the contentions raised by the Respondents. Respondent

has also filed affidavit of Sri B. Jayapala Sarma, who has

sworn in oath and has stated that as per available record of

the Petitioner with the Respondent management, the

Petitioner was engaged intermittently, due to ban on filling

up of Group ‘D’ posts and due to absence or leave of

Group ‘D’ staff.

7. I have heard the counsels of both the parties and

I have also gone through the evidence available on the

record. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed

written arguments.

8. It has been argued by Learned Counsel for the

Respondent that the Petitioner has stated that he worked

since 1996 up to 31-3-2002, but he has not been able to

produce a single document to prove that he has worked

from 1996 up to 31-3-2002 regularly and without any break.

Not only that the Petitioner has not been able to prove that

he was recruited or appointed after following the

recruitment procedure. He has not been able to prove that

he has completed or he has worked for 240 days in a year

prior to his disengagement or that he was legally and rightly

appointed after following the recruitment procedure as

such, he can not be regularized in the service even if he

worked as a daily wage or casual labour in the department

for more than 240 days. He has further argued that Hon’ble

Supreme Court in a very recent judgment in the case of

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Jammu Vs. Teja Singh relating

to the Civil Appeal No. 292/2009 has expressed his opinion

that a casual rate or daily rate worker if not appointed

following the recruitment procedure who has worked for

240 days even then, he is not entitled for absorption or

regularization in the service. I have considered this argument

of Learned Counsel for the Respondent in the light of the

recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in

C.A. No. 292/2009.

9. It is to be considered whether the Petitioner

workman of this case was appointed following the procedure

of recruitment or not. In his own cross-examination WW1

Sri B. Eresh has stated that he was not given any

appointment order. He was available on call and was given

work from 1-4-1993. He further stated that he used to go for

work due to poverty. One Sri Surya Prasad, S.D.E., kept him

who is dead now. He was paid Rs. 30 per day. He worked till

31-3-2002. He has admitted that he was given intermittent

breaks, that is why he has approached Hon’ble Central

Administrative Tribunal. Further, he has stated that he do

not have any document to prove that he worked from 1996

to 31-3-2002. This shows that the Petitioner neither appeared

for any interview nor any recruitment procedure was carried

out by the department nor the Petitioner applied for the

post nor appeared for any examination and was selected

for the alleged post. The same way WW2 who is said to be

the Section Supervisor of the Telecom department has

stated that casual labour were working in the general section

and the wage amount was paid through voucher. There

may be some break in engaging casual labourers. He can

not state the name of the person engaged from 1996 to

2002 or thereafter. He can not say from which period to

which period the casual labour has worked in the

department. He has further stated that the labourers in his

affidavit used to work on rotation whenever there was work

available with management. No appointment letter was

given to the casual labourers. This shows that even though

the causal labourers were engaged in the department, they

were engaged whenever there was work. WW2 has not

been able to state that Petitioner has worked continuously

712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

from1996 to 2002. He has stated that the casual labours

were engaged on rotation basis. This prove that whenever

the work was available the casual labour were engaged

without any appointment order letter or without any

recruitment process. Same way WW3 has stated that

whenever Group ‘D’ employees are absent casual labour

were used to work for 5 to 6 years in that seat, inspite of the

ban, casual labour were engaged. He knows that if casual

labour is engaged after the circular of ban, the person

concerned is liable for disciplinary action. No casual labour

has worked in his section previously one Sri Siva Kumar

used to work in his section.Whether Sri B. Eresh has worked

in his section or he has seen Sri B. Eresh working in his

section has not been stated by the witnesses. This proves

that though the workman has worked for some days in the

department of telecommunications he was neither recruited

through the recruitment procedure nor he was engaged for

continuous period. The documents filed by the Petitioner

workman shows that he has worked for nil days, no

document has been filed thereafter. This prove that

Petitioner has not been working for more than 240 days in

a year preceding date of his retrenchment nor he has been

able to prove that he was recruited through legal procedure

neither he was appointed in a legal manner nor he worked

continuously for more than several years as illeged by him.

There is no document to prove that Petitioner Sri B. Eresh

has ever worked with Telecom Department even for a single

day.

10. From the above discussion, this tribunal is of the

opinion that the Petitioner workman has not been able to

prove that he was legally appointed or he has worked for

more than 240 days in a year preceding date of his

disengagement. He might have been engaged for certain

number of days that does not confer the right of

absorption or regularization in the service. The judgement

pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A. No. 292/

2009 between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and Teja Singh

is fully applicable in the present case and the Petitioner

workman is not entitled for regularization or absorption

in the services. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, petition

is dismissed.

The Award is passed accordingly, Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 23rd day of

November, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

WW1: Sri. B. Eresh

MW1: Sri B. Jayapala Sarma

WW2: Sri B. Abdul Khader

WW3: Sri K. Ravindra

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M1:

Copy of order in OA No. 533/1996 dt. 26-4-96.

Ex. M2:

Copy of order in OA 118/2001dt. 13-3-2001.

Ex. M3:

Copy of Lr. No. GMTD- ATP/Genl/Legal/2001-

2002 dt. 5-2-2002 reg. Payment of difference of

wages.

Ex. M4:

Copy of DGT, New Delhi Lr. No. 269-10/89-STN

dt. 7-11-89.

Ex. M5:

Copy of DOT New Delhi Lr. No. 270-6/84-STN

dt. 22-6-99.

Ex. M6:

Copy of O.M. No. 269-4/93-STN-II(Pt.) dated

12-2-99.

Ex. M7:

Copy of O.M.No. 269-4/93-STN-II (Pt.) dated

15-6-99.

Ex. M8:

Copy of circular Lr. No. 269-94/98-STN-II/

Pers.IV dated 19-4-2001 reg. Regularization of

labourers, left out cases.

Ex. M9:

Copy of retention schedule.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 236.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

206@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

27&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40025@8@2010&vkbZvkj(Mh ;w)º

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th December, 2010

S.O. 236.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 206/2002)

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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 27-12-2010.

[No. L-40025/8/2010-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

713

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,

HYDERABAD

PRESENT:- SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 23rd day of November, 2010

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 206/2002

BETWEEN:

Sri K. Nagendra,

S/o K. Rama Rao,

C/o M/s. B.S.A. Satayanarayana,

H.No. 2-2-1121/3/E, Nallakunta,

Hyderabad - 500 044.

.....Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Telecom District,

Ananthapur- 515 055.

The T.D.M.,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Telecom District,

Ananthapur - 515 055.

.... Respondent

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner:

M/s. B.S.A Satayanarayana K.

Venkateswara Rao & V. G.Raju,

Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri R. S. Murthy, Advocate

AWARD

This is a case taken under Sec. 2A (2) of the I.D. Act,

1947 in view 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.

2. Sri K. Nagendra, workman has filed this petition

u/s. 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, to declare

his retrenchment/dismissal from service dated 31-3-2002

as illegal and invalid with request to reinstate him in the

same post with all consequential service benefits.

3. It has been stated in the claim petition that the

Petitioner was initially appointed as casual mazdoor in the

Office of G.M. , Telecom district, Ananthapur on 1-2-1994,

and he worked continuously from 1-4-1995 onwards upto

31-3-2002. However, the services of Petitioner were

retrenched without complying the mandatory provisions

of Sec. 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on

31-3-2002. Petitioner filed departmental appeal No. 205/96

which was disposed off on 15-2-1996. He was paid pro-rat

wages @ 1/30th of every month pay and allowances

payable to a Gr. D employee. He was paid an amount of

Rs. 1630 as arrears vide letter dated 22-5-2001. Petitioner

was reengaged from 1996 up to 1999. But, in order to create

artificial brakes, the services of this Petitioner were

disengaged and he was later on reengaged as casual labour.

It has been stated that the Petitioner has worked for more

than 240 days in every year since 1992 onwards up to

31-3-2002 and has become entitled to be regularized as

departmental employee Gr. D with all consequential benefits.

In support of his claim, the Petitioner has submitted copy

of the judgement of Hon’ble C.A.T.,Hyderabad in OA No.

205/96 dated 15-2-1996 and copy of the letter No. TY.

Advance/SDE(PR)/2001-02, dated 22-5-2001 along with a

letter showing enhancement of Rs. 587 to his wages. The

services of the Petitioner were retrenched w.e.f. 1-4-2002

without any notice or without compensation, as such, the

action of Respondent is neither legal nor valid and is liable

to be quashed.

4. Respondent has filed their counter statement. It

has been stated that due to absenteeism of regular employee

and ban on filling of the Group ‘D’ posts and meeting

emergent situations casual labour were engaged on daily

wages and their continuance was dependent on the

availability of the work including the urgency hence,

engagement for more than 240 days is irrelevant. The

engagement of a workman for extending 240 days on daily

wage basis do not confer any right for continuity and

regularization in the service. The provision of Sec. 25F are

not applicable in the present case. The Petitioner has filed

O.A. Nos. 418/91 and 205/96. The same were disposed off

with direction to reengage in future if the work is available.

The Petitioner again filed O.A. No. 189/2001 which was

disposed off on 26-2-2001with direction to pay minimum

wages of 1/30th and to consider for grant of temporary

status. The said direction was implemented by paying him

Rs. 1630 but granting temporary status could not be allowed

as there was no scope to grant temporary status. It has

been stated that Petitioner was engaged as casual labour

for 24 days in January, 1994 as a whole and was paid

difference of the wage arrears of Rs. 587, this payment was

duly accepted by the Petitioner without any protest. There

is no scope either for engagement or for grant of temporary

status under the scheme. There was one time settlement

for person who has been in service in 1996. There is total

ban on engagement of casual labours vide D.O.T. order

O.M. No. 269-4/93-STN(Pt.) dated 12-2-99 and subsequently

amended D.O.T. Memo. Even No. dated 12-11-1999 the

hiring of labourers for not more than 30 days at a time and

not extending 100 days in a year. The petition has got no

merit and deserves to be dismissed.

5. Both the parties were directed to produce their

evidence. The Petitioner has filed Xerox copy of the

enhanced amount in view of the judgement. Xerox copy of

order showing Petitioner’s wage enhancement of Rs. 587

Ex. W1, Xerox copy of the order of the Hon’ble Central

714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Administrative Tribunal,Hyderabad in OA No. 205/96 dated

15-2-96 between Sri K. Nagendra and Telecom District

Manager, Ananthapur is Ex. W2 and Ex. W3 is regarding

correction of city as ‘Anantpur’ in Ex. W2.Apart from the

above documentary evidence, Petitioner K. Nagendra has

filed his affidavit. He has been cross-examined by the

Respondent. Workman has further filed affidavit of Sri B.

Abdul Khader as WW2 and also produced affidavit of Sri

K. Ravindra as WW3 but they were not cross-examined by

Respondent.

6. Respondent has filed affidavit of Sri. G.V.R;. Setty

and Sri C. Suryachandra Rao, A.G.M.(legal) in support of

the contentions raised by the Respondents. Respondent

has also filed affidavit of Sri. B. Jayapala Sarma, who has

sworn in oath and has stated that as per available record of

the Petitioner with the Respondent management, the

Petitioner was engaged intermittently,due to ban on filling

up of Group ‘D’ posts and due to absence or leave of

Group ‘D’ staff.

7. I have heard the counsels of both the parties and

I have also gone through the evidence available on the

record. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed

written arguments.

8. It has been argued by Learned Counsel for the

Respondent that the Petitioner has stated that he worked

since 1994 upto 31-3-2002, but he has not been able to

produce a single document to prove that he has worked

from 1994 upto 31-3-2002 regularly and without any break.

Not only that the Petitioner has not been able to prove that

he was recruited or appointed after following the

recruitment procedure. He has not been able to prove that

he has completed or he has worked for 240 days in a year

prior to his disengagement or that he was legally and rightly

appointed after following the recruitment procedure as

such, he can not be regularized in the service even if he

worked as a daily wage or casual labour in the department

for more than 240 days. He has further argued that Hon’ble

Supreme Court in a very recent judgment in the case of

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Jammu Vs. Teja Singh relating

to the Civil Appeal No. 292/2009 has expressed his opinion

that a casual rate or daily rate worker if not appointed

following the recruitment procedure who has worked for

240 days even then, he is not entitled for absorption or

regularization in the service. I have considered this argument

of Learned Counsel for the Respondent in the light of the

recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in

C.A. No. 292/2009.

10. It is to be considered whether the Petitioner

workman of this case was appointed following the procedure

of recruitment or not. In his own cross examination WW1

Sri K. Nagendra has stated that he was not given any

appointment order. He was available on call and was given

work from January, 1994. He further stated that he used to

go for work due to poverty. One Sri Surya Prasad, S.D.E.,

kept him who is dead now. He was paid Rs.30 per day. He

worked till 31-3-2002. He has admitted that he was given

intermittent breaks, that is why he has approached Hon’ble

Central Administrative Tribunal. He was not removed in

1996. It has been suggested that he worked for 24 days in

1994 as per his own statement and documents of the

management Ex. M1. Further, he has stated that he do not

have any document to prove that he worked from 1994 to

31-3-2002. This shows that the Petitioner neither appeared

for any interview nor any recruitment procedure was carried

out by the department nor the Petitioner applied for the

post nor appeared for any examination and was selected

for the alleged post. The same way WW2 who is said to be

the Section Supervisor of the Telecom department has

stated that casual labour were working in the general section

and the wage amount was paid through voucher. There

may be some break in engaging casual labourers. He can

not state the same of the person engaged from 1994 to 2002

or thereafter. He can not say from which period to which

period the casual labour has worked in the department. He

has further stated that the labourers referred in his affidavit

used to work on rotation whenever there was work. No

appointment letter was given to the casual labourers. This

shows that even though the casual labourers were engaged

in the department, they were engaged whenever there was

work available with the management. WW2 has not been

able to state that Petitioner has worked continuously from

1994 to 2002. He has stated that the casual labours were

engaged on rotation basis. This prove that whenever the

work was available the casual labour were engaged without

any appointment order letter or without any recruitment

process. Same way WW3 has stated that whenever Group

‘D’ employees are absent casual labour were used to work

for 5 to 6 years in that seat, inspite of the ban,casual labour

were engaged. He knows that if casual labour is engaged

after the circular of ban, the person concerned is liable for

disiciplinary action. No casual labour has worked in his

section previously one Sri Siva Kumar used to work in his

section. Whether Sri K. Nagendra has worked in his section

or he has seen Sri K. Nagendra working in his section has

not been stated by the witnesses. This proves that though

the workman has worked for some days in the department

of telecommunications he was neither recruited through

the recruitment procedure not he was engaged for

continuous period. No document has been filed showing

regular engagement of workman. This prove that Petitioner

has not been working for more than 240days in a year

preceding date of his retrenchment nor he has been able to

prove that he was recruited through legal procedure neither

he was appointed in a legal manner nor he worked

continuously for more than several years as alleged by

him.

10. From the above discussion, this tribunal is of the

opinion that the Petitioner workman has not been able to

prove that he was legally appointed or he has worked for

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

715

more than 240 days in a year preceding date of his

disengagement. He might have been engaged for certain

number of days in the year 1994 that does not confer the

right of absorption or regularization in the service. The

judgement pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.A.

No. 292/2009 between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and

Teja Singh is fully applicable in the present case and the

Petitioner workman is not entitled for regularization or

absorption in the services. Petitioner is not entitled for any

relief. Petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordinlgy,

petition is dismissed.

The Award is passed accordingly, Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri. Personal Assistant

transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 23rd day of

November, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examinded for

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

WW1: Sri. K. Nagendra

MW1: Sri B. Jayapala Sarma

WW2: Sri B. Abdul Khader

WW3: Sri K. Ravindra

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. W1:

Copy of the enhanced amount in view of

judgment

Ex. W2:

Copy of order of Hon’ble Central

Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA No.

205/96

Ex. W3:

Copy of amendment to the name of city as

‘Anantpur’ in OA No. 205/96

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M1:

Copy of order in OA No. 533/1996 dt.26-4-96

Ex.M2:

Copy of order in OA 118/2001 dt. 13-3-2001

Ex.M3:

Copy of Lr. No. GMTD-ATP/Genl/Legal/2001-

2002 dt. 5-2-2002 reg. Payment of difference of

wages

Ex. M4:

Copy of DGT, New Delhi Lr. No. 269-10-89-

STN dt. 7-11-89

Ex. M5:

Copy of DOT New Delhi Lr. NO. 270-6/84-STN

dt.22-6-88

Ex. M6:

Copy of O.M. No. 269-4/93-STN-II(Pt.) dated

12-2-99

Ex. M7:

Copy of O.M.No. 269-4/93-STN-II (Pt.) dated

15-6-99

Ex. M8:

Copy of circular Lr. No. 269-94/98-STN-II/Pers.

IV dated 19-4-2001 reg. Regularization of

casual labourers, left out cases.

Ex. M9:

Copy of retention schedule

ubZ fnYyh] 27 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 237.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fy- fyfeVsM 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 gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

185@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

27&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40025@9@2010&vkbZvkj(Mh ;w)º

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th December, 2010

S.O. 237.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No 185/2002)

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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 27-12-2010.

[No. L-40025/9/2010-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT:- Shri Ved Prakash Gaur Presiding Officer.

Dated the 23rd day of November, 2010

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 185/2002

Between:

Sri S. Noor Mohammad,

S/o S.A. Khader,

C/o M/s. B.S.A. Satayanarayana,

H.No. 2-2-1121/3E, Nallakunta,

Hyderabad - 500 044.

......Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Telecom District,

Ananthapur- 515 055.

The T.D.M.,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Telecom District,

Ananthapur - 515 055.

.... Respondents

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner:

M/s. B.S.A Satayanarayana K.

Venkateswara Rao & V. G.Raju,

Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri R.S. Murthy, Advocate

716

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Sri S.Noor Mohammad, workman has filed this

petition u/s 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to

declare his retrenchment/dismissal from service dated

31-3-2002 as illegal and invalid with request to reinstate

him in the same post with all consequential service benefits.

2. It has been alleged in the claim petition by the

Petitioner that he was initially appointed as casual mazdoor

in the Department of Telecom, Telecom district,Ananthapur

from 1-2-1994. Thereafter he worked continuously since

1-4-1995 to 31-3-2002. Petitioner’s services were retrenched

without complying the mandatory provisions of Sec. 25F

and 25G of the Industrial of the Industrial Disputes Act,

1947 on 31-3-2002. Petitioner filed O.A. No. 79/99 which

was disposed off on 11-3-1999. He was paid pro-rata basis

i.e. @ 1/30th wages of General Mazdoor. He was paid an

amount of Rs.1630 and arrears vide letter dated 22-5-2001.

Petitioner was re-engaged in 1996 and again disengaged in

1999 creating artificial breaks and again he was re-engaged.

Petitioner has worked for more than 240 days in every year

since 1996 onwards up to 31-3-2002 thereby he became

entitled to be regualarized as general mazdoor Gr. D with all

consequential benefits. In support of his claim, the

Petitioner has submitted copies of payment voucher and

copy of the judgement of Hon’ble C.A.T., Hyderabad in

OA No. 79/99 dated 11-3-1999 and copy of the letter No.

TY. Advance/SDE(PR)/2001-02, dated 22-5-2001 along with

a statement of duty particulars dated 20-5-2001 to show

that he worked with the Respondent. His services were

retrenched without any notice or any compensation. Thus,

he has requested that his termination order be quashed

and he be reinstated in the service.

3. Respondent has filed their counter statement. It

has been stated that due to absenteeism and ban on filling

of the Group ‘D’ posts and meeting emergent situations

casual labour were engaged on daily wages and their

continuance was dependent on the availability of the work

including the urgency and engagement for more than 240

days is irrelevant. The engagement of a workman for

extending 240 days on daily wage basis do not confer any

right for continuity and regularization in the service. The

provision of Sec. 25F are not applicable in the present case.

The Petitioner has filed O.A. No. 79/99. The same was

disposed off with direction to re-engage in future if the

work is available. The Petitioner again filed OA No.

185/2001 which was disposed off on 27-2-2001 with direction

to pay minimum wages of 1/30th and to consider for grant

of temporary status. The said direction was implemented

by paying him Rs. 1630 but granting temporary status could

not be allowed as there was no scope to grant temporary

status. It has been stated that Petitioner was engaged as

casual labour for 28 days in 1994 and 29 days in 1995 and

total of 57 days as a whole and was paid difference of the

wage arrears of Rs. 1630, this payment was duly accepted

by the Petitioner without any protest. There is not scope

either for engagement or for grant of temporary status under

the scheme. It is one time settlement for person who has

been in service in 1986. There is total ban on engagement

of casual labours vide D.O.T. order O.M. No. 269-4/93-

STN(Pt) dated 12-2-99 and subsequently amended D.O.T.

Memo. Even No. dated 12-11-1999 the hiring of labourers

for not more than 30 days at a time and not extending 100

days in a year. The petition has got no merit and deserves

to be dismissed.

4. Parties were directed to produce their evidence.

The Petitioner has filed Xoerox copy of the order of the

Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA

No. 79/99 dated 11-3-99 between Sri S. Noor Mohammad

and Telecom District Manager, Ananthapur as Ex. W2 and

Ex.W3 xerox copy of letter No. TY.Advance/SDE(PR)/2001-

2, dated 22-5-2001 for making advance payment to favour

casual workers in which name of S.Noor Mohammad finds

place at Sl No. 1, Ex. W4 is regarding his engagement in

Respondent’s department in the year 1994-95, and wages

paid to him in particular with ACE-2 of the casual labourers

from January, 1993. The name of S. Noor Mohammad finds

place who has worked for 28 days in 1994 and 29 days in

1995. Apart from the above documentary evidence,

Petitioner S. Noor Mohammad has filed his affidavit. He

has been cross examined by the Respondent.Workman has

further filed affidavits of Sri B. Abdul Khader as WW2 and

Sri K. Ravindra as WW3 who were cross examined by the

Respondent.

5. Respondent has filed affidavit of Sri G.V.R. Setty

and Sri C. Suryachandra Rao, A.G. M (Legal) in support of

the contentions raised by the Respondents. Respondent

has also filed affdavit of Sri B. Jayapala Sarma, who has

sworn in oath and has stated that as per available record of

the Petitioner with the Respondent management, the

Petitioner was engaged intermittently, due to ban on filling

up of Group ‘D’ posts and due to absence or leave of

Group ‘D’ staff. The Petitioner was engaged for ‘nil’ days

in 1993, 28 days in 1994 and 29 days in 1995. Thereafter not

engaged for any singly day.

6. I have heard the counsels of both the parties and

I have also gone through the evidence available on the

record. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed

written arguments.

7. It has been argued by Learned Counsel for that

the Respondent that the petitioner has stated that he

worked since 1994 upto 31-3-2002, but he has not been

able to produce a single document to prove that he has

worked from 1994 upto 31-3-2002 regularly and without

any break. Not only the Petitioner has not been able to

prove that he was recruited or appointed after following

the recruitment procedure. He has not been able to prove

that he has completed or he has worked for 240 days in a

year prior to his disengagement or that he was legally and

rightly appointed after following the recruitment procedure

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

717

as such, he can not be regularized in the service even if he

worked as a daily wage or casual labour in the department

for more than 240 days. He has further argued that Hon’ble

Supreme Court in a very recent judgment in the case of

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Jammu Vs. Teja Singh relating

to the Civil Appeal No. 292/2009 has expressed his opinion

that a casual rate or daily rate worker if not appointed

following the recruitment procedure who has worked for

240days even then, he is not entitled for absorption or

regularization in the service. I have considered this argument

of Learned Counsel for the Respondent in the light of the

recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in

C.A. No. 292/2009.

8. It is to be considered whether the Petitioner

workman of this case was appointed following the procedure

of recruitment or not. In his own cross examination WW1

Sri S. Noor Mohammad has stated that he was not given

any appointment order. He was available on call and was

given work from 1-2-1994. He further stated that he used to

go for work due to poverty. One Sri Surya Prasad, S.D.E.kept

him who is dead now. He was paid Rs. 30 per day. He

worked till 31-3-2002. He has admitted that he was given

intermittent breaks, that is why he has approached Hon’ble

Central Administrative Tribunal. He was not removed in

1996. It has been suggested that he worked for 28 days in

1994 and 29 days in 1995 as per his own documents Ex. W4

and documents of the management Ex. M1. Further, he has

stated that he do not have any document to prove that he

worked from 1994 to 31-3- 2002. This shows that the

Petitioner neither appeared for any interview nor any

recruitment procedure was carried out by the department

nor the Petitioner applied for the post nor appeared for any

examination and was selected for the alleged post . The

same way WW2 who is said to be the Section Supervisor

of the Telecom department has stated casual labour were

working in the general section and the wage amount was

paid through voucher. There may be some break in engaging

casual labourers. He can not state the name of the person

engaged from 1994 to 2002 or thereafter. He can not say

from which period to which period the casual labour has

worked in the department. He has further stated that the

labourers referred in his affidavit used to work on rotation

whenever there was work. No appointment letter was given

to the casual labourers. This shows that even though the

casual labourers were engaged in the department, they

were engaged when ever there was work. WW2 has not

been able to state that Petitioner has worked continuously

from 1994 to 2002. He has stated that the casual labours

were engaged on rotation basis. This prove that whenever

the work was available the casual labour were engaged

without any appointment order letter or without any

recruitment process. Same way WW3 has stated that

whenever Group ‘D’ employees are absent casual labour

were used to work for 5 to 6 years in that seat, in spite of

the ban, casual labour were engaged. He knows that if

casual labour is engaged after the circular of ban, the person

concerned is liable for disciplinary action. No casual labour

has worked in his section previously one Sri Siva Kumar

used to work in his section.Whether Sri S. Noor Mohammad

has worked in his section or he has seen Sri S. Noor

Mohammad working in his section has not been stated by

the witnesses.This proves that though the workman has

worked for some days in the department of

telecommunications he was neither recruited through the

recruitment procedure nor he was engaged for continuous

period. The documents filed by the Petitioner workman

shows that he has worked for 28 days in 1994 and 29days

in 1995, no document has been filed thereafter. This prove

that Petitioner has not been working for more than 240

days in a year preceding date of his retrenchment nor he

has been able to prove that he was recruited through legal

procedure neither he was appointed in a legal manner nor

he worked continuously for more than several years as

alleged by him.

8. From the above discussion, this tribunal is of the

opinion that the Petitioner workman has not been able to

prove that he was legally appointed or he has worked for

more than 240 days in a year subsequent to the date of his

retrenchment. He might have been engaged for certain

number of days in the year 1994 and 1995 that does not

confer the right of absorption or regularization in the service.

The judgement pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

C.A. No. 292/2009 between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

and Teja Singh is fully applicable in the present case and

the Petitioner workman is not entitle for regularization or

absorption in the services. Petitioner is not entitled for any

relief. Petition deserves to be dismissed.Accordingly,

petition is dismissed.

The Award is passed accordingly, Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri. Personal Assistant

transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 23rd day of

November, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examinded for

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

WW1: Sri. S. Noor Mohammad MW1: Sri B. Jayapala Sarma

WW2: Sri B. Abdul Khader

WW3: Sri K. Ravindra

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. W1:

Copy of the enhanced amount in view of

judgement

Ex. W2:

Copy of order of Hon’ble Central

Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA No.

79/99

Ex. W3:

Copy of Payment of Rs. 1630 to which WW1 is

entitled in view of Ex. W1

718

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. W4:

Statement showing the no. of days WW1

worked in 1994 and 1995

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M1:

Copy of order in OA No. 533/1996 dtd.26-4-96

Ex.M2:

Copy of order in OA 118/2001 dtd. 13-3-2001

Ex.M3:

Copy of Lr. No. GMTD-ATP/Genl/Legal/2001-

2002 dtd. 5-2-2002 reg. Payment of difference

of wages

Ex. M4:

Copy of DGT, New Delhi Lr. No. 269-10-89-

STN dtd. 7-11-89

Ex. M5:

Copy of DOT New Delhi Lr. No. 270-6/84-STN

dtd. 22-6-88

Ex. M6:

Copy of O.M. No. 269-4/93-STN-II(Pt.) dated

12-2-99

Ex. M7:

Copy of O.M. No. 269-4/93-STN-II (Pt.) dated

15-6-99

Ex. M8:

Copy of circular Lr. No. 269-94/98-STN-II/Pers.

IV dated 19-4-2001 reg. Regularization of

casual labourers, left out cases.

Ex. M9:

Copy of retention schedule.

ubZ fnYyh] 27 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 238.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 188@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

27&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40025@10@2010&vkbZvkj(Mh ;w)º

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th December, 2010

S.O. 238.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No of 188/

2002) 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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 27-12-2010.

[No. L-40025/10/2010-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT : Shri VED PRAKASH GAUR,

Presiding Officer.

Dated the 23rd day of November, 2010

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 188/2002

Between:

Sri C.H. Siva Kumar,

S/o Late C. H. Venkatappa,

C/o M/s. B.S.A. Satayanarayana,

H.No. 2-2-1121/3E, Nallakunta,

Hyderabad - 500 044.

......Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Telecom District,

Ananthapur- 515 055.

The T.D.M.,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Telecom District,

Ananthapur - 515 055.

.... Respondents

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner:

M/s. B.S.A Satayanarayana, K.

Venkateswara Rao & V. G. Raju,

Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri R.S. Murthy, Advocate

AWARD

This is a case taken under Sec. 2A (2) of the I.D. Act,

1947 in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble 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.

2. Sri C. H. Siva Kumar, workman has filed this

petition u/s 2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to

declare his retrenchment/dismissal from service dated

31-3-2002 as illegal and invalid with request to reinstate

him in the same post with all consequential service benefits.

3. It has been stated in the claim petition that the

Petitioner was initially appointed as casual mazdoor in the

office of G.M. Telecom district, Ananthapur on 1-2-1994

and he worked continuously from 1-4-1995 onwards upto

31-3-2002. However, the services of Petitioner were

retrenched without complying the mandatory provisions

of Sec. 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on

31-3-2002. Petitioner filed departmental appeal No. 79/99

which was disposed off on 11-3-1999. He was paid pro-rata

wages @ 1/30th of every month pay and allowances

payable to a Gr. D employee. He was paid an amount of

Rs. 1630 as arrears vide letter dated 22-5-2001. Petitioner

was reengaged from 1996 up to 1999. But, in order to create

artficial brakes, the services of this Petitioner were

disengaged and he was later on reengaged as casual labour.

It has been stated that the Petitioner has worked for more

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

719

than 240 days in every year since 1992 onwards up to

31-3-2002 and has become entitled to be regularized as

departmental employee Gr. D with all consequential benefits.

In support of his claim, the Petitioner has submitted copies

of payment voucher and copy of the judgement of Hon’ble

C.A.T. Hyderabad in OA No. 79/99 dated 11-3-1999 and

copy of the letter No. TY. Advance/SDE(PR)/2001-02, dated

22-5-2001 along with a statement of duty particulars for the

years pertaining to 1994 and 1995. For rest of the years the

duty particulars is not being filed because the Respondent

has not maintained record of the duty particulars. The

services of the Petitioner were retrenched w.e.f. 1-4-2002

without any notice or without compensation, as such, the

action of Respondent is neither legal nor valid and is liable

to be queshed.

4. Respondent has filed their counter statement. It

has been stated that due to absenteeism of regular employee

and ban on filling of the Group ‘D’ posts and meeting

emergent situations casual labour were engaged on daily

wages and their continuance was dependent on the

availability of the work including the urgency hence,

engagement for more than 240 days is irrelevant. The

engagement of a workman for extending 240 days on daily

wage basis do not confer any right for continuity and

regularization in the service. The provision of Sec. 25F are

not applicable in the present case. The Petitioner has filed

O.A. No. 379/96. The same was disposed off with direction

to reengage in future if the work is available. The Petitioner

again filed OA No.144/2001 which was disposed off on

12-6-2001 with direction to pay minimum wages of 1/30th

and to consider for grant of temporary status. The said

direction was implemented by paying him Rs. 1630 but

granting temporary status could not be allowed as there

was no scope to grant temporary status. It has been stated

that the Petitioner was engaged for 14 days in March, 3

days in April, 1994, 8 days in June, 1994, one day in August,

1994, 16 days in September, 1994, 6 days in October and 23

days in November, 1994. Thus, the Petitioner has worked

for 71 days only in the year 1994 and was paid difference of

the wage arrears of Rs. 1630, this payment was duly

accepted by the Petitioner without any protest. There is no

scope either for engagement or for grant of temporary status

under the scheme. It was one time settlement for person

who has been in service in 1986. There is total ban on

engagement of casual labours vide D.O.T. order O.M. No.

269-4/93-STN(Pt) dated 12-2-99 and subsequently amended

D.O.T. Memo. Even No. dated 12-11-1999 the hiring of

labourers for not more than 30 days at a time and not

extending 100 days in a year. The petition has got no merit

and deserves to be dismissed.

