jftLVªh la- Mh- ,y- (,u) 04@0007@2003µ05

REGD. NO. D. L. (N) 04/0007/2003—05

149 GI/11

(781)

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

(dk£ed vkSj izf'k{k.k foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 262-—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, (if'pe caxky jkT; ljdkj] x`g (jktuSfrd)

foHkkx] xqIr vuqHkkx] dksydkrk dh fnukad 26&11&2010 dh

vf/lwpuk la- 2149 ih-,l-] }kjk izkIr lgefr ls iqfyl dLVMh ls

fudksy rekax ds iyk;u ds laca/ esa Hkkjrh; naM lafgrk] 1860

(1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 224 ds v/hu iqfyl

LVs'ku iz/ku uxj (if'pe caxky) esa ntZ ekeyk la- 259@10

fnukad 22&8&2010 rFkk mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr vijk/ksa ds laca/ esa

iz;kl] nq"izsj.k rFkk "kM;a=k ;k blh laO;ogkj ds Øe esa ;k mUgha

rF;ksa ls mn~Hkwr vU; fdUgha vijk/ksa ds vUos"k.k ds laca/ esa

fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa rFkk {ks=kkf/dkj

dk foLrkj ,rn~}kjk lEiw.kZ if'pe caxky jkT; ds lEcU/ esa

djrh gS A

¹la- 228@82@2010&, oh Mh&IIº

vkj- ds- xqIrk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC

GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011

S. O. 262.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

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

¬˝ÊÁœ∑§Ê⁄U ‚ ¬˝∑§ÊÁ‡ÊÃ

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

‚ÊåÃÊÁ„U∑§

WEEKLY

la- 5]

ubZ fnYyh, tuojh 23—tuojh 29] 2011] 'kfuokj@ek?k 3—ek?k 9] 1932

No. 5]

NEW DELHI, JANUARY 23—JANUARY 29, 2011, SATURDAY/MAGHA 3—MAGHA 9, 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)

782

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

State Government of West Bengal, Home (Political)

Department, Secret Section, Kolkata vide Notification No.

2149 dated 26th November, 2010, hereby extends the powers

and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police

Establishment to the whole of the State of West Bengal

for investigation Case No. 259/10 dated 22-8-2010 under

Section 224 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of

1860) registered at Police Station Pradhan Nagar (West

Bengal) relating to escape of Nicol Tamang from the Police

Custody and attempt, abetment and conspiracy in relation

to or in connection with the above mentioned offences

and any other offence or offences committed in course of

the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[ No. 228/82/2010-AVD-II]

R. K. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 263-—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, if'pe caxky jkT; ljdkj] x`g (jktuSfrd)

foHkkx] xqIr vuqHkkx] dksydkrk dh fnukad 26&11&2010 dh

vf/lwpuk la- 2148&ih-,l-] }kjk izkIr lgefr ls enu rekax]

iwoZ vè;{k vky bafM;k xksj[kk yhx dh gR;k ds laca/ esa Hkkjrh;

naM lafgrk] 1860 (1860 dk vf/fu;e la- 45) dh /kjk 147]

148] 149] 427] 506] 302] 120&ch vkSj 34 ds v/hu iqfyl

LVs'ku nk£t¯yx] lnj (if'pe caxky) esa ntZ ekeyk la- 89@10

fnukad 21&5&2010 rFkk mi;qZDr mfYyf[kr vijk/ksa ds laca/ esa

iz;kl] nq"izsj.k rFkk "kM;a=k ;k blh laO;ogkj ds Øe esa ;k mUgha

rF;ksa ls mn~Hkwr vU; fdUgha vijk/ksa ds vUos"k.k ds laca/ esa fnYyh

fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk ds lnL;ksa dh 'kfDr;ksa rFkk {ks=kkf/dkj dk

foLrkj ,rn~}kjk lEiw.kZ if'pe caxky jkT; ds lEcU/ esa djrh

gS A

¹la- 228@81@2010&, oh Mh&IIº

vkj- ds- xqIrk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011

S. O. 263.—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 West Bengal, Home (Political)

Department, Secret Section, Kolkata vide Notification

No. 2148-P. S. dated 26th November, 2010, hereby extends

the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi

Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of

West Bengal for investigation of Case No. 89/10 dated

21-5-2010 under Section 147, 148, 149, 427, 506, 302, 120B

IPC and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of

1860) registered at Police Station Darjeeling, Sadar (West

Bengal) relating to the murder of Madan Tamang,

Ex-President of All India Gorkha League and attempt,

abetment and conspiracy in relation to or in connection

with above mentioned offences and any other offence or

offences committed in course of the same transaction or

arising out of the same facts.

[ No. 228/81/2010-AVD-II]

R. K. GUPTA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 264-—dsanzh; ljdkj ,rn~}kjk naM 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, fnYyh fo'ks"k iqfyl LFkkiuk

(lhchvkbZ) }kjk laLFkkfir vkjlh- 4 (,l)@2010&lhchvkbZ@

,llhch@eqacbZ (lksgjkcqíhu 'ks[k ds dfFkr udyh eqBHksM+ esa)

dsanzh; vUos"k.k C;wjks dh rjiQ ls ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; esa iSjoh

djus ds fy, Jh lqczefu;e izlkn] ,MoksdsV dks fo'ks"k yksd

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

¹la- 225@34@2010&, oh Mh&IIº

vkj- ds- xqIrk] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 19th January, 2011

S. O. 264.—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 Subramonium Prasad,

Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor in RC. 4(S)/2010-

CBI/SCB/Mumbai (alleged fake encounter of Sohrabuddin

Sheikh) in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India on behalf

of Central Bureau of Investigation.

[ No. 225/34/2010-AVD-II]

R. K. GUPTA, Under Secy.

foÙk ea=kky;

(foÙkh; lsok,a foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 265-—jk"Vªh;Ñr cSad (izca/ ,oa izdh.kZ mica/)

Ldhe] 1970@1980 ds [kaM 9 ds mi&[kaM (1) vkSj (2) ds lkFk

ifBr] cSaddkjh daiuh (miØeksa dk vtZu ,oa varj.k)

vf/fu;e] 1970@1980 dh /kjk 9 dh mi&/kjk (3) ds [kaM

(p) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr] ,rn~}kjk] Jh

gj¯onj ¯lg (tUe frfFk % 28&04&1957)] ofj"B izca/d] ubZ fnYyh]

cSad vkWiQ bafM;k dh ,uvkjvkbZ 'kk[kk dks fnukad 1&02&2011 dks

vFkok mlds ckn inHkkj xzg.k djus dh rkjh[k ls rhu o"kks± dh

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

783

vof/ ds fy, vFkok tc rd os cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds vf/dkjh ds

:i esa viuk inHkkj ugha NksM+ nsrs vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] buesa

ls tks Hkh igys gks] cSad vkWiQ bafM;k ds funs'kd eaMy esa vf/dkjh

deZpkjh funs'kd ds :i esa ukfer djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 6@39@2010&chvks&Iº

lqferk Mkojk] funs'kd

MINISTRY OF FINANCE

(Depatrment of Financial Services)

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011

S.O. 265.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (f) of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the Banking

Companies (Acquisition & Transfer of Undertakings)

Act, 1970/1980 read with sub-clause (1) & (2) of clause 9 of

The Nationalised Banks (Management & Miscellaneous

Provisions) Scheme, 1970/1980, the Central Government,

after consultation with the Reserve Banks of India, hereby

nominates Shri Harvinder Singh (DOB : 28-4-1957), Senior

Manager, New Delhi, NRI Branch of Bank of India, as Officer

Employee Director on the Board of Directors of Bank of

India for a period of three years from the date of assumption

of charge of the post on or after 1-2-2011 or until he ceases

to be an officer of the Bank of India or until further orders,

which ever is the earliest.

[ F. No. 6/39/2010-BO-I]

SUMITA DAWRA, Director

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 266-—Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad vf/fu;e] 1934 dh

/kjk 8 dh mi/kjk (4) ds lkFk ifBr mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M

(d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh; ljdkj]

,rn~}kjk Jh vkuan flUgk (tUe&frfFk % 3&2&1951)] dk;Zikyd

funs'kd] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad dks muds }kjk in dk dk;ZHkkj xzg.k

djus dh rkjh[k ls ysdj 28&2&2013 dh vof/ rd vFkok

vkxkeh vkns'kksa rd] buesa ls tks Hkh igys gks] Hkkjrh; fjtoZ cSad

ds mi&xouZj ds :i esa fu;qDr djrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 7@1@2009&chvks&Iº

lqferk Mkojk] funs'kd

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011

S.O. 266.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (a) of sub-section (1) read with sub-section (4) of

Section 8 of the Reserve Bank of India Act, 1934, the Central

Government hereby appoints Shri Anand Sinha (DOB :

3-2-1951), Executive Director, Reserve Bank of India as

Deputy Governor, Reserve Bank of India for a period upto

28-2-2013 from the date of his taking over charge of the

post or until further orders, whichever is earlier.

[ F. No. 7/1/2009-BO.-I]

SUMITA DAWRA, Director

ubZ fnYyh] 25 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 267-—thou chek fuxe vf/fu;e] 1956 (1956

dk 31) dh /kjk 4 }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] dsUnzh;

ljdkj] ,rn~}kjk] Jh v'kksd ¯lg dks vf/lwpuk dh rkjh[k ls

rhu o"kks± dh vof/ ds fy, vFkok vxys vkns'kksa rd] tks Hkh igys

gks] Hkkjrh; thou chek fuxe ds funs'kd e.My esa xSj&ljdkjh

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

¹iQk- la- ,&15011@1@2007&chek&IIIº

,l- ds- eksgUrh] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2011

S.O. 267.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 4 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956

(31 of 1956), the Central Government hereby appoints

Shri Ashok Singh as Non-Official Member on the Board of

the Life Insurance Corporation of India for a period of three

years from the date of Notification or until further orders,

whichever is earlier.

[ F. No. A-15011/1/2007-Ins. III]

S. K. MOHANTY, Under Secy.

(jktLo foHkkx)

(dsUæh; izR;{k dj cksMZ)

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 268-—loZlk/kj.k dh tkudkjh ds fy, ,rn~}kjk

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

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

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

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

2009&2010 ls vkxs baVjus'kuy ,MokaLM fjlpZ] lsaVj iQksj ikoj

esVkythZ ,aM U;w eVhfj;Yl (,vkjlh&baVjus'kuy)] gSnjkckn dks

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

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

784

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

,oa gLrk{kfjr ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ ekeys esa {ks=kkf/dkj

j[kus okys vk;dj vk;qDr vFkok vk;dj funs'kd dks

izLrqr djsxk_

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

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

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

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

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

laxBu %&

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

cgh ugha j[ksxk_ vFkok

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

ys[kk ijh{kk fjiksVZ izLrqr ugha djsxk_ vFkok

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

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

fooj.k izLrqr ugha djsxk_ vFkok

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

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

vFkok

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

mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 35 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds

[kaM (ii) ds izko/kuksa ds vuq:i ugha gksxk rFkk

mudk ikyu ugha djsxk A

¹vf/lwpuk la- 4@2011@iQk- la- 203@27@2010&vk-d-fu-&IIº

vt; xks;y] funs'kd (vk-d-fu&II)

(Department of Revenue)

(Central Board of Direct Taxes)

New Delhi, the 19th January, 2011

S.O. 268.—It is hereby notified for general

information that the organization International Advanced

Research, Centre for Power Metallurgy and New Materials

(ARC-International), Hyderabad has approved by the

Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-

section (1) of Section 35 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (said

Act), read with Rules 5C and 5E of the Income-tax Rules,

1962 (said Rules), from Assessment year 2009-2010 onwards

in the category of ‘Other Institution’, partly engaged in

research activities subject to the following conditions,

namely :—

(i) The sums paid to the approved organization shall

be utilized for scientific research;

(ii) The approved organization shall carry out scientific

research through its faculty members or its enrolled

students;

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate

books of accounts in respect of the sums received

by it for scientific research, reflect therein the

amounts used for carrying out research, get such

books auduited by an accountant as defined in the

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

said Act and furnish the report of such audit duly

signed and verified by such accountant to the

Commissioner of Income-tax or the Director of

Income-tax having jurisdiction over the case, by

the due date of furnishing the return of income

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

Act;

(iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate

statement of donations received and amounts

applied for scientific research and a copy of such

statement duly certified by the auditor shall

accompany the report of audit referred to above.

2. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval if

the approved organization :—

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts

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

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

paragraph (iii) of paragraph 1; or

received and sums applied for scientific research

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

785

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

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

research activities are not found to be genuine;

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the

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

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

5E of the said Rules.

[Notification No. 04/2011/F. No. 203/27/2010-ITA-II]

AJAY GOYAL, Director (ITA-II)

ubZ fnYyh] 20 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 269-—dsUnzh; 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 jktLo foHkkx ds v/hu dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa

lhek 'kqYd cksMZ ds fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; dks ftuds 80 izfr'kr

deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

vf/lwfpr djrh gS A

dsUnzh; mRikn 'kqYd ,oa lsok dj] vk;qDrky;] iVuk

r`rh; ry] ,usDlh Hkou]

dsUnzh; jktLo Hkou]

ohjpUn iVsy iFk] iVuk&800 001

¹iQk- la- 11015@03@2010&fgUnhs&2º

iw£.kek 'kekZ] mi funs'kd (jktHkk"kk)

New Delhi, the 20th January, 2011

S.O. 269.—In pursuance of Sub Rule 4 of rule 10

of the Official Language (use of Official purpose of the

union) Rule, 1976 the Central Government hereby

notifies the following office under the Central Board of

Excise & Customs, Department of Revenue, the 80%

staff where of have acquired the working knowledge of

Hindi :—

Commissionrate of Central Excise & Service Tax

3rd Floor, Annexe Bhawan,

CR Building, Virchand Patel Path, Patna

[ F. No. 11015/3/2010-Hindi-2 ]

PURNIMA SHARMA, Dy. Director (OL)

fons'k ea=kky;

(lhihoh izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 13 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 270-—jktuf;d vkSj dksalyh; vkfiQlj ('kiFk

vkSj iQhl) ds vf/fu;e] 1948 dh /kjk 2 ds [kaM (d) ds

vuqlj.k esa] dsanz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk Jh uoy izHkkdj Fkify;ky]

vij Js.kh fyfid dks 13&1&2011 ls Hkkjr ds dkSalykokl] twck]

lwMku esa lgk;d dksalqyj vf/dkjh ds dÙkZO;ksa dk ikyu djus ds

fy, izkf/Ñr djrh gS A

¹la- Vh&4330@1@2006º

vkj- ds- isfjufM;k] voj lfpo (dksalqyj)

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(C. P. V. Divison)

New Delhi, the 13th January, 2011

S.O. 270.—In pursuance of the clause (a) of the

Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officer (Oaths

and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948), the Central Government

hereby authorize Shri Naval Prabhakar Thapliyal, UDC in

the Consulate General of India, Juba (Sudan) to perform

the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from

13th January, 2011.

[ No. T. 4330/01/2006 ]

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

lapkj vkSj lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky;

(nwj&lapkj foHkkx)

(jktHkk"kk vuqHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 17 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 271-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds

'kkldh; iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e 1976 (;Fkk la'kksf/r

1987) ds fu;e 10(4) ds vuqlj.k esa lapkj vkSj lwpuk

izkS|ksfxdh ea=kky;] nwjlapkj foHkkx ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.kk/hu

fuEufyf[kr dk;kZy; dks] ftlesa 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d

deZpkfj;ksa us ¯gnh dk dk;Z&lk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

,rn~}kjk vf/lwfpr djrh gS A

786

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

eq[; egkizca/d] lwpuk izkS|ksfxdh ifj;kstuk ifjeaMy]

Hkkjr lapkj fuxe fyfeVsM] ¯ppoM iq.ks&411019

¹la-bZ-&11016@1@2009&jk-Hkk-º

lq/k Jksf=k;] la;qDr lfpo (iz'kklu)

MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND

INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY

(Department of Telecommunications)

(O. L. Section)

New Delhi, the 17th January, 2011

S.O. 271.—In pursuance of rule 10(4) of the Official

Language (Use for official purposes of the Union), rules

1976 (as amended-1987), the Central Government hereby

notifies the following Office under the administrative

control of Ministry of Communications and Information

Technology, Department of Telecommunications where of

more than 80% of staff have acquired working knowledge

of Hindi.

Chief General Manager,

Information Technology Project Circle,

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Chinchwad

Pune-411019

[No. E-11016/1/2009-O. L.]

SUDHA SHROTRIA, Jt. Secy. (Admin)

ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky;

(mPprj f'k{kk foHkkx)

(jktHkk"kk izHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 272-—dsUnzh; ljdkj] jktHkk"kk (la?k ds 'kkldh;

iz;kstuksa ds fy, iz;ksx) fu;e] 1976 ds fu;e 10 ds mi&fu;e 4

ds vuqlj.k esa] ekuo lalk/u fodkl ea=kky; (Ldwy f'k{kk ,oa

lk{kjrk foHkkx) ds vUrxZr jk"Vªh; vè;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn] ubZ

fnYyh dks] ,sls dk;kZy; ds :i esa] ftlds 80 izfr'kr ls vf/d

deZpkjho`Un us fgUnh dk dk;Zlk/d Kku izkIr dj fy;k gS]

vf/lwfpr djrh gS A

¹la- 11011&1@2010&jk-Hkk-,-º

Mk- vfurk HkVukxj tSu] la;qDr lfpo

MINISTRY OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

(Department of Higher Education)

(O. L. Division)

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 272.—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

National Council for Teacher Education, New Delhi under

the Ministry of Human Resource Development, (Deptt. of

School Education and Literacy) as office, whose more than

80% members of the staff have acquired working knowledge

of Hindi.

[No. 11011-1/2010-O. L. U.]

Dr. ANITA BHATNAGAR JAIN, Jt. Secy.

ijek.kq ÅtkZ foHkkx

eqacbZ] 28 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 273-—lkoZtfud ifjlj vf/fu;e (vizkf/Ñr

vf/Hkksfx;ksa dh csn[kyh) 1971 (1971 dk 40) dh /kjk 3 }kjk

iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq,] foHkkx ds l{ke izkf/dkjh eq[;

iz'kklfud vf/dkjh] HkkHkk ijek.kq vuqla/ku dsUnz] fo'kk[kkiV~Vue

ifj;kstuk tks ljdkj ds jktif=kr vf/dkjh gSa] dks HkkHkk ijek.kq

vuqla/ku dsUnz] fo'kk[kkiV~Vue ifj;kstuk ds iz'kklfud fu;a=k.k

ds rgr fo'kk[kkiV~Vue esa [kjhns x, ifjlj] iV~Vk vFkok HkkM+s ij

fy, x, ifjlj ds lanHkZ esa mijksDr vf/fu;e ds mís'; gsrq

laink vf/dkjh ds :i esa fu;qDr djrs gSa A

¹la- 5@2(19)@2010&,l;w,l@335º

,- lqdqekju] voj lfpo

DEPARTMENT OF ATOMIC ENERGY

Mumbai, the 28th December, 2010

S.O. 273.—In exercise of the powers conferred by

Section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised

Occupants) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971), the Competent Authority

in the Department appoints the Chief Administrative Officer,

Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Visakhapatnam Project,

a Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be the Estate Officer

for the purposes of the said Act in respect of the premises

purchased, leased or rented in Visakhapatnam under the

administrative control of Bhabha Atomic Research Centre,

Visakhapatnam Project.

[ No. 5/2 (19)/2010-SUS/335]

A. SUKUMARAN, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

787

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

(miHkksDrk ekeys foHkkx)

ubZ fnYyh] 17 flrEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 274-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

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

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

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

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

gq, eSllZ ;wfuolZy daLVsaªD'ku e'khujh ,aM bD;wiesaV fy-] ;wfuolZy gkÅl] oktsZ tdr ukdk] dksFk:<+] iq.ks&52 egkjk"Vª }kjk fofu£er

;FkkFkZrk oxZ 2 okys ¶20,e³@hr¸ Ük`a[kyk ds fMLdafVU;qvl VksVykb¯tx Lopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VksVykb¯tx gqij Ogh;j) vadd lwpu

lfgr] ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke ¶cs¯px IykaV¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ

vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@14 leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k i=k tkjh djrh gS A

mDr ekWMy ,d foÑr xst izdkj dk Hkkj lsy vk/kfjr fMLdafVU;qvl VksVykb¯tx Lopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VksVykb¯tx gqij

Ogh;j) gS A bldh vf/dre {kerk 750 fd-xzk-] U;wure {kerk 50 fd- xzk- gS A ekieku vUrjky (Mh) 1 fd- xzk- gS A blesa ,d vk/s;rqyu

;qfDr gS ftldk 'kr izfr'kr O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A fyfDoM fØLVy Mk;ksM (,y lh Mh) rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr

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

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dks lhfyax djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

diViw.kZ O;ogkjksa ds fy, osbax baMhdsVj dks [kksys tkus ls jksdus ds fy, lh¯yx dh tkrh gS A LVkfEiax ds fy, baMhdsVj ds ÚaV

ysÝV lkbM ls lh¯yx ok;j fudky dj vkSj jkbV fj;j lkbM yhM lhy ds lkFk LVkfEiax IysV ls tksM+k x;k gS A ekWMy dks lhycan djus

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

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

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

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

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

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

5 xzk- ;k mlls vf/d ds ¶bZ¸ eku ds fy, 50 fd-xzk- ls 2000 fd-xzk- rd dh vf/dre {kerk okys gSa vkSj ¶bZ¸ eku 1x10^ds] 2x10^ds

5x10 ^ds] ds gSa] tks /ukRed ;k Í.kkRed iw.kk±d ;k 'kwU; ds lerqY; gSa A

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(12)@2010º

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

788

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department of Consumer Affairs)

New Delhi, the 17th September, 2010

S.O. 274.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic weighing instrument (Totalizing Hopper Weigher) with digital indication of Accuracy

class -II of Series ‘‘20M³/hr” and with brand name ‘‘BATCHING PLANT” (hereinafter referred to as the said Model),

maunfactured by M/s Uiversal Construction Machinery & Equipment Ltd. “Universal House”, Warje Jakat Naka, Kothrud,

Pune-52, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/14;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Automatic weighing instrument Discontinuous Totalizing

Automatic weighing instrument (Totalizing Hopper Weigher) with a maximum capacity of 750 kg. and minimum capacity of

50 kg. The scale interval (d) is 1kg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid

Crystal Display (LCD) indicates the weighing results. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current

power supply.

Figure-1 Model (Hopper)

Figure-3 Sealing Diagram of the sealing provision of the model

Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weight indicator for fraudulent practice. Stamping plate is

connected through sealing wire passing from the front left side of indicator and right rear side with the lead seal, to get the

stamping. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of Section 36 of the said, Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of

similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacities in the range of 50kg. to 2000 kg. for ‘e’

value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1x10^k, 2x10^k,or 5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal

to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials

with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21/(12)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

790

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 17th September, 2010

S.O. 275.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority,

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic weighing instrument (Totalizing Hopper Weigher) with digital indication of Accuracy

class -II of Series ‘‘30M³/hr” and with brand name ‘‘BATCHING PLANT” (hereinafter referred to as the said Model),

maunfactured by M/s Universal Construction Machinery & Equipment Ltd. “Universal House”, Warje Jakat Naka, Kothrud,

Pune-52, Maharashtra and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/13;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based automatic weighing instrument (Discontinuous Totalizing

Automatic weighing instrument (Totalizing Hopper Weigher) with a maximum capacity of 350 kg. and minimum capacity of

50 kg. The scale interval (d) is 1kg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid

Crystal Display (LCD) indicates the weighing results. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current

power supply.

Figure-1 Model (Hopper)

Figure-3 Sealing Diagram of the sealing provision of the model

Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weight indicator for fraudelent practice. Stamping plate is

connected through sealing wire passing from the front left side of indicator and right rear side with the lead seal, to get the

stamping. A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of Section 36 of the said, Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of

similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacities in the range of 50kg. to 2000 kg. for ‘e’

value of 5g. or more and with ‘e’ value of 1x10^k, 2x10^k,or 5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal

to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials

with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21/(12)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

791

ubZ fnYyh] 22 uoEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 276-—dsUnzh; ljdkj dk] fofgr izkf/dkjh }kjk mls izLrqr fjiksVZ ij fopkj djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd

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

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

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

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

eSllZ jkbl ysd osbax flLVEl bafM;k fyfeVsM] 412@7,] th ,l Vh jksM] ØkseiSV] psUubZ&600044 }kjk fofu£er eè;e ;FkkFkZrk

;FkkFkZrk-III) okys ¶720@i¸ Ük`a[kyk ds vadd lwpu lfgr vLopkfyr rksyu midj.k (VscyVki Vkbi) ds ekWMy dk] ftlds czkaM dk uke

¶vkj,yMCY;w,lvkbZ,y¸ gS (ftls blesa blds i'pkr~ mDr ekWMy dgk x;k gS) vkSj ftls vuqeksnu fpÉ vkbZ ,u Mh@09@10@366

leuqnsf'kr fd;k x;k gS] vuqeksnu izek.k&i=k tkjh djrh gS A

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

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

O;dyukRed /kfjr vk/s;rqyu izHkko gS A tsV esfVªDl fyfDoM fØLVy Mk;ksM (,y lh Mh) rksyu ifj.kke min£'kr djrk gS A midj.k

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

vkÑfr &2 ekWMy dks lhfyax djus dk ;kstukc¼ Mk;xzke

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

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

mijksDr fn;k x;k gS A

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

fLop Hkh fn;k x;k gS A

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹iQk- la- MCY;w ,e&21(231)@2010º

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

792

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 276.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series ‘‘720i” and with

brand name ‘‘RLWSIL” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s Rice Lake Weighing Systems India

Limited, 412/7A, GST Road, Chromepet, Chennai-600044 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/366;

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

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

a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Dot Matrix Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) indicates the weighing result.

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

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

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

schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of Section 36 of the said, Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of

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

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

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

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

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

[ F.No.WM-21/(231)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

794

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 277.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III of Series ‘‘720i” and with brand

name ‘‘RLWSIL” (hereinafter referred to as the said Model), maunfactured by M/s. Rice Lake Weighing Systems India

Limited, 412/7A, GST Road, Chromepet, Chennai-600044 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/367;

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

a maximum capacity of 1000 kg. and minimum capacity of 4 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 200g. It has a tare device

with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Dot Matrix Liquid Crystal Display (LCD) display indicates the

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

Figure-1

Figure-2 Sealing Diagram of sealing provision of the Model

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

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

schematic diagram of sealing provision of the Model is given above.