4A. Both the parties were directed to produce their

evidence. The Petitioner has filed Xerox copy of the

enhanced amount in view of the judgement as Ex. W1, Ex.

W2 xerox copy of letter No.TY. Advance/SDE(PR)/2001-02,

dated 22-5-2001 for making advance payment to favour

casual workers in which name of C. H. Siva Kumar finds

place at Sl. No. 4 and Ex. W3 is regarding his engagement

in Respondent’s department in the year 1994-95, as

maintained by Respondent, Xerox copy of the order of the

Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA

No. 379/96 between Sri C.H. Siva Kumar and Telecom

District Manager, Ananthapur as Ex. W4. He also fild Ex.

W5 to W26 xerox copies of vouchers of payment made to

him under ACG-17 from 31-12-2002 upto 18-3-2003. Apart

from the above documentary evidence, Petitioner

C. H. Siva Kumar has filed his affidavit. He has been cross

examined by the Respondent. Workman has further filed

affidavit of Sri B. Abdul Khader as WW2 and also

produced affidavit of Sri K. Ravindra as WW3 but they

were not cross examined by Respondent.

5. Respondent has filed affidavit of Sri G. V. R. Setty

and Sri C. Suryachandra Rao, A.G. M. (legal) in support of

the contentions raised by the Respondents. Respondent

has also filed affidavit of Sri B. Jayapala Sarma, who has

sworn in oath and has stated that as per available record of

the Petitioner with the Respondent management, the

Petitioner was engaged intermittently, due to ban on filling

up of Group ‘D’ posts and due to absence or leave of

Group ‘D’ staff. It has been stated that the Petitioner was

engaged for 14 days in March, 3 days in April, 1994, 8 days

in June, 1994, one day in August, 1994, 16 days in September,

1994, 6 days in October and 23 days in November, 1994.

Thus, the Petitioner has worked for 71 days in the year

1994. Thereafter not engaged for any day.

6. I have heard the counsels of both the parties and

I have also gone through the evidence available on the

record. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed

written arguments.

7. It has been argued by Learned Counsel for the

Respondent that the Petitioner has stated that he worked

since 1994 upto 31-3-2002, but he has not been able to

produce a single document to prove that he has worked

from 1994 upto 31-3-2002 regularly and without any break.

Not only that the Petitioner has not been able to prove that

he was recruited or appointed after following the

recruitment procedure. He has not been able to prove that

he has completed or he has worked for 240 days in a year

prior to his disengagement or that he was legally and rightly

appointed after following the recruitment procedure as

such, he can not be regularized in the service even if he

worked as daily wage or casual labour in the department

for more than 240 days. He has further argued that Hon’ble

Supreme Court in a very recent judgement in the case of

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Jammu Vs. Teja Singh relating

to the Civil Appeal No. 292/2009 has expressed his opinion

that a casual rate or daily rate worker if not appointed

following the recruitment procedure who has worked for

240 days even then, he is not entitled for absorption or

regularization in the service. I have considered this argument

of Learned Counsel for the Respondent in the light of the

720

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in

C.A. No. 292/2009.

8. It is to be considered whether the Petitioner

workman of this case was appointed following the procedure

of recruitment or not. In his own cross examination WW1

Sri C. H. Siva Kumar has stated that he was not given any

appointment order. He was available on call and was given

work from 1-2-1994. He further stated that he used to go

for work due to poverty. One Sri Surya Prasad, S.D.E. kept

him who is dead now. He was paid Rs. 30 per day. He

worked till 31-3-2002. He has admitted that he was given

intermittent breaks, that is why he has approached Hon’ble

Central Administrative Tribunal. He was not removed in

1996. It has been suggested that he has not worked at all in

1996, 1997 and only worked for 54 days in 1998 as per his

own documents Ex. W3 and documents of the management

Ex. M1. Further, he has stated that he do not have any

document to prove that he worked from 1994 to 31-3-2002.

This shows that the Petitioner neither appeared for any

interview nor any recruitment procedure was carried out

by the department nor the Petitioner applied for the post

nor appeared for any examination and was selected for the

alleged post. The same way WW2 who is said to be the

Section Supervisor of the Telecom department has stated

that casual labour were working in the general section and

the wage amount was paid through voucher. There may be

some break in engaging casual labourers. He can not state

the name of the perosn engaged from 1994 to 2002 or

thereafter. He can not say from which period to which period

the casual labour has worked in the department. He has

further stated that the labourers referred in his affidavit

used to work on rotation whenever there was work. No

appointment letter was given to the casual labourers. This

shows that even though the causal labourers were engaged

in the department, they were engaged when ever there was

work available with management. WW2 has not been able

to state that Petitioner has worked continuously from 1994

to 2002. He has stated that the casual labours were engaged

on rotation basis. This prove that whenever the work was

available the casual labour were engaged without any

appointment order letter or without any recruitment process.

Same way WW3 has stated that whenever Group ‘D’

employees are absent casual labour were used to work for

5 to 6 years in that seat, inspite of the ban, casual labour

were engaged. He knows that if casual labour is engaged

after the circular of ban, the person concerned is liable for

disciplinary action. No casual labour has worked in his

section previously except Sri Siva Kumar used to work in

his section. This proves that though the workman has

worked for some days in the department of

telecommunications he was neither recruited through the

recruitment procedure nor he was engaged for continuous

period.The documents filed by the Petitioner workman

shows that he has worked Petitioner was engaged for 14

days in March, 3 days in April, 1994, 8 days in June, 1994,

one day in August, 1994, 16 days in September, 1994, 6

days in October and 23 days in November, 1994. Thus, the

Petitioner has worked for 71 days only in the year 1994, no

document has been filed showing regular engagement of

workman. This prove that Petitioner has not been working

for more than 240 days in a year preceding date of his

retrenchment nor he has been able to prove that he was

recruited through legal procedure neither he was appointed

in a legal manner nor he worked continuously for more

than several years as alleged by him.

8A. From the above discussion, this tribunal is of

the opinion that the Petitioner workman has not been able

to prove that he was legally appointed or he has worked

for more than 240 days in a year preceding date of his

disengagement. He might have been engaged for certain

number of days in the year 1994 and 1995 that does not

confer the right of absorption or regularization in the service.

The judgement pronounced by Hon’ble Supreme Court in

C.A. No. 292/2009 between Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

and Teja Singh is fully applicable in the present case and

the Petitioner workman is not entitled for regularization or

absorption in the services. Petitioner is not entitled for any

relief. Petition deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly,

petition is dismissed.

The Award is passed accordingly, Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri. Personal Assistant

transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 23rd day of

November, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

WW1: Sri. C.H. Siva Kumar

MW1: Sri B. Jayapala Sarma

WW2: Sri B. Abdul Khader

WW3: Sri K. Ravindra

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. W1 :

Copy of the enhanced amount in view of

judgement

Ex. W2 :

Copy of Payment particulars for about 131 days

between April, 1994 to May, 1998 to WW1

maintained by Respondent.

Ex. W3 :

Copy of calculation sheet of wages of WW1

from 1994 to 1998

Ex. W4 :

Copy of order of Hon’ble Central

Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA

No. 379/96

Ex.W : 5 to W26: Copies of vouchers under ACG-17 from

31-3-2002 to 18-3-2003

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M1 :

Copy of order in OA No. 533/1996 dtd.26-4-96

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

721

Ex.M2 :

Copy of order in OA 118/2001 dtd. 13-3-2001.

Ex.M3 :

Copy of Lr. No. GMTD-ATP/Genl/Legal/2001-

2002 dtd. 5-2-2002 reg. Payment of difference

of wages.

Ex. M4 :

Copy of DGT, New Delhi Lr. No. 269-10/89-

STN dtd. 7-11-89.

Ex. M5 :

Copy of DOT New Delhi Lr. No. 270-6/84-STN

dtd.22-6-88.

Ex. M6 :

Copy of O.M. No. 269-4/93-STN-II(Pt.)

dated 12-2-99.

Ex. M7 :

Copy of O.M.No. 269-4/93-STN-II (Pt.)

dated 15-6-99.

Ex. M8 :

Copy of circular Lr. No. 269-94/98-STN-II/Pers.

IV dated 19-4-2001 reg. Regularization of

casual labourers, left out cases.

Ex. M9 :

Copy of retention schedule

ubZ fnYyh] 27 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 239.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fefyVªh iQkWeZ

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 ua- 1] p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 60@2009) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27&12&2010 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&14011@43@2009&vkbZvkj(Mh ;w)º

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 27th December, 2010

S.O. 239.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/

2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No.1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Military Farm and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on 27-12-

2010.

[No. L-14011/43/2009-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT-I,

CHANDIGARH

Case ID No. 60/2009

Shri Ram Charan and 18 others C/o Sh. Roshan Lal S/o

Shri Pritam Singh, Village Dhantauri, Kurukshetra.

...Applicant

Versus

The Dy. Director, Military Farms, H.Q. Western

Command (Farms Br.), Chandimandir-134107.

The Officer In-Charge, Military Farm, Bir Dhantauri,

P.O. Shahabad Markanda, Kurukshetra.

...Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the workman

None

For the management :

None.

AWARD

Passed on 11-11-2010

The Government of India vide notification No.

L-14011/43/2009-IR (DU) dated 8-1-2010 by exercising its

powers under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act

(the Act in short) has referred the following industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Military

Farm, Bir Dhantauri, Ambala, in terminating the

services of Shri Ram Charan and 18 Others (as per

Annexure) w.e.f. 18-03-1999 is legal and justified? If

not,what relief the workman are entitled to?”

2. Case is taken up for hearing, No one is present on

behalf of the workman. Prescribed Authority of the

management is present. No doubt the powers to execute

the order passed in Lok Adalat is not vested in the Tribunal,

but on request of the workman and Prescribe Authority of

the management, this case was listed just to watch, what

action has been taken by the department? Case was

disposed off on compromise through conciliation

proceedings in Lok Adalat on 25-8-2010. As the workman

are not present, it shows that all workman have been

adjusted. Prescribed authority has shown his commitment

to provide job to every workman in terms of settlement of

dated 25-8-2010. As nothing has been left in this reference,

the same is returned to the Central Govt. as settled. Central

Govt. be informed. File be consigned to record.

Chandigarh.

G.K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

11-11-2010

ubZ fnYyh] 27 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 240.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjr lapkj

fuxe fyfeVsM 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] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 186@2002)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 27&12&2010 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40025@11@2010&vkbZvkj(Mh ;w)º

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/dkjh

722

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 27th December, 2010

S.O. 240.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No 186/2002)

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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 27-12-2010.

[No. L-40025/11/2010-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT AT

HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR,

Presiding Officer

Dated the 23rd day of November, 2010

Industrial Dispute L.C. No. 186/2002

Between:

Sri A. Jammar Basha,

S/o Mahamood Khan,

C/o M/s. B.S. A. Satayanarayana,

H.No. 2-2-1121/3/E, Nallakunta,

Hyderabad - 500 044 ....Petitioner

AND

The General Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Telecom District,

Ananthapur - 515 055,

The T.D.M.,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited,

Telecom District,

Ananthapur -515 055

.....Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

M/s. B.S.A Satayanaryana, K.

Venkateswara Rao & V.G. Raju ,

Advocates

For the Respondent:

Sri R.S. Murthy, Advocate

AWARD

This is a case taken under Sec. 2A (2) of the I.D. Act,

1947 in view 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.

2. Sri A. Jammar Basha, workman has filed this petition

u/s 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 to declare

his retrenchment/dismissed from service dated 31-3-2002

as illegal and invalid with request to reinstate him in the

same post with all consequential service benefits.

3. It has been stated in the claim petition that the

Petitioner was initially appointed as casual mazdoor in the

office of G.M., Telecom district, Ananthapur on 1-2-1994

and he worked continuously from 1-4-1995 onwards upto

31-3-2002. However, the services of Petitioner were

retrenched without complying the mandatory provisions

of Sec. 25F and 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on

31-3-2002. Petitioner filed departmental appeal No. 1532/95

which was disposed off on 24-3-98. He was paid pro-rata

wages @ 1/30th of every month pay and allowances

payable to a Gr. D employee. He was paid an amount of

Rs. 1630 as arrears vide letter dated 22-5-2001. Petitioner

was reengaged from 1996 up to 1999. But,in order to create

artificial brakes, the services of this Petitioner were

disengaged and he was later on reengaged as casual labour.

It has been stated that the Petitioner has worked for more

than 240 days in every year since 1992 onwards up to

31-3-2002 and has become entitled to be regularized as

departmental employee Gr. D with all consequential benefits.

In support of his claim, the Petitioner has submitted copies

of payment voucher and copy of the judgement of Hon’ble

C.A.T. , Hyderabad in OA No. 1532/95 dated 24-3-1998 and

copy of the letter No.TY. Advance/SDE(PR)/2001-02, dated

22-5-2001 along with a statement of duty particulars for the

years pertaining to 1994 and 1995. For rest of the years the

duty particulars is not being filed because the Respondent

has not maintained record of the duty particulars. The

services of the Petitioner were retrenched w.e.f. 1-4-2002

without any notice or without compensation, as such, the

action of Respondent is neither legal nor valid and is liable

to be quashed.

4. Respondent filed counter statement. It has been

stated that due to absenteeism of regular employee and

ban on filling of the Group ‘D’ posts and meeting emergent

situations casual labour were engaged on daily wages hence

their continuance was dependent on the availability of the

work including the urgency and engagement for more than

240 days is irrelevant. The engagement of a workman for

extending 240 days on daily wage basis do not confer any

right for continuity and regularization in the service. The

provision of Sec. 25F are not applicable in the present case.

The Petitioner has filed O.A Nos. 1532/95 and 74/99 for

reinstatement. The same were disposed off with direction

to reengage in future if the work is available. Granting

temporary status could not be allowed as there was no

scope to grant temporary status. It has been stated that

Petitioner was engaged as casual labour for 143 days in

1994 and 219 days in 1995 and 26 days in1997, 79 days in

1998 and 9 days in 1999 and was paid difference of the

wage arrears of Rs. 1630, this payment was duly accepted

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

723

by the Petitioner without any protest. There is not scope

either for engagement or for grant of temporary status under

the scheme. It was one time settlement for perosn who has

been in service in 1986. There is total ban on engagement

of casual labours vide D.O.T. order O.M. No. 269-4/93-

STN(Pt) dated 12-2-99 and subsequently amended D.O.T.

Memo. Even No. dated 12-11-1999 the hiring of labourers

for not more than 30 days at a time and not extending 100

days in a year. The petition has got no merit and deserves

to be dismissed.

5. Both the parties were directed to produce their

evidence. The Petitioner has filed Xerox copy of the

enhanced amount in view of the judgement. Xerox copy of

the order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative Tribunal,

Hyderabad in OA No.1532/95 dated 24-3-1998 between Sri

A. Jammar Basha and Telecom District Manager,

Ananthapur is Ex. W1 and Ex. W2 is letter regarding

verification of his engagement in Respondent’s department

in the year 1990-1993 to Accounts Officer, GMTD,

Ananthapur. Ex. W3 is particulars of his working days

during 1993 to 1999. Apart from the above documentary

evidence, Petitioner A. Jammar Basha has filed his affidavit.

He has been cross examined by the Respondent. Workman

has further filed affdavit of Sri B. Abdul Khader as WW2

who has been cross examined by the Respondent’s side.

Workman has also produced affidavit of Sri K. Ravindra as

WW3 and he was also cross examined by Respondent.

6. Respondent has filed affidavit of Sri G.V.R. Setty

and Sri C. Suryachandra Rao, A.G. M. (legal) in support of

the contentions raised by the Respondents. Respondent

has also filed affidavit of Sri B. Jayapala Sarma, who has

sworn in oath and has stated that as per available record of

the Petitioner with the Respondent management, the

Petitioner was engaged intermittently, due to ban on filling

up of Group ‘D’ posts and due to absence or leave of

Group ‘D’ staff. The Petitioner was engaged for ‘nil’ days

in 1993, 143 days in 1994, 219 days in 1995, 26 days in1997,

79 days in 1998 and in 1999 for 9 days. Thereafter not

engaged for any day.

7. I have heard the counsels of both the parties and

I have also gone through the evidence available on the

record. Learned Counsel for the Respondent has filed

written arguments.

8. It has been argued by Learned Counsel for the

Respondent that the Petitioner has stated that he worked

since 1994 upto 31-3-2002, but he has not been able to

produce a single document to prove that he has worked

from 1994 upto 31-3-2002 regularly and without any break.

Not only that the Petitioner has not been able to prove that

he was recruited or appointed after following the

recruitment procedure. He has not been able to prove that

he has completed or he has worked for 240 days in a year

prior to his disengagement or that he was legally and rightly

appointed after following the recruitment procedure as

such, he can not be regularized in the service even if he

worked as a daily wage or casual labour in the department

for more than 240 days. He has further argued that Hon’ble

Supreme Court in a very recent judgment in the case of

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd., Jammu Vs. Teja Singh relating

to the Civil Appeal No. 292/209 has expressed his opinion

that a casual rate or daily rate worker if not appointed

following the recruitment procedure who has worked for

240 days even then, he is not entitled for absorption or

regularization in the service. I have considered this argument

of Learned Counsel for the Respondent in the light of the

recent judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in

C.A. No. 292/2009.

9. I have gone through the claim statement and

documentary evidence Ex. W3 and its enclosures along

with the order of the Hon’ble Central Administrative

Tribunal, Hyderabad which is Ex. W1 and oral testimony of

A. Jammar Basha WW2-Sri B. Abdul Khader an WW3 Sri

K. Ravinder. The oral evidence of Sri B. Khader and Sri K.

Ravindra proves the same facts which are mentioned by

Petitioner. Thus, the evidence available on the record does

not prove that the Petitioner was appointed on 1-2-1999 or

he worked up to March, 1995 on a continuous post. But

the own documentary evidence of the Petitioner proves

that the Petitioner worked 143 days in 1994, 219 days in

1995, 26 days in 1997, 79 days in 1998 and in 1999 for 9

days. Thus, he can not be said to have worked continuously

in the Respondents’ organization except for the days

mentioned. This proves that the Petitioner was neither

appointed on temporary or regular basis nor he has worked

in any of the temporary or regular services of the

respondents. Though the documentary evidence produced

by the Petitioner proves that his services were taken by

the Respondent, intermittently as and when required by

the Respondent for certain days in a year which does not

entitle the Petitioner to claim for the regularization.

10. It is to be considered whether the Petitioner

workman of this case was appointed following the procedure

of recruitment or not. In his own cross examination WW1

Sri A. Jammar Basha has stated that he was not given any

appointment order. He was available on call and was given

work from 1-2-1994. He futher stated that he used to go for

work due to poverty. One Sri Surya Prasad, S.D.E., kept him

who is dead now. He was paid Rs. 30 per day. He worked till

31-3-2002. He has admitted that he was given intermittent

breaks, that is why he has approached Hon’ble Central

Administrative Tribunal. He has not worked in 1996. It has

been suggested that he worked for 143 days in 1994, 219

days in 1995, 26 days in 1997, 79 days in 1998 and in 1999

for 9 days Ex. W3 and documents of the management.

Further, he has stated that he do not have any document to

prove that he worked upto 31-3-2002. This shows that the

Petitioner neither appeared for any interview nor any

recruitment procedure was carried out by the department

nor the Petitioner applied for the post nor appeared for any

724

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

examination and was selected for the alleged post. The

same way WW2 who is said to be the Section Supervisor

of the Telecom Department has stated that casual labour

were working in the general section and the wage amount

was paid through voucher. There may be some break in

engaging casual labourers. He can not state the name of

the person engaged from 1990 to 2002 or thereafter. He can

not say from which period to which period the casual

labour has worked in the department. He has further stated

that the labourers referred in his affidavit used to work on

rotation whenever there was work. No appointment letter

was given to the casual labourers. This shows that even

though the casual labourers were engaged in the

department, they were engaged whenever there was work

available with management. WW2 has not been able to

state that Petitioner has worked continuously from 1990 to

2002. He has stated that the casual labours were engaged

on rotation basis. This prove that whenever the work was

available the casual labour were engaged without any

appointment order letter or without any recruitment process.

Same way WW3 has stated that whenever Group ‘D’

employees are absent casual labour were used to work for

5 to 6 years in that seat, inspite of the ban, casual labour

were engaged. He knows that if casual labour is engaged

after the circular of ban, the person concerned is liable for

disciplinary action. No casual labour has worked in his

section previously one Sri Siva Kumar used to work in his

section. Whether Sri A. Jammar Basha has worked in his

section or he has seen Sri A. Jammar Basha working in his

section has not been stated by the witnesses. This proves

that though the workman has worked for some days in the

department of telecommunications he was neither recruited

through the recruitment procedure nor he was engaged for

continuous period. The documents filed by the Petitioner

workman shows that he has worked for 143 days in 1994,

219 days in 1995, 26 days in 1997, 79 days in 1998 and in

1999 for 9 days and no document has been filed showing

regular engagement of Petitioner. This prove that Petitioner

has not been working for more than 240 days in a year

preceding date of his retrenchment nor he has been able to

prove that he was recruited through legal procedure neither

he was appointed in a legal manner nor he worked

continuously for more than several years as alleged by

him.

11. From the above discussion, this tribunal is of the

opinion that the Petitioner workman has not been able to

prove that he was legally appointed or he has worked for

more than 240 days in a year preceding date of his

disengagement. He might have been engaged for certain

number of days in the years 1994 to 1995, 1997 to 1999 that

does not confer the right of absorption or regularization in

the service. The judgement pronounced by Hon’ble

Supreme Court in C.A. No.292/2009 between Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Ltd., and Teja Singh is fully applicable in

the present case and the Petitioner workman is not entitled

for regularization or absorption in the services. Petitioner

is not entitled for any relief. Petition deserves to be

dismissed. Accordingly, petition is dismissed.

The Award is passed accordingly.

Transmit Dictated to Smt P. Phani Gowri, Personal

Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the

23rd day of November, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined

the Petitioner

for the Respondent

WW1: Sri A. Jammar Basha Ex.W1:

Sri B.

Jayapala

Sarma

WW2:

Sri B. Abdul Khader

WW3:

Sri K. Ravindra

Documents marked for the Petitioner

WW1:

Copy of order of Hon’ble Central

Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad in OA No.

1532/95

Ex.W2:

Copy of Lr. to Accts. Officer verifying the

particulars of case of the Petitioner dt18-9-.2001

Ex.W3:

Copy of working days particulars of WW1

Ex.W4:

Copy of Lr. showing WW1 was entrusted cash

from 12-7-2001 to 22-6-2002

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1 :

Copy of order in OA No.533/1996 dated

26-4-96

Ex.M2 :

Copy of order in OA 118/2001 dated 13-3-2001

Ex.M3 :

Copy of Lr. No.GMTD -ATP/Genl/Legal/2001-

2002 dated 5-2-2002 reg. Payment of difference

of wages

Ex.M4 :

Copy of DG T, New Delhi Lr.No.269-10/89-STN

dated 7-11-89

Ex.M5 :

Copy of DOT New Delhi Lr. No.270-6/84-STN

dated 22-6-88

Ex.M6 :

Copy of O.M.No.269-4/93-STN-II(Pt,) dated

12-2-99

Ex.M7 :

Copy of O.M.No.269-4/93-STN-II(Pt,) dated

15-6-99

Ex.M8 :

Copy of circular Lr. No.269-94/98-STN-II/Pers.

IV dated 19-4-2001 reg. Regularization of casual

labourers, left out cases

Ex.M9 :

Copy of retention schedule

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

725

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 241.—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 esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&1] paMhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

93] 95] 109 rFkk 97 vkWiQ 2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@443] 445] 447]

430@99&vkbZvkj(Mh;w)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2010

S.O. 241 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 93, 95,

109 and 97 of 2000) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No. 1, Chandigarh 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 28-12-2010.

[No. L-40012/443, 445, 447, 430/99-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMAR SHARMA,

PRESIDING OFFICER, CENT. GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT,-I CHANDIGARH

Case I. D No-. 93,95,109 &97 of 2000.

(1) Smt. Rama, (2) Sachin Dev, (3) Rekha and (4)

Pankaj Kumar, all C/o Shri N.K. Jeet, 27349, Lal Singh

Basti Road, Bhatinda (Punjab).

. . .Applicants

Versus

(1) The General Manager, Telecom, Bhatinda-151001

(Punjab).

. . .Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Workman :

Workmen in person.

For the Management :

Shri Anish Babbar.

AWARD

Passed on 24th November, 2010

This award shall dispose off four industrial dispute

and references. Common questions of law and facts are

involved in all the three references and industrial disputes,

hence for ends of justice, the same are heard and answered

by this award. It is also made clear that all the references

are relating to the same office of the management of

respondent. The references and industrial disputes which

were refferred by the Central Government for adjudication

are as follows :—

(1) ID No. 93/2000, Ref: No. 40012/443/99/IR- (DU),

dated 17-02-2000, Whether the action of the

management of General Manager, Telecom,

Ferozepur in terminating the services of Miss

Rama D/o Late Shri Bhagwan Dass is legal

and justiIied? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled and from which date?

(2) ID No. 95/2000, Ref. No. 40012/445/99/1R-

(DU), dated 17-02-2000,

Whether the action of the management of

General Manager, Telecom, Ferozepur in

terminating the services of Shri Sachin Dev

S/o Late Shri Bhagwan Dass is legal and

justified? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled and from which date?

(3) ID /No. 109/2000, Ref. No. 40012/447/99/IR

(DU), dated 17-02-2000, Whether the action

of the management of General Manager,

Telecom, Ferozepur in terminating the services

of Miss Rekha D/o Late Shri Bhagwan Dass

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

Workman is entitled and from which date?

(4) ID No. 97/2000, Ref. No. 40012/430/99/IR- (DU),

dated 16-02-2000, Whether the action of the

management of General Manager, Telecom,

Ferozepur in terminating the services of Shri

Pankaj Kumar S/o Shri Balraj Kathuria is legal

and justified? If not, to what relief the workman

is entitled and from which date?”

It is the contention of the workmen that they were

directly engaged by the management of respondent on

daily wages. Mrs. Rama has alleged that she was appointed

as class-II employee on daily wages on 13-11-1995 and

her services were terminated without notice or without

payment of one month wages in lieu of notice and without

payment of retrenchment compensation on 05-03-1999. She

has completed 240 days or work in the preceding year

from the date of her termination, hence, her termination

from the services was illegal and void abinitio. In ID No.

95/2000, Shri Sachin Dev versus Telecom, it is contended

that he was appointed as peon on 13-9-1996 by the

management of respondent and his serviees were

terminated on 19-2-99 without any notice or one month

wages in lieu of notice and without payment or lawful

retrenchmcnt compensation. He has completed 240 days

of work in the preceding year from the date of his

726

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

termination, hence, his termination was illegal and void

abinitio being against the provisions of the Act. Likewise,

in ID No.109/2000, Mrs. Rekha versus Telecom, it is

contended by Smt. Rekha that she was appointed as

typist-cum-clerk on 04-09-1997 by the management of

respondent and her services were terminated without any

notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and without

payment of lawful retrenchment compensation on

12-06-1998. Similarly, in ID No. 97/2000, Shri Pankaj Kumar

versus Telecom, it is contended by Shri Pankaj Kumar that

he was appointed as workman on 13-5-1997 by the

management of respondent and his services were

terminated without any notice or one month wages in lieu

of notice and without payment of lawful retrenchment

compensation on 5-3-1999.

All the four workmen have prayed for setting aside

the termination order and for consequential order

reinstating their services with other benefits.

The management appeared and opposed the claim

of every workman by filing written statement. The

management has challenged its industrial nature. It is also

contended by the management that none of the workman

was appointed in any of the capacity by the management.

The services of every workman were provided with

through contractor. The master servant relationship

between the management and each workman has been

disputed.

Both of the parties were afforded the opportunity

for adducing evidence.

It is hereby made clear that evidence of each workman

was separately recorded. Another Court witness Smt.

Nirmal Kumari was alsocross-examined for three workmen.

On behalf of the management, evidence of two witnesses

namely Shri Mani Lal and Shri Sunil were recorded.

Evidence of WW2 Smt. Nirmal Kumari and both of the

witness of the management was also ordered to be read

over for all the references because same witness were

named in the references and the matter was relating to the

same office.

The management has filed the documents relating

to supply of labour through contractor. Copy of the

contract has been filed. Smt. Rama has filed as more as 11

documents. These are the photocopies of the some

documents. The management was directed to file and

provide with the original documents but management

failed. In the file of Shri Sachin Dev the workman has filed

as more as five documents but these documents does not

figure the signatures of any official and name and seal of

the office. It seems that all these documents have been

maintained on plain sheet without mentioning the name of

the office and as stated earlier, it does not bear the

signatures or seal of the officer.

In the industrial dispute of Smt. Rekha no document

was filed by Smt. Rekha.

The parties were heard at length. I have perused the

entire materials on record. During arguments this fact came

to the notice of this Tribunal that all the three workmen are

daughters and Son of WW 2 Smt. Nirmal Kumari and she

has deposed on behalf of all of his/her children.

From the pleadings and evidence of the parties, it is

clear that the management has raised the issue of industrial

nature of the management in pleadings. But thereafter, it

has not been pressed. For ends of justice, it is hereby

specificallly mentioned that it is settled law of service

jurisprudence that department of Telecommunication as

per the definition of the industry mentioned in Bangalore

Water, Supply & Sewearage Board case, is an industry.

As this issue has been raised in the pleadings and

not pressed thereafter, elaborately definition of industry

as mentioned in the said judgment of Hon’ble the Apex

Court is not given. It is only mentioned that industrial

nature of the management depends on the work entrusted

to the workman and discharged by him. On the basis of

the work claimed to be entrusted to and discharged by the

workman, I am of the view that Telecommunication

department is an industry.

If above principle is applied in all the industrial

disputes and references, it is clear that in industrial dispute

ID No. 93/2000, management has filed certain documents.

The witness of the management has given very confusing

evidence. Sometimes the witness has disposed that the

documents are not the documents of the department but

in the middle of the cross-examination he has admitted

that documents are from his office. Considering the

demeanor of the witness as well, I am of the view that

documents filed by the workman are certainly related to

the office she has claimed to work. In one of the documents

at serial No. 1 her name is specifically mentioned as a daily

wager who has assessed to Smt. Lovelin Goyal. Apart

from it, the copies of the attendance register also prove

that she has worked with the management as daily wager.

Original documents were not filed by the management,

reason knows to it. It is only stated that no document

relating to the workman are available in the office as

workman has not worked in the office as a daily wager.

The documents filed by the workman, Smt. Rama, clearly

establish that she has worked as a daily wager with the

management. It is true that workman has to prove that she

was working with the management as daily waged worker

and has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year

from the date of her termination. But it is the choice of the

workman to prove this fact with the evidence and manner

of his choice. If the workman opted to prove this fact by

summoning documents from the custody of the

management, she can do it according to law. The workman

successfully established that she had worked as daily

waged worker with the management but management has,

in my opinion, withhold the original documents. The

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

727

workman Miss Rama by filing the copies of the documents

has proved the master and servant relationship with the

management. The documents proved beyond doubt that

she had worked as a daily waged worker, under the

administrative control of the management and was paid

wages directly by the management. Reasons known to the

management, it has withheld the original documents,

copies of which have been filed by the workman.

Accordingly, as per the settled law of service

jurisprudence, adverse inference shall be taken against

the management. The nature of adverse inference shall be

that workman was directly working with the management

and has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year

from the date of her termination.

So far as the rest three workmen are concerned, they

have failed to file any material documents relating to their

services to establish the master servant relationship. In

their case the management has also denied the availability

of any documents.

The management has also relied upon the evidence

of one Shri Sunil who claims to be the Manager of the

contractor, supplying the contract labour to the

management. In his cross-examination he has failed to

prove the photocopies of the documents relating to the

contract agreement. To my surprise, the management has

tried to prove the photo copies without explanation

regarding the original documents. Ultimately, photocopies

have been prepared from the originals. This witness has

categorically stated that he has joined the services on

24-4-1993. Before 24-4-1993 the services of Miss Rama

were terminated. It has also been specifically stated by

the witness Shri Sunil that he had no knowledge regarding

any worker or any affair of the management prior to his

joining the services with the contractor. The evidence of

this management witness makes it clear that he has failed

to prove even prima facie that services of the workman

Miss Rama were provided with to the management through

the contractor.

Accordingly, the case of Miss Rama is well

established.

As stated earlier, that rest three workmen have failed

to file a single document regarding their appointment with

management as daily waged worker and payment of wages.