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

to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said, Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments

of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg. and up to 5000kg. with

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

5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in

accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been

manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21 (231)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

796

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 278.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Electronic Weighbridge-Multi Load Cell Type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy

class -III) of Series ‘‘720 i” and with brand name ‘‘RLWSIL” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by

M/s Rice Lake Weighing Systems India Limited, 412/7A, GST Road, Chromepet, Chennai-600044 and which is assigned

the approval mark IND/09/10/368;

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

Multi Load Cell Type) with a maximum capacity of 80 tonne and minimum capacity of 400 kg. The verification scale interval

(e) is 20kg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Dot Matrix Liquid Crystal Display

(LCD) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power

supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

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

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

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

to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said, Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of

similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with

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

5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in

accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been

manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21(231)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

798

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 279.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Electronic Weighbridge-Multi Load Cell Type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy

class -III) of Series ‘‘920 i” and with brand name ‘‘RLWSIL” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by

M/s Rice Lake Weighing Systems India Limited, 412/7A, GST Road, Chromepet, Chennai-600044 and which is assigned

the approval mark IND/09/10/369;

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

Multi Load Cell Type) with a maximum capacity of 60 tonne and minimum capacity of 400 kg. The verification scale interval

(e) is 20kg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Dot Matrix Liquid Crystal Display

(LCD) display indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power

supply.

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

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

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

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

to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said, Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of

similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with

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

or 5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in

accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been

manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21/(231)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

800

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 280.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Electronic Weighbridge-Multi Load Cell Type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy

class -III) of Series ‘‘SMART 460” and with brand name ‘‘RLWSIL” (hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured

by M/s. Rice Lake Weighing Systems India Limited, 412/7A, GST Road, Chromepet, Chennai-600044 and which is

assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/370;

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

Multi Load Cell Type) with a maximum capacity of 60 tonne and minimum capacity of 400 kg. The verification scale

interval (e) is 20kg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED)

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

Figure-1

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

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

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

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

to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of Section 36 of the said, Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments

of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with

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

or 5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in

accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been

manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21/(231)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

802

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 281.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of ‘Automatic Rail Weighbridghe’ (Pitless

type) with digital indication of “DA-100” series of accuracy class- 0.5 and with brand name “RAIL WEIGH” (herein

referred to as the said model), manufactured by M/s Rice Lake Weighing Systems India Limited, 412/7A, GST Road,

Chromepet, Chennai-600044 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/371;

The said model is a strain gauge type compression load cell based Automatic Rail Weighbridge (Pitless type)

with a maximum capacity of 120 tonne and minimum capacity of 10 tonne. The verification scale interval (e) is < 100kg. The

speed limit for the instrument is 1km/hr to 15km/h. The Vacum Fluorescent Display (VFD) display indicates the weighing

result. The instrument operates on to 230V, 50 Hz alternative current power supply.

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 Sealing Diagram

Sealing is done through the holes made in the body of the indicator by passing a seling wire through these holes

and lead seal is applied. The indicator can not be opened without tampering the seal. A typical schematic diagram of sealing

provision of the model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of Section 36 of the said, Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments

of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity in the range of 5tonne to 200 tonne with

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

5x10^k, where k being a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in

accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been

manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21/(231)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

804

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 282.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

Central Government hereby approves and issues the certificate of approval of the Model of non -authomatic weighing

instrument (Tabletop type) with digital indication, belonging to Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class-III) of series ‘‘EDT”

and with brand name ‘‘EVEREST” (hereinafter referred to as the said Model), maunfactured by M/s. Everest Instruments

Pvt. Ltd. Nr. Chandan Park, Station Road, Visnagar, 384315 (Gujarat) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/264;

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

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

a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing results. The

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

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 Schematic diagram of Sealing of the Model

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

of sealing provision of the Model is given above.

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

disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said, Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instrument of

similar make, accuracy, performance and of the same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg and with number of

verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10000 for ‘e’ value of 100mg. to 2g. and with number of verification scale

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

positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufacturered by the said manufacturer in accordance with the same

principle, design and materials with which, the approved Model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21 (176)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

806

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 283.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class-III) of series ‘‘EDLK” and with

brand name ‘‘EVEREST” ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model), maunfactured by M/s. Everest Instruments Pvt. Ltd.,

Nr. Chandan Park, Station Road, Visnagar-384315 (Gujarat) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/265;

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

maximum capacity of 1000 kg. and minimum capacity of 2 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare device

with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) display indicates the weighing results.

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

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 Schematic diagram of Sealing provision of the Model

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

diagram of sealing provision of the Model is given above.

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

disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of Section 36 of the said, Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments

of similar make, accuracy and performance of the same series with maximum capacity above 50kg. up to 5000kg. with

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

2x10^k or 5x10^k, k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the said manufacturer in

accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been

manufactured.

[ F.No.WM-21 (176)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

808

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 284.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Crane type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class-III) of series ‘‘ECR” and with brand

name ‘‘EVEREST” ( hereinafter referred to as the said model), maunfactured by M/s Everest Instruments Pvt. Ltd.,

Nr. Chandan Park, Station Road, Visnagar-384315 (Gujarat) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/266;

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

maximum capacity of 1000 kg. and minimum capacity of 2 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare device

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

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

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 Sealing arrangement of the model

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

diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

to disable access to external calibration.

The Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the

weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of the same series with maximum capacities range from

50kg. and up to 5. tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with

‘e’ value of 1x10^k, 2x10^k,or 5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero manufactured by the

same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said

approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM-21/(176)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

810

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 285.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Tank Weighing type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class-III) of series ‘‘ES” and with

brand name ‘‘EVEREST” ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model), maunfactured by M/s. Everest Instruments Pvt. Ltd.,

Nr. Chandan Park, Station Road, Visnagar-384315 (Gujarat) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/267;

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

with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg. and minimum capacity of 2 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare

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

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

Figure-2 Sealing diagram of Sealing provision of the model

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

diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

to disable access to external calibration.

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (12) of Section 36 of the said, Act the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments

of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacities in the range of 50kg. to 5000 kg. with

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

5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in

accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been

manufactured.

[ F. No. WM-21/(176)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

812

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 286.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Electronic Weighbridge) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class-III) of series ‘‘WI” and

with brand name ‘‘WEIGHGUARD” ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model), maunfactured by M/s. Weighguard India,

C-143, 1st Floor, B. G. Tower, O/s Delhi Gate, Ahmedabad (Gujarat) and which is assigned the approval mark

IND/09/10/51;

The said Model is a strain gauge type load cell based non-automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Weighbridge)

with a maximum capacity of 40 tonne and minimum capacity of 100 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 5 kg. It has a

tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) indicates the weighing

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

Figure-1 Model (Weigh bridge)

Figure-3 Sealing provision of the indicator of the Model

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

connected by whole in back plate of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal. A typical

schematic diagram of sealing provision of the Model is given above.

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub-section (12) of section 36 of the said, Act, the Central

Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the weighing instruments

of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne and up to 200 tonne with

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

5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in

accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved Model has been

manufactured.

[ F. No. WM-21(53)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

814

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 287.—Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed

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

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

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

sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

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

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

instrument (Crane Type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class-III) of series ‘‘MON” and with brand

name ‘‘MONARCH” ( hereinafter referred to as the said Model), maunfactured by M/s. Hardik Enterprise, C-142, First

Floor, B. G. Tower O/S Delhi Gate Ahmedabad, Gujarat and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/38;

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

maximum capacity of 1000 kg. and minimum capacity of 2 kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g. It has a tare device

with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The light emitting diode (LED) indicates the weighing results. The

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

Figure-1 Model

Figure-2 Sealing Arrangement

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

The seal is connected by seal wire passing through these two holes attached with seal. A typical schematic diagram of

sealing provision of the Model is given above.

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

to disable access to external calibration.

The Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said Model shall also cover the

weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of the same series with maximum capacity range from

50kg and up to 30 tonne with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ‘e’ value of 5g. or more and with

‘e’ value of 1x10^k, 2x10^k,or 5x10^k, where k is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the

said manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved

Model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM-21/(13)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

815

dks;yk ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 288-—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[;kad

dk-vk- 1237 rkjh[k 5 ebZ] 2010 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k] Hkkx& II] [k.M 3] mi&[k.M (ii) rkjh[k 15 ebZ] 2010 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh]

ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V 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 NÙkhlx<+ ljdkj ls ijke'kZ djus ds i'pkr~ ;g lek/ku

gks x;k gS fd blls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr 141-930 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 350-71 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh Hkwfe ds LkHkh vf/dkj v£tr

fd, tkus pkfg,_

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 blls layXu vuqlwph esa o£.kr 141-930 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 350-71 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki okyh Hkwfe ds lHkh vf/dkj v£tr fd,

tkrs gaS A

bl vf/lwpuk ds vUrxZr vkus okys {ks=k ds js[kkad la[;k ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e (ih,yth)@Hkwfe@390] rkjh[k 3 flrEcj]

2010 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] dksjck (NÙkhlx<+) 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

djrkyh Cykd] vfEcdk vksiudkLV] dksjck {ks=k]

ftyk&dksjck (NÙkhlx<+)

¹js[kkad la[;k ,lbZ lh,y@ch,lih@lhth,e(ih,yth)@Hkwfe@390] rkjh[k 3 flrEcj] 2010º

lHkh vf/dkj %

(d) jktLo Hkwfe %

Øe la-

xzke dk uke

iVokjh gYdk la[;k

xzke la[;k

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k gsDVj esa

fVIif.k;ka

djrkyh

ikyh

dksjck

135-580

Hkkx

rsanwHkkBk

ikyh

dksjck

0-045

Hkkx

nfe;k¡

ikyh

dksjck

0-024

Hkkx

dqy % 135-649 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 335-19 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

([k) jktLo ou Hkwfe %&

Øe la-

xzke dk uke

iVokjh gYdk la[;k

xzke la[;k

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k gsDVj

fVIikf.k;ka

djrkyh

ikyh

dksjck

1-963

Hkkx

rsanwHkkBk

ikyh

dksjck

0-081

Hkkx

nfe;k¡

ikyh

dksjck

4-237

Hkkx

dqy %& 6-281 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 15-52 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

dqy ;ksx (d + [k) % 141-930 gsDVj (yxHkx)

;k 350-71 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

xzke djrkyh (Hkkx) esa o£.kr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 1(Hkkx)] 7(Hkkx)] 8(Hkkx)] 9(Hkkx)] 25(Hkkx)]

26(Hkkx)] 145(Hkkx)] 150(Hkkx)] 151 ls 196] 197(Hkkx)] 373] 423(Hkkx)] 424(Hkkx)] 426(Hkkx)] 427(Hkkx)] 454@1(Hkkx)]

465(Hkkx)] 466 ls 470] 471(Hkkx)] 493(Hkkx)] 494(Hkkx)] 495 ls 509] 511 ls 562] 563(Hkkx)] 570(Hkkx)] 571 ls 591]

593 ls 599] 603(Hkkx)] 604 ls 619] 620(Hkkx)] 621 ls 631] 635(Hkkx)] 637(Hkkx)] 638 ls 641] 642(Hkkx)] 643(Hkkx)]

644 ls 648] 649(Hkkx) A

xzke rsanwHkkBk (Hkkx) esa v£tr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 104(Hkkx)] 106(Hkkx)-

xzke nfe;k¡ (Hkkx) esa v£tr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 1@1(Hkkx)] 104@1(Hkkx)] 166(Hkkx)] 222(Hkkx)] 223(Hkkx) A

816

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

lhek o.kZu %&

d&[k

js[kk] xzke djrkyh ds fcUnq ¶d¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj IykV la[;kad 373 ds iwohZ lhek ls gksdj] 563 ls xqtjdj] 571 ds mÙkjh

lhek ls gksdj 570 vkSj 197 ls xqtjdj] 177] 176 ds mÙkjh lhek ls gksdj vkSj 197 ls xqtjdj fcUnq ¶[k¸ ij feyrh gS A

[k&x

js[kk xzke djrkyh ds IykV la[;kad 150] 145] 649] 643] 642] 668] 637 ls gksdj tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq ¶x¸ ij feyrh gS A

x&?k

js[kk] xzke djrkyh ds IykV la[;kad 631] 630 ds nf{k.kh lhek ls gksdj] 635] 603] 620 ls xqtjdj] 621] 619 ds nf{k.kh lhek

ls gksdj] 603 ls xqtjdj] 604] 599] 596] 595] 594] 593] 588] 589] 591] 511 ds nf{k.kh lhek ls gksdj tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq

¶?k¸

ij feyrh gS A

?k&M-

js[kk] xzke djrkyh ds IykV la[;kad 511] 512 ds if'peh lhek ls gksdj] xzke djrkyh ,oa xzke Mksaxukyk dh lfEefyr lhek

ls gksdj] 504 ds if'peh lhek ls gksdj 465] 471] 494 ls xqtjdj] 495 ds mÙkjh lhek ls gksdj tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq ¶M-¸ ij

feyrh gS A

M-&p

js[kk] xzke djrkyh ds IykV la[;kad 493] 471] 454@1] 426] 427] 424] 25] 423] 9] 7] 8] 1 xzke rsanwHkkBk ds IykV la[;kad

106] 104 vkSj xzke nfe;k ds IykV la[;kad 222] 223 ls xqtjdj] IykV la[;kad 198] 197 ds mÙkjh lhek ls gksdj IykV la[;kad

166] 104@1] 1@1 ls gksdj tkrh gS vkSj fcUnq ¶p¸ ij feyrh gS A

p&d

js[kk] xzke nfe;k ds IykV la[;kad 1@1] 104@1] 166] 223] 222]z xzke rsanwHkkBk IykV la[;kad ds 104] 106 vkSj xzke djrkyh ds

IykV la[;kad 1] 8] 9] 25] 26] 423 ls xqtjdj ] 25 dh mÙkjh lhek ls gksdj] 424] 427] 426] 454@1] 471] 493 ls gksdj] 373

ds mÙkjh lhek ls gksdj tkrh gS vkSj vkjafHkd fcUnq ¶d¸ ij feyrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 43015@10@2009&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&1º

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

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011

S.O. 288.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1237

dated the 5th May, 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 15th May, 2010 the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire141.930 hectares or

350.71 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 Chhattisgarh, is satisfied that the lands mesuring 141.930 hectares (approximately) or 357.71 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 hereby declares that the land measuring 141.930 heactares (approximately) or 350.71 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/390, dated the 3rd September, 2010 of the area covered by

this notification may be inspected at the Office of the Collector, Korba (Chhattisgarh) 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

KARTALI BLOCK, AMBIKA OPENCAST, Korba Area

Distt- Korba (Chhattisgarh)

[Plan bearing number SEC/BSP/CGM(PLG)/LAND/390, dated the 3rd September, 2010]

All Rights:

(A) REVENUE LAND :

Sl. No.