It is the duty of each workman to prove that he/she was

directly engaged by the management and was paid wages

directly by the management. Oral contention of the

workman will not be suffice to prove this contention. There

is no material on record in all the three files of the workman

to prove that they were directly engaged and paid wages

by the management except their oral contention. Thus,

there is a clear distinction between the case of Miss Rama

and the case of the rest three workmen. Miss Rama has by

filing certain documents proved that she was directly

engaged as daily waged worker and paid wages by the

management. The management has failed to file the original

documents for which the photocopies of which are

provided with and supplied by the workman Miss Rama

but in case of rest of the workmen namely Shri Sachin Dev,

Miss. Rekha and Shri Pankaj, they have failed to establish

the direct relationship with the management. Accordingly,

Miss Rama have proved that she was appointed directly

by the management and her services were terminated

without complying with the provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act, as no notice, or one month wages in lieu of

notice and lawful retrenchment compensation was paid

before terminating her services. No doubt the management

has also filed to prove that services of rest three workmen

were provided with through the contractor, but the failure

of the management to prove this contention can not be

considered as presumption of proving the fact which are

supposed top be proved by the workmen. At the cost of

repetition, it is hereby made clear that it is the obligation

of each workman to prove the alleged facts that they were

directly appointed by the management, worked directly

under the administrative control of the management and

were paid wages directly by the management, which every

workman failed to prove. For the reasons mentioned in the

body of this award rest of the workman have failed to

establish the above facts. There is no force in their

contentions and accordingly, their claims are dismissed.

The management has raised one more issue that

mother of Miss Rama, Shri Sachin Dev and Miss Rekha

was the employee in the same office of the

Telecommunication department. She has misuse her

authority for getting their children appointed against the

rules. Thus, Miss Rama, Shri Sachin Dev and Miss Rekha

have no right to serve in the department. If any, workman

has substantially worked with the department and has

completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the

date of his/her termination the nature of his/her initial

appointment is immaterial. The judicial conscious of this

Tribunal can not be guided by the fact that a workman has

succeeded in appointing her three kids in the same

department. She was not in a position to engage them

directly. Other officers of the department engaged them

with or without the recommendation of mother of Miss

Rama. This Tribunal shall confine itself whether there has

been any violation of any provisions of the Industrial

Disputes Act. It is clearly established that in case of Miss

Rama the management has violated the provisions of the

Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly, Miss Rama is entitled

for her reinstatement to the services on the same position

she was working prior to her termination. It is hereby made

clear that this reinstatement of Miss Rama has no concern

with the regularization of her services; or her absorption

into the services. Absorption or regularization is the

prerogative of the management which can only be done

as per rules. While answering this reference, this Tribunal

can only protect the interest of the workman which is

728

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

protected by the Industrial Disputes Act i.e. right against

the illegal termination. Accordingly, the management is

directed to reinstate the services of the workman Miss

Rama within one month from the date of publication of the

award. The claim of rest of the three workmen are refused

and dismissed. Let Central Government be approached

for publication of the award, and thereafter, file be

consigned to record room.

Chandigarh.

G. K. SHARMA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 242.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fMfLVªDV

eSustj] ukxiqj VsyhiQksUl 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@,uthih@33@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40025@12@2010&vkbZvkj(Mh;w)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2010

S.O. 242.—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/33/2002) 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 District Manager, Nagpur

Telephones and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 28-12-2010.

[No. L-40025/12/2010-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/33/2002

Date: 16-12-2010

Petitioner/ :

Shri Mohan Manohar Pophali,

Party No.1

R/o Pardi, Near Subhash Library,

Post-Pardi, Bhandewadi,

Nagpur and 16 others.

Versus

Respondent/ :

The District Manager,

Party No.2

Nagpur Telephones,

Saraf Chambers,

Nagpur and 5 others.

AWARD

(Dated: 16th December, 2010)

The seventeen petitioners above named had filed

writ petition No.1228 of 1986 before the Hon’ble High

Court at judicature of Bombay, Nagpur Bench at Nagpur

impleading the District Manager, Nagpur Telephones

and five others as respondents praying for the following

reliefs :—

“(i) To issue appropriate writ, direction or order

against the respondent quashing the order of

retrenchment issued by them with further

directions to the respondents to reinstate the

petitioners with continuity in service and full

back wages;

(ii) This Hon‘ble High Court to further pleased to

issue appropriate writ, order or direction

against respondents directing them to pay

salary to the petitioners equivalent to the

salary of Class-IV employees from the date of

their employment till date;

(iii) That, this Hon’ble High Court be further

pleased to grant such other reliefs as deemed

just and proper in the circumstances of the

case;

(iv) That the casts of the petition be saddled ion

the respondents.”

The Hon’ble Court while disposing of the writ

petition have been pleased to hold that, “petitioners have

wasted 16 precious years in pursuing a wrong remedy.

However, that cannot render them helpless, even though

this Court cannot decide disputed facts, by taking evidence

of the disputed facts. It has a power to remit the petition

itself as a dispute to the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal, Nagpur, which deals with the matter under

Section 25-F of the Act, with direction to decide this

petition, treating it as “Dispute”, as expeditiously as

possible, within three months from the date of receipt of

the record of this case and remitted the petition to this

Tribunal for adjudication of the petition as a dispute to

determine as to whether the termination of services of the

17 petitioners in the year 1986, was in violation of the

agreement arrived at between the parties and what remedy

or relief is available to the employees”.

It is necessary to mention here that the Hon’ble

High Court first remitted the petition to Labour Court,

Nagpur but subsequently in civil application No.1961/2002,

the Hon’ble Court directed to remit the petition to this

Tribunal for disposal and accordingly the Judge, First

Labour Court, Nagpur sent the petition for disposal to

this Tribunal,which was received on 5-6-2002, as appears

from the record. However, the petitioners appeared before

this Tribunal through their advocate only on 25-9-2002

and filed the statement of claim on 31-10-2002. Then the

case was adjourned to 6-2-2003 and then to 7-5-2003 for

written statement. Where after the post of the Presiding

Officer remained vacant till 7-4-2004. On 1-6-2004, the

written statement was filed. On 8-7-2009, the case was

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

729

closed and reserved for passing award. However, as the

award was not passed by the previous Presiding Officer,

the case was reopened on 13-9-2010 and after hearing

argument afresh on 7-10-2010, the case was reserved

for award.

2. According to the statement of claim filed by the

petitioners, petitioners No.1 to 14 were engaged as Casual

Labourers in Itwari Telephone Exchange by the orders of

the Assistant Engineer cables (phones) and started

working since January, 1985 and petitioners No.15 to 17

started working as casual labourers in the same exchange

since September, 1985 and all of them had completed 180

days of work as casual labourers in the said department

and though some other casual labourers engaged with

them were taken in employment by the management of

the Telephone Exchange, they were discriminated and

were retrenched from service with effect from 1-3-1986

and as per the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court

dated 17-1-1986 in writ petition (civil) No. 59-60 and 563

to 70 of 1983 (Surendra Singh & others Vs Engineer in

Chief, CPWD & others) all casual labourers, those who

have completed more than 180 days of continuous service

should not be kept unemployed and should be absorbed

in regular employment as and when vacancies arise and

all casual labourers should be paid equal pay admissible

to Class-IV employees of the department as per the

doctrine of equal pay for equal work and in consequence

of the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, there

was a settlement between the Government of India

representing the Telecom Department and the National

Federation of Telecommunication on 10-2-1986 and it was

agreed that all casual labourers working as on 7-5-1985

shall not be kept idle for entrusting any work on contract

and if such casual labourer is rendered surplus due to no

suitable work being available in the existing unit, they

would be given an option for deployment in other units

including other divisions and circles, where such work

may be available but the party No.1(1) and his subordinate

officers with mala fide intention and colourable exercise

of powers vested in them verbally retrenched them from

service w.e.f. 1-3-1986, which amounts to unfair labour

practice and as such, it is necessary to set aside the

order of retrenchment and their reinstatement in service

with continuity of service and back wages like Class-IV

employees and to give permanency in service. The

petitioners have also given the period of engagement of

each of the petitioners in detail in the statement of

claim.

3. In their written statement, the management have

pleaded inter alia that the prayers made in the writ petition

No.1228/86 and the prayers made in the statement of claim

are different in nature and the prayers so made are not

justified, proper and legal considering the Government

policy and statutory rules in force and as per the record

available with them, the petitioners worked for the days as

mentioned in the chart given below :—

Name of the Petitioner

Under AE Cables,

SDOP, Itwari,

AE Cables

Total days

Itwari Nagpur

Nagpur

Main Nagpur

of work done

1985

1986

1985

1986

1985

1986

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

(8)

1. Shri Mohan

Jan. - 16

Jan. - 31

Oct. 31

210

M. Pophali

Feb. - 28

Feb.- 23

Nov.- 30

Aug. - 06

Sept.-29

Dec.- 16

2. Shri Ganapati

Jan. -23

Oct.- 31

Jan.- 31-

219

Feb.- 28

Nov.- 30

Feb.- 23

Aug. - 08

Dec.- 16

Sept.- 29

3. Shri Ramdas

Jan.-16

Oct - 31

Jan.-31

212

Feb.- 28

Nov-30

Feb.-23

Aug.- 8

Dec.-16

Sept.- 29

4. Shri

Feb.- 25

Jan..- 31

197

Duryodhan

Sept.- 28

Feb.- 28

Oct.- 31

Nov.- 30

Dec.- 24

5. Shri Laxman

Jan.- 20

Jan..- 31

204

Feb.- 28

Feb.- 23

Sept.- 23

Oct.- 31

Nov.- 29

Dec.- 19

730

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

6. Shri Suresh

Feb.- 25

Jan.- 31

199

Aug.- 08

Feb.- 23

Sept.- 29

Oct.- 31

Nov.-30

Dec.- 22

7. Shri Kawadu

Jan.- 16

Jan.- 31

Oct-31

Mar- 19

230

Feb.- 28

Feb.- 23

Nov-30

Aug.- 08

Sept.- 29

Dec.-15

8. Shri Sukhdev

Jan.- 16

Oct - 31

Jan-31

206

Feb.- 28

Nov-30

Feb-26

Sep.- 28

Dec-16

9. Shri Bhanudas

Jan.- 16

Oct-31

Jan-31

227

Feb.- 28

Nov-30

Feb-23

Mar.- 14

Dec-16

Aug.- 8

Sept.-30

10. Shri Vilas

Jan.-16

Jan.-31

205

Feb.-28

Feb.-23

Mar.- 11

Sept.-27

Oct.-21

Nov.-29

Dec.-19

11. Shri

Jan.-16

Jan.-31

Oct-31

204

Ramchandra

Feb.-28

Feb.-23

Nov-30

Aug.-8

Sept.-30

12. Shri Ashok

Dec. 07

Jan.-16

Oct - 31

Jan-29

209

Feb.-27

Nov-30

Feb-23

Aug.-08

Dec-16

Sept.-29

13. Shri Pramod

Jan.-16

Oct-31

Jan-31

213

Feb.-28

Nov-30

Feb-24

Aug.-8

Dec-16

Sept.-29

14. Shri Chudaman

Jan.-16

Jan.-31

Oct-31

210

Feb.-28

Feb.-23

Nov-30

Aug.-8

Sept.-29

Dec.-16

15. Shri Sheshrao

Aug.-6

Jan.-31

Oct-31

167

Sept.-30

Feb.-23

Nov-30

Dec.-16

16. Shri Gajanan

Sept.-28

Jan.-31

Oct - 31

154

Dec.-13

Feb.-23

Nov-28

17. Shri Subash

Sept.-29

Jan.-31

Oct-31

159

Dec.-15

Feb.-23

Nov-30

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(7)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

731

It is also pleaded by the management that none of

the petitioners worked from April, 85 to July, 85 and none

of them also completed 240 days of continuous work in

the preceding year and only the service of causal

mazdoors, who had completed 240 days or continuous

work was not brought to an end and services of the

petitioners and other causal mazdoors, who had not

completed 240 days of continuous work in the preceding

12 calendar months were brought to an end and the

judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 17-1-1986,

on which reliance has been placed by the petitioners is

applicable to CPWD Department and not to their

telecommunication departmental (at present B.S.N.L.) and

their department has separate policy for regularization of

casual labours based on the direction of the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in SLP-SC-2342/87, which envisages

regularization of Casual workers, who had worked

continuously for 240 days in a calendar year of 12 months

and the said scheme was applicable for absorption/

regularization of casual workers, who were engaged prior

to 1-4-1985 and as none of the Petitioners had completed

240 days of continuous work in the preceding years, they

are not entitled to the benefit of the said scheme and as all

the petitioners were not working from April, 1985 to July,

1985 and they were also not working in March, 1985 except

Shri Kawadu, Shri Bhanudas and Shri Vilas, who also

worked for 19 days, 14 days and 11 days respectively, the

agreement dated 10-2-1986 is also not applicable to them

as the said agreement clearly says that, “this will applicable

to casual labours working as on 7-5-1985, who had either

employed through the employment exchange or had been

exempted from the nomination to be obtained from the

employment exchange” and the petitioners were not given

any engagement or appointment orders at any point of

time and they were not called for from employment

exchange and they worked as and when work need basis

and paid wages at daily wages basis and all the petitioners

were engaged for specific work and period with clear

understanding that after completion of the work, their

service would be terminated and as such the petitioners

are not entitled for any relief.

4. The Petitioners examined, Petitioner Shri Mohan

M. Pophali only in support of their case. It is necessary to

mention here that though affidavits of other 14 petitioners

had been filed, the learned advocate for the petitioners

declined their examination by filing a pursis. The

management of Telecommunication examined one Shri

Gopal Tansuge as Management Witness No.1 on their

behalf. The witness for the petitioners has reiterated the

facts mentioned in the statement of claim. Likewise, M.W.

l has also in his evidence filed an affidavit reiterated the

contents of the written statement. However, in his cross-

examination, witness for the petitioners has admitted that

they were working for laying the cables in cable department

and the work was not of permanent nature and all the

petitioners used to work as and when the work of laying

cable was necessary and they were working as casual

worker and no written appointment orders were given to

them and no work was entrusted to them except laying

cables and they were paid daily wages basis.

The evidence of M.W.1, Gopal, Tansuji Badole has

not been seriously challenged in the cross-examination.

5. On perusal of the statement of claim, the

documents filed by the petitioners (Annexure 1 to 35),

written statement and evidence of the witnesses of both

the sides, it is found that none of the petitioners had

worked for a total period of 240 days, what to say

continuous service of 240 days. The details of the work

done by the petitioners as furnished by the management

in their written statement tally with the documents,

Annexures 1 to 35, except the petitioner No.10, Shri Vilas.

According to the statement of claim, petitioner No.10, Shri

Vilas had worked for 260 days, but according to the written

statement, Shri Vilas worked for 205 days. Annexures 19 to

20 have been filed by the petitioners to show that Shri

Vilas worked for 260 days. However, on perusal of

Annexures 19 to 20, it is found that in annexure - 20, the

total days of work of Shri Vilas has been mentioned

including the 55 days he worked in the months January to

March, 1986 as mentioned in annexure 19 and as such, it is

found that the claim of the management that Shri Vilas

worked for 205 days is correct. It is also found from the

record that none of the petitioners was engaged in work

from April, 85 to July, 1985. It is also found that none of the

petitioners worked for 180 days continuously either in the

calendar year 1985 or in 1986.

6. The petitioners have claimed the reliefs basing

on the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court passed on

17-1-1986 in writ petition (Civil) No.59-60 and 503-70/83,

the settlement of agitation dated 10-2-1986 and circular

No.10-4/83- R dated 26-7-1984.

So far the judgement of the Hon’hle Apex Court as

mentioned above is concerned, the two writs had been

filed by some daily wage workers of C.P.W.D., who had

been so working for several years, demanding that they

should be paid the same wages as permanent employees

employed to do identical work. They had also stated that

even if it is not possible to employ them on regular and

permanent basis for want of a suitable number of posts,

there is no reason whatsoever, why they should be denied

equal pay for equal work. The Hon’ble Court allowing the

writ petitions, directed the respondents to pay the

petitioners and all other daily rated employees, the same

salary and allowances as are paid to regular and permanent

employees with effect from the date when they were

respectively employed. The Hon’ble Apex Court have

been pleased to observe that, “we hope that the

Government will take appropriate action to regularize the

services of all those who have been in continuous

employment for more than six months. With respect, I am

of the view that the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court

has no application to the case of the petitioners as because,

as already mentioned above that none of the petitioners

732

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

was in continuous service for six months. The petitioners

have claimed that they are entitled to get the salary

equivalent to Class-IV employees but it is clear from the

evidence of WW 1 that all the petitioners were engaged

for laying cables as daily wage worker and except laying

of cable they were not doing any other work. So, there is

no question of their doing equal work of Class-IV

employees and therefore they are not entitled to equal

pay.

Moreover, after the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex

Court as mentioned above, where the bench strength of

the Hon’ble Court was two, the judgement of the

constitutional bench of the Hon‘ble Apex Court in

Secretary. State of Karnataka & others Vs Umadevi &

others (A.I.R. 2006, Supreme Court, 1806) has been

delivered, in which, it has been held by the Hon’ble Apex

Court that :—

“Unless the appointment is in terms of the

relevant rules and after a proper competition

among qualified persons, the same would not

confer any right on the appointee. If it is a

contractual appointment, the appointment comes

to an end at the end of the contract, if it were an

engagement or appointment on daily wages or

casual basis, the same would come to an end

when it is discontinued. Similarly, a temporary

employee could not be made permanent on the

expiry of his term of appointment.

High Courts should acting under Art. 226 of the

Constitution of India should not ordinary issue directions

for absorption, regularization, or permanent continuance

unless the recruitment itself was regularly and in terms of

the constitutional scheme.

While directing that appointments, temporary or

casual, be regularized or made permanent, courts are

swayed by the fact that the concerned persons has worked

for some time and in some cases for a considerable length

of time. It is not as if the person who accepts an engagement

either temporary or causal in nature is not aware of the

nature of his employment. He accepts the employment

with eyes open. It may be true that he is not in a position

to bargain—not at arms length—since he might have been

searching for some employment so as to eke out his

livelihood and accepts whatever he gets. But on that

ground alone, it would not be appropriate to jettison the

constitutional scheme of appointment and to take the view

that a person who is temporarily or casually got employed

should be directed to be continued permanently. By doing

so, it will be creating another mode of public appointment

which is not permissible.

Those who are working on daily wages formed a

class of themselves, they cannot claim that they are

discriminated as against those who have been regularly

recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can

be founded on an employee on daily wages to claim that

such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly

recruited candidate and made permanent in employment

even assuming that the principle could be invested for

claiming equal wages for equal work”.

The Hon’ble Apex Court in Paragraph 45 of the

judgement have also held that, “It is also classified that

those decisions which run counter to the principle settled

in this decision, or in which directions running counter to

what we have here in will stand denuded of their status as

precedents”.

In view of the principles enunciated by the

Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court, the

decision cited by the petitioners is also of no avail to

them.

7. So far the agreement dated 10-2-1986 is concerned,

in Paragraph 1 of the said settlement it has been speci-

fically mentioned that the same will apply to casual labour

working as on 7-5-1985. But unfortunately, the petitioners

were not working with the management from April, 1985 to

July, 1985 and as such, the said settlement is also not

applicable to the petitioners.

So far the circular No.10-4/83-R dated 26-7-1984 is

concerned the same was for the increase in rate of daily

wages for casual, semi-skilled and skilled labourer and as

such the same is not to the benefit of the petitioners.

In view of the discussions made above, I hold that

the termination of service of the 17 petitioners was not in

violation of the agreement arrived at by the parties. Hence,

it is ordered : —

ORDER

The termination of services of the 17 petitioners in

the year 1986 was not in violation of the agreement arrived

at between the parties and no remedy or relief is available

to the petitioners.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

WRIT PETITION NO. 1228 OF 1986.

1. Mohan S/o Manohar Pophali

aged about 26 yrs.,

occu. retrenched casual labourer

R/o Pardi, near Subhash Library,

Tahsil & Distt. Nagpur,

Post Pardi Bhandewadi.

2. Ganpati S/o Sadashiv Choudhari

aged about 20 years,

occup. retrenched casual labourer,

R/o Lalganj-Gujri, near

Shivshankar Shukla’s house,

Nagpur-2.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

733

3. Ramdas S/o Santoshrao Thaokar,

aged about 22 yrs.,

occu. retrenched casual labourer,

R/o Nayapura, Ram Mandir,

Near Gargi Shankar Mishra’s House,

Nagpur.2.

4. Duryodhan S/o Dayaram Damke,

aged about 28 yrs.,

Occu. retrenched casual labourer,

Nandanvan Zopadpatti,

Nagpur-9.

5. Laxman S/o Bhagwan Tijare,

aged about-21 yrs.,

occu. retrenched casual labourer,

R/o Ajani Chuna Bhatti, in the

house of Vasantrao Hallemare,

Nagpur.

6. Suresh S/o Dhondbaji Kamble,

aged about years,

accu.retrenched casual labourer,

R/o Dasera Road, Mangpura,

near the house of Harish More,

M.L.A. Mahal,

Nagpur-2.

7. Kawadu S/o Dhondbaj1 Satpute,

aged about 23 years.,

occu. retrenched casual labourer,

R/o. New Subhedar Layout,

Plot No 211, Nagpur-24.

8. Sukhdeo S/o Shriramji Vaidya,

aged about 24 years,

occu. retrenched casual labourer,

R/o Gandh1bag, Mahesh Bhawan,

Nagpur-2.

9. Bhanudas S/o Hariram Vaidya,

aged about 25 years,

occu. retrenched casual labourer,

R/o Punapur, Post Pardi Bhandewadi,

Tahsil and Distt. Nagpur.

10. Vilas S/o Govindrao Hatwar

aged about 22 years,

occu. retrenched casual labourer,

R/o.Darshan Colony, Quarter No.89,

C/o Vinodrao G.Hatwar,

Nagpur-9.

11. Ramchandra S/o Anandrao Zanzad,

aged about. 22 years,

occu. retrenched casual labourer,

R/o Chitnavispura, Tulsibagh Road,

C/o Deorao Bhagat,

Nagpur-2.

12. Ashok S/o Ramaji Paunikar,

aged about 24 years,

occu. retrenched casual labourer,

Balabhau peth, by the side of

Prajapati Flour Mill,

Nagpur-17.

13. Pramod S/o Santoshrao Thaokar,

age about 20 years,

occu.retrenched casual labourer,

R/o Nayapura, Rammandir,

near Gargi Shankar Mishra’s house

Nagpur-2.

14. Chudaman S/o Pandurang Jibhkate,

aged about 23 years,

occu.retrenched casual labour,

R/o Talpura, Pardi Bhandewadi,

Nagpur-8.

15 Sheshrao S/o Wasudeorao Nagrare,

aged: about 22 yrs.,

occu; retrenched casual labour,

R/o Bahadura, Umrer road,

Tahsil and Distt. Nagpur.

16. Gajanan S/o Santoshrao Sahare,

aged: about 27 years,

Occu. retrenched Casual labour,

R/o Khairipura, Opp.K.P.Dubey’s house,

Nagpur-2.

17. Subhash S/o Gunwantrao Chaurgade,

aged about 24 years,

occu.retrenched casual labourer,

R/o Bhaldarpura, near Ramkrishna

Rickshaw Garage, in the house of Haribhau

Dhuve; Nagpur-18.

. . .Petitioners

VERSUS

1. The District Manager,

Nagpur Telephones, Saraf Chambers,

Nagpur.

2. Director of Telecommunication,

Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi.

3. Secretary of the Ministry of

Telecommunications, New Delhi.

4. Sub Divisional Officer (Phones)

Itwari, Nagpur.

5. Assistant Engineer, Cables-II (Phones),

Itwari, Nagpur.

6. O. P. Gupta,

Secretary General,

National Federation of Telecommunications,

1, Birad Road, New Delhi.

. . . Respondents

Mr. Narayan Phadnis, Adv. for the petitioners

Coram : V. G. PALSHIKAR and V. M. Kanade, J.J.

734

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dated : 9th JANUARY, 2002

Date of Reserving the Judgment :

9-1-2002

Date of Pronouncing the Judgment : 14-1-2002

JUDGMENT (Per : V. G. PALSHIKAR, J.)

By this petition, the petitioners pray for the following

reliefs :—

“( i ) To issue appropriate writ, direction or order

against the respondent quashing the order of

retrenchment issued by them with further

directions to the respondents

to reinstate

the petitioners with continuity in service and

full back wages;

(ii) This Hon’ble High Court be further pleased

issue to appropriate writ, order or direction

against the respondents directing them to pay

salary to the petitioners equivalent to the

salary of class IV employees from the date of

their employment till date;

(iii) That, this Hon’ble High Court be further

pleased to grant such other reliefs as deemed

just and proper in the circumstances of the

case;

(iv) That the costs of the petition be settled on

the respondents”.

(2) From the prayers quoted above, it is obvious

that each of the prayers is such, as ought to have been

made before the Labour Court or the industrial court under

the Industrial and labour laws.

(3) Unfortunately, the petitioners have approached

this Court directly. Unfortunately, the petition was admitted

in spite of there exists an alternate remedy and it is

pending in this Court for last 16 years. Had the petitioners

approached the Labour Court in the year 1986, each of

them would have had relief for at least on their claims

adjudicated upon by a competent court by 1998. The

present case is, therefore, a glaring example of unwarranted

insistence of parties to approach High Court only and

ignorence to the alternate efficacious remedy, created by

the statute for specific purpose.

(4) If it is seen from the contentions raised in the

petition, as also the reply filed the respondents, the

petitioners’ claim that they have been unnecessarily

retrenched and the retrenchment is in violation of the

agreement between the Government and employees/union.

It is also violative of the provisions of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. By reply, the respondents have

denied that any of the petitioners have completed the work

with the respondent for more than 240 days continuously

in one year, as contemplated by Section 25-F of the Act.

In the face of this denial, the question as to whether

factually 240 days are completed by each of the

petitioner.or not, will have to be adjudicated upon. Such

adjudication of disputed facts, in writ jurisdiction-is niether

possible nor permissible. Similar is the case of contention

regarding wilful violation of the bilateral agreement

between the respondents and the employees’ union.

Remedy for enforcement of such agreement squarely is

provided under the said Act. Now, after 16 years, the

question, as to whether the agreement is violated or not,

cannot be gone into by this Court. Factually and

effectively, therefore, petitioners have wasted 16 precious

years in pursuing a wrong remedy. However, that cannot

render them helpless, even though this Court cannot

decide disputed facts, by taking evidence of the disputed

facts. It has a power to remit the petition itself as a dispute

to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur

which deals with the matter under Section 25-F of the Act,

with direction to decide this petition, treating it as Dispute,

as expeditiously as possible, within three months from

the date of receipt of the record of this case. We are fortified

making such directions, while relegating the petitioners to

the alternate remedy of dispute before the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur under the

Industrial Disputes Act, by the Judgment of the Supreme

Court reported in 1996 Vol. 6 SCC 199.

(5) In the result, the petition is remitted to the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur for

adjudication of the petition as a dispute to determine as to

whether the termination of services of the 17 petitioners in

the year 1986, was in violation of the agreement arrived at

between the parties and what remedy or relief is available

to the employees. The learned Judge of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur is requested to

take up the urgent hearing of the dispute any resolve the

same, preferably within a period of three months, as

aforesaid. Papers of this matter be remitted to the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal, Nagpur immediately.

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 243.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lc&fMohtuy

vkWiQhlj] iQksUl 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;y;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

lhthvkbZVh@,uthih@209@2000) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 28&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@146@90&vkbZvkj(Mh;w)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2010

S.O. 243.—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/209/2000) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

735

in relation to the management of Sub-Divisional Officer,

Phones and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 28-12-2010.

[No. L-40012/146/90-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/209/2000

Date: 13-12-2010.

Petitioner / Party No. 1

Shri V. K. Sule,

Organising Secretary,

All India Telegraphs

Engineering Employees

Union Class-III,

Trunk Exchange Branch,

Amravati -446 601.

Versus

Respondent/ Party No. 2 :

The Sub-Divisional

Officer, Phones,

Akola-444 001.

AWARD

(Dated: 13th December, 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 vide its letter No.L-40012/

146/90-IR(DU) dated 19-04-1991 referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of S.D.O. Phones, Akola and their workman,

Shri Madhukar Vinayak Wakode (in short "the workman")

to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur

with the following schedule for adjudication :—

“Whether the action of the management in

terminating the services of Shri Madhukar Vinayak

Wakode w.e.f. 1-10-89 is legal and justified? If not,

to what relief the workman concerned is entitled?"

Subsequently as per order No.L-40012/ 146/90-IR(DU)

dated 5-7-2000 of the Ministry of Labour and Employment,

New Delhi the reference was transferred to this Tribunal

(CGIT, Nagpur) for disposal according to law.

2. On receipt of the reference on 29-4-1991, the

workman and the management were directed to file the

statement of claim and written statement respectively and

the case was fixed to 1-8-1991. Though the workman did

not file his statement of claim, the management filed its

written statement on 10-7- 1991. However, the statement of

claim was sent by the workman by post and the same was

received by the C.G.I.T., Jabalpur on 20-8-1991. On 9-2-

1996, the workman filed his evidence on affidavit. As on

10-4-1996, the management remained absent, order was

passed to proceed with the case ex-parte and the case was

fixed to 14-6-1996 for argument. On 10-4-1996, the Tribunal

also passed orders to issue notice to the management for

final argument. As the post of the Presiding Officer, CGIT

remained vacant, there was no progress in the case till

7-12-.2000. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the CGIT,

Nagpur for disposal according to law. It is necessary to

mention here that though intimation from the Government

of India vide letter No.L-40012/146/90-IR(DU) dated

5-7-2000 was received regarding the transfer of the case

from CGIT, Jabalpur to CGIT, Nagpur on 18-8-2000, the

record was received on 7-7-2004.

3. The workman submitted his statement of claim

through his union pleading inter-alia that he was appointed

as a casual mazdoor on 1-1-1983 by the Sub-Divisional

Officer Telegraphs Khamgaon, who was working under

the District Engineer, Telecom, Akola and he worked

continuously up to August, 1989 and then he was deputed

to work under the Sub-Divisional Officer, Phones, Akola

and at Akola, he worked for 25 days w.e.f. 1-9-1989 and on

29-9-1989, he was asked by the Sub-Divisional Officer,

Phones, Akola in writing to tender a written apology for his

misbehavior with the Sub-Inspector of Phones and in case

of non-submission of such an apology, then not to come

to duty w.e.f. 30-9-1989 and in reply to the said letter, he

denied the allegations and his involvement in any of the

activities mentioned in the said letter and also demanded

for making enquiry regarding the charges levelled against

him and on 4-10-1989, he received another letter from the

S.D.O., Phones in which, he was asked to submit his

explanation within three days for instigating the other

mazdoors and giving slogans against the officers and in

the reply submitted by him on 4-10-1989 to the said letter,

he denied all the allegations and as he did not receive any

communication from the S.D.O., Phones and was not

allowed to perform his duty, he made written applications

on 13-10-1989, 19-10-1989, 20-10-1989, 21-10-1989,

23-10-1989 and 24-10-1989 to allow him to perform duty

and on 11-11-1989, he also requested the Dist. Telecom

Engineer in writing to allow him to work but he did not

receive any reply, so he approached the ALC (C), Nagpur

on 5-12-1989 for redress. It is also pleaded by the workman

that he received a letter from the District Engineer, Telecom

on 5-3-1990 about his remaining absent from duty on his

own accord and that in case of his not submitting the written

apology, then to terminate his service and such action of

the management was mala fide and on 7-3-1990, he

approached the S.D.O, Telephones for resumption of duty

but the S.D.O. demanded for the written apology and when

he told to have not committed any mistake or crime, he was

not allowed to join duty even though he gave his resuming

of duty in writing on 7-3-1990 to the S.D.O, Phones and the

Dist. Engineer, Telecome and on the same day, he also

intimated the management that he had never been absented

from duties on his own accord, but he was not taken on

duty and the Dist. Engineer, Telecom issued letter No.

X. 12/Casual Mazdoor/11 dated 8-3-1990 to him demanding

his written apology for his misbehaviour mentioning therein

that unless the written apology is given, he would not be

736

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

taken on duty and such letter was issued, when the matter

was pending before the ALC, Nagpur for consideration.

The workman has also pleaded that while terminating

his service, management neither served any notice nor paid

one month salary in lieu of such notice or retrenchment

compensation as required by section 25-F of the Act and

he was terminated from service on the basis of complaint

without holding an inquiry into the charges which is illegal

and unfair labour practice. The workman has prayed to set

aside the order of termination of his service dated

29-9-1989 and to reinstate him in service in his original post

with continuity of service and full back wage alongwith all

other benefits.

4. In their written statement, the management has

pleaded that there is no dispute between the management

of S.D.O., Phones, Akola and A.I.T.E.Union, Amravati and

A.I.T.E. Union, Akola only can represent the case on behalf

of the workman and there was no termination of the workman

at all by the management and he was asked not to attend

duties till submission of a written apology, as complaint

was lodged against him by a regular employee, who was a

member of the union of Shri Wakode for abusing the officer-

in-charge of the working party and the workman also

instigated other mazdoors to shout slogans against the

administration for three hours in front of divisional office

and the Officers and staff were the witnesses to the scene

and when the service of the workman was not terminated

at all, there was no question of giving of one month notice

and the workman remained absent on his own accord

without paying any heed to the advice of the administration

from time to time and as such, question of payment of back

wages does not arise and as the workman committed grave

offence, the management want to keep on record his

misbehaviour and as he did not submit any written apology,

he was not allowed to join duties and he had submitted a

written apology, further complication would have been

avoided and the management is ready to allow the workman

to join duties subject to. the conditions of his submitting

unconditional written apology for the misbehaviour as

mentioned in Exts. 2 and 4 and on giving a written

undertaking of not claiming wages from 1-10-1989 till the

date of joining.

5. The workman examined himself as a witness in

support of his case and reiterated the facts mentioned in

the statement of claim. He also proved the documents filed

by him as Exts. W -1 to W -19. The assertion of the workman

has virtually remained unchallenged in the cross-

examination. He has denied the suggestions given to him

that he started behaving like union leader at Akola and in

August, 1989, he demonstrated and instigated the workers

against the officials and abused them and that he did not

attend the work on his own accord.

The management examined one Ashok Kumar, a

Senior TOA(P), who has admitted in his evidence given on

affidavit about the engagement of the workman as a casual

labour in the year 1983 under the S.D.O.(T), Khamgaon but

denied that the workman worked continuously from 1983

to 1989. He has further stated that the workman was called

when required for casual work for specific period and he

had never completed 240 days in one calendar year and he

was disobedient, adamant and quarrelsome in nature. In

his cross-examination, this witness has admitted the

genuineness of the documents filed by the workman.

It is necessary to mentioned here that the evidence

of M.W.1 that the workman did not continuously worked

from 1983-89 and not completed 240 days in one calendar

cannot be taken into consideration, in absence of such

pleadings in the written statement. Moreover, the

documents filed by the workman show that the said

statements of M.W.-1 are not correct.

6. At this juncture, I think it necessary to mention

that in their written statement, the management has

mentioned that the workman was not terminated from

service but he was asked not to attend duties unless he

until the submission of the written apology as demanded

in the letter calling for his explanation. However, from the

documents filed by the parties and the pleadings of the

parties it is found that the direction of the management

asking the workman not to attend duties until submission

of the explanation amounts to termination of the service of

the workman.

7. In the written notes of argument, the learned

advocate for the management has mentioned that the

statement of claim has not been signed by the workman

and the same has been signed by one Shri W.D. Mahure,

the representative of the workman, who has no authority

to sign the same. The said objection cannot be taken into

consideration as such an objection was not taken by the

management soon after filing of the statement of claim or in

the written statement and more so, as this is a case of

termination of service and the workman has appeared as a

witness and reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement

of claim, in his affidavit.

It has also been mentioned that as the workman did

not submit any apology in writing, he was not allowed to

join duties and it is clear from the evidence of M.W.-1 and

from the cross-examination of the workman that he was a

casual worker and he was not regularly appointed and not

worked for 240 days in a calendar year and in view of the

decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court as reported in State of

Karnataka Vs. Umadevi, 2006 Vol. IV, Supreme Court Cases,

Page 1, Indian Drugs Vs. Workman, 2007 Vo1. 1 Supreme

Court Cases-408 and State of Karnataka Vs. G.V.Chandra

Sekhar, 2009, Vol. IV, Supreme Court Cases-342, the workman

is not entitled to any relief as claimed by him.

However, with respect, I am of the view that the

decisions mentioned above have no application to the

present case at hand in view of the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case, which are quite different from

the facts and circumstances of the cases referred in those

decisions and in view of the admission of the management

that they are willing to take back the workman on duty, in

case of his submission of a written apology and an

undertaking for not claiming any wages from 30-9-1989 till

the date of joining.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

737

8. On perusal of the documents on record, it is found

that though the management asked for the written apology

of the workman for misbehaving with Umashankar, S.l, the

alleged written allegation made by Umashankar was not

supplied to the workman. When the workman denied the

allegations and did not agree for submission of any written

apology, the management remained adamant and did not

allow the workman to join duties, in spite of his written

request, even without making a formal enquiry to find out

the correctness of the allegation made against him. Before

this Tribunal also, the management did not examine the

said Umashankar or any witness to such occurrence to

prove the allegations. The written allegation submitted by

Umashankar has also not been produced. Hence, I find

that management failed to establish the allegations made

against the workman and as such there is no question of

the workman submitting any written apology.

9. In view of the evidence on record and the

discussions made above, it is found that the action of the

management in terminating the service of the workman,

Shri Madhukar Vinayak Wakode w.e.f. 1-10-1989 is not legal

and justified. Hence, it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management in terminating the

service of the workman, Shri Madhukar Vinayak Wakode is

not legal and justified. Hence the conditional termination

order dated 29-9-1989 is set aside. The management through

the Telecom District Engineer and Sub-Divisional Officer,

Phones, Akola is directed to reinstate the workman in his

original post with continuity of service.

So for the back wages is concerned, taking the facts

and circumstances of the case into consideration, I think

that payment of 20% of the back wages to the workman will

meet the ends of justice. Hence, it is ordered that the

workman be paid 20% of the back wages and other

monetary benefits for the period from 1-10-1989 till the date

of joining.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 244.—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 esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh@

,uthih@76@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

28&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&40012@39@2005&vkbZvkj(Mh;w)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2010

S.O. 244.—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/76/2005) 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 BSNL and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 28-12-2010.

[No. L-40012/39/2005-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING

OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT /NGP/76/2005

Date : 9-12-2010.

Petitioner/Party No. 1 :

Shri Pravin Madhukarrao

Bhosale, Vishnu Nagar,

Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani (M.S.).

Versus

Respondent/Party No. 2

The Telecom District Manager,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd.,

Parbhani, Dist. Parbhani (M.S.).

AWARD

(Dated: 9th December, 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 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. ("BSNL" in

short) and their workman, Shri Pravin S/o Madhukarrao

Bhosale ("the workman" in short) for adjudication, as per

letter No. L-40012/39/2005-IR(DU) dated 8-9-2005, with the

following schedule :—

“Whether the action of the management of Bharat

Sanchar Nigam Limited through the Assistant

General Manager, BSNL, Parbhani in terminating

the services of the workman Shri Pravin S/o

Madhukarrao Bhosale w.e.f. 25-3-1994 when he

was in the employment of Telecom Department is

justified & legal and whether the management of

BSNL is liable to grant relief of reinstatement in

service to the said workman?”

2. On receipt of the reference, the workman and the

management of BSNL were noticed to file their respective

statement of claim and written statement, in response to

which, the workman filed his statement of claim and the

management of BSNL filed their written statement.

The workman has pleaded in his statement of claim

that BSNL is an industry in accordance with the provisions

of the Act and he was appointed by the Party No. 2, Telecom

District Manager, BSNL, Parbhani in January, 1991 and

thereafter he worked continuously till 25-3-1994, the date

of his termination and he was carrying out the work of

Trunk Carrier in the office of SDOP, Parbhani and getting

monthly salary of Rs. 500 and there was no break of

whatsoever in his employment and he was regularly working

738

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

as per the oral order and he applied for regularization of his

service, so the Party No. 2 got annoyed and without

following the provisions of sections 25-F and 25-G of the

Act, terminated his service by an oral order and while

terminating his service, neither retrenchment compensation

nor any notice or in lieu of notice pay was paid to him and

he had completed 240 days of continuous service in each

and every calendar year with Party No. 2 and he was being

paid the salary monthly and he was not served with any

show cause notice or charge-sheet any time before or during

his entire service period and it was obligatory on the part

of the Party No. 2 to follow the mandatory provisions as

provided under the Act, before termination of his service

and the action of the Party No. 2 is illegal and a clear cu t

case of unfair labour practice and an experience certificate

in his favour was given by the S.D.O., Phone, Parbhani on

25-3-1994 having the details of the working days preceding

one year of the termination and from such certificate, it is

clear that he had worked for 255 days during the said

calendar year and the Junior Telecom Officer, Trunk Carrier,

Parbhani has also issued an experience certificate in which

it has been specifically stated that he had worked during

the year 1991 and such documents are available in the

office of the Party No. 2 and during the conciliation

proceeding, the official of the Party No. 2, who had no

knowledge about such facts, without verifying the official

records denied such certificates and in the case of another

similarly situated workman, Shri Shivaji Ranoji Adane in

Reference No. CGIT 2/80/93, was allowed to be reinstated

by the orders of this Tribunal and the management

challenged the said order in writ petition No.439/97 before

the Hon'ble High Court at Aurangabad and the same was

disposed of on 12-8-2002, as the management of BSNL

agreed to reinstate the employee and as such, the Party

No. 2 should have suo motu reinstated him. The workman

has prayed for his reinstatement with continuity of service

and back wages.

3. The management of BSNL in their written statement

have denied all the averments of the statement of claim

filed by the workman, stating that the workman was not

working in their establishment and he was not appointed

in January, 1991 and that he did not apply for regularization

of his service and that the workman had not worked for 240

days continuously in each and every calendar year and no

experience certificate was given in his favour and the case

of the workman in CGIT 2/80/93 is quite different,and has

no bearing in this case and the same has been referred by

the workman only to put pressure on this Tribunal and the

workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. The workman examined himself as a witness in

support of his claim and also proved the two experience

certificate as Exts.W-6 and W-7 and the copies of the

representation submitted to the authorities of the BSNL

for his reinstatement as Exts.W-8 to W-16 and the copy of

the application submitted to the Labour Commissioner as

Ext.W-17. In his cross-examination, suggestions given by

the management that Exts. W-6 and W-7 are not issued by

Competent Authority and were issued on sympathy and

the correct working number of days is not written, have

been denied by the workman.

5. It is necessary to mention here that though the

evidence of one Shri Rout Ramarao Atmaram on affidavit

was filed by the management of BSNL on 23-8-2007, the

said witness was not presented for his cross-examination,

though seven adjournments were given for the said purpose

and as the said witness was not produced for cross-

examination, on 8-10-2008 orders was passed to proceed

further and case was posted for filing written notes of

argument. After 8-10-2008 also, the management did not

appear to file written notes of argument or for taking any

action in the matter, so the case was posted for oral argument

and as oral argument was also not done, the case was

closed and reserved for award as per orders dated

10-3-2010. However, as no award was passed by my

predecessor-in-office, the case was reopened as per orders

dated 17-9-2010 and parties were noticed for hearing of

oral argument on merit of the case afresh, for the interest of

justice and the case was posted to 20-10-2010 for the said

purpose. On 20-10-2010, the management of BSNL appeared

through their advocate and filed the written notes of

argument after service of copy to the other side and also

filed a pursis to treat the written notes of argument as the

oral argument. The advocate for the workman also filed a

pursis to treat the written argument filed earlier as the oral

argument. So, on 20-10-2010, the case was closed and

again posted for award.

As the evidence of the management witness,

Shri Raut Ramrao Atmaram has not been tested by cross-

examination and the said witness was not presented by the

management for cross-examination, his evidence cannot

be taken into consideration.

No documentary evidence has been produced by

the management in this case.

6. In the written notes of argument, the following

grounds have been taken by the management for rejection

of the claim of the workman.

(i) The petitioner was neither engaged as a labour

by the respondent not he had completed 240

days of work within the calendar year.

(ii) The name of the petitioner neither appeared

on the muster roll nor under the head of salary.

(iii) There are contradictions in the pleading of the

petitioner in the statement of claim and the

documents filed by him, so the claim of the

petitioner is to be rejected.

(iv) The respondent being a company, have rules

and regulations for appointment and

appointments are being done by issuance of

documents and payment of salary or wages is

also being done by obtaining the signature or

thumb impression of the employee in the

muster rolls and lists of workers and employees

are also maintained by the respondent in

accordance with law, but the said records do

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

739

not disclose the name of the petitioner in any

capacity.

(v) Authenticity of the two work done certificates

is denied by the management and the same

have not been proved in accordance with law

and the same have not been issued officially

and the same might have been issued in

personal capacity and as such no reliance can

be placed on the same.

In support of such contentions, reliance has been

placed on the decisions reported in 2009(4) Mh.L.J. - 620

(State of Maharashtra Vs Ratan Budha Alam), 2009(1)

Mh.L.J.-576 (Maharashtra State Road Transport

Corporation Vs Ramabai Vijay Shende), 2009(5) Mh.L.J.-

718 (Dena Bank Vs Ashraf Yunus Shaikh) and 2009(2)

Mh.L.J.- 132 (Dnyandeo Vs Executive Engineer).

7. The workman in his written notes of argument has

mentioned that Exts. 6 and 7 clearly prove that he worked

under the Party No. 2 from 1991 to 25-3-1994 continuously

and his service was terminated without following the

mandatory provisions of the Act and termination of his service

is illegal and as such, he is entitled for the reliefs claimed by

him.

8. Before delving into the merit of the case, I think it

proper to note in brief the principles enunciated by the

Hon'ble Courts in the four decisions cited by the

management. In all the decisions, the matter of consideration

before the Hon'ble Courts was regarding the applicability

and protection of section 25-F of the Act. It has been held

by the Hon'ble Courts that when there is no evidence on

record to show that the workman had worked for 240 days

in the year immediately preceding the date of his

termination, he is not entitled to protection and benefits

under Section 25-F of the Act. So, keeping in view the

principles enunciated in the decisions mentioned above,

now, the present case at hand is to be considered.

9. First of all, I take of the contentions that the

petitioner was never engaged by the Party No. 2 and he

had never completed 240 days of work within the calendar

year, the name of the petitioner neither appeared in the

muster roll nor under the head of salary and authenticity of

the two work done certificates is denied by the management

and the same have not been proved in accordance with law

and the same have not been issued officially and might

have been issued in personal capacity and as such no

reliance can be placed on the same.

The petitioner besides examining himself as a witness

has relied on the two work done certificates, Exts. W-6 and

W-7 in support of his claim. During the examination of the

petitioner, Exts. W-6 and W-7 were proved. As already

mentioned, during cross-examination of the petitioner,

suggestions were given to the petitioner that those

certificate were not issued by competent authority and

were issued on sympathy and the correct number of

working days has not been mentioned, which were denied

by the petitioner. Those suggestions show that Exts. W-6

and W-7 are genuine certificates and the workman was

working with the Party No. 2. The management did not

examine the Junior Telecom, Truck Carrier, Parbhani and

the S.D.O. Phone to show that the certificates were issued

on sympathy and not in the official capacity and the correct

days of working has not been mentioned. Management

also did not produce the master roll, list of workers and the

pay roll of the concerned period to show that the name of

the workman was not there, even though it has claimed

that such documents are maintained by it. The assertion of

the workman regarding his working with the Party No. 2

and was being paid Rs. 500 per month as salary has not

been seriously challenged in the cross-examination. It is

also well settled that the provisions of the Evidence Act

are strictly not applicable to proceeding before the Tribunal.

So, from the evidence on record including Exts. W-6 and

W-7 and in absence of any rebuttal evidence from the side

of the management and due to non-production of the

relevant documents, it is held that the workman was working

with the management of BSNL, Parbhani and he worked

continuously for more than 240 days in the year immediately

preceding the date of his termination and while terminating

his service, the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of

the Act were not followed and as such, his termination by

the oral order is illegal and is required to be set aside.

10. So far the contention that there are contradictions

in the statement of claim and the documents filed by the

petitioners is concerned, it has been mentioned in the written

note of argument that "in letter dated 13-9-2000, the

workman has mentioned that since 1995 he used to work

through contractor and in the application dated 19-12-2008,

he has mentioned that he is getting Rs. 800 per month and

thus his stand is not inconformity with his case as per the

pleadings and as such he looses to prove his case beyond

reasonable doubt". However, I find that there is no force at

all in the said contention, as the facts mentioned by the

workman in the letters dated 13-9-2000 and 19-12-2008

are after his termination of service and he has mentioned

about his working with a contractor at the rate of Rs. 800

per month since 1995, which have no connection with the

stands taken by the workman in his statement of claim.

11. In view of the discussions and findings mentioned

above, the workman is entitled to reinstatement in service

with continuity. However so far the back wages is

concerned, it is settled beyond doubt that it is necessary

for the workman not only to plead but also to depose on

oath that he was not gainfully employed. In this case, there

is neither such pleadings nor such facts have been deposed

on oath in the evidence of the workman. Rather, the

documents filed by the workman show that he was

employed gainfully after termination of his service. Hence,

the workman is not entitled to any back-wages. Therefore,

it is ordered :—

ORDER

The oral termination of the service of the workman,

Shri Pravin S/o Madhukarrao Bhosale w.e.f. 25-3-1994 is

illegal and thus the same is set aside. The workman be

reinstate in service in the post he was working or in any

other equivalent post with continuity of service. However,

the workman is not entitled for any back wages.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

740

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 245-—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 dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lh th

vkbZ Vh@,u th ih@80@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 28&12&10 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42011@50@97&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2010

S. O. 245.—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/80/2002) 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 CPWD and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

28-12-2010.

[ No. L-42011/50/97-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/80/2002

Date : 14-12-2010

Petitioner/ :

The Secretary, C. P. W. D. Mazdoor

Party No. 1

Union, Nagpur Branch, Seminary

Hills, Nagpur-440 006.

Respondent/ :

The Supererintendent Engineer

Party No. 2

(Electrical), Central Public Works,

Deptt. B. No. 24/1, Civil Lines,

Nagpur-440 001.

AWARD

(Dated : 14th December, 2010)

The Central Government 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 (14

of 1947) (“the Act” in short), had referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Supdt. Engineer (Electrical), Central Public

Works Department, Nagpur and their workmen,

Shri Sanjay Thakare & Shri Prakash Wankhede, as per

letter No. L-42011/50/97-IR (DU) dated 03-07-1998 to the

Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur for

adjudication with the following schedule :—

“Whether the action of the management of

C. P. W. D. (Elect.), Nagpur through its Supdt.

Engineer (Elect.) C. P. W. D. and Executive Engineer

(Elect.) C. P. W. D. Nagpur in terminating the services

of S/Shri Sanjay Thakare & Prakash Wankhede, w.e.f.

26-6-97, is legal & justified? If not, to what relief the

said workmen are entitled?”

Subsequently the reference was received on transfer

by this Tribunal (C.G.IT., Nagpur) for disposal in

accordance with law.

2. On receipt of the reference, the workmen and so

also the management were noticed to file their respective

statement of claim and written statement, in response to

which, only workman, Shri Prakash Wankhede filed the

statement of claim through his union. Workman,

Shri Thakare neither filed any statement of claim nor took

part in the proceeding. The management of C.P.W.D. (Elect.)

filed its written statement.

The case of the workman, Shri Prakash Wankhede

(hereinafter referred to as “the workman”), according to

the statement of claim is that he has read upto Class-VIII

and he had registered his name in the Employment

Exchange of Nagpur and initially he was appointed as a

waterman in the C.P.W.D. (Electrical), Nagpur on 1-3-1988

for one year, as per order dated 23-3-1988 and while he

was working as such, he was appointed as part time

“Farash” with effect from 1-11-1988 and continued to work

as the waterman-cum-part time Farash till 1-.2-1998, barring

the period from 1-6-1997 to 30-6-1997 and he was also

engaged as Chowkidar, Peon and Khalasi at different times

during the said period and ultimately his service was

terminated with effect from 1-2-1998, as per order dated

12-6-1997 issued by the Executive Engineer (Elect,),

Nagpur and no written order of termination was given to

him and on the basis of the order dated 12-6-1997, he was

orally terminated from service and the Government of India,

Ministry of Home Affairs quoted a scheme of

Regularization of Group ‘D’ employees as per the

memorandum dated 21-3-1997 and he is also entitled to be

regularized under the said scheme and in order to protect

the services of the casual labourers, the Government of

India introduced a scheme called “Casual Labouers (Grant

of Temporary Status and Regularization) scheme, 1993 and

as per the said scheme also he was entitled to be given

temporary status.’’

The further case of the workman is that the Chief

Engineer, West Zone-II C. P. W. D. called for certain

information regarding daily rated workers engaged on

muster roll and hand receipt work order and in response to

letter dated 9-5-1997, the first Party No. 2 sent informations

to the Chief Engineer as per letter dated 28-5-1997 and his

name was also included in the said letter but the

informations submitted were wrong and not as per the

demand of the Chief Engineer and in view of such wrong

informations, order was passed by the Chief Engineer for

termination of his service and termination of his service is

illegal, arbitrary and malafide and before termination of his

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

741

service, the mandatory provisions of Sections 25- F and

25-G were not followed and no seniority list of the workers

like him prepared and displayed at any time in the notice

board and no retrenchment compensation was paid and

no notice was also served on him and he was working as

Khalasi during the period from 1-3-1997 to 30-6-1997 and

on 1-6-1997, he was directed to work at Nashik and

accordingly he was transferred to Nashik and he went to

Nashik and worked for 25 to 26. days and then his service

was orally terminated as Khalasi w.e.f. 26-6-1997 but he

continued to work as Farash and Waterman till 1-2-

1998 and though he made representation for his

reinstatement in service on 6-2-1998, the management did

not take any action. The workman has prayed for his

reinstatement and regularization of his service with

continuity, back wages and all other consequential reliefs.

4. The management of C.P.W.D. in their written

statement have pleaded that the applicant is not a workman

and the applicant was engaged purely as a contingent

labour for petty works like filling of drinking water in pots

and he was engaged as part time Farash and to fill water in

all coolers of the Division of Party No. 2 and was engaged

for doing part time work and seasonal work and was paid

from contingent amount for the period he worked with

them and the scheme of the Government of India called as

“Casual Labours (Grant of Temporary Status &

Regularisation) Scheme of Government of India 1993 is

not applicable to the applicant, as he did not fall under the

category and the applicant at no point of time had

continuously worked for 240 days in one calendar year

and as such the case of the applicant was not covered

under the said scheme and as the applicant was not a

Group ‘D’ employee, the scheme of the Government of

India for regularisation of Group “D” employee issued

vide OM dated 21.3.1979 was not applicable to him and

the Chief Engineer (WR) called for informations regarding

daily rated workers engaged on muster roll and hand receipt

work order in C.P.W.D. and accordingly, the Superintending

Engineer vide letter dated 28-5-1997 submitted the details

of such workers and the Chief Engineer directed to

discontinue the services of the applicant w.e.f. 1-2-1998

and accordingly the services of the applicant was

discontinued orally w.e.f. 1-2-1998 and the oral

discontinuance of the applicant is not illegal and arbitrary

and it was agreed by the applicant at the time of giving

him work that he would be engaged as and when work

would be available and no appointment order was issued

in favour of the applicant at any time.

5. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary

evidence in support of their respective stands. The

applicant has examined himself as a witness in support of

his stand and reiterated the averments content in the

statement of claim. On behalf of the management, one

Shri Murali Ladharam Assudani has been examined as

M.W-I. He has stated that the applicant was engaged

purely as a contingent labour and he was a part time casual

labourer and he never worked continuously for 240 days

in any calendar year.

6. It is necessary to mention here that on 5-7-2006,

the management filed a petition for dismissal of the

reference stating there in that the Party No.1 was holding

a Civil post and as such, the reference u/s 10 of the Act is

not maintainable and the Central Administrative Tribunal

is the only forum to adjudicate the present dispute and

this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the present

dispute and as the party No.1 was employed as a casual

labour, as per the judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court as

reported in State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi (AIR 1996 S.C-

1806), the casual labour have no right to claim reinstatement

and regularisation and on that ground also the reference

is to be dismissed. However, order was passed by this

Tribunal for disposal of the said petition at the time of

final disposal of the reference.

7. At the time of argument, it was submitted by the

learned advocate for the management that the reference is

not maintainable as the statement of claim has been filed

by the Central Public Works Department Mazdoor Union

on behalf of the workman, which has no role to play in

disengagement of the workman. It was further submitted

that it is clear from the evidence that the workman was

engaged as a daily rated worker w.e.f. 1-3-1988 temporarily

and the workman has admitted in his cross-examination

that he had not worked for 240 days in a calendar year and

he was paid on daily wages basis and as such, applying

the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in

State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi (supra) to the present

reference, the same is to be dismissed and the schemes

referred to by the workman are not applicable to him.

However, at this juncture, it is necessary to mention

that on perusal of the evidence of the workman, it is found

that the workman has no where in his evidence has

admitted that he did not work for 240 days in a calendar

year. Rather he has denied the suggestion given by the

management in his cross-examination about his not

working for 240 days continuously in any calendar year

by saying, “It is not true that I have never worked 240

days continuously in any calendar year”. Hence, the

submission made by the management that the workman

has admitted that he has not worked for 240 days in any

calendar year is not true.

8. On the other hand, it was urged by the learned

advocate for the workman that the workman is a workman

as defind u/s 2(S) of the Act and as such, the reference is

maintainable and this is a case of termination of service of

the workman and the union of the workman espoused the

cause of the workman and the workman has been examined

as a witness and supported the claim and as such the

reference is maintainable. Further submission was made

by the learned advocate for the workman that the workman

was working under the management of the C.P.W.D.

continuously from 1-3-1988 till 1-2-1998 in different

capacity and as such, the termination of his service without

following the mandatory provisions of Sections 25- F and

25-G is illegal and as such, the workman is entitled for the

742

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

reliefs claimed by him. In support of such contentions, the

learned advocate for the workman placed reliance on the

decisions reported in 2010 11 CLR-l (Anoop Sharma Vs.

Executive Engineer, Public Health Divisions No.1, Panipat)

and 2008 l11CLR-588 (Division Manager, New India

Assurance Co. Ltd Vs. A. Shankeralingam). I think it

necessary to mention here that though in the written notes

of argument, the learned advocate for the workman had

mentioned to have relied on the decisions reported in 2008

11 CLR - 147, 2008 (2) AIR B.R. 132 and 2008 11 MLJ - 198,

the said decisions were not filed for perusal and as such,

the same could not be referred in this award.

In the decision reported in 2008 111 CLR-588 (supra),

the Hon’ble Apex Court have held that part time worker is

also a workman u/ s 2(s) of the Act and he is entitled to the

benefit of Section 25-B and 25- F of the Act.

In the decision reported in 2010 11 CLR-l (supra) the

Hon’ble Apex Court have held that, “It is very well settled

that one month’s notice and compensation as per Section

25-F(a) and (b) has to be given to the workman, before he

is asked to go”.

It is also necessary to mention here that in both the

decisions, on which reliance has been placed by the learned

advocate for the workman, the Hon’ble Apex Court after

analysing the provisions of Sections 25-B and 25-F of the

Act have held that no workman employed in any industry

who has been in continuous service for not less than one

year under an employer can be retrenched by that employer

until the conditions enumerated in clauses (a) and (b) of

Section 25-F of the Act are satisfied.

So keeping in view the principles enunciated by the

Hon’ble Apex Court in the above two decisions and so

also in the decision of State of Karnataka V/s Umadevi on

which reliance has been placed by the management, the

present case at hand is to be considered.

9. Applying the principles laid down by the

Hon’ ble Apex Court in 2008 111 CLR-588 (supra), I hold

that there is no force in the contention raised by the

management that the petitioner is not a workman. It is also

found from the record that though the statement of claim

has been filed by the union, the reference is maintainable,

as this is a case of termination of service and the workman

in support of such claim has taken part in the proceeding

and has examined himself as a witness.

10. Section 25- B of the Act provides the definition

of continuous service, which reads as follows :—

“(1) a workman shall be said to be in continuous

service for a period if he is, for that period, in uninterrupted

service, including service which may be interrupted on

account of sickness or authorised leave or an accident or

a strike which is not illegal, or a lock-out or a cessation of

work which is not due to any fault on the part of the

workman;

(2) where a workman is not in continuous service

within the meaning of clause (1) for a period of one year or

six months, he shall be deemed to be continuous service

under an employer— (a) for a period of one year, if the

workman, during a period of twelve calendar months

preceding the date with reference to which calculation is

to be made, has actually worked under the employer for

not less than—(i) one hundred and ninety days in the

case of a workman employed below ground in a mine; and

(ii) two hundred and forty days, in any other case; (b) for

a period of six months, if the workman, during a period of

six calendar months preceding the date with reference to

which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under

the employer for not less than — (i) ninety five days, in

the case of a workman employed below ground in a mine;

and (ii) one hundred and twenty days, in any other case”.

A bare perusal of the two definitions would reveal that

their applicability is not limited to only full time employees

but all that is required is that the workman claiming

continuous amongst others laid down in the two

provisions, so as to seek the shelter of Section 25-F.

11. In this case at hand, in his cross-examination,

the workman has admitted that he had not given any

interview and his name was not sponsored by the

Employment Exchange. It is also found that though he

has claimed that the office order dated 23-3-1988 is his

appointment order, on perusal of the said document, it is

found that the same is an office order about sanction of

fund from the contingency fund for engagement of

workman from 1-3-1988 to 28-2-1989 and not an

appointment order.

Though the workman has claimed that he worked

continuously from 1-3-1988 to 1-2-1998 barring the period

from 1-6-1997 to 30-6-1997, the details of the working days

furnished by the workman in the statement of claim, in his

evidence on affidavit and the documents filed by him are

against such claim. It is clear from such materials that the

workman did not work for the period from 16-6-1992 to

1-8-1993, 1-9-1993 to 31-12-1993, February 94 to

10-11-1996, 1-12-1996 to February, 97 and from June,1997

to 1-2-1998. The documents filed by the workman also

show that his engagement in different categories of work

was purely temporary basis and intermittently. The

engagement of the workman was also made at different

times, on the basis of fresh office orders.

It is clear from the provisions of Section 25-B of the

Act that a workman is said to be in continuous service of

one year, if he during a period of twelve calendar months

preceding the date with reference to which calculation is

to be made has actually worked under the employer for

not less than 240 days, in any other case, except in the

case of a workman employed below ground in a mine, in

which case the working days should be 190 days. In this

case, the workman has admittedly not worked for 240 days

during the period of twelve calendar months preceding

1-2-1998.

At this juncture, it is necessary to mention the

principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in this

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

743

regard as reported in AIR 1963 S.C. - 1914 (Sur Enamel and

Stamping Works Ltd. V/s Workmen). The Hon’ble Apex

Court have held that: “When a temporary employee is

reappointed on a fresh basis, then his previous service

cannot be taken into consideration. When after

reappointment the temporary employees worked for less

than 11 months then even though they might have worked

for more than 240 days, they do not satisfy the

requirements of Section 25-B and Section 25-F is not

applicable”.

The above principles are squarely applicable to the

present case at hand, as the workman has not satisfied the

requirements of Section 25-B, the provisions of Section

25-F is not applicable to him. As there is also no pleading

that the management of C.P.W.D. had proposed to take

any retrenched worker to employment, the question of

compliance of Section 25-H also does not arise.

So far the question of application of the two schemes

as mentioned in the statement of claim is concerned,

documents regarding the same have not produced before

this Tribunal. The workman has claimed that he is entitled

to get the benefits of those two schemes but the

management has claimed the same not to be applicable.

As the workman had claimed benefits under the said

schemes, it was required for him to produce the documents

of the same. In absence of the documents in that regard, it

cannot be found that the workman is entitled for benefits

under the said two schemes. In view of the materials on

record and the discussions made above, it is ordered :-

ORDER

The action of the management of C.P.W.D.

(Electrical), Nagpur through its Superintendent Engineer

(Electrical), C.P.W.D. and Executive Engineer (Electrical),

C.P.W.D., Nagpur in terminating the service of Shri Prakash

Wankhede w.e.f. 26-6-1997 is legal and justified and the

workman is not entitled for any relief.

So far the workman, Shri Sanjay Thakare is

concerned, as he neither filed any statement of claim nor

contested the reference, it is ordered that the action of the

management of C.P.W.D. (Electrical), Nagpur through its

Superintendent Engineer (Electrical), C.P.W.D., and

Executive Engineer (Electrical), C.P.W.D. Nagpur in

terminating the service of Shri Sanjay Thakare w.e.f. 26-6-

1997 is legal and justified and the Workman is not entitled

for any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2011

dk- vk- 246-—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 esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lh th

vkbZ Vh@,y lh@vkj@83@99) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 28&12&10 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- 40012@58@98&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2011

S. O. 246.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. CGIT/

LC/R/83/99) 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 Post and

their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 28-12-2010.