Name of village

Patwari halka number

Village number

Tahsil

District

Area in hectares

Remarks

Kartali

Pali

Korba

135.580

Part

Tendubhata

Pali

Korba

0.045

Part

Dania

Pali

Korba

0.024

Part

Total : 135.649 hectares (approximalely) or 335.19 acres (approximately)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

817

(B) REVENUR FOREST LAND :

Sl. No.

Name of village

Patwari halka number

Village number

Tahsil

District

Area in hectares

Remarks

Kartali

Pali

Korba

1.963

Part

Tendubhata

Pali

Korba

0.081

Part

Damia

Pali

Korba

4.237

Part

Total : 6.281 hectares (approximately) or 15.52 acres (approximately)

Grant Total (A+B) : 141.930 hectares (appromximately)

or 350.71 acres (approximately)

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Kartali (Part): 1P, 7P, 8P, 9P, 25P, 26P, 145P, 150P, 151 to 196, 197P, 373, 423P,

424P, 426P, 427P, 454/1P, 465P, 466 to 470, 471P, 493P, 494P, 495 to 509, 511 to 562, 563P, 570P, 571 to 591, 593 to 599,

603P, 604 to 619, 620P, 621 to 631, 635P, 637P, 638 to 641, 642P, 643P, 644 to 648, 649P.

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Tendubhata (Part): 104P, 106P,

Plot numbers to be acquired in village Damia (Part): 1/1P, 104/1P, 166P, 222P, 223P.

Boundary Description:

A-B

Line starts from point ‘‘A” in village Kartali and passes along eastern boundary of plot no. 373, through 563,

northern boundary of 571, through 570, 197, northern boundary of 177, 176, through 197 and meets at point ‘B’.

B -C

Line passes in village Kartali through plot no. 150, 145, 649, 643, 642, 668, 637 and meets at points ‘C’.

C -D

Line passes in village Kartali along southern boundary of plot no. 631, 630, through 635, 603, 620, southern

boundary of 621, 619, through 603, southern boundary of 604, 599, 596, 595, 594, 593, 588, 589, 591, 511 and meets

at point ‘D’.

D -E

Line passes in village Kartali along western boundary of plot nos. 511, 512, common village boundary of Kartali

and Dongnala, western boundary of 504, through 465, 471, 494, along northern boundary of 495 and meets at

point ‘E’.

E -F

Line passes in village Kartali through plot nos. 493, 471, 454/1, 426, 427, 424, 25, 423, 9, 7, 8, 1, in village Tendubhata

through plot no. 106, 104, in village Damia through plot nos. 222, 223, along northern boundary of 198, 197, through

166, 104/1, 1/1 and meets at point ‘F’.

F -A

Line passes in village Damia through plot no. 1/1, 104/1, 166, 223, 222 in village Tendubhata through plot nos. 104,

106, in village Kartali through plot nos. 1, 8, 9, 25, 26, 423, northern boundary of 25, through 424, 427, 426, 454/1, 471,

493, northern boundary of 373 and meets at starting point ‘‘A”.

[F. No. 43015/10/2009-PRIW-I]

S. C. BHATIA, Director

ubZ fnYyh] 18 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 289-—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 4 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu tkjh Hkkjr ljdkj ds dks;yk ea=kky; dh vf/lwpuk la[;kad

dk-vk- 1239] rkjh[k 12 ebZ] 2010 tks Hkkjr ds jkti=k] Hkkx&II] [k.M 3] mi&[k.M (ii)] rkjh[k 15 ebZ] 2010 esa izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh]

ml vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V 52-364 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 130-06 ,dM+ (yxHkx) ifj{ks=k dh Hkwfe esa] dks;ys dk iwoZs{k.k

djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nh Fkh_

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks ;g lek/ku gks x;k gS fd bl vf/lwpuk ls layXu vuqlwph esa fofu£n"V mDr Hkwfe ds Hkkx esa dks;yk

vfHkizkIr gS_

vr%] vc] dsUnzh; ljdkj mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, blls layXu

vuqlwph esa o£.kr 52-228 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 129-06 ,dM+ (yxHkx) eki dh Hkwfe dk vtZu djus ds vius vk'k; dh lwpuk nsrh gS _

fVIi.k 1 % bl vf/lwpuk ds varxZr vkus okys {ks=k ds js[kkad la[;kad ,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@th,e(ih,yth)@ySaM@386] rkjh[k 12

tqykbZ] 2010 dk fujh{k.k dysDVj] ftyk & 'kgMksy (eè; izns'k) ds dk;kZy; esa ;k dks;yk fu;a=kd] 1] dkmafly 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

fVIi.k 2 & mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 8 ds mica/ksa dh vksj è;ku vkÑ"V fd;k tkrk gS] ftlesa fuEufyf[kr mica/ gaS%&

818

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

vtZu dh ckcr vkifÙk;ka %

¶8(1) dksbZ O;fDr tks fdlh Hkwfe esa ftldh ckcr /kjk 7 ds v/hu vf/lwpuk fudkyh xbZ gS] fgrc¼ gS] vf/lwpuk ds fudkys

tkus ls rhl fnu ds Hkhrj lEiw.kZ Hkwfe ;k mlds fdlh Hkkx ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds fdUgha vf/dkjksa dk vtZu fd, tkus ds ckjs esa

vkifÙk dj ldsxk A

Li"Vhdj.k—

(1) bl /kjk ds vFkkZUrxZr ;g vkifÙk ugha ekuh tk,xh fd dksbZ O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa dks;yk mRiknu ds fy, Lo;a [kuu

lafØ;k,a djuk pkgrk gS vkSj ,slh lafØ;k,a dsUnzh; ljdkj ;k fdlh vU; O;fDr gks ugha djuh pkfg,a A

(2) mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu izR;sd vkifÙk l{ke izkf/dkjh dks fyf[kr :i esa dh tk,xh vkSj l{ke vf/dkjh] vkifÙkdrkZ dks

Lo;a lqus tkus dk ;k fof/ O;olk;h }kjk lquokbZ dk volj nsxk vkSj ,slh lHkh vkifÙk;ksa dks lquus ds i'pkr~ vkSj ,slh vfrfjDr tk¡p] ;fn

dksbZ gks] djus ds i'pkr~ tks og vko';d le>rk gS] og ;k rks /kjk 7 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds v/hu vf/lwfpr Hkwfe ds ;k ,slh Hkwfe eas

;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds laca/ esa ,d fjiksVZ ;k ,slh Hkwfe ds fofHkUu VqdM+s ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkjksa ds laca/ esa vkifÙk;ksa

ij viuh fliQkfj'kksa vkSj mlds }kjk dh xbZ dk;Zokgh ds vfHkys[k lfgr fofHkUu fjiksVs± dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mlds fofu'p; ds fy, nsxk A

(3) bl /kjk ds iz;kstuksa ds fy, og O;fDr fdlh Hkwfe esa fgrc¼ le>k tk,xk tks izfrdj esa fgr dk nkok djus dk gdnkj

gksxk] ;fn Hkwfe ;k ,slh Hkwfe esa ;k ml ij ds vf/dkj bl vf/fu;e ds v/hu v£tr dj fy, tkrs A¸

fVIi.k 3- & dsUnzh; ljdkj us dks;yk fua;=kd] 1] dkmafly gkml LVªhV] dksydkrk&700001 dks Hkkjr ds jkti=k] Hkkx&11 [k.M 3]

mi&[k.M (ii)] rkjh[k 4 vizSy] 1987 esa izdkf'kr vf/lwpuk la[;kad dk- vk- 905] rkjh[k 20 ekpZ] 1987 mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 3

ds v/hu l{ke izkf/dkjh fu;qDr fd;k gS A

vuqlwph

:axVk iSp (cdgks & >xzkgk iSp)] lksgkxiqj {ks=k]

ftyk & 'kgMksy] eè; izns'k

¹js[kkad la[;k &,lbZlh,y@ch,lih@ th,e(ih,yth)@ySaM@386] rkjh[k 12 tqykbZ] 2010º

lHkh vf/dkj%

(d) jktLo Hkwfe %

Øe la-

xzke dk uke

iVokjh gYdk uEcj

cankscLr la[;k

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k gsDVj esa

fVIi.k

cdgks

103

630

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

32-516

Hkkx

>xzkgk

103

369

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

10-488

Hkkx

dqy %&43-004 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 106-27 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

([k) ou Hkwfe%

Øe la-

xzke dk uke

iVokjh gYdk uEcj

cankscLr la[;k

rglhy

ftyk

{ks=k gsDVj esa

fVIi.k

cdgks

103

630

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

9-224

Hkkx

>xzkgk

103

369

lksgkxiqj

'kgMksy

0-000

Hkkx

dqy %& 9-224 gsDVj (yxHkx) ;k 22-79 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

dqy ;ksx (d + [k) %& 52-228 gsDVj (yxHkx)

;k 129-06 ,dM+ (yxHkx)

xzke cdgks (Hkkx) esa v£tr fd, tkus IykV la[;k%& 2 ls 14] 15 (Hkkx)] 17 ls 20] 22 ls 58] 60(Hkkx)] 61 ls 99] 102]

110 ls 125] 127 ls 132] 137 ls 140] 247 ls 249] 252 ls 256 A

xzke >xzkgk (Hkkx) esa v£tr fd, tkus okys IykV la[;k%& 520 ls 527] 529] 554 ls 614] 617] 618] 636] 648]

649(Hkkx) A

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

819

lhek o.kZu %

d&[k

js[kk xzke >xzkgk esa fcUnq ¶d¸ ls vkjaHk gksrh gS vkSj IykV la[;k 522] 525] 557] 558] 578] 580] 581 ds if'peh lhek ls gksdj

xzke cdgks esa izos'k djrh gS vkSj IykV la[;k 4 ds if'peh] IykV la[;k 2] 28] 35] 42] 45] 76] 77] 78] 81] 82] 131] 140

ds mÙkjh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ¶[k¸ ij feyrh gS A

[k&x

js[kk xzke cdgks ds IykV la[;k 140] 139] 138 ds mÙkjh] 136 ds mÙkjh vkSj iwohZ] 136] 138] 139 ds nf{k.kh] IykV la[;k 140]

131] 132] 127] 122] 124] 125] 112] 111] 110 ds iwohZ] IykV la[;k 94] 95] 102] 99] 247] 249 ds mÙkjh lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ

fcUnq ¶x¸ ij feyrh gS A

x&?k

js[kk xzke cdgks ds IykV la[;k 249] 248] 252 ds nf{k.kh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ fcUnq ¶?k¸ ij feyrh gS A

?k& M-

js[kk xzke cdgks ds IykV la[;k 253] 254 ds iwohZ] IykV la[;k 254 ds nf{k.kh vkSj if'peh] 256] 61 ds nf{k.kh lhek rFkk IykV

la[;k 60 ls gksdj IykV la[;k 22] 20 ds iwohZ lhek ls xqtjrh gqbZ fcUnq ¶M-¸ ij feyrh gS A

M-&d

js[kk xzke cdgks ls IykV la[;k 20] 17 ds nf{k.kh lhek vkSj IykV la[;k 15 ls gksdj xzke >xzkgk esa izos'k djrh gS vkSj IykV

la[;k 649 ls gksdj IykV la[;k 648 ds iwohZ vkSj nf{k.kh] 601] 602] 636] 606 ds nf{k.kh] 614 ds iwohZ vkSj nf{k.kh] 617] 618]

ds iwohZ] 568 ds nf{k.kh] 563] 561] 554] 555] 529 ds iwohZ vkSj nf{k.kh] 527 ds iwohZ] 520 ds mÙkjh] iwohZ vkSj nf{k.kh] 521 ds

iwohZ] 522 ds iwohZ vkSj nf{k.kh lhek ls gksrh gqbZ vkjafHkd fcUnq ¶d¸ ij feyrh gS A

¹iQk- la- 43015@38@2009&ihvkjvkbZMCY;w&1º

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

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011

S.O. 289.—Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 1239

dated the 12th May, 2010 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 4 of the Coal Bearing Areas (Acquisition and Development)

Act. 1957 (20 of 1957) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and published in the Gazettee of India, Part-II, section 3, sub-

section (ii) dated the 15th May, 2010 the Central Government gave notice of its intention to prospect for coal in 52.364

hectares (apporximately) or 130.06 acres (approximately) of the land in the locality specified in the schedule annexed to that

notification;

And, whereas, the Central Government is satisfied that coal is obtainable in a part of the said lands prescribed in

the Schedule appended to this notification ;

Now, therefor in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the said Act, the Central

Government hereby gives notice of its intention to acquire the land measuring 52.228 hectares (approximately) or 129.06

acres (approximately) as all rights in or over the said land described in the schedule appended hereto:

Note1 - The plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/386, dated the 12th July, 2010 of the area covered by this

notification may be inspected at the office of the Collector, 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).