[ No. 40012/58/98-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUS-

TRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/83/99

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

Shri Khalil Ahmed,

S/o Rafi Ahmed,

Sipoy Mohalla, Old Shivpuri,

Shivpuri

. . .Workman/Union

VERSUS

Chief Post Master General,

Deptt. of Post , M. P. Circle,

Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal

. . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 6th day of December, 2010

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No. L-40012/58/98-IR (DU) dated 4-2-99

has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this

tribunal :—

“Whether the action of the management of Chief

Post Master General in terminating the services of

Shri Khalil Ahmed is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief the workman is entitled?”

2. The workman appeared in the reference on

11-11-99, 20-9-05 and 31-1-06 but did not file statement of

claim. Lastly the then Tribunal proceeded exparte against

the workman on 5-3-08.

3. The non-applicant/management also appeared in

the case. It is submitted on behalf of the management that

744

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the workman has not filed any claim in the reference and

therefore there is no dispute between them. The manage-

ment is not inclined to file any Written Statement in

absence of statement of claim. This shows that this is a

case of no dispute. Accordingly the reference is answered.

4. In the result, no dispute award is passed without

any costs.

5. 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] 28 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 247-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14 dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj lsUVªy dSVy

fcz¯Mx iQkeZl~ 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 t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 24@06) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&12&10 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&42012@101@2000&vkbZvkj (Mh;w)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2010

S. O. 247.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 24/06)

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 Central Cattle Breeding Farms and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 28-12-2010.

[ No. L-42012/101/2000-IR (DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Present : N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

I. D. 24/06

Reference No. L-42012/101/2000-IR (DU)

Dated : 29-12-2005

Shri Shrawan Kumar

C/o Shri J. S. Yadav

Lila Chowk, Purani Abadi,

Sri Ganganagar.

V/s

The Director Central Cattle Breeding Farm

Suratgarh.

AWARD

3-12-2010

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication which runs as under :—

“Whether the action of the Director of Central Cattle

Breeding Farms, Suratgarh is justified in terminating

the services of the workman Shri Shrawan Kumar,

Chowkidar w.e.f. 21-10-88 ? If not, to what relief the

workman is entitled and from what date ?”

2. Pursuant to the receipt of reference order, the

registered notices were issued to both the parties. On

perusal of the record, it appears that claim statement was

filed on behalf of the workman on 22-7-2006 and the

management filed their reply on 18-10-06. It also appears

from the proceedings of the case that on 4-6-10 the

representative on behalf of the workman sought time for

evidence of the workman but on the next date i.e. 4-8-10,

none appeared on behalf of the workman, therefore, order

for ex-party proceedings was drawn against the workman,

It further reveals that the case was posted on 28-9-10 and

30-11-10 the management evidence. On 30-11-10 the

learned representative on behalf of the management

submitted that no evidence had been adduced by the

workman, therefore, “No Claim Award” may be passed

against the workman. The management has also not

adduced any evidence in support of its case.

3. Under these circumstances, only claim statement

and reply are on the record. In reply, the management has

disputed the averments made by the workman in his claim.

There is no other material on record to adjudicate the

reference on merits. It appears that the workman is not

willing to contest the case further. Therefore, “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] 29 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 248-—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 esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 14@2004) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&12&10 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@92@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

745

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2010

S. O. 248.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.

14/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

Cum-Labour-Court 1, Delhi 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

29-12-2010.

[ No. L-12012/92/2003-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX

DELHI

I. D. No. 14/2004

Shri Harjinder Singh S/o Shri Nahar Singh,

207/9 Prakash Mahalla, Garhi,

New Delhi - 110024.

...Workman

Versus

The Deputy General Manager ( I),

State Bank of India,

Zonal Office-I, II- Parliament Street,

New Delhi - 110001.

...Management

AWARD

A scheme, for creation of messengerial positions-

identification of vacancies of various branches/offices-,

eligibility criteria for consideration of ex temporary

employees/daily wagers for permanent appointment,

testing their suitability for appointment and preparation

of panels for that purpose, was formulated by the State

Bank of India (hereinafter referred to as the bank) in view

of Bipartite Settlements entered into between the bank

and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation

(hereinafter referred to as the federation) on 17-11-87,

16-7-88, 27-10-88, 9-1-91 and 30-7-1996. It was further

provided in those settlements that a panel of the selected

candidates would be prepared for filling up of vacancies

arising upto 31st of December,94 and appointment against

such vacancies would be over by 31st of March, 97 and

the panel so prepared would expire thereafter. Shri

Harjinder Singh (hereinafter referred to as the claimant)

was engaged as a casual labour at R. R. Lajpat Nagar

branch of the bank from Ist of January, 1991 till 31st of

July, 1991 for 78 days. In pursuance of the scheme, referred

above, the bank conducted interview in June, 1992 in

which 398 candidates were called to fill in 375 vacancies,

which existed in June, 1992. Claimant was called for

interview but not declared suitable. However, 301

candidates were selected and appointed. In January, 1994

74 candidates- who were declared unsuitable in the

interview referred above, were called for re-interview, out

of whom 34 candidates were selected for appointment.

The claimant was not called for re-interview. He smelt rat

in the procedure adopted by the bank- when candidates

were called for re-interview and raised an industrial dispute.

Since the bank did not yield to his demands conciliation

proceedings failed. On consideration of failure report,

submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate

Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication, vide Order No. L-12012/92/2003-IR(BI),

New Delhi dated 8-3-2004 , with following terms:-

"Whether there is violation of Bipartite Settlement

dated 27-10-88 and 9-1-90 between the State Bank of

India and All India SBI Staff Federation in preparing

the panel of candidates and re interviewing a few

unsuitable candidates of first interviewed on 15-1-

94 and 19-1-94 to the exclusion of others? If so, to

what relief Shri Harzinder Singh is entitled to and

from what date?’’

2. Claim statement was filed by the claimant

pleading that he was engaged in sub cadre by the bank at

its R. R. Lajpat Nagar branch from 1-1-91 to 31st of

July, 91 for a period of 78 days. In view of settlements

entered into between the bank and the federation on

27-10-88 and 9-1-90, daily wager employees were to be

eligible for permanent appointment, provided they have

completed minimum 30 days temporary service during

1-7-75 to 14-8-91. Since he rendered minimum required

temporary service with the bank, he was called for interview

at Delhi Zonal Office on 10-6-1992. His interview was very

good, since his work and conduct was excellent during

temporary service rendered by him with the bank. He

projects that the interview was only a routine matter and

daily wagers were to be empanelled and absorbed

permanently in service according to length of service

rendered by them, as and when vacancies were to accrue.

After interview neither panel of successful candidates was

displayed nor he was advised having been found

unsuitable for the job. He approached authorities

continuously, who told that he would be absorbed as and

when vacancies would be received from the Central Office.

According to him, panel was prepared on the basis of

length of service rendered by temporary/casual employees.

Panel was kept secret for mala-fide considerations. After

18 months of the interview, the bank re-interviewed/

reviewed cases of some of the candidates who were found

unsuitable. The bank had absorbed some of the candidates

who had hardly put in 30 days service. Persons, junior to

him in service and failed in interview, were absorbed in

service out of the way. All of a sudden about 200 persons

were appointed by the bank by making deletions and

746

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

additions in the panel. Bank violated provisions of

Bipartite Settlements, referred above. He claims that action

of the bank may be declared illegal and he be absorbed

permanently in service of the bank with effect from the

date when re-interviewed candidates were absorbed

permanently. He claims exemplary cost in his favour.

3. Preparation of the scheme for creation of

messengerial positions, identification of vacancies at

various branches, eligibility criteria for consideration of

temporary employee/daily wager for appointment in the

bank, testing their suitability and preparation of panel, in

pursuance of settlements dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88,

27-10-88, 9-1-91 and 30-7-96 have not been disputed by

the bank, in its written statement. Bank asserts that panel

was to be used for filling up vacancies arising upto

31-12-94 and process of appointment was to last upto

31-3-97. The panel was to expire thereafter.

4. Engagement of the claimant at R. R. Lajpat Nagar

Branch of the Bank, for 78 days in 1991 is not a matter of

dispute. It is also not disputed that he was called for

interview in June,1992 but was found unsuitable for

permanent appointment in the bank. 398 candidates were

called for interview, out of whom 301 were selected. The

bank does not dispute that in January, 94, 74 candidates

were re-interviewed, out of whom 34 candidates were

selected for permanent appointment. It is also not a matter

of dispute that the claimant was not called for re-interview.

Bank projects that the panel, so prepared was displayed

on the notice board. It is disputed that length of service

was the criteria for preparation of panel. Bank had denied

that two years later 200 persons were appointed out of

the panel so prepared. It has been agitated that bald and

wild allegations were paid by the claimant. Bank attacks

the claim pleading that an individual dispute has been

raised which makes the reference invalid, for want of

valid and proper espousal by a recognized union of the

establishment of the bank. According to bank, a claim,

relating to violation of Bipartite Settlements, can be

espoused by the union only. Without espousal of the

claim by a recognized union, the reference is liable to be

rejected. It is asserted that claim is without any basis,

hence it may be dismissed.

5. Claimant has examined himself as well as

Shri J. N. Kapoor in support of his claim. Shri Ujwal

Mishra was examined by the bank in support of its defence.

No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri J. N.

Kapoor, authorised representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. Shri J. Buther, authorised

representative, raised his submissions on behalf of the

bank. Written submissions were also filed by the claimant.

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. Harjinder Singh unfolds that he joined service of

the bank on 1-1-91 as a daily wager. He was paid @ Rs. 20

per day. On 2nd of June, 92 he was called for an interview

by the bank for absorption in its services as a regular sub

staff. Circulars were issued by the bank laying down

guidelines for absorption of casual/temporary employees.

Ex. W 1 is the list of successful candidates declared by the

bank in respect of interview held from 1-6-92 to 11-6-92.

Persons who had rendered 30 days temporary service with

the bank were called for interview. Recruitment to the post

of messenger/general attendant was to be made by the

bank in accordance with the guidelines laid in circular

Ex. WW1/1 and and its annexures, which are Ex. WW1/2

to Ex. WW1/9. List Ex. W1 was not displayed by the bank

at the notice board. Though he appeared for interview, yet

he was not informed about the result. When more than

200 candidates were given appointment in pursuance of

the interview referred above, he came to know that he was

not declared successful. He approached head office of

the bank and came to know that some of the candidates

were re-interviewed and selected. He was assured that as

and when there would be vacancy an appointment letter

would be issued to him. However, no letter was issued in

his favour. During the course of conciliation proceedings,

he came to know that the persons who were having

equations with senior officers of the bank were

re-interviewed and selected. He was not called for

re-interview. He wrote a letter to the Deputy General

Manager asking for his appointment, which letter is

Ex.WW1/10. Persons who had rendered less service than

him with the bank were re-interviewed and appointed. He

filed his claim before the Conciliation Officer in the year

2001. Persons who were selected and appointed by the

bank against the post of messenger/general attendant were

absorbed two years thereafter.

8. Shri J. N. Kapoor swears in his affidavit

Ex. WW2/A that he was employed in the bank

and superannuated on 31-5-94. He was General Secretary

of State Bank of India Staff Asociation before his

retirement. At present he is General Secretary of All India

Staff Bank Association ( in short the Association). He is

still representing bank employees before the authorities

as General Secretary of the Association. He unfolds that

in terms of agreements dated 28-10-98 and 9-1-91 and

circulars dated 6-4-91 and 14-8-91 daily wager employees

and/or temporary employees were to be eligible for

permanent absorption in the bank provided they have

completed 30 days aggregate service in any calendar year

or a minima of 70 days aggregate service in any continuous

block of 36 calendar months during 1-7-75 to 14-8-91. He

unfolds that he represented the claimant before Assistant

Labour Commissioner and as such he is conversant with

the facts of the case. The candidates, not found suitable

for permanent absorption by interview committee, were

required to be advised in that regard but the bank had

neither intimated them after their first interview nor after

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

747

re-interview, taken from 15-1-94 to 19-1- 94. The interview

board neither had any authority to review the result of the

candidates who have failed nor it acted bonafidely while

relieving the result. The board acted partially and in unfair

manner and converted unsuitable candidates as suitable

for malafide considerations. There was no fresh material

available before the board to review their own adverse

remarks and delete the same.

9. Shri Kapoor has demonstrated as to how four

persons, who rendered less service than the claimant and

declared unsuitable, were re-interviewed and declared

suitable for appointment to the post of messenger/general

attendant. According to him, temporary employees were

not to be declared unsuitable. They were liable to be

empanelled and absorbed permanently, according to

length of temporary service in discending order, subject

to availability of vacancies. The board had not given any

marks to the candidates but only opined them as suitable

or unsuitable. Certified copy of note dated 3-12-92 for

re-interview, certified copy of settlement showing result

after re-interview, photo copy of Gazette of India dated

12-5-2007 and photo copy of Gazette of India dated

10-8-74 are relevant for the case. Bank had not followed

procedure laid down in Bipartite Settlements referred

above. There was no provision for review of result in those

Bipartite Settlements. Power of review was not available

to the board. Re-interview of the candidates who were

found unsuitable and their selection is against the spirit

of law.

10. Ujwal Mishra swears in his affidavit Ex.-MW1/A

that Bipartite Settlements dated 17-11-87, 16-7-88,

27-10-88, 9-1-91 and 30-7-96 provide a scheme for creation

of messengerial positions, identification of vacancies at

various branches/offices, eligibility criteria for

consideration of ex-temporary employees/daily wagers for

their permanent appointment in the bank, testing their

suitability and preparing a panel for that purpose. It has

further been provided that the panel will be used for filling

up vacancies arising up to 31-12-94 and appointment

against such vacancies were to be over by 31-3-97 and

panel was to expire thereafter. He projects that in 1992

interview was conducted, in which the claimant appeared

on 10-6-92. He was found unsuitable for appointment.

398 candidates were called for interview for filling up 375

vacancies, out of whom 301 candidates were declared

suitable. In January, 94, 74 candidates declared unsuitable,

were called for re-interview and 34 were found suitable at

that juncture.

11. He projects that a panel of successful

candidates was formed and recruitment was made

according to available vacancies. The panel finally

exhausted in 1997. List of selected candidates was

displayed on notice board after the interview. He concedes

that circular Ex. WW 1/1 was issued by the bank, which

was implemented by various Zonal Offices. He further

concedes that result declared in 1992 was reviewed in

January, 1994. Result of the candidates, who could not

qualify in June, 1992, was reviewed in January, 1994.

According to him circular Ex. WW 1/1 nowhere puts any

restriction for review of result. He unfolds that he could

not lay his hands on any criteria on which suitability of a

candidate for appointment was decided at the time of

re-interview/review He could not specify whether

categorywise merit list was prepared or not. He could not

lay his hands on merit list, prepared at the time of

re-interview. According to him, marks were not awarded

to the candidates in the interview and it was simply

mentioned that they were found suitable or not.

12. When facts unfolded by the claimant. Shri

Kapoor and Shri Mishra are appreciated, it came to light

that 398 candidates were interviewed for filling up 375

vacancies of messenger/general attendant. Claimant was

one of the candidates, who appeared in the interview. He

was declared unsuitable. In January, 1994, result of 74

unsuitable candidates was reviewed, out of whom 34

candidates were declared suitable. They were appointed

to the post of messenger/general attendant. Case of the

claimant was not reviewed. Shri Hira Lal, who rendered

sixty days service, Balbir Singh rendered 34 days service,

Yogesh rendered 46 days service, Daya Ram rendered 57

days service and Jagdish Chand who had rendered 70

days service were found unsuitable at the time of interview

held in June, 1992. Their result was reviewed on 15th of

January, 1994 and 19th of January, 1994 and they were

declared suitable and appointed to the post of messenger/

general attendant. The claimant's case was not reviewed

and he was not declared suitable in January, 1994.

13. 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 matters in relations

to employment both prior and subsequent to the

employment which are incidental to the employment and

form part of the terms IInd conditions of such employment.

748

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

14. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14

forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification

or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of

discretion. Classification is the recognition of the relations,

and in making it the government must be allowed a wide

latitude of discretion and judgement. 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.

15. Concept of equality guaranteed by Article 16 of

the Constitution is something more than formal equality

and enables the under privileged 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.

16. Claimant presents that he rendered 78 days

service to the bank and called for an interview. He was

declared unsuitable. Hira Lal , Balbir Singh, Yogesh Kumar,

Daya Ram and Jagdish Chand, who had rendered lesser

service than him, were also called for interview and declared

unsuitable for the post. Their case was reviewed in January,

1994. They were declared suitable to the post. No

yardsticks/criteria was spelled by the bank to differentiate

the case of the claimant than the cases of Hira Lal, Balbir

Singh, Yogesh Kumar, Daya Ram and Jagdish Chand. Facts

of the controversy project that the claimant and the

aforesaid persons fell in the same bracket. They were

equals and were to be treated equally. The bank was under

an obligation not to differenciate Harjinder Singh with

the aforesaid persons, whose cases were reviewed and

were declared suitable. Consequently it is evident that

the action of the bank in reviewing the cases of the

aforesaid employees to the exclusion of the claimant

cannot be found just, fair and legal. The bank was under

an obligation to review/re-interview the claimant in

January, 1994. Different treatment to the claimant is violative

of his fundamental rights. Consequently action of the bank

cannot be sustained.

17. However there is other facet of the coin, which

have bearing over the matter. Provisions of section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) make

it clear that the appropriate Government may refer an

existing or apprehended dispute to the Industrial Tribunal

for adjudication. Industrial dispute has been defined by

clause (k) of section 2 of the Act, Definition given in the

said sub-section encompasses within its sweep any

dispute or difference between the employer and employers,

or between employer and workmen or between workmen

and workmen, which is connected with the employment or

non employment or terms of employment or with the

conditions 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 definition of the industrial dispute.

18. 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 workmen. 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

workmen of establishment itself is concerned, the problem

of espousal by them generally presents little difficulty, as

the workmen who are members of such unions generally

have a continuity of interest with an individual employee

who is one of their fellow workman. But 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 constitute sponsorship.

It must be shown that they were connected together and

arrived at an understanding by a resolution or by other

means and collectively supported the dispute.

19. 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. From the

mere fact that a general union, at whose instance an

"industrial dispute" concerning an individual workman is

referred for adjudication, has on its roll a few of the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

749

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 workman. 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].

20. It is not necessary that the sponsoring union is

a registered trade union or a recognized trade union. Once

it is shown that a body of substantial number of workmen

either acting through a union or otherwise had sponsored

the workman's cause, it is sufficient to convert it into an

industrial dispute. In Pardeep Lamp Works [1970(1 )LLJ

507] complaints relating to dispute of ten workmen were

filed before the conciliation officer by the individual

workmen themselves. But their case was subsequently

taken up by a new union formed by a large number of co-

workmen, if not a majority of them. Since this union was

not registered or recognized, the workmen elected five

representatives to prosecute the cases of ten dismissed

workmen. Thus 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".

21. It is not expedient that same union should remain

in-charge 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].

22. Claimant admits in his testimony that he was

not a members of the Association. According to him he

was not a member of any union of the establishment of the

management. He nowhere unfolds that the Association

ever adapted his cause. His evidence makes it clear that

the Association had not taken any steps to espouse his

grievances. In the same manner Shri J. N. Kapoor draws a

blank on the issue. He nowhere testified that the

Association ever espoused grievances of the claimant.

He simply says that he represented the claimant before

the Conciliation Officer. General Secretary of the

Association alone is not competent to espouse the claim,

without a solution in that behalf. As per provisions of

rule 4 of Industrial Dispute(Central) Rule 1957 a claim can

be filed either by the President and the Secretary of a

trade union of the workmen or by five representatives of

the workmen duly authorised in this behalf at a meeting

of the workmen held for the purpose. It has been enacted

that to espouse a cause of a workmen President and the

Secretary of a trade union has to file the claim statement,

before the Conciliation Officer. Shri Kapoor nowhere

presents that he filed a claim statement on behalf of the

claimant before the Conciliation Officer. Therefore, alleged

representation by Shri Kapoor before the Conciliation

Officer would not answer the legal impediment relating to

espousal of a cause. The claimant failed to establish that

his case was espoused by the Association in accordance

with law.

23. Assuming that the dispute was raised by the

Association before the Conciliation Officer, even then that

fact would not provide accolade to the claimant. No

evidence worth name has come over the record that the

Association has majority of membership of the employees

of the establishment of the management. The Association

is not at all recognised nor it has majority of the employees

of the State Bank of India as its member. In such a situation

one cannot say that the Association is having majority of

its member from the employees of the establishment of the

management. A microscopic membership of the employees

of the State Bank of India would not entitle the Association

to espouse the claim of Shri Harjinder Singh, the workman.

Consequently it is evident that the Association was not

competent to espouse the dispute. The dispute does not

get colour of an industrial dispute and is liable to be

rejected on this score.

750

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

24. An individual dispute can not be referred for

adjudication. Neither this Tribunal can invoke its

jurisdiction to adjudicate an individual dispute nor the

appropriate Government has power to refer such a dispute

under the provisions or sub-section (1) of Section 10 of

the Act, for adjudication. In view of the foregoing

discussions it is evident that the claim is liable to be

rejected. Consequently the claim preferred by the

Association is brushed aside. An award is accordingly,

passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for

publication.

Dated : 9-11-2010

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 28 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 249-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14 dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj osuxaxk {ks=kh;

xzkeh.k cSad 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 54@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&12&10 dks izkIr

gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@127@2007&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

jes'k ¯lg ] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 28th December, 2010

S. O. 249.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.

54/2007) 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 Wainganga Keshetriya

Gamin Bank and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 28-12-2010.

[ No. L-12012/127/2007-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/54/2007 Dated : 16-12-2010

Petitioner/ :

The Working President,

Party No. 1

Wainganga Khetriya Gramin Bank

Employees Union,

Juna Warora Naka Square,

Chandrapur (M.S.), and other.

Versus

Respondent/ :

The Chairman,

Party No. 2

Wainganga Khetriya Gramin,

Juna Warora Naka,

Chandrapur.

AWARD

(Dated : 16th December, 2010)

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 (14 of 1947) (“the Act” in

short), the Cerntral Government has referred the industrial

dispute between the employers, in relation to the

management of Wainganga Khetriya Gramin Bank and their

workmen for adjudication, as per letter No. L-12012/127/

2007-IR (B-I) dated 10-10-2007, with the following

schedule :—

“Whether the action of the management Wainganga

Kshetriya Gramin Bank in adopting unfair labour

practice of discriminating the office bearers of the

majority Union/Association in violation of the

agreement as well as favouring the reps of minority

union, is proper and justified? If not, to what relief

the affected members of the Union/Association are

entitled?”

2. Though, in this case, the reference had been

received by the Tribunal on 22-10-2007 and the union

representative on behalf of the workmen had been directed

to file the statement of claim, till 28-9-2010, statement of

claim had not been filed by the union representative.

However, in the interest of justice, on 28-9-2010, a last

chance was given to the union representative to file the

statement of claim on 14-12-2010. On 14-12-2010, non

appeared on behalf of the workman. No statement of claim

was also filed on that date. Hence the case was closed for

passing award.

3. From the facts that no statement of claim was

filed by the union representative and the management also

did not appear before the Tribunal from 8-5-2008, 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] 29 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 250-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj e.Myk

ckyk?kkV {ks=kh; xzkeh.k cSad 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;] tcyiqj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 42@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 29&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@294@2003&vkbZvkj (ch&1)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

751

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2010

S. O. 250.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.

42/2004) 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 Mandla Balaghat Kshetriya

Gramin Bank and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 29-12-2010.

[ No. L-12012/294/2003-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/42/2004

PRESIDING OFFICER : SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

The General Secretary,

M. B. K. G. B. Karmchari Union,

Motinagar,

Ward No. 24,

Balaghat-481445

. . .Workman/Union

VERSUS

The Chairman,

Mandla Balaghat Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Behind Bus Stand,

Mandla (MP)

. . .Management

AWARD

Passed on this 8th day of December, 2010

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide

its Notification No. L-12012/294/2003-IR (B-I) dated 5-4-

2004 dated has referred the following dispute for

adjudication by this tribunal :—

“Whether the action of the management of the

Chairman, Mandla Balaghat Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

Mandla in terminating the services of Shri Harish

Chandra Nanda is legal and justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled for?”

2. The case of the Union/workman in short is that

the workman had continuously worked from the year 1995

to 30-11-2003 on daily wages as Driver with the

management. On his request for regularizing, the

management terminated him without any notice and without

payment of any compensation. It is stated that the

management had orally appointed another person to work

as a Driver at his place. It is submitted that the order be

passed for appointment on the permanent post of jeep

Driver with back wages.

3. The management appeared and filed Written

Statement to contest the reference. The case of the

management, interalia is that the workman is not a member

of the Union and therefore the Union has no right to raise

the dispute of the workman and the proceeding is not

maintainable. It is denied that the workman worked as a

driver on daily basis from 1995 till 16-11-2003 continuously

and had worked more than 240 days in the main office of

the Bank. It is stated that the Chairman of the Bank

employed him as Personal Driver and the salary was paid

by the Chairman himself from his own pocket who was

reimbursed from the Bank. The workman/applicant had

applied for working as Personal Driver of the Chairman.

Sanction to engage personal driver was accorded to the

Chairman by letter dated 21-9-1999. It is stated that there

is no post of driver in the bank and the question to

terminate the applicant/workman does not arise. It is

submitted that there is no merit in the claim of the applicant/

workman and the reference be answered in favour of the

management.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties,

the following issues are framed for adjudication :

I. Whether the action of the management in

terminating the applicant/workman from the service

of the bank is legal, valid and justified?

II. whether the applicant/workman was Personal

Driver of the Chairman of the workman?

III. To what relief, the workman is entitled for?”

5. Issue No. 1

According to the workman, he was working as daily

wages employee since 1995 and had worked more than

240 days in a calendar year. The workman Shri Harish

Nanda is examined in the case. He has admitted in his

evidence that he was working as daily wages employee

and was working as a driver. There was no written

appointment letter. He has denied that he was Personal

Driver of the Chairman. He has stated that he has filed

documents to show that he worked regularly. The workman

has filed certain documents. Exhibit W/1 and W/2 are the

circular letters. Both are same and it is with respect to part

time and full time messenger. This is for regularisation to

those employee who worked prior to 8-10-84. This

document is not helpful to the applicant. Exhibit W/3 is

the circular for creation of the post of messengers in

Regional Rural Banks. Exhibit W/4 is series of petrol

receipts of different dates which are paper Nos 11/40 to

11/49. These receipts go to show that petrol was taken in

the vehicle No. M.P. 20 W1658 on different dates. These

receipts are of the year 1996 and 1999. These receipts do

not show that the applicant/workman was continuously

working as daily wages employee from the year 1995.

Moreover these receipts also do not show that he worked

240 days in the year 1996 or 1999. Exhibit W/5 is the

752

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

certificate granted by the Chairman on 11-2-99. This

certificate shows that the applicant was working

temporarily time to time as jeep driver. This shows that he

was working prior to 1999 temporarily time to time and not

regularly. This certificate does not disclose as to how many

days he had worked in a calendar year. Moreover it does

not prove that he had worked 240 days during the period

of twelve calendar months preceding the date of reference.

6. Exhibit W/6 is the letter of the Manager for

purchase of jeep tire. This document does not prove that

he was continuously working as casual labour. Exhibit

W /7 are receipts for purchase of shoes and dress. Exhibit

W/9 is the direction for issuing cheque books to the

applicant Jeep Driver. Admittedly he was employed as a

casual daily wages employee and was working as jeep

driver. These documents simply show that prior to 1999,

he worked as jeep driver but those documents do not

prove that he worked 240 days in any calendar year.

Moreover those documents do not also prove that the

applicant/workman worked 240 days during the period of

twelve months preceding the date with reference.

7. On the other hand, the management has also

adduced oral and documentary evidence. Management

witness Smt. Anita Dubey has supported the case of the

management. She has stated that the applicant never

worked 240 days in a calendar year. He was engaged as

daily wager in the year 1995-96. He was never terminated

rather the Job of daily wager automatically comes to an

end on the completion of the Job for which he is engaged.

She has stated that he was Personal Driver of the Chairman

vide letter dated 21-9-1999. She has further stated that

there is no post of driver. The documents filed by the

management and the same are admittedly by the applicants

which show that he was Personal Driver of the Chairman.

Thus it is clear that the applicant has failed to establish

that he worked 240 days as casual employee during the

period of twelve months preceding the date with reference.

Since he was daily wager, the question of termination of

casual employee does not arise and his disengagement

appears to be not illegal as he had not worked continuously

for a period of one year in accordance with the provision

of Section 25 (B) (2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947.

This issue is decided in favour of the management and

against the workman.

8. Issue No. II

Another important point for consideration is as to

whether the workman was Personal Driver of the

Chairman? The workman has denied in his evidence that

he was Personal Driver of the Chairman. However the

workman has himself filed documents which are admitted

by the management. Exhibit W/8 is the letter of the

Sr. Manager for proposal to purchase jeep tyre to the

workman who is said to be Personal Driver. This letter

shows that he was Personal Driver and was driving Bank

jeep. Exhibit W/l 0 is the certificate issued on 1-5-2003 by

the Chairman to the workman which shows that he was

personal Driver of the Chairman. These documents are

admitted by the management. These douments clearly

show that the workman was Personal Driver of the

Chairman for the last three years and therefore preceding

with the reference, the workman was Personal Driver of

the Chairman and was not employee of the Bank even on

daily wages.

9. On the other hand, the management has also

adduced oral and documentary evidence.The management

witness Smt.Anita Dubey has also supported the fact that

the applicant/workman was personal Driver of the

Chairman and he paid salary from his own pocket’ which

was subsequently reimbursed. Her evidence shows that

the applicant/workman was Personal Driver of the

Chairman and he was not engaged by the Bank.

10. The management has filed documentary evidence

which are admitted by the applicant/workman. Exhibit

M/l is the letter of Chairman which shows that he engaged

Personal Driver and used to pay his salary himself. Exhibit

M/2 is the application to the Chairman by the applicant/

workman for engaging him as Personal Driver. Exhibit

M/3 is the letter of Asstt. General Manager of the Bank to

the Chairman permitting him to engage Personal Driver on

the basis of the norms of sponsored Bank. This. document

also shows that he was Personal Driver. Exhibit M/4 is the

norms of the sponsored Bank by which the amount of

salary and allowance is to be reimbursed to the Officer of

his Personal Driver. Thus the documents clearly shows

that the applicant/workman was not the employee of the

Bank from 1999 onward and was Personal Driver of the

Chairman. This issue is decided in favour of the

management.

11. The learned counsel for the applicant has relied

the decisions of the Hon’ble High Court report in

LLR(2010) M.P 1600 Sunita Gupta (Smt) versus Nagar Palika

Parishad, Sabalgarh and another and 2010(3) MPLJ 457

Sanjay Kr. Versus Chief Executive Officer, Janpad

Panchayat, Ratlam. These decisions are not applicable in

the case as he was not employee of the Bank during the

period of twelve months preceding the date with reference

as provided under Section 25-B of the I.D.Act.

12. Issue No. III

On the basis of the discussion made above, it is

clear that the applicant/workman is not entitled to any

relief. Accordingly the reference is answered.

13. In the result, the award is passed without any

order to costs.

14. 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

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

753

ubZ fnYyh] 29 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 251-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj if'pe eè;

jsyos 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] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 30@06) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 28&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@79@2005&vkbZ vkj(ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2010

S.O. 251.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 30/06)

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 Western Central Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 28-12-2010.

[No. L-41012/79/2005-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

PRESENT : N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer.

I.D. 30/06

Reference No. L-41012/79/2005-IR(B-I)

Dated : 23-2- 2006

The Zonal Mantri

Indian Railways Employees Confederation

Road No. 14, Punam Colony,

Kota Junction, Kota (Raj.)

V/s

1. The Divisional Railway Manager,

Western Central Railway, Kota

2. The Senior Divisional Engineer,

Kota (Raj.)

3. The Senior Divisional Engineer

Western Central Railway,

Kota (Raj.)

AWARD

3-12-2010

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers

conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 & 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred

the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for

adjudication which runs as under :-

^^D;k lgk;d vfHk;Urk] if'pe eè; jsyos] lokbZ&

ek/ksiqj }kjk deZdkj Jh izgykn vkRet Jh dj.k xSax

eSau xSax ua- 45 jsy iFk fujh{kd] yk[kjh dks osrueku

U;wure osru ij rhu ekg ds fy, djus ds n.M+ ls nf.Mr

djus ls iwoZ U;k; ds izkÑfrd fl¼karksa dk ikyu fd;k ;k

ugh \ ;fn ugha rks lacaf/r deZdkj fdl vuqrks"k dk

gdnkj gS \”

2. Pursuant to the receipt of reference order, the

registered notices were issued to both the parties. It appears

from the record that on behalf of the management Shri

Anupam Agarwal, Advocate had filed his authority on

14-6-06. It also appears that the post of Presiding Officer

remained vacant from July, 2006 to August, 2009, therefore,

fresh registered notices were issued to both the sides after

posting of the Presiding Officer.

3. Upon perusal of the record, it reveals that

representative on behalf of the management had appeared

on 3-6-10 but none appeared on behalf of the workman. It

further reveals that registered notices were issued to Zonal

Mantri, Indian Railway Employees confederation at the

address mentioned in the reference order but the same

have been returned thrice with the remarks ^^irk viw.kZ gS”

,oa ^^bl irs ij mDr uke dk dksbZ laLFkku ugha gS A** It also

reveals that none appeared on behalf of both the sides on

subsequent dates i.e. 29-10-2010 & 29-11-2010. Hence, the

matter was reserved for passing the award.

4. Since registered notices issued to the union have

been returned unserved and none has appeared on behalf

of the union, there is no material on record to adjudicate

the reference under consideration on merits. Under such

circumstances the ‘‘No Claim Award’’ is passed in this

matter. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

5. Award as above.

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 29 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 252-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos 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]

tcyiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 72@92) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks

dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@108@91&vkbZ vkj(ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

754

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 29th December, 2010

S.O. 252.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 72/92)

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 Central Railway and their workman,

received by the Central Government on 29-12-2010.

[No. L-41012/108/91-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/72/92

Presiding Officer : SHRI MOHD SHAKIR HASAN

Shri Shailendra Nath Pathak,

C/o House of Halkiram Mistry,

Mazdid Ward, Badi Bazaria,

Bina Distt. Sagar (MP)

. . .Workman/Union

Versus

General Manager,

Central Railway,

Bombay.

The DRM, Central Railway,

Jhansi

The AME (P),

Central Railway, Jhansi

. . .Management

A WARD

Passed on this 3rd day of December, 2010

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour

vide its Notification No. L-41012/l08/91-Do2(B) dated

31-3-92 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :-

“ Whether the action of the management of Central

Railway, Jhansi in terminating the services of

Shri Shailendra Nath Pathak, Ex. Labourer, Loco shed

AGC w.e.f. 25-8-1982 is justified? If not, what relief

he is entitled to ?’’

2. The case of the workman in short is that the

workman was posted as a Loco shed AGC and has left the

headquarter after taking two days leave with permission

in May 1978. He came to Bina where he was informed

about sudden death of his father at Nagpur. He came to

Nagpur but his other family members also died. As a result

of which he became mentally sick on account of shock

and was treated by Dr. S. G. Chiwhane at Nagpur till

15-1-82. On mental sickness he did not follow the procedure

of his absence. On treatment by Private Medical Doctor,

he became fit. He reported on duty on 16-1-1982 and was

examined by ADMO, AGC who issued him M-15B No.

904791. He resumed his duty and was removed from service

on 25-9-82 after an enquiry held by the management. The

charge against him was unauthorized absence from duty

w.e.f. 5-5-78 to 15-1-82. The workman produced medical

certificate in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer after enquiry

held that the workman failed to comply with the procedures

for reporting sick while undergoing treatment from private

doctor. It is stated that it was beyond the control of the

workman to inform the authority during mental sickness

and therefore the punishment awarded to him is harsh and

was not justified with the circumstances of the case. It is

submitted that the order of dismissal be set aside and the

workman be reinstated with full back wages.

3. The management appeared and contested the

reference by filing written Statement. The case of the

management, interalia, is that admittedly the workman

proceeded on two days leave after taking permission but

he remained absent from 5-5-78 to 15-1-82. Admittedly he

filed an application alongwith a certificate of private doctor

S.G. Chiwhani showing his treatment from 5-5-78 to

15-1-82. The workman had also submitted M-15B Certificate

No. 904791 dated 16-1-82 issued by AMO, Agra Cantt. It is

stated that the workman has to prove that the doctor had

declared him medically unfit on account of mental sickness.

Admittedly the workman reported on duty on 16-1-1982

and resumed his duty. Admittedly after enquiry, he was

removed from service w.e.f. 25-9-82 on the charge of his

absence from duty from 5-5-78 to 15-1-82. The Enquiry

Officer had not relied the certificate of the doctor issued

to the workman as he was not examined in the enquiry. It is

stated that the misconduct had been proved as such the

order of punishment passed by the management is justified

and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties,

the following issues are framed for adjudication—

Whether the enquiry is just, proper and legal?

ii.

Whether the management is entitled to lead evidence

before this Tribunal?

iii.

Whether the charges of misconduct are proved on

the facts of the case?

iv.

Whether the punishment awarded is proper and

legal?

Relief and costs?

5. Issue No.1 & 2—

Preliminary issue was taken up as to whether the

enquiry is just, proper and legal. The then Tribunal decided

the issue on 24-3-98 that the departmental enquiry was

invalid and illegal. Thereafter the management is permitted

to prove the charges in Court. As such both the issues are

already earlier disposed off.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

755

6. Issue No. 3

Admittedly the workman left the headquarter after

taking two days permission but remained absent from

5-5-78 to 15-1-82. Admittedly he reported on duty on

16-1-82 with medical certificate of the private doctor

regarding his mental sickness. He resumed duty and

worked for nine months till 25-9-82.

7. Now let us examine the evidence of the

management as to whether the misconduct is proved

against the workman. The workman has pleaded that he

did not inform the authority as it was beyond his control

on account of mental sickness. The management has

examined one witness in the case. Management witness

Shri O. P. Kanchan, Loco shed foreman. He has supported

the case of the management. He has stated that the

workman was unauthorized absent from 5-5-78 to 15-1-82.

He was served with charge sheet which is marked as Exhibit

M/1 The workman gave reply which is marked as Exhibit

M/2. The reply shows that he had admitted his absence

from duty but explained that he did not inform as it was

beyond his control on account of nature of sickness. He

appears to be absent for about four years and during such

period no medical certificate was furnished nor any

application was sent. The evidence of the management

clearly shows that admittedly the workman was absent

unauthorisedly without any intimation to the management.

No communication on the ground of sickness was made

to the management for such a long period of four years.

As such it shows that it was a deliberate attempt of his

absence. Moreover the burden is on the workman to prove

that it was out of his control. I find that the management is

able to prove misconduct against the workman.

8. On the other hand, the workman became absent

and as such he was not cross-examined. His evidence is

not fit to be considered in the case in accordance with law.

The burden was on the workman that his absence was

beyond his control. Thus there is no evidence on behalf

of the workman. Considering the evidence as has been

discussed above, I find that the charges of misconduct is

proved by the management. This issue is, accordingly,

answered.

9. Issue No. 4 & 5—

Considering the discussion made above and absence

of evidence of the workman, I find that there is no need to

interfere in the order of punishment. I, therefore, find that

the order of punishment is just and proper. The reference,

is, thus answered.

10. In the result, the award is passed without any

order to costs.

11. 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] 30 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 253-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dkpkj xzkeh.k

cSad 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;] xqokgVh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 7@2004)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&12&2010 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@167@2002&vkbZ vkj(ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

S.O. 253.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 7/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Guwahati as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Cachar Gramin Bank and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 29-12-2010.

[No. L-12012/167/2002-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

GUWAHATI, ASSAM

PRESENT : SHRI D. K. DEB ROY, M.A., LL.B.

Presiding Officer,

CGIT-Cum-Labour Court, Guwahati.

Ref. Case No . 7 of 2004.

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:—

The Management of Cachar Gramin Bank,

Cachar, Assam.

V/s

Their workman Sri Sunil Chandra Das.

APPEARANCES

For the Management

Sri K. K. Dey, Advocate.

For the Workman

Sri S. C. Koyal, Advocate.

Date of Award : 12-2010

AWARD

1. The present reference is arising out 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) by the Government Notification vide

Memo No. L-12012/167/2002-IR(B-I) Dated: 30-10-2002,

756

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

to adjudicate the following issue as described in the

Schedule below :

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Cachar

Gramin Bank, Silchar, Assam in not absorbing

Sri Sunil Chandra Das, Part-time Messenger-cum-

Peon in Bank services and terminating his services

from 19th May, 1990, is fair, just and legal? If not,

what relief is the workman concerned entitled?”

2. On receipt of the Reference Case from the State

Tribunal, Guwahati on 9-12-2004 by this Tribunal, notice

was duly served upon the parties. Both the parties

appeared and submitted their Written Statement. They

adduced evidence also and the matter was heard. Some

documents have also been exhibited.

3. The simple case of the workman is that he was

appointed as daily wage temporary part-time Messenger-

cum-Peon on 2-11-1982 under the Management namely

erstwhile Cachar Gramin Bank presently known as Assam

Gramin Bikash Bank and was posted at Kalibari Bazar

Branch. The services of the workman was regularized from

20-05-87 in pursuance of the Head Office letter No. CGB/

CLR/ADMN/171/08/88 dated 11-2-88 as a part-time regular

Messenger-cum-Peon. The services of the workman was

further up-graded with effect from 1-04-90 to full time

regular Messenger-cum-Peon vide Office Letter No. CGB/

ESt/REC/52/190 dated 26-6-90. The further case of the

workman is that he was allotted with Provident Fund

Account AS/1516/31 and the Management Bank was

contributing their share in the Provident Fund of the

Account. That on 19-5-90 the Branch Manager of the Bank

served a letter terminating the services of the workman at

once, arbitrarily without giving any opportunity of being

heard. Even no notice was served upon him. In the said

termination letter there was a reference of Ratabari Police

Station Case No. 102/90 u/s 409 IPC to which the workman

had no knowledge. The workman was falsely implicated in

an allegation of alleged withdrawal of money from S. B.

Account No. 905 standing in the name of customer

Sri Subrata Chandra Choudhury though there were

absolutely no materials against him. As a matter of fact the

Management hatched a conspiracy and implicated the poor

workman in the so called crime. Police after due

investigation submitted charge sheet showing his

involvement in fraudulent withdrawal of Rs. 30,800 from

the Saving Account No. 905 maintained in the name of

Subrata Chandra Choudhury. The workman totally denied

the allegation brought against him. After full trial the

learned S. D. J. M. Karimganj vide his judgment and order

dated 2-2-2000 acquitted the present workman from the

charge. After the judgment the workman approached the

Management to reinstate him in the Post previously he

was holding since he was acquitted by the Court of Law.

He made several representations before the Management

but that was not considered. According to him the

Management never felt it necessary to initiate departmental

proceeding against him nor he was heard. Thereafter a

conciliation proceeding took place but no decision could

be arrived at. On receipt of the failure report the Government

referred this matter for adjudication. The further case of

the workman is that he has been illegally terminated from

his service on the false allegation of misappropriation of

money and he was ultimately acquitted by the Court.

According to him, there has been a violation of principle

of natural justice. Hence, the workman prayed for

absorbing him in his original post with effect from 19-5-90

with full back wages till his reinstatement.

4. The Management Bank contested the proceeding

by filing written statement refuting the claim of the

workman. According to the Management the order of

reference is illegal and this Tribunal does not have any

jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter. The further case of

the management is that the workman was engaged as daily

wage Messenger and he was terminated from service on

19-5-90. The workman forging the signature of one

customer Subrata Chandra Choudhury fraudulently drew

a sum of Rs. 39,000 on 17-2-89 and 21-11-89 from the

Savings Account No. 905 of Kalibari Bazar Branch. When

the matter was detected by the Management the workman

confessed his guilt in black and white in presence of Abdul

Hussain Choudhury and Kaushik Bhattacharjee. It is also

alleged that in the confessional statement the workman

admitted the factum of guilt and he refunded Rs. 8,500 to

Mr. Subrata Chandra Choudhury. Thereafter, the Branch

Manager, Ashish Lodh submitted F.I.R. with the Police

and accordingly a case was registered being G.R. Case No.

457/90 u/ s 409 IPC against the accused workman. It is

admitted that after full trial the accused was acquitted by

judgment dated 2-2-2000. The Management Bank lost

confidence on the workman Sunil Chandra Das and he

was ultimately disengaged from service. The Management

Bank prays before this Court that the case of the workman

appears to be devoid of merit and the same deserves to be

dismissed.

5. Decisions and reasons thereof :

Heard both sides at the Bar. Learned counsel for the

workman has submitted that the workman was terminated

from service following a criminal case lodged against him

and after the order of acquittal he was entitled to get back

his original job. But that was not considered by the

Management Bank. According to him it is a fit case where

the order can be passed by this Court for redeployment of

the workman in the original post. This contention has been

seriously controverted by the learned counsel for the

Management, who in his efficacious submission has

contended inter-alia, acquittal in a criminal case does not

entitle a person to be reengaged in his original post.

According to him the criminal case does not have any

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

757

relation with the present proceeding. In order to

substantiate the respective claims, the workman has

examined himself as a soliltary witness whereas Manage-

ment Bank has examined altogether 4 witnesses.

6. Here, I feel it convenient to re-capitulate the

evidence on record.

The workman submitted his evidence-on-affidavit

stating inter-alia that he is 52 years as on 25-6-2010 and he

was engaged as a Messenger-cum-Peon on daily wage

basis with effect from 2-11-82 under the Management Bank

and was posted at Kalibari Bazar Branch. According to

him there was a proposal by the Government for

regularization of their services vide letter dt. 11-2-88.

Thereafter his service was upgraded to full time regular

Messenger-cum-Peon vide letter dated 26-6-90. He was

allotted with Provident Fund Account No. AS/1516/31 and

the Management was contributing their share regularly.

That on 19-5-90 the Branch Manager of the Bank issued a

letter terminating his service following the criminal case

corresponding to Ratabari Police Station Case No. 102/90

u/s 409 IPC of which he has no knowledge. He has further

stated in his evidence that he had never withdrawn any

money from the S.B. Account No.905 standing in the name

of Subrata Chandra Choudhury. According to him Police

illegally submitted charge sheet against him for withdrawal

of Rs. 30,800 from the account of Subrata Chandra

Choudhury. The case of the workman was totally denial.

After full trial the learned S.D.J.M., Karimganj vide his

judgment and order dated 2-2-2000 acquitted the accused,

workman. Thereafter, he submitted several representations

before the Management for his reengagement in the

original post since he was acquitted from the criminal

charge. But that was not considered by the Management.

Thereafter, conciliation proceeding took place but no

settlement could be arrived at. On receipt of the failure

report the Ministry referred this matter for adjudication by

this Tribunal. This witness has proved some documents

viz. Ext. 1, is the copy of letter dt. 11-2-88. Ext.2, Circular

dated 7-5-87. Ext.3, copy of the letter dated 19-5-90,

whereupon Ext.3(1) is the signature of Ashish Lodha the

then Manager of Kalibari Bazar Branch. Ext.4 is the certified

copy of the judgment dated 2-2-2000 passed by S.D.J.M,

Karimganj in G.R. Case No.457/90. Exts.5, 6, 7 are the Copies

of representations dated 19-6-2000, 24-7-2000 and 8-9-2000

respectively. Ext.8 is the copy of 1etter dated 12-9-2000,

Ext.8(1) is the signature of Sri A. Nandy, General Manager

of the Management which he knows. Ext. 9 is the letter

dated 26-12-2001 submitted by the Management before

the Assistant Labour Commissioner (central) showing

salary statement and C.P.F. contribution. Ext. l0 is the failure

report dated 25-6-2002. This witness has been cross

examined by the Management at length. He has admitted

that he joined in the Bank as Peon on 02-11-1982 but no

appointment letter was issued to him. He was working in

Cachar Gramin Bank at Kalibari Bazar Branch till the date

of his termination. Ext. 1 has been objected to. It was

suggested by the Management that he was not a regular

employee nor his service was required by the Bank though

he answered in negative. He has also denied to have

withdrawn a sum of Rs.39,000 from the account of Subrata

Choudhury. It was suggested that he forged the signature

of Subrata Choudhury and illegally had withdrawn the

money which was denied by him. He has also denied to

have made any confessional statement as alleged in

presence of Abul Hussain Choudhury and Kaushik

Bhattacharjee. Lastly, it was suggested that he was rightly

dismissed from service. From the evidence of this witness

it is thus abundantly clear that the workman was engaged

as Messenger-cum-Peon on daily wage basis with effect

from 2-11-82. Ext.1 was a forwarding letter regarding

regularization of daily-waged part-time Messengers and

Ext.2 is a Circular dated 8th May, 1987, which shows that

there was a proposal of the Government for regularization

of daily wage part-time-Messenger in Regional Rural Banks

who were engaged prior to 8-10-84. Ext.3 is the termination

letter.

7. Now let me consider the evidence of the

Management. MW.1, Mr. Ashish Lodh, Senior Manager,

Cachar Gramin Bank has stated that the workman Sunil

Chandra Das was verbally engaged as a part-time-

messenger on daily wage basis and he was not engaged

against regular post. According to this witness one Subrata

Choudhury was the customer of Kalibari Bazar Branch

who is having Savings Bank Account No.905. That on

18-4-90, Mr. Subrata Choudhury came to the Bank for

withdrawal a sum of Rs.10,000 from his account. According

to Pass Book ,Mr. Choudhury had Rs.30,600 in his account.

The said Pass Book was seized by Police in connection

with Ratabari P.S. Case No.102/90 from the possession of

the workman, Sunil Chandra Das. The said Pass Book was

proved as Ext.4 in G.R.Case No.457/90 but the said Pass

Book was found missing from the record of the said G.R.

case No.457/90. The Ledger book shows that there were

number of withdrawals and ultimately a sum of Rs.25 was

credited in the same account maintained by Subrata

Choudhury. Ext. 1 is the copy of the said ledger sheet.

This witness has further stated that two numbers of

withdrawal amounting to Rs.l500 and Rs.7,000 were not

recorded by the authorized officials of the Bank and

thereafter some withdrawal forms relating to account

No.905 standing in the name of Subrata Choudhury were

verified wherefrom it is gathered that workman Sunil

Chandra Das was the bearer of those withdrawal form.

Thereafter the workman Sunil Chandra Das made a

confession in presence of Abul Hussain Choudhury and

Kaushik Bhattacharjee admitting the guilt having

withdrawn an amount of Rs.39,300 with effect from

17-2-89 to 21-11-89 by forging the signature of the account

holder namely Subrata Choudhury and misappropriated

the amount. M.W.Ext.2 is the confessional statement where

758

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

upon M.W.Ext.2(1) is the signature of Sunil Chandra Das

and M.W.Ext.2(2) and 2(3) are the signatures of Abul

Hussain Choudhury and Kaushik Bhattacharjee. After

the incident, he lodged F.I.R. against the workman Sunil

Chandra Das. M.W.Ext.3 is the F.I.R. in connection with

Ratabari Police Station Case No.102/90 u/ s 409 IPC. Police

during investigation seized the Pass Book and some

withdrawal forms relating to Account No. 905. M.W.Ext.4

is the copy of the seizure list. Thereafter vide letter dated

19-5-90 the workman Sunil Chandra Das was informed that

his service was not required by the Bank. The concerned

workman was acquitted by the S.D.J.M, Karimganj in

G.R.Case No.457/90 vide judgment and order dated 2-2-

2000. M.W.Ext.5 is the copy of the judgment. In cross-

examination this witness has admitted that the workman

was engaged as part-time-messenger in the Kalibari Bazar

Branch of Cachar Gramin Bank way back in the year 1985.

He has also admitted that he was the Branch Manager of

the Branch and there was one Field Supervisor and one

Cashier-clerk and one Messenger namely the workman.

The main task of the cashier was to maintain account,

receive cash, maintenance of ledger, etc. The Field

Supervisor was entrusted to look after advance processing

and recovery of loan. The ledger book was maintained by

the cashier-cum-Clerk. The S. B. Account No.905 was

standing in the name of Subrata Choudhury who had a

balance of Rs.25.50 on 21-11-89. The workman had nothing

to do with the maintenance of ledger. All transactions of

receipt and payment were made by the Cashier. It was

suggested by the Counsel for the workman that neither

the confessional statement was written by the accused

nor it was the confession made by him rather it was a

blank paper converting the same into confessional

statement. He has admitted that no Pass Book has been

produced in this case.

Management Witness No.2, in the same tune has

said at the relevant time he was the Cashier of the Kalibari

Bazar Branch and he was well conversant with the facts of

the case. This witness has narrated the same story as

narrated by the MW.1 and proved some documents. In

cross-examination this witness has admitted that he was

the cashier of Kalibari Bazar Branch with effect from 27th

March,1989 to 22nd August,1991. He has admitted that as

Cashier his duty is to maintain account and to receive and

make payment to the customers. He used to look after

Pass Book entry, preparation of ledger book and other

bank deposits, cash book account, etc. He has also admitted

that when withdrawal slip is presented by the customers it

is verified by the Branch Manager and when the payment

order is passed he used to make payment to the customers.

It is the duty of the Branch Manager to verify the signature

of the customers in the withdrawal forms. He has proved

the confessional statement, Ext.2 which was made in his

presence. Lastly, it was suggested by the workman that

no factum for forgery was committed by the workman.

Likewise, MW.3 has narrated the same story as

stated by MW.1 and 2 and he has proved Ext.2, the

confessional statement. In cross-examination, the

workman simply suggested this witness that no forgery

was committed by the workman nor he made any

confessional statement, as alleged.

MW.4, is account holder, Subrata Choudhury has

said that he is maintaining an account bearing No.905 in

Cachar Gramin Bank. He had a balance of Rs.30,600 in his

credit in the said account. That on 18-4-90 he went to the

bank and presented a withdrawal form for Rs.10,000. The

employee sitting in the counter informed him that he is

having an amount of Rs.25 in his credit as reflected from

the ledger. He was astonished to know about the

manipulation that had taken place. He immediately informed

the matter to the bank authority and they made an enquiry.

According to him the withdrawal forms do not show his

signature nor did he sign the same as bearer. A police case

was initiated. Some papers were seized by police. In

cross-examination, this witness has said that he has not

received any summon from the Court rather he has been

brought by the bank. He knows the workman Sunil

Chandra Das who was a Messenger at the relevant time.

He put his signature over the seizure list. He does not

know English and he does not know the contents of the

Affidavit. This witness has honestly admitted that he can

not say who had withdrawn his money from his account.

8. I have meticulously gone through the entire

evidence adduced by the parties. Also perused plethora

of documents submitted by the parties. Admittedly the

workman was a temporary part-time Messenger-cum-Peon

in the erstwhile Cachar Gramin Bank, Kalibari Bazar Branch.

The allegation levelled against the workman that he

fraudulently had withdrawn money from the account

No.905 standing in the name of Subrata Choudhury as

alleged by the Management. It is also admitted position

that a criminal case was instituted against the workman

u/s 409 IPC. The workman was disengaged from the post

of part-time Messenger-cum-Peon following the criminal

case lodged against him as reflected from the

disengagement letter, Ext. 3. I have re-considered the

termination letter; Ext.3 which clearly shows that his service

was discontinued solely for the sake of police case being

lodged against him u/s 409 IPC. There was no other

allegation against the workman except this criminal case.

It is also admitted position that after full trial the workman

was acquitted from the charge vide judgment and order

dated 2-2-2000 in G.R.Case No.457/90. I have gone through

the judgment passed by the Trial Court. It is also admitted

by the Management witness No.1 in cross-examination

that main task of the Cashier was to maintain account,

receipt cash, maintenance of ledger, etc. From his own

admission it is abundantly clear that the workman. had no

role to play in the withdrawal and payment of money to

the customers. It was entirely the business of the Cashier,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

759

MW.2. The Cashier who happened to be the MW. 2 has

admitted during cross-examination, that as Cashier his duty

was to maintain ledger book, receive and make payment to

the customers. Sometimes, he used to look after Pass Book

entry, preparation of ledger book and other bank deposits,

cash book accounts, etc. From his own admission it is

seen that he is the custodian of all the bank documents

and the payment is also received by him and payment is

made to the customer by the Cashier. He has also admitted

that signature of the customers in the withdrawal slip is

used to be verified by the Manager, M.W. l as and when

the payment order is passed and thereafter he used to

make payment to the customers. The signature of the

customer in the withdrawal slip is used to be verified by

the Branch Manager, M.W. 1. It is thus apparent that the

present workman does not have any role to play in the

alleged happening that had taken place. From the gamut

of the entire situation, it is thus seen that the Branch

Manager, MW. 1 is shifting his liability on the shoulder of

the Cashier, MW. 2. On the contrary, the Cashier, MW. 2 is

trying to put the entire blame to the Branch Manager, MW.

1. Thus both MW. l and MW. 2 were trying to absolve

their liability from the charge and to save their skin by

fastening the entire responsibility upon the innocent poor

workman.

MW. 4, is the account holder, Subrata Choudhury

who was the most relevant witness in this case was not

examined by the prosecution during criminal trial. But

surprisingly this witness has been examined by the

Management in the present case in order to fix up the

entire responsibility on the workman. This witness during

cross-examination has honestly admitted that he does not

know who had withdrawn the money from his account.

So, this witness has not put any stigma on the unfortunate

workman.

9. From the above discussion, it transpires that the

workman was disengaged by the Management Bank solely

on the ground of initiation of the criminal case and

ultimately he was acquitted by the Court of law. So, no

charge has been legally proved against the workman. Here

in the instant case, I find absolutely no evidence to show

that the present workman had misappropriated the bank

money. I am of considered opinion that the Criminal Court

has rightly acquitted the workman from the charge brought

against him. It is the admitted position that the workman

was disengaged from service following a criminal case

against him and there was no other charge in the

termination letter and when he has been acquitted by a

Court of law, it indicates that no charge is proved against

him. So he is entitled to get back his original post.

10. Having heard both sides and having considered

the entire evidence on record and also having considered

the relevant documents, I am constrained to hold that the

workman was illegally disengaged from the Post of

part-time Messenger-cum-Peon by the Management. In

the result, the Management Bank is hereby directed to

re-engage the workman in his original Post with effect

from the date of his termination/disengagement i.e. on

19-5-1990. Accordingly, the workman is entitled to get back

all of his back wages.

Send the Award to the Government as per law.

Given under my hand and seal of this Court on this

21st day of December, 2010, at Guwahati.

D. K. DEB ROY, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 254-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nf{k.k Hkkjrh;

cSad fy- 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] cEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 60@2009) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@09@2009&vkbZ vkj(ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

S.O. 254.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 60/2009)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of The South

Indian Bank Ltd. and their workman, received by the Central

Government on 29-12-2010.

[No. L-12012/09/2009-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT 2/60 of 2009

Employers in Relation to the Management of

The South Indian Bank Ltd.

The General Manager,

The South Indian Bank Ltd.,

2nd floor, 266, Gupta Mansion

Linking Road, Bandra (W)

Mumbai-400 050.

AND

Their Workmen

Shri D. R. Mahamunkar,

Ramshraddha CHS Phase-II,

760

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Indra Lok, C-Wing, 4th floor,

Room No. 401, Vimal Dairy Road,

Bhayandar (E), Distt, Thane.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer :

Mr. M. G. Nadkarni, Advocate

For the Workman :

No apearance.

Mumbai, dated the 15th November, 2010

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour has sent

this reference by its order No. L-12012/09/2009-IR(B-I),

dated 25-06-2009. By this reference, Ministry of Labour

sent industrial dispute to this Tribunal to determine whether

the action of General Manager, South Indian Bank Ltd.,

Bandra (E), Mumbai in dismissing Shri D. R. Mahamunkar

from their services by way of punishment is legal and

justified, if not, what relief the workman is entitle to?

2. After receipt of the reference, notices were sent to

the parties. Notice of second party workman returned with

endorsement ‘unclaimed’. Endorsement ‘unclaimed’

amount to service to the workman. Inspite for service,

workman remained absent. He has not filed statement of

claim. Therefore, question of filing written statement by

the otherside also does not arise. As the workman neither

appeared in this proceedings not filed his statement of

claim. Therefore the reference cannot be adjudicated on

merit. In short, the reference deserves to be rejected. Thus

I pass the following order.

ORDER

The reference stands rejected for want of

prosecution.

Date : 15-11-2010

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 255-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eè; jsyos 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; dkuiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 89@95)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&12&2010 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&41012@81@94&vkbZ vkj(ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

S.O. 255.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 89/95)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Central Railway and their workmen,

received by the Central Government on 29-12-2010.

[No. L-41012/81/94-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 89 of 95

In the matter of dispute between

Surender Singh

President,

Rashtriya Chaturth Shreni Rail Mazdoor Congress,

4 Herapura Nagra, Jhansi.

AND

Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway, Jhansi

AWARD

1. Central Government, MoL vide notification no.L-

41012/81/94-IR(B-1) dated 19-07-95 has referred the

following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal—

2. Whether the action of Divisional Railway Manager,

Central Railway Jhansi and Area Suptd, Central Railway

Banda, in not regularizing the services of Sri Suresh Babu

Sharma with effect from 12-08-90 is legal? If not to what

relief the concerned workman is entitled?

3. Subsequently vide order dated 12-03-04 of the

MoL, there was a corrigendum in the reference order. After

corrigendum the reference was made like this that the

workman Sri Suresh Babu Sharma whose services have

been terminated with effect from 12-08-90 is just?

4. Brief facts are -

5. It is an admitted facts of both the parties that

workman Sri Suresh Babu Sharma was engaged as a casual

labour on 10-4-1985 under D.R.M. Jhansi. It is alleged by

the claimant that after putting in 120 days he has acquired

the temporary status on 5-5-86, and he continued to work

till 12-08-90 under Station Suptd., Banda, as MRCL.

Thereafter he was removed from the services without any

reason, without any notice, without any retrenchment

compensation, without any written order. He was neither

discharged nor was his services terminated. He has been

illegally deprived from his work. It is also alleged that

certain junior workers have been made regular. It is also

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

761

alleged that one Sri Mathura Prasad son of Sri Devi Deen

who was engaged with the claimant is still working under

Station Suptd. Banda, in the Operating Department.

6. Therefore, he has prayed that the action of the

management be declared as unjustified and illegal and he

be directed to be reinstated in the service of the opposite

party with full pay and continuity of service.

7. Opposite party has filed the written statement.

They have denied that the claimant has acquired the

temporary status. It is alleged that the claimant has been

removed after giving one month notice before retrenchment

which was served upon him. Thereafter he was also paid

two months wages as a retrenchment compensation in

advance which was received by the claimant. After

receiving the compensation the claimant has no right to

challenge the same. It is incorrect to say that they have

not followed the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.

They have also denied that any junior person has been

made regular. It is also alleged that there is a circular of the

railway dated 18-12-80, according to that circular no

engagement or employment can be given without the

permission of the General Manager. As the claimant was

engaged initially in the year 1985 so his employment could

not be regularized. Other contents of the claimants have

been denied by the opposite party vehemently with the

prayer that the claim of the applicant is liable to be rejected

being devoid of merit.

8. Claimant has also filed rejoinder but therein no

new facts have been alleged except reiterating the facts

already pleaded by the claimant in his claim petition.

9. Both the parties have filed documents in support

of their respective claim which will be referred in the body

of this award at the appropriate stage.

10. Both the parties have adduced oral evidence in

support of their respective case.

11. Claimant has adduced himself as a witness W.W.

1. Opposite party has adduced one witness Sri Prakash

Chandra Sarkar and M.W.2 Sri Iqbal Khan who is Assistant

Personnel Officer.

12. Heard and perused the whole evidence.

13. The only short question is to be decided in the

instant case is whether the management has fulfilled all

the condition precedent to retrenchment of a workman as

provided under section 25F of I.D. Act 1947.

14. Section 25F provides like this-

No workman employed in any industry who has been

in continuous service for not less than one year under an

employer shall be retrenched by that employer until-

(a)

The workman has been given one month

notice in writing indicting the reasons for

retrenchment and the period for notice has

expired or the workman has been paid in lieu

of such notice wages for the period of the

notice.

(b)

The workman has been paid, at the time of

retrenchment, compensation which shall be

equivalent to 15 days average pay or any part

thereof in excess of six months and,

(c)

Notice in the prescribed manner is served on

the appropriate government.

15. First of all would like to say that the opposite

party has wrongly stated in their written statement that

the claimant has not acquired any temporary status,

because the witness M.W.2 has specifically admitted in

the cross-examination that the claimant has acquired

temporary status.

16. Now only dispute is whether a notice as provided

under sub section (a) of section 25 F has been given or

not.

17. After going through the provisions of section

25F of the act it stands clear that a heavy burden lies on

the shoulder of the opposite party that before effecting

retrenchment they have to comply with condition laid down

under section 25 of the Act. The authorized representative

for the opposite party has stated that they have not filed

any notice which was served and received by the claimant

on the file.