Note 2 - Attention is hereby invited to the provisions of Section 8 of the said Act which provides as follows:—

Objections to Acquisition:

‘‘8(1) Any person interested in any land in respect of which a notification under Section 7 has been issued may,

within thirty days of the issue of the notification object to the acquisition of the whole or of any part of the land or any

rights in or over such land.

Explanation —

(1) It shall not be an objection within the meaing of this section for any person to say that he himself desires to

undertake mining operations in the land for the production of coal and that such operations should not be undertaken by

the Cental Government or by any other person.

(2) Every objection under sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing and the competent

authority shall give the objector an opportunity of being heard either in person or by a legal practitioner and shall, after

hearing all such objections and after making such further inquiry, if any, as the necessary, either make a report in respect of

the land which has been notified under sub-section (1) of Section 7 or of rights in or over such land, or make different reports

in respect of different parcels of such land or of rights in or over such land,to the Central Government containing his

recommendations on the objections, together with the record of the proceedings held by him, for the decision of that

Government.

820

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(3) For the purposes of this section, a person shall be deemed to be interested in land who would be entitled to

claim an interest in compensation if the land or any rights in or over such land were acquired under this Act.”

Note 3—The Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street, Kolkata- 700001, has been appointed by the Central Government as

the compentent authority under section 3 of the said Act, vide notification number S.O. 905,dated the 20th March, 1987,

published in part II, section 3, sub-section (ii) of the Gazette of India, dated the 4th April 1987.

SCHEDULE

Rungta Patch (Bakho-Jhagraha Patch), Sohagpur Area

Distt- Shahdol, Madhya Pradesh

(plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM(PLG)/LAND/386, dated the 12th July, 2010)

All Rights :

(A) Revenue Land:

Sl. No.

Name of village

Patwari halka

Bandobast

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

number

hectares

Bakho

103

630

Sohagour

Shahdol

32.516

Part

Jhagraha

103

369

Sohagour

Shahdol

10.488

Part

Total : 43.004 hectares (approximalely) or 106.27 acres (approximately)

(B) Forest Land:

Sl. No.

Name of village

Patwari halka

Bandobast

Tahsil

District

Area in

Remarks

number

hectares

Bakho

103

630

Sohagpur

Shahdol

9.224

Part

Jhagraha

103

369

Sohagpur

Shahdol

0.000

Part

Total : 9.224 hectares (approximately) or 22.79 acres (approximately)

Grand Total (A+B) :— 52-228 hectares (approximately)

Or 129.06 acres (approximately)

Plot Numbers to be acquired village Bakho (Part):- 2 to 14, 15(P), 17 to 20, 22 to 58 60(P), 61 to 99, 102, 110 to

125, 127 to 132, 137 to 140, 247 to 249, 252 to 256.

Plot Numbers to be acquired in village Jhagraha (Part):— 520 to 527, 529, 554 to 614, 617, 618, 636, 648, 649(P).

Boundary Description:

A-B

Line starts from point ‘A’ in village Jhagraha and passes along western boundary of plot number 522, 525, 557, 558,

578, 581 then enter in village Bakho and passes along western boundary of plot number 4, northern boundary of

plot nubmer 2, 28, 35, 42, 45, 76, 77, 78, 81, 82, 131, 140 and meets at point ‘B’.

B-C

Line passes in village Bakho along northern boundary of plot number140, 139, 138, northern and eastern boundary

of plot number 136, southern boundary of plot number 136, 138, 139, eastern boundary of plot number 140, 131, 132,

127, 122, 124, 125, 112, 111, 110, northern boundary of plot number 94, 95, 102, 99, 247, 249 and meets at point ‘C’.

C-D

Line passes in village Bakho along southern boundary of plot number 249, 248, 252 and meets at point ‘D’.

D -E

Line passes in village Bakho along eastern boundary of plot number 253, 254, southern and western boundary of

plot number 254, southern boundary of plot number 256, 61, through 60, eastern boundary of plot 22, 20 and meets

at point ‘E’.

E -A

Line passes in village Bakho along southern boundary of plot number 20, 17, through 15 then enter in village

Jhagraha and passes through 649, esatern and southern boundary of plot number 648,southern boundary of plot

number 601, 602, 636, 606, eastern and southern boundary of plot number 614, eastern boundary of plot number

617, 618, southern boundary of plot number 568, eastern and southern boundary of plot number 563, 561, 554, 555,

529, eastern boundary of plot number 527, northern,eastern and southern boundary of plot number of plot number

522 and meets at starting point ‘A’.

[F. No. 43015/38/2009-PRIW-I]

S.C. BHATIA, Director

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

821

ckfM+;k ';kek

171

170

162

169

174

247

248

249

243

233

346

347

349

351

350

356 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

357

359/1

359/2

360

364

365

366

375(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

406

405

404

403

392

581(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

577

578

579

580

594

595

596

597

592

610

611

609

612

613

614

616

iSVªksfy;e vkSj izkÑfrd xSl ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 19 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 290-—dsUæh; ljdkj dks ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd

yksd fgr 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 dkWiksjs'ku fyfeVsM }kjk ,d

ikbiykbu fcNkbZ tkuh pkfg,_

vkSj dsUnzh; ljdkj dks mDr ikbiykbu fcNkus ds iz;kstu

ds fy, ;g vko';d izrhr gksrk gS fd mDr Hkwfe esa] ftlds Hkhrj

mDr ikbiykbu fcNkbZ 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] dsUnzh; 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

vf/lwpuk dh izfr;k¡ 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 dkWiksjs'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% C;koj

ftyk&vtesj

jkT;&jktLFkku

Ø-la xzke dk uke

[kljk la[;k

{ks=kiQy

gsDVs;j

,;j

oxZ

ehVj

ckfM+;k ';kek

87 (xzke iapk;r Hkwfe)

14 (ljdkjhHkwfe)

42/1(xzke iapk;r Hkwfe) 00

163/1

164

822

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ckfM+;k ';kek

617

618

jkelj cykb;ku

289

290

292

Bhdjkuk esUnzkrku 641

640

639

638

637

632

636

635/2

635/1

634

633

675

676

681

682

689

699

690

692

709(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

748

749

746

752

753

769

754

768

767

766

763

761

794

1114

1113

1107

1108

1112

1109

1110

1111

Bhdjkuk esUnzkrku 1122

1124

1125

1140

1141

1141/1176

1144

xksfoUniqjk

323/1

tkfy;k&1

742

743

744

f'koukFkiqjk

41(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

168

169

174(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

175(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

176(lk-fu-fo-)

178(lk-fu-fo-)

179(lk-fu-fo-)

259(xzke iapk;r Hkwfe) 00

258/2

258/1

256/1

256/2

255

254

253

252

423

425

424(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

448

449

450

453(xzke iapk;r Hkwfe) 00

Hkkstiqjk

161

162

164

165

167

166

171

173

174

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

823

Hkkstiqjk

146

175/1

144

176

176/650

184

185

186

192

187

191

189

190

204

203

219

218

220

221

217

216

215

256

252

253

255

283

282

279

280

322

323

324

325

331

332

334

333

335

336

x<h Fkksfj;ku

635(lk-fu-fo-)

652(lk-fu-fo-)

651(lk-fu-fo-)

650/4(uxj ifj"kn)

649

647

x<h Fkksfj;ku

627

625/1(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

625/2

650/3

'ks"kiqjk

312

313

314

305/1(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

316

317

318

319

332/2 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

332/4(xzke iapk;y Hkwfe)00

332/1(xzke iapk;y Hkwfe)00

482/1(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

477/2(xzke iapk;y Hkwfe)00

10. ylkfM+;k

129 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

130

120 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

26 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

119 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

58 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

59 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

56 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

66(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

67(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

71(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

11. ylkuh&1

755

762

763

765

766

767 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

647

645

646

640 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

579/1

580

582

585

584

824

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

11.

ylkuh&1

616

617

620 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

623

613(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

522

521

489 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

509

508

507

506

504

496

12. ekaMkokl

560

577(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

578 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

947 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

949

998 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

977

976

975/1

974 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

982 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

983

991(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

997

996

995

935 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

13. lqgkok

1864 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

1863

1859 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

1858

1857 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

692

693

704

703

702

696

697

719

722

723

13. lqgkok

728

729

733

736

745

737

738

744

739

743

741

742

791

794

795

816/1

817

818

466/1(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

822

824

825

826

831

832

833(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

834 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

835 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

836

837

838

843

442 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

398 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

402

400 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

401 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

404

399

397/1

395

394 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

891

893

892

895

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

825

13. lqgkok

896

890

1016

1018

1019 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

1012

1013

1010

1008

1000

1116

1126 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

1125

1124

1117/1

1123

1122

1121/1

1146

1145/1

1144

1159

1162 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

1161

1160/1

1163

14.

yk[khuk

939

940

941

942

943

924

923

922

945

969

968

967

964 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

987

988/2

1005/1

1005/3

1003/2

1006

1007(ljdkjh Hkwfe)

yk[khuk

1008 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

tkjh

1054 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

1062

1056

1057

1049

1050

1052

1053

879

873 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

867 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

827

831

826

825

824 (ljdkjh Hkwfe)

1088/1093(ljdkjh Hkwfe)00

¹iQk- la-vkj &25011@3@2011&vksvkj&Iº

ch- ds- nÙkk] voj lfpo

MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NTURAL GAS

New Delhi, the 19th January, 2011

S.O. 290.—Whereas it, appears to the Central

Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that

for the transportation of petroleum crade a pipeline from

Salaya in the State of Gujarat to Mathura in the State of

Uttar Pradesh, (Under Salaya-Mathura Pipeline De-

bottlenecking 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 nessary

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 Pipeline (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 scehduel may, within twently 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

826

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Shri Bhim Singh, Competent Authority, Indian Oil

Corporation Limited (Pipeline Division), 33, Muktanand

Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass, Jaipur -302018 (Rajasthan).

SCHEDULE

Tehsil% Beawar

Districi&Ajmer

State&Rajsthan

Sl-

Name of

Khasra No.

Area

No.

village

Hectare

Are Squar

Metre

Badiya Shyama 87(Gram

panchayat Land)

14(Govt. Land) 00

42/1(Gram

panchayat Land)

163/1

164

171

170

162

169

174

247

248

249

243

233

346

347

349

351

356 (Govt.Land) 00

357

359/1

359/2

360

364

365

366

375(Govt.Land)

406

405

404

403

392

581(Govt.Land)

577

578

579

580

594

595

596

597

592

610

611

609

612

613

614

616

617

618

Ramsar Blaiyan 289

290

292

Thikrana Mendratan 641

640

638

637

632

636

635/2

635/1

634

633

675

676

681

682

689

699

690

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

827

692

709(Govt.Land)

748

749

746

752

753

769

754

768

767

766

763

761

794

1114

1113

1107

1108

1112

1109

1110

1111

1122

1124

1125

1140

1141

1141/1176

1144

Govindpura

323/1

Jaliya-1

742

743

744

Shivnathpura 25

41(Govt.Land)

168

169

174(Govt.Land)

175(Govt.Land)

176(P.W.D.)

178(P.W.D.)

179(P.W.D.)

259(Gram Panchayat00

Land)

258/2

258/1

256/1

256/2

255

254

253

252

423

425

424(Govt.Land)

448

449

450

453(Gram Panchayat00

Land)

Bhojpura

161

162

164

165

167

166

171

173

174

146

175/1

144

176

176/650

184

185

186

192

187

191

189

190

204

203

219

218

220

828

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

221

217

216

215

256

252

253

255

283

282

279

280

322

323

324

325

331

332

334

333

335

336

Garhi Thoriyan 653(P.W.D.)

652(P.W.D.)

651(P.W.D.)