18. Now the question arises as to whether the

management has paid any retrenchment compensation

which is to be paid at the time of retrenchment as provided

under section 25F (b) of the Act. Claimant has specifically

pleaded that he was not paid any retrenchment

compensation at the time of his retrenchment. It is a fact

that he was retrenched on 13-08-90 Witness M.W.2

produced by the management has clearly stated in his

examination in chief that the claimant was paid the

retrenchment compensation in the year 1995. He also stated

that without seeing the record he could not say how much

compensation has been given to the claimant. He also

stated that at present he could not say whether any notice

was given to the claimant or not. He also stated that the

retrenchment order which was passed by the concerned

depot is not present with him. He specifically admitted

that the workman has not been paid the retrenchment

benefits at the time of his retrenchment but was paid later

on in the year 1995 though it has also been disputed by

the claimant. This burden also lie on the management to

prove as to how much amount by way of retrenchment

compensation became due to the workman and how much

amount was paid to the workman by way of retrenchment

compensation.

762

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

19. Opposite party has invited my attention towards

paper No. 16/2, where certain amount shown is alleged to

have been received by the claimant in November 1995.

Even if I take the cognizance of this paper it also clearly

shows that the amount has been paid in November 1995,

which is clear cut violation of provisions of Section 25F of

the Act. Probably this amount was paid only after the

claimant has filed the litigation before ALC and before this

Tribunal, because M.W.2 has admitted in the cross that

the retrenchment benefits have been paid to the claimant

after institution of this case.

20. I have gone through the documents filed by the

management there are several documents filed by the

management.

21. Opposite party has filed letter dated 27-07-90 in

respect of reconstitution and abolition of certain post.

Opposite party has filed a circular dated 2-03-88 regarding

engagement of casual labour. Opposite party has filed

seniority list dated 13-4-92 and certain letters and

attendance and payment sheets.

22. I have gone through these papers in the light of

statement of M.W.1 and 2.

23. It is also the contention of the claimant that after

the removal of his service certain juniors are still working

in the department names of whom have been stated by

him in his statement of claim. M.W. 2 admitted in his cross

examination that in the year 2001 certain old workers who

were removed have been employed under a policy. When

a suggestion was put to the witness that certain junior like

Ramesh Chandra, Mahesh Prasad, Sohan Lal, Lakhan

Singh, Mathura Prasad etc. are still working, he expressed

his ignorance about his fact. Even the claimant has

specifically disclosed the name of one Sri Mathura Prasad

in the claim petition, opposite party has not given any

specific denial in their reply regarding Mathura Prasad.

24. From the perusal of evidence documentary as

well as oral it has been specifically found clear that the

management has not followed the condition to

retrenchment which are mandatory in as much as the

workman has not been paid his retrenchment

compensation at the time of retrenchment according to

law. Payment of amount to a retrenchment workman is a

condition precedent and the amount must be tendered

along with the termination letter. Here the management

has failed to prove the fact that they have given the

amount of retrenchment compensation at the time of

effecting retrenchment. Therefore, it is concluded that the

action of the management in terminating the services of

the claimant is neither legal nor justified and the workman

is held to be entitled for his reinstatement with entire back

wages, continuity of service and all consequential benefits.

25. Reliance has also been placed by the authorized

representation for the claimant on a case (2007)1 Supreme

Court Cases (L&S) 961 Sri Ram Industrial Enterprises

Limited versus Mahak Singh and Others wherein the

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that where the provisions

of section 25F have been found to be violated, the workman

action of the management in terminating the services of

the workman should be held to be illegal, and inoperative

in the eye of law.

26. Accordingly in view of observations given

above, it is held that the action of the management given

in schedule of reference order is neither legal nor justified.

Workman is held to be reinstated in the service of the

management with full back wages, continuity of service

and with all consequential benefits.

27. Reference is answered accordingly.

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 256-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

cM+kSnk 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ ,ylhvkbZMh

la[;k 133@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&39025@1@2010&vkbZ vkj(ch&2)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

S.O. 256.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. LCID No.

133/2004) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/

Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on 24-12-

2010.

[No. L-39025/1/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SHRI VED PRAKASH GAUR

Presiding Officer

Dated the 24th day of November, 2010

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.I.D. No. 133/2004

(Old I.D.No.19/2003 Transferred from Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Visakhapatnam )

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

763

Between :

Smt. G. Kanaka Mahalakshmi,

W/o. Appala Suri,

D. No. 28-21-3, Opp. Classic Complex,

Dabagardens, Visakhapatnam

. ..Petitioner

AND

The Assistant General Manager,

Bank of Baroda, Hyderabad Business

Office, Hyderabad.

The Branch Manager,

Bank of Baroda,

Aseelumetta Branch,

Visakhapatnam

. . . .Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner

: M/s. J.P. Ranga & Katta

Jagannadham, Advocates

For the Respondent

: M/s. D.V. Subba Rao &

D.V.S.S.Somayajulu,

Advocates

AWARD

This case has been filed by the Petitioner Smt. G.

Kanaka Mahalakshmi, an ex. Employee of Bank of Baroda,

Aseelumetta Branch, Visakhapatnam under Sec.2 A (2) of

the I.D. Act, 1947 before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court, Visakhapatnam which was transferred to

this Court in view of the Government of India, Ministry

of Labour’s order No.H-11026/1/2001-IR(C-II) dated

18-10-2001 bearing I.D. No.19/2003 and renumbered in

this Court as L.C.I.D.No.133/2004 and notices were issued

to the parties.

2. It has been alleged by the Petitioner that she is a

lady workman joined in service with 2nd Respondent as

Sweeperess on 10-2-1992 on weekly wages of Rs.60 per

week. Same was changed into monthly wage and increased

to Rs.3200 P.M. She has been rendering her services since

10-2-1992 and had worked without any blemished remarks

and to the utmost satisfaction of her superiors. While

working so, on 31-7-2002 to the utter surprise of the

workman the management terminated the services of the

Petitioner without assigning any reason in a most illegal

and highhanded manner. Thereafter Petitioner made several

requests and representations to Respondent No.1 and

Respondent No. 2 but, no heed was paid and no action

was taken, that has forced the Petitioner to present this

petition before this tribunal for her reinstatement with back

wages.

3. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 has filed joint counter

statement. They have stated that the applicant was

engaged on daily wages on purely casual basis in 1992.

Her services were required intermittently in Aseelumetta

branch whenever there was work with the Respondent.

She was not appointed against any permanent vacancy

nor her appointment was according to the recruitment rules

of the bank’s services. No appointment letter was issued

to the Petitioner. She was engaged by the Bank of Baroda

who has no authority to engage any person even on casual

basis. There was no question of termination of services

because she was not a regular employee. She was engaged

on purely casual and need basis. She can not be reinstated

because she was not holding a permanent post. There

was no relationship of employer and employee between

Petitioner and bank. The bank got a permanent employee

as sweeper and the services of the Petitioner are no more

required in the year 2002, hence, she was not engaged.

The Petitioner was neither recruited as per banking rules

nor her appointment is according to the pronouncement

of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India

Vs. N. Hargopal and others, the Petitioner’s initial

employment itself was illegal as such, she was not entitled

for regularization as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of

India in the matter of Ashwini Kumar & Ors Vs. State of

Bihar reported in 1997-002 SCC 001 SC. The Petitioner is

not entitled for any relief as claimed by her.

4. Parties were directed to file their evidence.

Petitioner has filed xerox copy of the letter of Sri D.

Sadananda Rao, Regional Manager dated 21-5-1999

addressed to Smt. Kanaka Mahalakshmi informing her

about his overseas posting to U.K. and thanking her for

her sincere support and co-operation. She has filed Ex.

W2 xerox copy of representation, Ex. W3 another

representation dated 18-1-2003, and her own affidavit as

examination in chief and appeared for cross examination

and she has been cross examined by the Respondent. The

Respondent bank has filed affidavit of Sri S.B.S.A. Subba

Rao, Senior Manager in the Respondent bank and has

presented him for cross examination.

5. Both the parties have filed their written

submissions. I have gone through the written argument of

both the parties. It has been argued by the Learned Counsel

for the Respondent that the Petitioner workman has worked

with Respondent bank since 1992 upto 30-7-2002, as such,

she has become entitled for regularization. She has worked

for more than 3650 days and more than 240 days in a year.

I have considered this argument in the light of the evidence

of the Petitioner workman and her claim petition and

counter statement.

6. This tribunal has to consider :—

764

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Whether the Petitioner workman has been working

with the Respondent management since 1992 upto

31-7-2002 regularly as casual labour or not?

Whether she has completed 240 days in a year as

argued by the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner,

before her disengagement from the service ?

Whether Petitioner is entitled for any relief ?

7. Point Nos.1 & 2: Learned Counsel for the

Petitioner workman has submitted in his written argument

that Petitioner has worked for 3650 days during the period

of 10 years and she has worked for more than 240 days in

each year without any interruption, but this material fact

has not been brought before this tribunal either in the

claim statement filed by the Petitioner workman or in her

affidavit which she has filed as her examination in chief, as

such, the mere argument of the Learned Counsel for the

Petitioner workman that Petitioner has worked for 3650

days in a span of 10 years is devoid of any merit or without.

any basis. So far as the question of Petitioner working for

more than 240 days before the date of her disengagement,

there is no evidence to this effect as well on the record.

Petitioner workman has not stated this material fact in her

own affidavit filed before this tribunal nor she has stated

this material fact when she appeared for her cross-

examination and has marked her documents on oath. As

against this fact, in her cross examination workman has

admitted that no appointment order was given to her at

any time nor had she filed any document to show that she

was paid weekly and monthly wages. Though she has

stated that she has worked daily from December, 1993 to

July, 2002, there is no evidence on the record to

substantiate the claim of the Petitioner that she worked

regularly from December, 1993 to July, 2002. The Petitioner

has admitted that her appointment was casual, she was

not appointed in a regular vacancy the basis of her

appointment is only casual.

8. From the above statement of the Petitioner

workman it is clear that Petitioner was not appointed

through the recruitment process of the bank’s service rules,

as such, her initial appointment itself is illegal and void as

held by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of

Ashwini Kumar & Ors Vs. State of Bihar reported in 1997-

2002 SCC 001 SC. The initial appointment of the Petitioner

itself is illegal and void as she was not appointed through

regular process of the recruitment rules, she has no right

to claim either for reinstatement or for regularization.

9. This fact has been alleged by the Respondents in

their counter statement that the Petitioner was neither

regular employee nor she was appointed in a regular basis,

she was appointed in the post on need basis. She has not

been able to prove that she has worked for 240 days in a

year prior to date of her disengagement, as such, she is

not entitled for any compensation under Sec.25F of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Learned Counsel for the

Petitioner workman has relied upon the case law Chandulal

Vs. M/s. Pan American World Airways Inc., reported in

AIR(SC) SCC 2 (1985) 727. LLJ 2(1985) 181 and case law

reported in AIR (SC) (1999) 983, between Dipti Prakash

Banerjee and Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for

Basic Sciences, Calcutta, these case laws are not applicable

in the present case because the facts of those cases are

different from the present case.

10. From the evidence available on the record and as

discussed above, this tribunal is of the opinion that the

Petitioner was not legally appointed, she was simply a

daily wage worker as such, in the light of the judgment of

Hon’ble Supreme Court published in AIR 2006 SC 1806,

Secretary, State of Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi &

Others, the Petitioner was neither appointed legally nor

appointed against permanent vacancy as such, she can

not claim for regularization or absorption, her claim is

devoid of merit and she is not entitled for any relief. Point

Nos. 1 and 2 are decided accordingly.

11. Point No. 3 : As discusssed in the earlier

paragraphs of this award, Petitioner was neither regularly

appointed nor she was entitled for any relief in the light of

the case reported in AIR 2006 SC 1806, Secretary, State of

Karnataka & Others Vs. Umadevi & Others, this petition

is devoid of any merit. Petitioner is not entitled for any

relief, hence, petition deserves to be dismissed. It is

dismissed. Hence, this Award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 24th day of

November, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witness examined for the

Petitioner

Respondent

WW1: Smt. G. Kanaka

MW1: S.B.S.A. Subba Rao

Mahalakshmi

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.W1 :

Copy of letter No. RM:AP 11:DO:7/674 dt.

21-5-1999 from Regional Manager, Repondent

bank to WW1

Ex.W2 :

Copy of representation of WW1 to

Respondent

Ex.W3 :

Copy of representation of WW1 to

Respondent dt. 18-1-2003

Ex.W4 :

Copy of postal acknowledgement

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

765

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 257-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj cSad vkWiQ

bafM;k 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 ua- I] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 33@2010) dks

izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&12&2010 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@33@2010&vkbZ vkj(ch& II)º

jes'k ¯lag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

S.O. 257.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 33/2010 )

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-No. I, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

24-12-2010.

[No. L-12012/33/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1. KARKARDOOMA COURT COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D. No. 33/2010

Shri Pawan Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Prasad

House No.594, Village Mirzapur Vijay Nagar,

Pargana - Loni

Tehsil & District Ghaziabad, (U. P.)

...Workman

Versus

1.The Chairman,

Union Bank of India,

Head Office,

239, Vidhan Bhawan Marg,

Nariman Point, Mumbai

2.The Regional Manager,

Union Bank of India,

Regional Office,

Opp, Government Inter College Begum Bridge Road,

Meerut (U.P)

3.The Chief Manager,

Union Bank of India,

54, Model Town Opp, Navrang Cinema,

G.T. Road, Ghaziabad (U. P.)

...Management

AWARD

Union Bank of India (hereinafter refered to as the

bank) engaged Shri Pawan Kumar at its extension

counter at Santosh Medical Hospital and branch at

Model Town, Ghaziabad, for work of temporary/ad-hoc in

nature. He was paid remuneration for number of days he

worked with the bank. However he was not engaged

through medium of employment exchange or regular

selection process. His services were disengaged by the

bank, which act became a bone of contention. Shri Pawan

Kumar raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer,

seeking reinstatement in service of the bank. His claim

was resisted and conciliation procedings filed. On

consideration of failure report submitted by the

Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No. L -12012/33/2010 -IR (B-II), New Delhi dated 22-6-2010,

with following terms:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Union

Bank of India in terminating services of Shri Pawan

Kumar, since w.e.f. 5-2-09 is just, fair and legal ? what relief

the workman is entitled to?’’

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Pawan Kumar

pleading that he was engaged by the bank as labour-cum-

sweeper/peon-cum-orderly at its extension counter at

Santosh Medical Hospital, Ghaziabad on 1-6-2002. He

worked there continuously for a period of four years. He

was paid his salary @ Rs. 1500/PM. Thereafter he was

shifted to the branch located at 54, Model Town, G. T. Road,

Ghaziabad, where he worked continuously for three years.

His employment was of temporary in nature. However, his

duty hours started from 8 AM to 6PM in the branch of the

bank and from 6PM to 8PM at the residence of its officers.

He used to perform multifarious duties such as sweeping,

Cleaning of office premises work of peon labour and dak

runner and as an orderly at the residence of the officers of

the bank. He has been granted petty expenses for journey

and travelling allowance in addition to his salary. When he

was working in the bank, two group ‘D’ employees were

appointed. His services were terminated all of a sudden on

5-2-2009. No notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment

compensation was paid to him. He seeks an award of

compensation amounting to Rs.14 lakh or payment of

minimum wages since he was exploited for long 7 years. In

alternative he claims reinstatement, besides his

regularization in services of the bank. Litigation expenses

have also been claimed by him.

3. Contest was given to the claim by the bank

pleading that the claimant was never engaged through

regular process of employment and no appointment letter

was issued to him. There was no employer and employee

relationship between the parties and as such he is not a

workman within the meaning of definition given in clause

(s) of Section 2 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in

short the Act). The dispute cannot be termed as an industrial

766

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

dispute within the definition given in clause (k) of Section

2 of the Act. It has been projected that the claimant was

never appointed through regular process of employment

or medium of employment exchange. The bank agitates

that work of temporary or ad-hoc in nature was taken from

the claimant and he was paid remuneration for number of

actual days he worked. It has been denied that he was paid

wages @ Rs.1500 per month. It has further been denied

that he worked continuously with the bank and rendered

240 days continuous service in a calender year. It has

further been denied that he worked continuously with the

bank from 1-6-2002 to 5-2-2009. The bank pleads that since

engagement of the claimant was for ad-hoc nature of job

there was no case for service of notice or pay in lieu there

of and payment of retrenchment compensation. He is not

entitled to compensation as claimed or reinstatement in

service, besides regularization in job. It has ben projected

that his claim deserves dismissal and the same may be

dismissed.

4. Out of pleadings of the parties, following issues

were settled:

1. Whether engagement of the claimant by any

process, other than regular recruitment process,

will not confer status of a workman on him?

2. Whether the claimant had worked continuously

for a period of 240 days in a calendar year?

3. As in terms of reference.

4. Relief

5. Claimant had tendered his affidavit Ex. WW1/A

as evidence, besides 79 documents. He was cross examined

at length on behalf of the management. Shri R. S. Bansal,

Branch Manager, tendered his affidavit Ex.MW1/A as

evidence. He was cross examined at length on behalf of

the claimant. No other witness was examined by either of

the parties.

6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri S. C. Soren,

authorized representative, advanced arguments on

behalf of the claimant. Shri Rajat Arora, authorized

representative, raised his submisions on behalf of the

bank. I have given my careful consideration to the

arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the

record. My findings on issues involved in the controversy

are as follows:

Issue No. 1

7. Shri Bansal swears in his affidavit Ex.WW1/A that

the claimant was never appointed by the bank through

regular process of employment and no appointment letter

was issued to him. He was never engaged through

medium of employment exchange and rendered only casual

services to the bank, for which he was paid. Hence no right

accrued in his favour and there existed no relationship of

employer and employee between the parties. Relying the

evidence so testified by Shri Bansal, it was argued that

there were never existed relationship of employer and

employee between the parties, which may confer status of

a workman on the claimant. However it was not disputed

that the claimant had worked for the bank for a period of

313 days intermittently. Thrust of contention of Shri Arora

has been that the claimant was engaged on ad-hoc basis,

which confers no right or status of an employee on him.

8. The relationship of employer and employee is

constituted by a contract, express or implied between

employer and employee. A contract of service is one in

which a person undertakes to serve another and to obey

his reasonable orders within the scope of the duty

undertaken. A contract of employment may be inferred

from the conduct which goes to show that such a contract

was intended although never expressed and when there

has, in fact been employment of the kind usually

performed by the employees. Any such inference, however

is open to rebuttal as by showing that the relation between

the parties concerned was on a charitable footing or the

parties were relations or partners or were directors of a

limited company which employed no staff. While the

employee, at the time when his services were engaged,

need not have known the identity of his employer, there

must have been some act or contract by which the parties

recognized one another as master or servant.

9. As admitted by Shri Bansal the claimant was

engaged by the bank for work of ad-hoc nature. He

concedes that the claimant worked with the bank at

intermittent period for 313 days. The claimant was paid

through vouchers by the bank for work done by him,

unfolds Shri Bansal. According to him, claimant was not

paid @ Rs.1500 PM. Therefore out of facts unfolded by

Shri Bansal, it emerges that there is no denial of fact that

the claimant was engaged by the bank for ad-hoc nature

of job. Engagement of the claimant was not honorary. He

was paid for the work done by him. These facts make it

clear that when claimant was engaged by the bank it

established a relationship of employer and employee

between the parties. All attributes of an employee were

adorned by the claimant. He was saddled with all liabilities

of an employee which clothed him with a status of a

servant. It does not lie in the mouth of the bank that there

existed no relationship of employer and employee between

the parties. Consequently it is concluded that the bank

had created relationship of employer and employee

between it and the claimant.

10. Now it would be ascertained whether the

claimant was a workman within the meaning of the clause

(s) of section 2 of the Act. For that prupose it would be

expedient to have a glance on the definition of the workman,

enacted in the aforesaid clause, which definition is

reproduced thus :

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

767

(s)‘‘workman’’ means any person (including an

apprentice) employed in any industry to do any

manual unskilled, skilled, technical, operational,

clerical or supervisory work for hire or reward,

whether the terms of employment be express or

implied and for the purposes of any proceeding under

this Act in relation to an industrial dispute, includes

any such person who has ben dismissed, discharged

or retrenched in connection with or as a consequence

of that dispute or whose dismissal, discharge or

retrenchment has led to that dispute but does not

include any such person—

(i) who is subject to the Air Force Act, 1950

(45 of 1950), or the Army Act, 1950 (46 of 1950) or

the Navy Act, 1957 (62 of 1957); or

(ii) who is employed in the police service or as an

officer or other employee of a prison; or

(iii) who is employed mainly in a managerial or

administrative capacity; or

(iv) who, being employed in a supervisory capacity,

draws wages exceeding one thousand six hundred

rupees per mensem or exercises either by the nature

of the duties attached to the office or by reason of

the powers vested in him, functions mainly of a

managerial nature.

11. Definition of workman contains three limbs. First

limb of the definition gives statutory meaning of the

word and determines a workman by reference to a person

(including an apprentice) employed in an industry to do

any manual, unskilled, skilled, technical, operative, clerical

or supervisory work for hire or reward. The second limb is

designed to include a person— (i) who have been

dismissed, discharged or retrenched in connection with an

industrial dispute, or (ii) whose dismissal, discharge or

retrenchment has led to an industrial dispute within the

ambit of workman, However the third part of the definition

excludes the categories of persons specified in clause (i) to

(iv) from the expression ‘‘workman’’. The definition does

not state that a person, in order to be a workman should

have been employed in a substantive capacity or on

temporary basis in the first instance or after he is found

suitable for the job after a period of probation. In other

words, every person employed in an industry, irrespective

of his status- temporary, permanent or probationary- would

be a workman. The expression ‘‘employed’’ has at least

two known connotations, that is a relationship brought by

express or implied contract of service in which employee

renders service for which he is engaged by the employer

and the latter agrees to pay him in cash or kind, as agreed

between them or statutorily provided. It disclose a

relationship of command and obedience. Reference can be

made to the precedent in Food Corporation of India’s case

(1985 (2) L L.J 4).

12. As projected by Shri Bansal, the claimant was

performing jobs with the bank, which were of ad-hoc in

nature. Work performed by him were manual and of

unskilled category. Work of unskilled category falls within

the ambit of manual work. Therefore. his evident that the

claimant was performing manual work for the bank. Work

performed by him were compensated by the bank by way

of remuneration. The legislature has used the words ‘‘hire’’

or ‘‘reward’’ than the word wages, in the definition referred

above. The word ‘hire’ necessarily imports an obligation

to pay. Remuneration may be paid on prorata basis and

even on commission basis. Consequently it is emerging

over the record that an employee who has been engaged

for manual job and paid for the same. falls within the

definition of workman as enacted by clause (s) of Section 2

of the Act. It does not lie in the mouth of the bank to assert

that since the claimant was not engaged through the medium

of employment exchange or regular process of employment,

he is not a workman. It is concluded that the claimant could

establish all characters of a workman and issue is, therefore

answered against the bank.

Issue No.2

In his affdavit Ex.WW1/A claimant swears that he

joined services of the bank as a temporary sweeper-cum-

labour/peon-cum-orderly at its extension counter located

at Santosh Medical Hospital, Ghaziabad on 1-6-2002. He

rendered continuous service to the bank for 4 years.

Thereafter he served Model Town branch, Ghaziabad, for

three years continuously. He used to do cleaning and

sweeping job at the extension counter from 8 AM to 10 AM

and thereafter used to work as a peon upto 6 PM. From

6PM to 8PM he used to work as orderly at the residence of

the officers of the bank. In similar manner he served Model

Town, Ghaziabad, branch of the bank for 3 years. During

the course of his cross examination he admits that he was

engaged on casual basis. He was assured that his service

will be regularized. He concedes that no appointment

letter was not issued in his favour. He presents that letter

Ex.WW1/M1 was received by him and he was interviewed

by the bank on 25-9-2005. According to him one Harinder

Singh was appointed after that interview.

14. Shri R. S. Bansal swears in his affidavit

Ex. MW1/A that the claimant was never appointed as

sweeper-cum- peon by the bank. However, he concedes

that he was engaged on ad-hoc basis stop gap arrangement

as and when regular sweeper proceeded on leave or was

absent. He worked for about 313 days in all at intermittent

periods. During the course of his cross examination, he

does not dispute the vouchers, Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.WW1/79

proved by the claimant. He admits that in some of vouchers

it is mentioned that a sum of Rs.1500 was paid to the

claimant as wages for the month he worked. He denied that

768

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the claimant worked for more than 240 days in a calendar

year. According to him the claimant worked for 91 days in

2007. 23 days in 2008 and 4 days in 2009.

15. When facts testified by rival parties are

appreciated, it emerge over the record that the claimant

claims to have continuously worked with the bank from 1st

of June 2002 till 15-2-2009. On the other hand, the bank

projects that the claimant was engaged on ad-hoc basis as

a stop gap arrangement as and when a regular employee

happened to be on leave or could not attend duties for a

considerable long period. Vouchers Ex.WW1/1 to Ex.

WW1/79 are proved to show that the claimant worked

continuously with the bank. When scanned vouchers

Ex.WW1/73 to Ex.WW1/79 project that the claimant had

worked continuously with the bank from 1-6-2002 till 31st

of December, 2002. He was paid @ Rs.1500 PM for the

period referred above. It is emerging over the record that

for six months claimant had continuously worked with the

bank without any break. Factual proposition which

emerges out of these vouchers goes to substantiate the

claim of the bank to the effect that the claimant worked

against a leave vacancy or as a stop gap arrangement. In

those six months he worked only for 214 days.

16. A claim was made by Shri Pawan Kumar that he

worked continuously for the bank for subsequent period

from January 2003 till 15-2-2009. However, he could place

vouchers Ex.WW1/6 to Ex.WW1/69 to prove his claim.

When vouchers Ex.WW1/14 to Ex.WW1/69 are perused,

it came to light that the claimant worked for one day in

April, 2007, 22 days in May, 2007, 16 days in June, 2007, 20

days in July, 2007, 8 days in August, 2007, 3 days in

September, 2007, and 23 days in October, 2007. Thus it is

evident that he worked for 93 days from April to October,

2007. No other voucher was placed over the record by the

claimant to show that he had worked for any other period

in that year. Vouchers Ex.WW1/6 to Ex.W1/13 could project

that he worked for 10 days in December, 2008 and 2 days in

January, 2009. The aspect which creeps over the record

out of vouchers relied by the claimant, makes it clear that

he was engaged against leave vacancy as a stop gap

arrangement. It has nowhere been brought over the record

that the claimant worked continouously for 2007, 2008 and

2009.

17. ExW1/M1 is a letter written to the claimant by

the Employment Exchange, sponsoring his name for the

post of part time sweeper in the bank. He was advised to

appear for an interview on 25-9-2005, alongwith documents

relating to his educational qualifications. Claimant

concedes that he attended the interview on 25-9-2005 and

was not selected. One Harinder Singh was appointed by

the bank, in pursuance of the interview so conducted.

Therefore a picture stood painted that in September, 2005

there was vacancy of part time sweeper with the bank , for

which names of suitable candidates were sponsored by

the Employment Exchange. Had the claimant been working

with the bank, there was no occasion for sponsoring his

name for the post of part time sweeper. Claimant appeared

for the interview and was not found suitable for

appointment. He nowhere speaks that on that day he was

working with the bank. Therefore this document makes it

clear that the claim of continuous service, made by the

claimant, is farther from truth. This document gives

corroboration to facts presented by the bank to the

effect that as and when there was a leave vacancy, the

claimant was appointed on ad-hoc basis as stop gap

arrangement.

18. ‘‘Continuous Service’’ has been defined by

Section 25-B of the Act. Under sub-section (1) of the said

section, ‘‘continuous service for a period’’ may comprise

of two period viz. (i) uninterrupted service, and (ii)

interrupted service on account of (a) sickness, (b)

authorized leave, (c) an accident, (d) a strike which is not

legal, (e) a lock-out and (f) a cessation of work that is not

due to any fault on the part of the workman shall be

included in the ‘‘continuous service’’. Sub-section (2) of

the said section a fiction to the effect that even if a

workman is not in ‘‘continuous service’’ within the meaning

of clause (1) for a period of one year or six months, he shall

be deemed to in continuous service for that period under

an employer if he has actually worked for the days

specified in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay Kumar

Majoo (1968 Lab. I. C.1180) it was held that one year’s

period contemplated by sub-section (2) furnished a unit of

measure and if during that unit of measure the period of

service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days,

then he can be considered to have rendered one year’s

continuous service for the purpose of the section. The

idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had

put in at least 240 days of service, then he must get the

benefit conferred by the Act.

19. On an enquiry to find out whether the workman

has actually worked for not less 240 days during a period

of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the

retrenchment, it came to light that the claimant had not

rendered continuous service of 240 days in any calendar

year, not to talk of a period of 12 months, preceding his

disengagement. As detailed above, he served the bank

for 214 days in the year 2002, when his services were

engaged as a stop gap arrangement. His services were

again engaged in 2007, when he worked for 93 days at

different intervals. He served the bank for 23 days in 2008,

as unfolded by Shri Bansal. He also served the bank for 4

days in 2009. He has not rendered continuous service with

the bank for a period of 240 days to claim benefit of the

provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

20. Burden of proof is on the claimant to establish

that he rendered continuous service of 240 days in

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

769

preceding 12 months from the date when his services were

disengaged. For discharging the onus, the claimant stepped

in the witness box and unfolded facts in self serving

manner. In his case there was no letter of appointment. As

a proof of payment made to him, the claimant produced

vouchers refered above. He also called upon the bank to

produce vouchers which were in its custody. The bank

made a statement that no vouchers other than those proved

by the claimant were in its record. Can it be said that the

claimant could show a case for drawing adverse inference

against the bank for non production of record? 79

vouchers were proved by the claimant which relate to

different period.Bulk of vouchers so proved bring it to

light that all vouchers relating to engagement of the

claimant were given to him by the bank. Therefore it is not

a case wherein adverse inference may be drawn against

the bank for non production of the vouchers. Precedent in

R. M. Yalati, [2006 (1) L.L.J. 442] does not come for rescue

of the claimant. As detailed above the claimant has not

been able to establish that he rendered continuous service

for more than 240 days in any calendar year with the bank.

The isue is, therefore answered in favour of the bank and

against the claimant.

Issue No.3

21. In affidavit Ex.WW1/A claimant does not spell

the date when his services were dispensed with. He had

not asserted at all as to what were the reasons for

discontinuance of his services. On the other hand, the

bank presents that his services were engaged on adhoc

basis as stop gap arrangement. When regular employee

came for the job, services of the claimant were disengaged.

In view of findings recorded in preceding sections, the

claimant had not acquired any right under the provisions

of section 25-F of the Act, Action of the management in

discontinuing the services of the claimant cannot be termed

as unjust, unfair and illegal. Issue is therefore, answered in

favour of the bank and against the claimant.

Relief

22. Neither continuity in service has been

established by the claimant nor he could show that any

right accrued in his favour to serve the bank, in such a

situation claim made for reinstatement in service is found

to be untenable. In view of the findings detailed above,

claim projected by Pawan Kumar is discarded. An award is

accordingly passed. It be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dated: 2-11-2010

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 258-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj dsujk cSad 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;kYk;& II p.Mhx<+ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

1097@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@47@1995&vkbZ vkj(ch& II)º

jes'k ¯lag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

S.O. 258.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1097/

2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court-II, Chandigarh now as shown in the

Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of Canara Bank

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 24-12-2010.

[No. L-12012/47/1995-IR (B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT CHANDIGARH

Present: Sri. A. K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

Case No. I. D. 1097/2010

Registered on 21-9-2005

Central Committee Member, Canara Bank Staff Union,

B.XI/1662, Rari Mohalla, Ludhiana (Pb.) - 141008

... Applicant

Versus

Dy. General Manager, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Sector

34-AS, Chandigarh- 160017.

... Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the Claimant A.R

For the Management Sh. A.P. Jagga, Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 22 November, 2010

Central Government vide Notification No. L -12012/

47/95- IR (B-II) dated 26-2-1998 by exercising its powers

under Section 10 Sub Section (1) Clause (d) and Sub Section

2 (A) of the Industrial Dsiputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter

referred to as Act) has referred the following Industrial

dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:—

With reference to the CGIT, Chandigarh Award dt.

18-1-93 in case No. 98/90 what should be the basis

for fixation of salary of the workman, Sh. Radhey

Sham Sharma, upon his reinstatement in terms of the

Award?

The claimant has raised an industrial dispute by

stating that the workman Radhey Shyam Sharma had been

770

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

placed under suspension by the management on 18-9-1982

and was reinstated on 6-3-1985 with a punishment of

stoppage of one increment only. He was again placed under

suspension on 21-10-1988 and subsequently dismissed on

30-10-1988. He had challenged his dismissal in case No.

98/90 and by its award dated 18-1-1993 the Tribunal

reinstated him with a stoppage of only two increments

with cumulative effect. Thus, he was entitled to all the

benefits of his service except the arrears for the period of

his dismisal. According to the claimant, the workman has

been deprived of the privileges and benefits due for him in

terms of award and the fitment of his salary without giving

him increments for both the period of his suspension is

wrong.

The respondent contested the claim by filing written

statement. It was stated that the issue relating to the

previous suspension is beyond the competence of the

present reference and the claim statement does not attack

specifically any entry of fitment of salary in any particular

year and the workman had also not indicated any alternative

figure for the wrong fitment. It has been asserted in the

written statement that under the award the workman had

been granted only the continuity and not any arrears

and it is not understandable as to which benefits are being

referred to by the claimant as ‘all the beneits’. The alleged

deprived privileges have not been specified in the claim

statement. According to the management there is nothing

in the award to suggest that the workman will be considered

as being on duty during the period of suspension. Along

with the written statement a chart has been annexed

showing the fitment of salary. As per chart, the workman

remained suspended firstly from 18-9-1982 to 7-3-1985. He

was awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment at

that time. Before his suspension he had been given annual

increment on 26-11-1981. From the date of the increment till

his suspension he worked for 297 days and his next date of

increment on his reinstatement came to be 15-5-1985 i.e. 68

days from 8-3-1985. Second time he remained suspended

from 21-1-1988 to 30-10-1988. Before this suspension annual

increments had been given to the workman on

12-5-1987. From the date of increment till his dismissal the

workman worked for 251 days before his suspension. Hence,

his next date of increment on his reinstatement as per award

was 21-2-1989 i.e. 251 days +114 days from 31-1-1988 to

20-2-1989. On 21-2-1989 and 21-2-1990 two increments were

stopped as per award. Thereafter, in subsequent years the

due annual increments were given to him up to his

reinstatement on 7-5-1993.

The claimant has filed a rejoinder to say that in the

award only the back wages had been denied and not the

arrears of any kind and it is wrong to suggest that the

payment of increments pertaining to the previous period

of suspension up to 7-3-1985 do not fall within the purview

of the award. The workman has to suffer a total loss of

three increments i.e. one of his previous suspension up to

March 1985 and two increments as per award. ‘The present

paid wages of the workman may be verified by deducting

three increments of penalty from the scale wages from the

date of his appointment till date’.

From the pleading of the parties, following issues

arise for the decision:—

1. Whether the workman is entitled to the increments

for his earlier suspension period from 18-9-1982

to 6-3-1985?

2. Whether the respondent has not correctly fixed

the salary of the workman and if not, what should

be the basis for fixation of salary in terms of award

dated 18-1-1993 in case No. 98/90?

In support of his case, the workman has tendered

his affidavit and the respondent the affidavit of Manoj

Kumar Sood, Manager, Canara Bank D.A. Cell, Circle Office,

Jalandhar.

Parties have filed written arguments in the case which

were considered by me along with material on record. My

findings on various are as follows:—

Issue No.1

In the claim statement the claimant has raised a

dispute about the earlier suspension period of the workman

from 18-9-1982 to 6-3-1985 also. At that time he had been

awarded punishment of stoppage of one increment. It is

important to note that in case No. 98/90 in which the award

dated 18-1-1983 was passed by the tribunal and which is a

subject matter of reference, only the punishment to dismissal

awarded to him had been substituted with the stoppage of

two increments with cumulative effect.

In his rejoinder the claimant has stated that in the

award only the back wages had been denied to workman

and not the arrears of any kind. He had suffered a loss of

three increments, one of his previous suspension and two

as per award, while the Tribunal had given the punishment

of stoppage of two increments only.

The argument of the management is that regarding

the earlier suspension period from 18-9-1982 to 6-3-1985

the workman did not initiate any proceedings and it is not

a subject matter of the present reference. That suspension

has attained finality.

I agree with the arguments of the management. It is

important to note that in the award dated 18-1-1993 a copy

whereof has been filed by the claimant along with his

written arguments, only the punishment of dismissal of

the workman has been substituted with the stoppage of

two increments with cumulative effect and not all earlier

punishment had been substituted. Hence the dispute about

stoppage of increments for the earlier suspension period is

beyond the reference. The entitlement of the workman to

the increments for that period cannot be decided in this

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

771

reference. Issue No.1 is decided accordingly against the

workman.

Issue No. 2

Regarding the fixation of his salary the claimant in

his arguments has again raised a dispute which is beyond

the present reference. Along with his written arguments

the claimant has filed L.P.C. dated 21-3-1985 of the workman

from his erstwhile employer Laxmi Commercial Bank Ltd.,

which subsequently merged with the Canara Bank. In this

Pay slip the basic Pay has been shown as Rs.775 while as

per Salary fixation Chart Annexure-A of the written

statement of the management, the Basic Pay has been

shown as Rs. 615 on 8-3-1985. Firstly, this Tribunal has not

to consider the fixation of the salary of the workman from a

stage earlier to the period covered by the award dated

18-1-1993. Secondly the L.P.C. submited by the claimant

along with the written arguments cannot be considered

otherwise also. He has not mentioned such L.P.C. or the

fixation of salary in his claim statement or in his evidence

and he cannot be allowed to spring surprise on the

management at this late stage.

The only question with reference to the award in

question is whether the workman is entitled to increment

during the suspension period from 21-1-1988 to

30-10-1988.

During the suspension period his due date of

increment was 15-5-1988 which according to management

shifted to 21-2-1989.

The argument of the management is that as the

workman was not on duty during the period of suspension

hence, he was not entitled to any increment during that

period. The Tribunal in its award dated 18-1-1993 has

nowhere directed that the workman would be entitled to be

considered as having been on duty during the period of

suspension. He was not granted back wages which

indicates that the absence of the workman during the

suspension period will be treated as such and he cannot

be treated on duty.

I agree with the arguments of the management. The

award dated 18-1-1993 provides that the punishment of

dismissal of the workman is substituted with the stoppage

of two increments with cumulative effect, however with

continuity of service. It further says that the workman will

not be entitled to back wages at all. As the back wages

have not been allowed to the workman and the award does

not say that the workman will be treated on duty during the

period of suspension the salary of the workman should be

fixed after shifting his date of increment from 15-5-1988 to

21-2-1988 as has been done by the management. He is not

entitled to any increment during the period of suspension

in terms of award dated 18-1-1993 in case No.98/90.

Reference is answered accordingly. Let two copies of award

after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for

further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 259-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj fot;k cSad

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;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 114@2005)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&12&2010 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@65@2005&vkbZ vkj(ch&IIº

jes'k ¯lag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

S.O. 259.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 114/

2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Vijaya Bank and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 24-12-2010.

[No. L-12012/65/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

PRESENT

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

I.D. 114/2005

Reference No. L-12012/65/2005-IR (B-I)

dated: 1-9-2005

Shri Hemraj Gurjar, S/o Nanuram Gurjar,

R/o- IC-57,

Gurjar Basti,

Shastri Nagar,

Jaipur.

V/s

The General Manager (Personnel),

Vijaya Bank, Head Office,

41/2. M. G. Road,

Trinity Circle,

Bangalore -560 001

AWARD

30-6-2010

1. The Central Government in exercise of the

powers conferred under clause (d) of sub-section 1 and

772

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2 (A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

has referred the following Industrial Dispute to this

tribunal for adjudication which runs as under:—

‘‘Whether claimant Shri Hemraj Gurjar S/o Shri

Nanuram Gurjar was employed as class IV employee

on the post of peon in Vijaya Bank, Jaipur from

1-4-1998 to 20-8-2004 If yes, his termination

discontinuation from 20-8-2004 from the post of Peon

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

claimant is entitled to and from which date?’’

2. In brief, the case of the claimant in his statement

of claim is that he was employed as peon on 1-4-1998 in

non-applicant bank. On 20-8-2004 he was not taken on

duty while he had reported to duty in the bank. From

1-4-1998 to 20-8-2004 he had completed 240 days in each

calendar year despite this the management bank terminated

his services without giving him any notice, notice pay or

any compensation. The termination of the services of the

workman is in violation of 25 (F), (G), (H) of the Industrial

Disputes Act. Hence the claimant has prayed for

reinstatement in services with all consequential benefits.

3. In reply, the management of the bank has submitted

that the claimant was employed as temporary part time

worker on daily wages basis on Rs. 50 per day. It has been

further submitted that at Vidyadharnagar branch the

claimant was engaged on 18-12-2003 and prior to that he

was employed at Nahri ka Naka, Jaipur. The bank has a

procedure and rules for appointment and the claimant had

never been appointed as per above procedure. Therefore,

the claim should be rejected.

4. In rejoinder, the claimant has only reiterated his

earlier averments in his statement of claim and has not

introduced any new facts.

5. The claimant moved an application on 10-3-2006

for summoning the documents mentioned therein from

opposite party. At the stage of reply & arguments on said

application, the tribunal remained vacant from July, 06 to

August, 09. Subsequently after posting of the Presiding

Officer, notices were again isued to both the parties. Both

the parties put their appearance on 17-6-10. The claimant

moved an application alongwith an affidavit for

withdrawal of his claim. On subsequent date i.e. 29-6-10

the representative on behalf of the bank submitted reply

stating threin that at present the claimant is working with

Indian Overseas Bank, Vaishali Nagar, Branch. Since the

claimant got the permanent job in Indian Overseas Bank,

he has moved the application for withdrawal of his claim.

In this regard a copy of the letter dated 11-6-10 written by

the claimant to General Manager, Vijaya Bank, Bangalore,

has also been enclosed.

6. Heard the learned representative on behalf of

bank and perused the record.

7. As regards application of the claimant for

withdrawal of the claim in concerned, there is no legal

provision under Industrial Dsiputes Act for withdrawal of

claim. The provisions of CPC pertaining to withdrawal of

civil suits are not applicable in the matter of Industrial

Disputes referred by appropriate Government u/s 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act to the Tribunal for adjudication.

Therefore, the application for withdrawal of claim is not

sustainable.

8. The claimant has submitted his statement of claim

but he has not adduced any evidence in support of his

claim. Ex-parte proceedings have been drawn against the

claimant on 29-6-10. It appears from the application of

withdrawal moved by the claimant and the facts mentioned

in reply submitted by Bank’s management that the claimant

is doing job in other Bank, no grievance left with the

claimant and he is not willing to contest the case. Thus,

under these circumstances ‘‘No claim Award’’ is passed in

this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered

accordingly.

10. Award as above.

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 260-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj bafM;u

vksojlht cSad 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;] psUubZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

40@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 24&10&2010

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@16@2007&vkbZ vkj(ch&II)º

jes'k ¯lag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

S. O. 260.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 40 /2007)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court, Chennai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

24-12-2010.

[No. L-12012/16/2007-IR (B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Monday, the 13th December, 2010

Present: A. N. Janardanan, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

773

Industrial Dispute No. 40/2007

[In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause

(d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of Section 10

of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), between

the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their

Workman]

BETWEEN

Sri K. Rajendran : Ist Party/Petitioner

Vs.

The Chief Officer : 2nd Party/Respondent

Indian Overseas Bank (PAD)

Central Office

No. 36, Anna Salai

Chennai-600002

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner : Sri V. Ajay Khose

For the 2nd Party/Management : M/s N.G. R. Prasad &

Associates.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide

its Order No. L-12012/16/2007-IR (B-II) dated 6-7-2007

referred the following Industrial Disputes to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

‘‘Whether the action of the bank management in

terminating the workman vide order dated 5-2-2004

without observing the principles of natural justice

and well laid down law is justified? If not, to what

relief the workman is entitled ?’’

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dsipute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as I.D. 40/2007 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 averments in the Claim Statement briefly

read as follows :

The petitioner is a watchman under the Respondent/

Bank confirmed on 31-3-2000. While his elder daughter

due to cardiac problem was admitted in St. Johns Medical

College, Bangalore she died on 3-6-2001 following operation

on 1-6-2001. His second child aged 7 months was admitted

at Baptist Hospital, Bangalore for urinary tract problem

on whom surgery was done on 29-5-2001. By then the

petitioner also became infected with malaria and enteric

fever. While so the bank launched disciplinary action and

issued Charge Sheet on 17-5-2001 for the petitioner’s

absence from 27-2-2001. The petitioner informed the

situation to the bank through letters and telegrams. The

Petitioner due to Poly Arthritis health problem as diagnosed

belatedly was bedridden and immobilized. He was not able

to communicate to the bank. He was suffering from

unbearable pain. The bank also charge-sheeted him on

10-6-2002 for his absence in 2002. On 4-12-2002, he was

imposed the punishment of reduction in Basic Pay by

1 stage. He had not received Charge Sheet or Punishment

Order. He was in dark . Though the petitioner had informed

his Bangalore address, nothing was communicated to the

address. Nothing was communicated to his permanent

address in Vellore also. On 3-6-2003, he was charged for

absence from duty. He was not served with Charge Sheet

or Enquiry Notice allegedly conducted. On 5-2-2004, he

seems to have been dismissed from service without an

opportunity of his being heard. He came to know of the

fact when he wanted to report for duty. He does not have

any of the proceedings dismissing him from service as on

the date. The disciplinary action is vitiated. The bank

should have served Charge Memo and Notices in any of

the addresses furnished. His dismissal amounts to

victimization and unfair labour practice. It is also violative

of principles of natural justice. Even for his absence without

intimation it being due to his serious illness extreme penalty

of dismissal is not justified. The bank ought to have

reinstated him into service with all benefits.

4. In the Counter Statement, the contentions raised

briefly read as follows :

Even during probation the petitioner was irregular

in reporting for work. He used to take leave without prior

information to bank. He was likewise absent from

27-1-2000 to 31-1-2000 from January 2000 to June 2000 for

54 days and again from 27-10-2000. Advice for improvement

against which did not result in any improvement. Again

from 27-2-2001 he was absent for which he was charge-

sheeted on 17-5-2001, further from 30-10-2001 to 4-11-2001

which ended in his censure on 28-3-2002. He thereafter

absented from 2-1-2002 to 7-5-2002 He sent medical

certificates for his absence upto 7-5-2002 but thereafter did

not. He was charge-sheeted on 10-6-2002. On 4-12-2002

punishment of reduction in Basic Pay was ordered. On

3-6-2003 he was charge-sheeted for absence from 1-6-2002.

The charge-sheet sent by RPAD to his last known address

was returned undelivered with the postal remarks ‘‘left’’.

Notice of enquiry sent on 29-9-2003 at his Bangalore

address was returned with the endorsement ‘‘incomplete

address not traceable’’. There was no response. Enquiry

was held on 7-10-2003, 27-11-2003 and 29-11-2003 sending

notice of enquiry at his last known address such as

Pattabiram address. It all came back with remarks ‘‘left’’.

On 5-2-2004 he was dismissed from service. On 24-5-2004

he sent a letter to Personnel & Administration Department

seeking permission to report for duty enclosing leave letters

from 3-1-2003 to 18-10-2003 — 9 months, 9-10-2003 to

19-5-2004 — 7 months, 2-5-2002 to 31-1-2003 — 8 months.

A Show Cause Notice dated 19-12-2003 proposing

774

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

punishment of dismissal without notice was sent to his

last known address by RPAD. The petitioner did not attend

for personal hearing on 9-1-2004 though notice was given

Dismissal Order was forwarded to his Pattabiram address

and Bangalore address which was returned. No appeal

was filed by the petitioner. The petitioner did not improve

in his conduct. Bank had no option other than to dismiss

him. The petitioner could have brought notice of his family

health problem, unfortunate demise of his daughter during

2001 and about his enteric fever to the Enquiry Officer. He

makes mention of them only before this Tribunal. He could

have informed the bank through his wife or relatives. The

petitioner was trying to avoid charge-sheet and enquiry.

Obviously he was in the know of things. The petitioner

deliberately gave an incomplete Bangalore address and is

now making a grievance of it. There is no violation of

principles of natural justice. The dismissal is correct. If it is

held that no fair opportunity was given it may be allowed

to lead evidence.

5. Points for consideration are:

(i) Whether the termination of the petitioner without

observing principles of natural justice and well

laid down law is justified ?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled ?

6. As per order dated 4-2-2010 on Preliminary Issue,

whether the domestic enquiry conducted is fair and proper

it was held that the enquiry is not fair and proper.

Accordingly the Respondent was given opportunity to

lead evidence to substantiate the charges against the

petitioner.

7. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of WW1

and Ex.W1 to Ex.W30 on the petitioner’s side and the oral

evidence of MW1 and Ex.M1 to Ex.M64 on the

Respondent’s side.

Points (i) & (ii)

8. The arguments advanced on behalf of the

petitioner by his learned counsel are that the petitioner

due to supervention of domestic difficulties such as Heart

Disease of his elder daughter necessitating her admission

at St. Johns Medical College, Bangalore where she

succumbed on 3-6-2001 in the wake of an operation

performed on 1-6-2001, second daughter getting problem

with the urinary track necessitating her admission in Baptist

Hospital at Bangalore on whom also surgery had been

done on 29-5-2001 and petitioner himself getting afflicted

with Malarial and Enteric Fever, has has not had been able

to either intimate the bank or apply for leave for his absence.

It was in these circumstances that the bank initiated

disciplinary action and the charge-sheet dated 17-5-2001

was issued w.e.f. 27-2-2001 for his unauthorized absence.

According to the petitioner there were intimations passed

to the bank through letters and telegrams. His absence

was due to reasons beyond his control. He had been

physically and mentally fatigued due to the tragic events.

His health condition got deteriorated. There developed

pain in both his knees which later was diagnosed to be

acute Poly-Arthritis problem belatedly and which disabled

him from moving. In the case of Arthritis the recovery would

be very slow. That was the reason for the communication

gap between him and the bank. He had given his address

at Bangalore and permanent address at Vellore but nothing

was communicated at the addresses. The bank has not

taken effective steps to serve the notice or charge-sheets

on him which entailed in the communications being returned

back to the sender. He had sent a telegram to the bank

mentioning the Bangalore address. No other mode of

communication of notice or charge-sheet has been resorted

to by the Management. Instead of sending charge-sheet

and notices to permanent addresses it was sent at

Pattabiram address which is temporary which had been

replaced by a new temporary address at Bangalore

Communications sent to Bangalore being with incomplete

address occasioned failure of service upon the addressee.

This is mala fide on the part of the Management. Hence the

enquiry without serving notice and charge-sheet and

also the punishment imposed are not fair and proper. The

enquiry cannot be a proper enquiry in the eye of law. The

finding of the enquiry being without any evidence is

perverse. Absence/Leave on medical grounds cannot be

expected to be intimated in advance as no disease would

come after giving notice.

9. The contra contentions on behalf of the

Respondent are that petitioner had been at fault recumingly

ever since the commencement of his service under

Management by being absent habitually without or with

belated applications for leave and Medical Certificates. He

absented himself during several spells of periods from

June 2002 till 24-5-2004. Though he was informed by letters

and telegrams there was no response. Accordingly he was

charge-sheeted several times and punished with lesser

and lesser punishments extending lenient treatment. His

erratic conduct continued unabated and he was finally

charged and punished with dismissal from service without

notice. Service effected at last known address is sufficient

proof of service even if it is returned. Intimations were duly

despatched to the petitioner but with no effect. He did not

improve his conduct and therefore the punishment was

inevitable. Petitioner could have brought his problems

before the Enquiry Officer which was not done. His

allegations/grivances are placed for the first time before

this Tribunal. The petitioner could have come to the bank

at least once and appraised it of his hard hit circumstances.

He did not show sufficient indulgence to his duty in the

Security Department which is a sensitive establishment.

Petitioner deliberately gave incomplete Bangalore address

to shun the processes. There is no violation of principles

of natural justice.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

775

10. By the finding on the Preliminary issue as to the

fairness of the enquiry it has been held that the enquiry is

not fair and proper. Thereupon, Respondent was allowed

to lead evidence in support of their case and the petitioner

was given equal opportunity for his defence. According to

the Respondent petitioner had given his permanent

address and temporary address at the time of joining

service. He absented from duty by way of irregular conduct

during different spells starting from the year 2000. He joined

service only in the year 1999. From the very inception he

had been taking resort to irregular conduct of absenting

from duty. The Management had been imposing only trivial

punishment from time to time on a lenient treatment which

did not help to improve his conduct. The correspondences

were issued to him at his permanent address or at the

temporary address at Bangalore which were returned since

the addressee could not be found out. Again according to

the Respondent the petitioner had given incomplete

address so as to avoid participation in the enquiry. But

according to the petitioner the Respondent was not issuing

or re-issuing the processes so as to see that he is terminated

from service. None of these rival contentions whether

against the Respondent levelled by the petitioner or against

the petitioner levelled by the Respondent could be found

to be substantiated. Here is a case where the petitioner had

been absenting continually. Intermittently or even

continuously during different spells of long periods

without prior permission from the Bank. His case is that he

had been beset with sickness of his daughter who

eventually expired and sickness of his second daughter on

whom he had to attend for a surgery. Lately he himself also

got affected with Poly-Arthritis causing pain to the knees

for which he had to undergo continual treatment as an

in-patient at Bangalore Hospital for which purpose he had

to stay temporarily at the house of a relative there. Due to

the pain and sufferings he could not even move or

attend to anything or arrange any leave to be got

sanctioned by applying for it to the Bank. On this aspect,

the Respondent/Management has no serious dispute. Its

contention is that the petitioner should have shown

indulgence in seeing that his domestic calamities were

reported to the Enquiry Officer which he did not fulfill.

Petitioner is seen to have produced belated and undated

Medical Certificates showing that he had been suffering

from sickness and had been undergoing treatment as in-

patient or as out-patient during different spells of periods

from 2001 to 2004 during which he remained absent from

duty at the Bank. It could be seen that the petitioner has

had some personal and family health problems and he had

been undergoing treatment. But the same by itself is not

sufficient to show why he did not show any indulgence at

all in reporting those facts to the Bank or not attending

duty during periods at which he could have discharged his

duties. No satisfactory explanation is forthcoming from

the petitioner in this regard. It is not disputed that the

petitioner had been actually served with any notice of the

enquiry, charge-sheet or of the proposed punishment. It is

on the presumption of service as sufficient when processes

were issued at his last known address, though actually not

served that he was proceeded aginst to be terminated from

service, which was without actually hearing him on the

punishment to be imposed on him. The action of the

Management being on a technical construction of rule not

conforming to actuality as regards service of processes,

there is denial of natural justice. There is noting to find

that the petitioner has been guilty of any insubordination.

What made him not being in a position to report for duty,

not to respond to the notices and charge-sheets issued by

the Management is really absence of service of notices

and processes on him apart from his health calamities.

Therefore, the petitioner is answerable only for his

unauthorized absence. He has given some explanation

though belatedly projecting the reasons why he was kept

back from attending duty in the bank or taking part in the

enquiry. He has also produced Medical Certificates with

the leave applications which are undated. Though the

validity or the genuineness of the certificates could not be

found substantiated they cannot totally be discarded to

hold that the case of the petitioner is fully untrue. Some

substance could be read in the defence of the petitioner

that he had been beset with serious health problems

concerning himself and his daughters which actually

prevented him from reporting for duty or taking part in the

enquiry which the Management had initiated and

conducted against him. Though the fact is that the

petitioner could have shown some indulgence but since

that is not shown Respondent chose to terminate him

from service. Though the action prima facie cannot be

found to be unjust with the later disclosure of the difficult

situations of the petitioner in which he had been placed it

could be found that the dismissal from service is totally

unjust. In fact the version of the Management is also that

if the petitioner has had any domestic and health calamities

he should have brought those problems then and there

before the Enquiry Officer. In other words, the Management

does not dispute that the petitioner has had any such

domestic or health calamities. Therefore this is not a case

fit for imposing the capital punishment of dismissal but

has been one which could be with some other lesser

punishment. Therefore, the punishment of dismissal from

service is liable to be set aside and the petitioner is to be

reinstated. In fact the petitioner has by way of submission

in his explanation before the Management given an

undertaking to the effect that there would not be any lapses

from his part if and when he is reinstated into service.

11. Resultantly, the dismissal is set aside. The

Management is directed to reinstate the petitioner into the

service forthwith with continuity of service and all attendant

benefits but not with backwages. Let forfeiture of

backwages be the punishment for the latches on the part

776

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of the petitioner. The arguments on behalf of the petitioner

that if the petitioner is reinstated he be posted as Sub-Staff

in the bank establishment and not in the Security

Department. This contention cannot be sustained because

once if and when he is reinstated he has to abide by the

terms under the Bipartite Settlements which govern his

service. He cannot further be given any concession after

his reinstatement just to enable him to work without any

lapses. Even without any such posting by way of

adjustment moulded in that manner he is bound to work in

accordance with the terms of his original posting under the

Security Department in the Respondent/Management.

However, if the Management is so inclined it is needless to

mention that it may opt to give him any such suitable

deployment. The petitioner is entitled to the relief to the

above extent.

12. 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 13th December, 2010).

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner :

WW1, Sri K. Rajendran

For the 2nd Party/Respondent :

MW1, Sri Muthiah

Paramasivam

Documents Marked :

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

5-6-2004

Respondent letter to

Petitioner returned on

8-6-2004.

Ex. W2

24-5-2004

Petitioner. letter enclosing

Medical Certificate for a

period from 2-5-2002 to

30-1-2003 and 31-1-2003 to

18-10-2003 and 19-10-2003

to 19-5-2003.

Ex. W3

16-7-1999

Appointment Order of the

1sr Party.

Ex. W4

31-3-2000

Confirmation Order of the

1st Party.

Ex. W5

20-7-2000

Attestation Form.

Ex. W6

1-2-2001

Representation sent by the

1st Party to the 2nd Party

requesting transfer.

Ex. W7

20-2-2001

Representation sent by the

1st Party to the 2nd Party

requesting holiday off.

Ex. W8

27-2-2001

Medical Certificate.

Ex. W9

12-3-2001

Ex. W10

25-4-2001

Telegram sent by the

Ex. W11

25-4-2001

1st Party to the 2nd Party.

Ex. W12

30-5-2001

Ex. W13

5-6-2001

Initial discharge summary

of the 1st Party’s daughter.

Ex. W14

23-8-2001

Letter sent by the 2nd Party

to the 1st Party.

Ex. W15

25-9-2001

Show Cause Notice issued

by the 2nd Party to the

1st Party.

Ex. W16

2-11-2001

Medical Certificate of the

1st Party.

Ex. W17

18-11-2001

Letter sent by the 1st Party

to the 2nd Party.

Ex. W18

25-11-2001

Letter sent by the 1st Party

to the 2nd Party.

Ex. W19

20-12-2001

Medical Certificate of the

1st Party.

Ex. W20

2-1-2002

Letter sent by the 1st Party

to the 2nd Party with Medical

Certificate .

Ex. W21

7-1-2002

Medical Certificate of 1st

Party’s daughter.

Ex. W22

18-1-2002

(Series)

22-1-2002

24-1-2002

Letter sent by the 1st Party

27-4-2002

to the 2nd Party.

12-5-2002

23-5-2002

17-10-2002

3-12-2002

Ex. W23

Medical Certificates of

1st Party.

Ex. W24

19-6-2004

Dismissal order.

Ex. W25

2-7-2004

ID raised by the 1st Party

before the ACL, Bangalore.

Ex. W26

30-7-2004

Counter filed by the 2nd Party

before the ACL, Bangalore.

Ex. W27

6-9-2004

Rejoinder filed by the 1st

Party before the ACL,

Bangalore.

Ex. W28

January, 05

ID raised by the 1st Party

before the ACL, Chennai.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 22] 2011@ek?k 2] 1932

777

Ex. W29

10-8-2006

Minutes of the Joint

Discussion held before the

ACL, Chennai.

Ex. W30

Translated copies of the

Medical Records.

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

28-7-1999

Service Sheet of petitioner.

Ex. M2

26-2-2000

Correspondents among

Respondent.

Ex. M3

29-2-2000

Correspondents among

Respondent.

Ex. M4

22-3-2000

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M5

24-3-2000

Correspondents among

Respondent.

Ex. M6

4-7-2000

Correspondents among

Respondent.

Ex. M7

19-7-2000

Correspondents among

Respondent.

Ex. M8

22-7-2000

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M9

9-12-2000

Correspondents among

Respondent.

Ex. M10

14-12-2000

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M11

13-1-2001

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M12

22-3-2001

Correspondents among

Respondent.

Ex. M13

2-4-2001

Respondent. letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M14

26-4-2001

Correspondents among

Respondent.

Ex. M15

17-5-2001

Charge Sheet issued to

Petitioner.

Ex. M16

14-7-2001

Correspondents among

Respondent.

Ex. M17

26-7-2001

Correspondents among

Respondent.

Ex. M18

24-7-2001

Respondent. letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M19

30-7-2001

Correspondents among

Respondent.

Ex. M20

6-8-2001

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M21

24-8-2001

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M22

25-9-2001

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M23

7-11-2001

Correspondents among

Respondent.

Ex. M24

20-11-2001

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M25

20-12-2001

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M26

26-12-2001

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M27

18-1-2002

Telegram issued by Dr. R.

Kumar.

Ex. M28

22-1-2002

Telegram issued by Dr. R.

Kumar.

Ex. M29

1-2-2002

Telegram sent by the Bank to

petitioner. asking him to join

duty on 6-2-2002.

Ex. M30

8-3-2002

Telegram received from Dr.

Shanmugham, Government

Hospital Vellore addressed

to Senior Security Officer

that petitioner released on

10-3-2002 and he would join

duty on 11-3-2002.

Ex. M31

18-3-2002

Telegram from Gudiyatham

received from petitioner.

addressed to Senior Security

Officer that he would join

duty on 21-3-2002.

Ex. M32

28-3-2002

Order of Censure issued to

the petitioner.

Ex. M33

1-4-2002

Bank letter to the Superin-

tendent of Police Chengai

East District for verification

and antecedents of petitioner.

Ex. M34

3-4-2002

Telegram from Vellore by the

petitioner. addressed to

Senior Security Officer that

he would join duty on

5-4-2002.

Ex. M35

4-4-2002

Telegram received from

Subramani, clearing

messenger from BSNL

Karaikudi addressed to

Senior Security Officer.

Ex. M36

10-4-2002

Asstt. General Manager letter

to the Chief Security Officer.

778

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 22, 2011/MAGHA 2, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Ex. M37

2-5-2002

Telegram sent to petitioner

from Respondent.

Ex. M38

7-5-2002

Superintendent of Police

letter to the Bank.

Ex. M39

7-6-2002

Respondent letter to the

petitioner.

Ex. M40

10-6-2002

Respondent letter to the

Petitioner.

Ex. M41

26-11-2002

Correspondent among

Respondent.

Ex. M42

28-11-2002

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M43

4-12-2002

Respondent letter to the

Petitioner.

Ex. M44

3-6-2003

Charge Sheet.

Ex. M45

21-6-2003

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M46

26-6-2003

Letter from Security

Department to Disciplinary

Authority.

Ex. M47

21-7-2003

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M48

27-8-2003

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M49

16-9-2003

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M50

25-10-2003

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M51

20-11-2003

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M52

2-12-2003

Letter from Security

Department to Disciplinary

Authority.

Ex. M53

15-12-2003

Letter from Security

Department to Disciplinary

Authority.

Ex. M54

16-12-2003

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M55

31-12-2003

Notice for personal hearing

Ex. M56

2-1-2004

Letter from Security

Department to Disciplinary

Authority.

Ex. M57

7-1-2004

Letter from Security

Department to Disciplinary

Authority

Ex. M58

21-1-2004

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M59

20-2-2004

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M60

5-2-2004

Original order imposing the

punishment of ‘‘Dismissal.’’

Ex. M61

19-6-2004

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M62

17-3-2004

Respondent letter to

petitioner.

Ex. M63

19-6-2004

Memo of service of

petitioner.

Ex. M64

Attendance Register of

petitioner.

ubZ fnYyh] 31 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 261-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj jktLFkku

xzkeh.k cSad 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;] t;iqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

57@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 22&12&2010

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12011@07@2007&vkbZ vkj(ch&Iº

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 31st December, 2010

S.O. 261.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 57/2007)

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 Rajasthan Gramin Bank and their

workmen, received by the Central Government on

22-12-2010.

[No. L-12011/7/2007-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

PRESENT : N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

I.D. 57/2007

Reference No. L-12012/07/2007-IR (B-I)

dated: 13-9-2007

Secretary,

Gramin Bank Employees Union,

313, Basant Vihar, Alwar,

Alwar.

V/s

The Chairman,

Rajasthan Gramin Bank,

Head Office, B-9, Budh Vihar,

Alwar.