650/4(Ngr. Parisad)00

649

647

627

625/1(Govt.Land) 00

625/2

650/3

Senspura

312

313

314

305/1(Govt. Land) 00

316

317

318

319

332/2 (Govt. Land)00

332/4(Gram

panhcayat Land)

332/1(Gram

panhcayat Land)

482/1(Govt. Land) 00

477/2 (Gram

panhcayat Land)

10. Lasadiya

129 (Govt. Land) 00

130

120 (Govt. Land) 00

26 (Govt. Land)

119 (Govt. Land) 00

58 (Govt. Land)

59 (Govt. Land)

56 (Govt. Land)

66(Govt. Land)

67(Govt. Land)

71(Govt. Land)

11. Lasani-1

755

762

763

765

766

767 (Govt. Land) 00

647

645

646

640 (Govt. Land) 00

579/1

580

582

585

584

616

617

620 (Govt. Land) 00

623

613(Govt. Land)

522

521

489 (Govt. Land) 00

509

508

507

506

504

496

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

829

12. Mandawas

560

577(Govt. Land)

578 (Govt. Land) 00

947 (Govt. Land) 00

949

998 (Govt. Land) 00

977

976

975/1

974 (Govt. Land) 00

982 (Govt. Land) 00

983

991(Govt. Land)

997

996

995

935 (Govt. Land) 00

13. Suhawa

1864 (Govt. Land) 00

1863

1859 (Govt. Land) 00

1858

1857 (Govt. Land) 00

692

693

704

703

702

696

697

719

722

723

728

729

733

736

745

737

738

744

739

743

741

742

791

Suhawa

794

795

816/1

817

818

466/1(Govt. Land) 00

822

824

825

826

831

832

833(Govt. Land)

834(Govt. Land)

835(Govt. Land)

836

837

838

843

442(Govt. Land)

398(Govt. Land)

402

400(Govt. Land)

401(Govt. Land)

404

399

397/1

395

394(Govt. Land)

891

893

892

895

896

890

1016

1018

1019(Govt. Land) 00

1012

1013

1010

1008

1000

1116

830

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Suhawa

1126 (Govt. Land) 00

1125

1124

1117/1

1123

1122

1121/1

1146

1145/1

1144

1159

1162 (Govt. Land) 00

1161

1160/1

1163

14. Lakheena

939

940

941

942

943

924

923

922

945

969

968

967

964(Govt. Land)

987

988/2

1005/1

1005/3

1003/2

1006

1007(Govt. Land) 00

1008(Govt. Land) 00

1054(Govt. Land) 00

1062

1056

1057

1049

1050

1052

1053

879

873(Govt. Land)

867(Govt. Land)

827

Cabheena

831

826

825

824 (Govt. Land) 00

1088/1093(Govt.Land)00

[F. No. R-25011/3/2011-OR-I]

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 25 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 291-—Hkkjr ljdkj us isVªksfy;e vkSj [kfut

ikbiykbu (Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e]

1962 (1962 dk 50) dh /kjk 2 ds [k.M (d) ds vuqlj.k esa

eSllZ xsy (bf.M;k) fyfeVsM }kjk ikbiykbu fcNkus ds fy;s

mDr vf/fu;e ds v/hu layXu lwph ds dkye (1) esa o£.kr

O;fDr dks dkye (2) esa o£.kr {ks=k esa l{ke izkf/dkjh ds ÑR;ksa

dk ikyu djus ds fy, fu;qDr djrh gS A

vuqlwph

O;fDr dk uke vkSj irk

vf/dkfjrk dk {ks=k

Jh oh-ch- eksjs] fMIVh dysDVj o l{ke

lEiw.kZ

izkf/dkjh

egkjk"Vª jkT;

eSllZ xsy (bf.M;k) fyfeVsM

esa izfrfu;qfDr ij

egkjk"Vª

¹iQk- la- ,y&14014@3@11&th ihº

ds- ds- 'kekZ] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 25th January, 2011

S.O. 291 .— Whereas in, pursuance of clause (a) of

Section 2 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines

(Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of

1962), the Government of India hereby authorizes the person

mentioned in column (1) of the schedule given below to

perform the functions of the Competent Authority under

the said Act for laying pipelines by the said M/s. GAIL

(India) Limited in the area mentioned in column (2) of the

said schedule.

SCHEDULE

Name and Address

Area of Jurisdiction

of the person

Shri V. B. More,

Whole State of Maharashtra

Deputy Collector &

Competent Authority,

On deputation basis to

M/s. GAIL (India) Limited,

Maharashtra

[F. No. L-14014/3/11-G.P.]

K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

831

nf{k.k

eaxywj

ckyk

119/23

68.87

dUuMk

119/26

2.42

127/l

5.75

127/2

63.94

121/7

42.72

145

91.15

148/4

4.15

152

34.59

158/1B1P1

2.00

158/1B1P2

8.64

158/1B2A

25.67

158/1B2B

22.23

158/lC

14.39

158/3P1

30.16

162/1

28.45

167/1P1

26.67

167/3

12.21

167/4P1

28.69

167/7A

8.00

167/9AP1

13.21

178/2A

11.11

193/lB

32.37

194/2

4.08

194/4A

24.21

194/4B

62.00

196/1BP1

20.64

196/2

2.95

199/1

32.81

199/2

2.86

199/5

33.51

202/4

20.7

dqy

8.812 ,dM+

3 nf{k.k

eaxywj

dkfViYyk 85/3

1.08

dUuMk

85/4A

10.85

85/4B

1.41

85/5AP1

10.00

85/5AP2

6.67

85/5AP3

3.79

85/5B

2.80

85/6P1

20.00

85/6P2

2.33

85/7P1

10.00

85/7P2

12.64

85/8A

13.23

85/8BP1

1.00

85/8BP2

1.00

85/8BP3

7.64

85/9

22.90

85/10A

10.41

ubZ fnYyh] 27 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 292-—Hkkjr ljdkj us tufgr esa dukZVd jkT;

esa eaxywj ls iknwj] ikbiykbu }kjk dPps rsy dk ifjogu vko';d

ekuk gS A eaxywj] Mh-ds- ftys ds dksad.k jsyos ds rksdwj jsyos

LVs'ku ds ikl vkbZ-,l-ih-vkj-,y- }kjk mMqih rkyqd rFkk ftys ds

iknwj esa izLrkfor HkaMkj.k V£euy ds fy, ikbiykbu fcNkbZ

tk,xh A

vkSj] Hkkjr ljdkj dk ,slk ekuuk gS fd mDr dfFkr

ikbiykbu fcNkus ds mís'; ds fy, bl vf/lwpuk dh layXu

vuqlwph esa o£.kr Hkwfe ftlls izLrkfor ikbiykbu xqtjuh gS] ds

mi;ksx dk vf/dkj izkIr djuk vko';d gS A

vr% vc] Hkkjr ljdkj isVªksfy;e ,oa [kfut ikbiykbu

(Hkwfe esa mi;ksx ds vf/dkj dk vtZu) vf/fu;e] 1962 (1962

dk 50) ds vuqlj.k esa d`R;ksa ds fuoZgu dh ?kks"k.kk djrk gS A

dksbZ Hkh O;fDr tks bl vuqlwph esa n'kkZ;h xbZ Hkwfe ds ckjs esa

vkifÙk ntZ djkus dk bPNqd gks] /kjk 3 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds

vUrxZr tkjh vf/lwpuk rFkk Hkkjr ds jkti=k esa lkekU; turk ds

fy, izdkf'kr frfFk ds 21 fnu ds vUnj vkbZ-,l-ih-vkj-,y-

ikbiykbu dks eaxywj ls iknwj rd fcNkus ds ckjs esa l{ke

izkf/dkjh] ds-vkbZ-,-Mh-ch-] ckbdaikMh eaxywj&575001 dukZVd

dks fyf[kr esa ntZ djk ns A

vuqlwph

ftyk

rglhy

xkao

losZ{k.k la[;k

{ks=k

,dM+ lsUV

nf{k.k

eaxywj

rksdw:

27/1

85.08

dUuMk

27/3

15.27

27/11

42.48

27/13

15.03

32/2P1

0.30

32/3P1

8.00

32/3P2

19.72

32/7P1

66.01

33/2

34.35

34/lP2

55.07

34/3

25.80

34/2

12.52

104

78.63

110/1A

13.45

110/1B3P1

11.80

128/2

3.41

128/3

28.08

129/1

61.52

129/2

12.40

dqy

5.889 ,dM+

832

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

nf{k.k

eaxywj

dkfViYyk 85/l0B

15.90

dUuMk

86/1AP1

84.46

86/IB

20.8

86/2A1P1

15.53

86/2A2

0.14

86/2B1

16.63

86/2B2P1

2.64

86/2C1

2.22

86/2C2

26.65

51.837

88/1Pl

10.932

88/1P-2

3.89

88/2

28.00

88/3

5.68

88/4

1.26

21.32

dqy

4.456 ,dM+

nf{k.k

eaxywj

dqÙksÙkw:

34/10Pl

13.06

dUuMk

34/11

11.91

34/9-Pl

30.12

34/17P3

48.69

34/3BP1

50.84

36/25

1.2

36/8

24.51

41/1C

4.32

41/1A

9.09

42/6

3.8

42/9-Pl

3.67

42/27

2.72

42/28

12.31

42/24Pl

5.33

42/23

42/22

22.08

42/21

6.30

42/29P2

0.61

42/29

45/1A

12.75

45/2

0.72

45/3

26.82

46/1

10.25

46/2

1.25

46/6

2.61

46/7Pl

0.82

47/2Pl

18.89

47/3P1

1.43

47/11P1

1.12

47/12P1

13.00

47/12P3

4.72

nf{k.k

eaxywj

dqÙksÙkw:

47/13

0.82

dUuMk

47/14P1

20.00

47/14P8

35.04

47/15P1

62.79

47/17

0.77

47/18P1

26.23

47/21P1

10.00

47/21P2

25.00

66/19P1

75.51

66/6

12.35

66/8

0.62

66/18

9.53

107

28.52

150/1B

49.35

153/1AP1

11.00

153/2

4.07

154/1P1

30.23

155/2

43.11

165/1B1

44.78

165/1C

17.89

dqy 9.862 ,dM+

nf{k.k

eaxywj

lwfjaus

53/1API

16.987

dUuMk

53/1BP1

3.577

53/2AP1

55.393

53/2AP2

10.319

53/2B

14.216

55/1

10.359

55/7A

5.541

55/7B

27.521

55/9

5.210

55/10P1

5.684

55/12

30.926

55/20A

20.195

55/20B

18.219

56/1

1.104

56/11

13.577

56/2

14.957

56/3

9.047

56/4

11.545

56/7

9.969

56/8

1.134

56/9

2.767

57/7B

1.593

57/21

1.179

57/22

7.809

69/4BP1

33.179

dqy

3.320 ,dM+

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

833

nf{k.k

eaxywj

eè;k

4/1

12.615

dUuMk

4/10

15.188

4/13

9.439

4/2

1.397

4/4

11.556

4/5

7.444

4/8

12.078

4/9

9.975

5/1AP1

39.22

5/1B

2.721

6/6

0.503

6/7P1

24.857

7/1

25.501

7/10

20.808

7/11AP1

1.949

7/2

8.569

7/4A

3.928

7/6P1

11.69

7/6P2

0.624

7/8

49.439

1l/8P1

11/8P2

6.08

11/9

7.49

13/1A

54.686

46/1P1

10.00

46/1P2

8.563

46/3A

5.906

46 /3B

26.332

47/1A

97.077

dqy

5.056 ,dM+

iatk

35/4

65.187

36/1

0.11

36/2

9.151

36/3P1

31.409

36/6

19.859

37/16P1

19.913

37/13P1

9.042

37/l0B

0.853

dqy

1.555 ,dM+

dksbdqMs

5/1

11.20

5/2

14.09

5/3

0.38

6/3

7.33

6/4

18.38

6/5

5.44

8/1

17.86

dksbdqMs

8/4

3.70

8/5

11.59

8/6

21.56

8/9

8.25

8/10

0.24

9/5P1

30.98

10/20

5.85

11/5AP1

4.00

11/5AP2

11.22

11/5B

14.01

12/2

17.73

12/3

56.43

25/4P1

12.05

25/5P1

5.00

25/5P2

6.89

25/1

15.23

25/2

0.68

25/3

10.63

27/2P1

37.11

27/4

7.98

27/9

9.01

28/2P1

22.81

28/4P1

11.22

35/11

2.90

35/7P1

20.00

35/7P2

23.60

35/8P1

6.43

35/9B

1.19

36/1

36.20

6/3B

18.02

36/6P1

5.61

37/12

0.60

37/13

25.33

37/14

2.51

37/15P1

6.99

37/16

7.94

37 /17P1

5.56

37/18

1.09

37/19

10.3

37/20

6.64

38/ 10

21. 06

38/16

0.32

38/17

2.20

45/5

27.87

45/8

19.33

49/6P1

12.53

49/8P1

3.00

49/8P2

55.46

49/13P1

9.34

49/20

1.93

834

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

nf{k.k

eaxywj

dksbdqMs

50/1

19.87

dUuMk

50/2P1

6.87

72/1Pl

5.05

72/2Pl

32.94

74/1

34.75

74/3Pl

31.04

98/2

3.24

98/3Pl

83.94

99/1Pl

2.29

99/2

9.87

dqy 9.626 ,dM+

rksdw:

19/1A

9.87

19/5API

0.39

19/6

1.84

24/1A

1.67

24/2A

4.38

24/2B

0.27

24/3

0.58

24/12A

5.6

24/12B

7.74

24/12C

7.06

24/13

30.02

24/15A

14.22

24/15B

4.09

24/15C

3.23

24/16A

2.56

24/16B

0.28

24/16C

0.40

25/9

12.85

25/10

4.92

25/14

3.60

26/5

4.23

26/11

9.82

26/12

9.71

26/14A

0.41

26/15

0.21

26/16

17.97

26/20A

10.03

26/20B

6.56

26/21

7.89

26/22

6.4

26/23A

2.73

26/23B

7.41

26/25A

6.25

26/25B

6.15

26/26

17.26

26/28

0.25

26/24A2

12.86

26/24A1

3.00

rksdw:

27/ 11P1

21.61

33/1

3.50

33/2

0.41

34/2B

0.48

34/18

10.89

34/19

2.28

34/20

8.56

34/22

21.7

34/26

1.45

36/2A

5.00

36/2B

2.59

36/11

26.01

36/12

4.69

36/13

17.87

36/16

9.59

36/17

17.33

36/25

10.01

36/27

12.44

36/32

5.96

36/33

6.04

36/36

5.64

39/3B

6.10

39/4

8.61

39/5

21.56

39/9

22.72

40/3B

7.60

40/3D

18.94

40/3F

6.46

41/2

2.95

41/4

0.15

41/3

6.54

41/5

4.18

41/8A

32.86

41/ 8B

0.94

41/8C

0.15

41/10

15.56

41/11

6.91

42/1A

3.22

42/2P1

4.43

42/7AP1

14.50

86/1A

44.14

86/2

10.05

90/1P1

24.97

dqy 7.023 ,dM+

csY;k:

8/1P1

66.37

8/2P1

9.53

9/1

15.28

9/2

10.65

9/3

9.51

9/4

38.97

49/17B

10.56

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

835

nf{k.k

eaxywj

csY;k:

49/17C

34.76

dUuMk

55/7B

0.08

55/7C

20.71

55/8

55.02

60/1

0.96

60/3

6.77

60/4

6.21

64/1

53.2

67/1P2

17.32

67/2

13.32

67/3P2

52.84

67/5

10.3

67/6

5.69

67/7

4.87

67/8

2.03

67/9

0.38

68/2

33.37

71/1

10.41

76/2

70.62

77/5B

30.83

84/1Pl-Pl

7.12

84/4

0.35

87/1

37.67

87/2AP1

3.37

87/2BP1

7.87

87/2CP1

4.23

dqy 7.512 ,dM+

fdYikMh

53/6P1

3.59

53/13P1

7.04

53/17

2.48

54/1A

29.93

55/ 1A

0.31

55/1B2P5

31.92

55/1B1P9

17.11

56/2A1P1

2.72

56/2B1P1

14.15

58/P1

2.89

59/3

5.66

59/7

11.36

60/1P1-P1

42.85

61/1

48.10

61/2CP1

0.06

61/4

0.10

62/1A

34.10

63/2P1

1.43

63/3

2.20

63/4

84.62

67/1

7.92

dqy 3.505 ,dM+

nf{k.k

eaxywj

rkfyikMh

184/1A

10.579

dUuMk

184/1B

2.802

184/2A

1.734

184/2B

6.617

184/4B-Pl

22.295

184/4C

16.242

184/4D

5.62

184/7A

0.074

184/7B

1.299

184/8A

3.36

184/8B

11.496

188/4BP1

0.938

188/4BP2

188/5Pl

11.602

188/7A

23.555

188/9BP1

188/9BP2

15.171

308/1

6.898

308/2AP1

88.457

308/3B

0.498

309/lBPl

14.031

309/3A

27.711

309/3B

24.205

309/4

1.437

309/5B

4.204

dqy 3.058 ,dM+

f'kearw:

7/1A

34.25

9/18A

15.53

9/18B

1.02

9/20Pl

24.59

9/21A2

0.19

9/21B2

40.09

9/22B1

18.98

9/22B3P4

0.83

9/28

12.66

9/29

19.30

9/30

37.37

21/7A

1.56

21/8AP1

15.11

22/1AP1

55.81

23/1P1

33.92

23/2AP1

43.69

23/2B1

16.52

23/3

2.60

23/5P1

0.80

23/6P1

11.24

23/8AP1

27.33

836

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

nf{k.k

eaxywj

f'kearw:

23/8BPI

6.91

dUuMk

23/9P1

4.59

23/10P1

49.15

39/1A1

12.45

39/1A2P1

5.68

39/1A3P1

7.64

40/4

13.33

40/5

29.43

40/8

23.64

41/4AP1

0.26

41/4AP2

10.00

41/5

24.40

41/7A

30.53

41/7BP1

14.37

41/9AP1

3.00

41/9AP2

17.69

41/9B

9.41

41/9C

2.91

55/1

63.11

56/1

52.12

56/2

17.98

56/3

19.72

56/4

3.70

56/5

3.13

69/1AP1

61.17

69/2A1

17.31

dqy

9.170 ,dM+

vfrdkfjcsV~Vq

3/9

20.17

3/10P1

16.00

3/10P2

1.02

4/6A

13.91

78/12P1

1.61

78/IB

4.04

80/3P1

13.28

81/9A

4.69

81/9B

2.50

81/9C

1.44

81/9D

31.82

81/10A

2.46

81/l0B

9.02

81/ l0C

1.48

81/22BP1

1.32

82/1

12.03

82/2

1.71

82/3

9.21

82/4

20.82

82/7

3.23

82/8Pl

27.48

82/16P1

1.32

vfrdkfjcsV~Vq

82/20

13.84

82/25

7.21

83/3

29.73

87/2A

8.19

88/2Pl

71.12

90/1D

1.11

90/8A

4.90

90/8B

2.46

90/8C

10.72

90/10P1

1.86

dqy

4.517 ,dM+

dorw:

3/1

7.78

3/2

15.86

3/3

6.63

3/4

6.52

3/8

13.47

3/12

9.81

3/13

16.5

4/3

4.23

4/4

24.00

4/4Pl

30.19

4/7

4.03

4/8

7.63

70/1

17.08

73/11

2.67

73/12

4.56

73/13

14.54

73/14

14.47

73/16Pl

4.00

73/16P2

2.58

73/17

9.53

73/18

3.78

74/9

16.16

74/11

0.21

74/13

17.04

74/14

0.24

75/5

48.12

77/2

17.02

77/3

9.07

77/4

4.37

77/19

23.88

77/20

1.73

77/21

0.74

dqy

3.584 ,dM+

dfuZjs

10/1Pl

11.53

11/1P2

38.661

15/8A

0.771

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

837

nf{k.k

eaxywj

dfuZjs

15/8B

2.663

dUuMk

15/9A

3.735

15/9B

0.196

15/10A

4.709

15/10B

3.074

15/10C

4.036

15/11

22.827

15/12Pl

31.919

15/13

3.476

15/14P1

2.368

15/16

3.014

16/1

8.685

16/3

14.194

16/4P1

41.694

17/4P1

5.93

17/5

24.662

17/6P1

3.00

17/6P2

8.006

18/3

7.849

18/4

5.778

18/5

1.553

18/12

6.907

13/7P1

34.501

29/10A

18.688

29/14P3

19.468

29/15

7.185

29/16

1.929

29/19

0.325

29/22

7.394

29/23

21.215

32/8

0.082

32/9

19.997

32/10

36.595

32/12

4.445

32/11P1

27.127

33/1P1

19.283

33/4

7.076

33/5

31.867

35/10

5.612

35/11

2.437

35/14A

7.091

35/15

3.703

35/21P1

11.894

35/22

14.414

36/24

9.063

36/25

0.194

36/26

4.276

36/27

2.932

36/28

0.569

36/29P2

7.896

nf{k.k

eaxywj

dfuZj

36/35

9.533

dUuMk

49/2

8.436

49/6

8.712

49/9

4.168

49/ 10

6.074

49/12

0.036

49/13

10.564

49/15

2.245

49/16

8.015

49/17

10.323

49/18

9.334

49/19

2.553

50/2C3AP1

48.267

dqy

7.168 ,dM+

17- nf{k.k

eaxywj

cYdqats

5/8

26.78

dUuMk

5/l0P2

40.00

6/1

23.54

6/2

12.5

6/3

1.64

6/l3

14.02

6/14P1

24.63

6/20

31.72

7/1

41.82

7/2

8.56

7/4P1

4.71

7/7

1.09

7/8

13.19

68/l-pl

25.65

68/3-pl

26.25

68/8-pl

51.61

69/12pl

58.00

69/12P2

31.03

96/0

40.29

dqy 4.770 ,dM+

18-mMqih

dkdZyk

bUuk

47/B1A1

77.91

113/4

6.76

114/1A1A1

62.316

125/1

126/pl

32.395

127/2pl

30.367

127/4

12.187

127/5pl

3.163

127/6

2.015

127/7

14.325

128/5Pl

128/5P2

128/5P10

838

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

18- mMqih

dkdZyk

bUuk

128/5Pl1

128/6P1

1.467

128/6Pl

128/6P2

7.088

128/7P1

3.384

129/1p1

38.269

129/5pl

18.758

130/13

130/14

7.069

130/18

11.483

143/3A

39.569

148/1

9.957

148/2P1

19.407

148/3

17.986

148/4P1

79.835

148/5P2

41.454

148/8P1

26.259

148/9

7.865

152

21.397

190/1BP1

20.541

191/1

21.518

233/1

16.741

235/4

15.836

235/2

89.165

237/1P1

7.243

237/2

170.734

239/1AP1

51.233

239/1B

7.632

239/2B

57.275

239/3

15.416

262/1

2.947

262/2

64.665

262/3A

15.875

262/4

19.677

dqy 11.622 ,dM+

19- mMqih

dkdZyk

uafndwj

4/20BP-2

18.02

7/6P1

0.68

8/1AP1

10.58

8/1BP2

7.19

8/3

16.02

8/4AP-1

0.64

8/4BP-2

12.10

8/5

12.57

8/6

0.72

8/7

1.06

8/8

4.10

13/1

7.80

13/3P1

29.66

13/4AP1

3.86

13/4B4C 10

9.00

13/4CP3

6.51

13/5

19.818

13/6

1.694

13/9

38.696

19-mMqih

dkdZyk

uafndwj

14/11BP2

0.86

191/1AP1

10.00

191/1BP2

13.00

191/1C2P4

46.00

191/1cp3

23.13

192/1AP1

12.81

192/1B2P4

26.85

dqy

3.333 ,dM+

20-mMqih

mMqih

larwj

22/1P2

1 58.407

22/7

2.09

47/1A

32.866

47/1B

3.729

47/2

10.091

47/3

6.314

47/4

82.06

48/1

2.688

48/5

61.71

48/6

1.76

63/1

19.686

63/4

27.247

64/2

7.22

64/3

38.929

64/9

12.413

64/11B

11.21

64/12B

3.758

65/1P1

10.74

65/2

1.625

65/3

11.962

65/4

8.703

65/10

10.977

76/9-P1

2.624

77/9

15.176

77/11

3.19

78/4

3.071

78/5

14.809

78/8

24.177

78/10

4.93

78/11

10.476

80/2

12.73

80/4

9.56

80/5

3.388

80/6

14.461

80/7

3.91

80/8

2.74

80/11

6.789

81/2

0.29

81/3

21.315

81/4

11.514

81/5

0.129

81/6

12.947

81/7

5.805

81/8

0.946

81/9

8.536

34.859

dqy

7.546 ,dM+

21-mMqih

mMqih

;sYy:

8/5

21. 971

8/6

24.802

8/10

7.224

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

839

mMqih

;sYy:

8/16

1.884

8/19

45.824

9/1

27.574

9/2

22.102

9/3

13.35

14/3

26.97

14/10

27.985

15/12

17.762

39.059

22/22P1

52.485

23/3-P2

67.036

23/3P1

112

23.06

112/P1

12.30

113/1A

86.786

113/1B

5.405

113/1C1

37.917

113/1C2

14.026

118/1P1

56.093

119/1

36.224

119/2A

119/2B

13.561

119/5

3.995

148/1A

27.03

148/1B

51.841

148/2

9.757

149/1A

9.66

149/lA3

91.236

192

56.82

193/1A

53.09

193/2

8.17

195/2

10.50

195/3A

1.13

195/9A

25.31

195/l0A

17.26

196/1

13.03

196/2

3.75

310/2

34.686

318/17P-l

19.46

340/1

19.029

365/1

19.321

395/1

3.478

395/2

51.607

408/1

21.86

408/2

33.6

408/3A

15.24

408/3B

5.94

409

20.73

413/2B

10.92

mMqih

;sYy:

413/2D2

10.73

413/2D3

43.11

467/1

19.179

467/2

40.676

469/1A

7.271

469/2A

27.19

469/4

5.541

469/5

61.133

473/1

35.173

473/3

25.693

474/lP1

57.74

474/2

7.831

478/1A2

4.187

478/1B

8.793

478/2

13.871

478/3A

14.929

478/5A

3.04

478/6A1

17.619

478/6B

7.009

481/3

23.879

481/5-pl

12.571

486/1

3.59

486/2

21.015

511/1B

16.488

511/1C

47.701

511/1D

8.427

dqy 20.312 ,dM+

22 mMqih

mMqih

csyiw

1/2AP 1

23.429

3/2A2

36.749

3/2B

23.701

4/2

20.725

4/3

31.321

4/4B

18.303

4/5

22.833

4/6B

2.828

4/9

13.861

4/10

8.85

5/8B

9.235

5/9

19.363

6/1

1.627

dqy 2.328 ,dM+

23 mMqih

mMqih

dyÙkw:

9/2A2P2

5.476

9/2B3

8.879

9/2DP2

1 13.561

32/4AP-5

17.78

32/7

2.76

32/8

1.212

32/9

6.586

32/14

5.81

840

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

mMqih

dyÙkw:

32/15

9.47

32/16

4.73

32/27

3.556

32/29

17.76

32/30-P1

18.354

32/30-P2

14.59

32/30A

9.13

32/31

1.072

32/32A-P2

6.056

32/32B

3.961

32/35

4.644

32/38B-P2

16.142

32/46

10.22

33/1

22.074

35/2B-Pl

0.606

35/3

45.744

39/1P1

0.77

39/2P1

30.883

39/5P1

10.819

39/10Pl

1.065

39/11

10.22

39/12A

0.289

39/12B

3.019

39/12C

1.956

39/13

1.621

40/lA

2.007

40/1D

2.418

40/IE

4.195

40/1F-Pl

4.523

40/4A

40/8A-P2

7.389

40/8BP-2

14.019

86/1

6.673

86/8

5.719

86/9Pl

28.678

89/4

23.602

89/5

2.077

89/6

23.933

91/7

18.982

91/8

7.916

91/9P1

12.678

92/3

6.641

92/6B

0.658

92/9D

0.977

92/9EP-1

3.67

92/9F

5.977

92/10

1.535

92/11A

14.84

35.616

94/3

24.674

mMqih

dyÙkw:

94/5

10.603

94/9AP-l

13.236

94/11

0.353

94/12-P2

2.68

95/2

95/5A

13.231

95/5B

1.74

95/6

5.293

112/1

3.733

112/2B3P-Pl 26.255

112/3A

23.743

113/3B

4.46

112/4DP-1

1.848

113/2A3P-3

18.819

113/2B1P-2

25.281

113/2CP-2

30.925

115/1A1P-1

2.21

115/1A2P-2

42.488

115/IBP-1

57.496

115/16AP-1

16.93

116/2D

15.649

144/P1

58.871

148/2AP3

24.07

148/2BPl

17.494

148/3

12.937

164

12.758

dqy 11.283 ,dM+

24 mMqih

mMqih

iknw:

94/1A

4.313

104/4P1

2.190

104/20

3.70

104/21

3.903

104/22P1

8.044

104/22P2

4.948

104/24P2

45.645

104/27

19.297

104/28

20.048

104/29

15.041

104/31

5.649

105

26.767

140/2P2

42.979

141/3A

10.596

141/3B-P2

9.170

142/P1

29.697

143/1P1

19.434

143/2P1

36.273

144/1P5

8.369

Total 3.161 Acres

[iQk- la- ih- 25011@1@2009&,l ;w ih]

ch- ds- nÙkk] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

841

Dakshina

Mangalore

Thokuru

129/1

61.52

Kannada

129/2

12.40

Total

5.889 Acres

2. Dakshina

Mangalore

Bala

119/23

68.87

Kannada

119/26

2.42

127/l

5.75

127/2

63.94

121/7

42.72

145

91.15

148/4

4.15

152

34.59

158/1B1P1

2.00

158/1B1P2

8.64

158/1B2A

25.67

158/1B2B

22.23

158/lC

14.39

158/3P1

30.16

162/1

28.45

167/1P1

26.67

167/3

12.21

167/4P1

28.69

167/7A

8.00

167/9AP1

13.21

178/2A

11.11

193/lB

32.37

194/2

4.08

194/4A

24.21

194/4B

62.00

196/1BP1

20.64

196/2

2.95

199/1

32.81

199/2

2.86

199/5

33.51

202/4

20.7

Total

8.812 Acres

3. Dakshina

Mangalore

Katipalla

85/3

1.08

Kannada

85/4A

10.85

85/4B

1.41

85/5AP1

10.00

85/5AP2

6.67

85/5AP3

3.79

85/5B

2.80

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 292 .—Whereas it appears to Government of

India that it is necessary in public interest that for

transportation of crude oil through Mangalore - Padur-

Crude pipeline in the state of Karnataka. A pipeline from

Booster near Thokur railway station on Konkan railway in

Mangalore, D.K District, to proposed storage terminal at

Padur in Udupi Taluk & District, should be laid by ISPRL.

And, whereas it appears to Government of India

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 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), Government of India 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

of which the copies of the 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 laying of the ISPRL pipe line from

Mangalore to Padur, under the land to Competent

Authority, KIADB, Baikampady Mangalore-575001

Karnataka.

SCHEDULE

Sl. District

Tehsil

Village

Survey

Area

No.

Acre Cent

1. Dakshina

Mangalore

Thokuru

27/1

85.08

Kannada

27/3

15.27

27/11

42.48

27/13

15.03

32/2P1

0.30

32/3P1

8.00

32/3P2

19.72

32/7P1

66.01

33/2

34.35

34/lp2

55.07

34/3

25.80

34/2

12.52

104

78.63

110/1A

13.45

110/1B3P1

11.80

128/2

3.41

128/3

28.08

842

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dakshina

Mangalore

Katipalla

85/6P1

20.00

Kannada

85/6P2

2.33

85/7P1

10.00

85/7P2

12.64

85/8A

13.23

85/8BP1

1.00

85/8BP2

1.00

85/8BP3

7.64

85/9

22.9

851/l0A

10.41

85/l0B

15.90

86/1AP1

84.46

86/IB

20.8

86/2A1P1

15.53

86/2A2

0.14

86/2B1

16.63

86/2B2P1

2.64

86/2C1

2.22

86/2C2

26.65

51.837

88/1Pl

10.932

88/1P-2

3.89

88/2

28.00

88/3

5.68

88/4

1.26

21.32

Total

4.456 Aores

Dakshina

Mangalore

Kuttetturu 34/10Pl

13.06

Kannada

34/11

11.92

34/9-Pl

30.12

34/17P3

48.69

34/3BPI

50.84

36/25

1.2

36/8

24.51

41/1C

4.32

41/1A

9.09

42/6

3.8

42/9-Pl

3.67

42/27

2.72

42/28

12.31

42/24Pl

5.33

42/23

18.00

42/22

22.08

42/21

6.30

42/29P2

0.61

42/29

17.00

Dakshina

Mangalore Kuttetturu

45/1A

12.75

Kannada

45/2

0.72

45/3

26.82

46/1

10.25

46/2

1.25

46/6

2.61

46/7Pl

0.82

47/2Pl

18.89

47/3P1

1.43

47/11P1

1.12

47/12P1

13.00

47/12P3

4.72

47 /12P3

—

47 /12P3

—

47/12P3

—

47 /12P3

—

47/12P3

—

47/13

0.82

47/14P1

20.00

47/14P8

35.04

47/15P1

62.79

47/17

0.77

47/18P1

26.23

47/21P2

25.00

47/21P1

10.00

66/19P1

75.51

66/6

12.35

66/8

0.62

66/18

9.53

107

28.52

150/1B

49.35

153/1AP1

11.00

153/2

4.07

154/1P1

30.23

155/2

43.11

165/1B1

44.78

165/1C

17.89

Total 9.627 Acres

Dakshina

Mangalore

Surinje

53/1API

16.987

Kannada

53/1BP1

3.577

53/2AP1

55.393

53/2AP2

10.319

53/2B

14.216

55/1

10.359

55/7A

5.541

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

843

Dakshina

Mangalore

Surinje

55/7A

Kannada

55/7B

27.521

55/9

5.210

55/9

—

55/10P1

5.684

55/12

30.926

55/20A

20.195

55/20B

18.219

56/1

1.104

56/11

13.577

56/2

14.957

56/3

9.047

56/4

11.545

56/7

9.969

56/8

1.134

56/9

2.767

57/7B

1.593

57/21

1.179

57/22

7.809

69/4BP1

33.179

Total 3.320 Acres

Dakshina

Mangalore MADYA

4/1

12.615

Kannada

4/10

15.188

4/13

9.439

4/2

1.397

4/4

11.556

4/5

7.444

4/8

12.078

4/9

9.975

5/1AP1

39.22

5/1B

2.721

6/6

0.503

6/7P1

24.857

7/1

25.501

10-Ju1

20.808

7/11AP1

1.949

7/2

8.569

7/4A

3.928

7/6P1

11.69

7/6P2

0.624

7/8

49.439

1l/8P1

11/8P2

6.08

11/9

7.49

13/1A

54.686

46/1P1

10.00

Dakshina

Mangalore MADYA

46/1P2

8.563

Kannada

46/3A

5.906

46 /3B

26.332

47/1A

97.077

Total

5.056 Acres

Dakshina

Mangalore

Panja

35/4

65.187

Kannada

36/1

0.11

36/2

9.151

36/3P1

31.409

36/6

19.859

37/16P1

19.913

37/13P1

9.042

37/l0B

0.853

Total

1.555

Acres

8. Dakshina

Mangalore

Koikude

5/1

11.20

Kannada

5/2

14.09

5/3

0.38

6/3

7.33

6/4

18.38

6/5

5.44

8/1

17.86

8/4

3.70

8/5

11.59

8/6

21.56

8/9

8.25

8/9

—

8/10

0.24

9/5P1

30.98

10/20

5.85

11/5AP1

4.00

11 /5AP2

11.22

11/5B

14.01

12/2

17.73

12/3

56.43

25/4P1

12.05

25/5P1

5.00

25/5P2

6.89

25/1

15.23

25/2

0.68

25/3

10.63

27/2P1

37.11

27/2P1

—

27/4

7.98

27/9

9.01

28/2P1

22.81

844

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Dakshina

Mangalore

Koikude

28/4P1

11.22

Kannada

35/11

2.90

35/7P1

20.00

35/7P2

23.60

35/8P1

6.43

35/9B

1.19

36/1

36.20

36/3B

18.02

36/6P1

5.61

37/12

0.60

37/13

25.33

37/14

2.51

37/14

—

37/15P1

6.99

37/16

7.94

37/16

—

37 /17P1

5.56

37/18

1.09

37/19

10.3

37/20

6.64

37/20

—

38/ 10

21. 06

38/16

0.32

38/17

2.20

45/5

27.87

45/8

19.33

49/6P1

12.53

49/8P1

3.00

49/8P2

55.46

49/13P1

9.34

49/20

1.93

50/1

19.87

50/2P1

6.87

72/1Pl

5.05

72/2Pl

32.94

74/1

34.75

74/3Pl

31.04

98/2

3.24

98/3Pl

83.94

99/1Pl

2.29

99/2

9.87

Total 9.626 Acres

Dakshina

Mangalore

Tokur

19/1A

9.87

Kannada

19/5API

0.39

19/6

1.84

24/1A

1.67

Dakshina

Mangalore

Tokur

24/2A

4.38

Kannada

24/2B

0.27

24/3

0.58

24/12A

5.6

24/12B

7.74

24/12C

7.06

24/13

30.02

24/15A

14.22

24/15B

4.09

24/15C

3.23

24/16A

2.56

24/16B

0.28

24/16C

0.40

25/9

12.85

25/ 10

4.92

25/14

3.60

26/5

4.23

26/11

9.82

26/12

9.71

26/14A

0.41

26/15

0.21

26/16

17.97

26/20A

10.03

26/20B

6.56

26/21

7.89

26/22

6.4

26/23A

2.73

26/23B

7.41

26/25A

6.25

26/25B

6.15

26/26

17.26

26/26

—

26/28

0.25

26/24A2

12.86

26/24A1

3.00

27/ lIP1

21.61

33/1

3.50

33/2

0.41

34/2B

0.48

34/18

10.89

34/19

2.28

34/20

8.56

34/22

21.7

34/26

1.45

36/2A

5.00

36/2B

2.59

36/11

26.01

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

845

10. Dakshina

Mangalore

Tokur

36/12

4.69

Kannada

36/13

17.87

36/16

9.59

36/17

17.33

36/25

10.01

36/27

12.44

36/32

5.96

36/33

6.04

36/36

5.64

39/3B

6.10

39/4

8.61

39/5

21.56

39/9

22.72

40/3B

7.60

40/3D

18.94

40/3F

6.46

41/2

2.95

41/4

0.15

41/3

6.54

41/5

4.18

41/8A

32.86

41/ 8B

0.94

41/8C

0.15

41/10

15.56

41/11

6.91

42/1A

3.22

42/2P1

4.43

42/7AP1

14.50

86/1A

44.14

86/2

10.05

90/1P1

24.97

Total 7.023 Acres

Bellayru

8/1P1

66.37

8/2P1

9.53

9/1

15.28

9/2

10.65

9/3

9.51

9/4

38.97

49/17B

10.56

49/17C

34.76

55/7B

0.08

55/7C

20.71

55/8

55.02

60/1

0.96

60/3

6.77

60/4

6.21

10. Dakshina

Mangalore

Bellayru

64/1

53.2

Kannada

67/1P2

17.32

67/2

13.32

67/3P2

52.84

67/5

10.3

67/6

5.69

67/7

4.87

67/8

2.03

67/9

0.38

68/2

33.37

71/1

10.41

76/2

70.62

77/5B

30.83

84/1Pl-pl

7.12

84/4

0.35

87/1

37.67

87/2AP1

3.37

87/2BP1

7.87

87/2CP1

4.23

Total 7.512 Acres

11 Dakshina

Mangalore

Kilpadi

53/6P1

3.59

Kannada

53/13P1

7.04

53/17

2.48

54/1A

29.93

55/1A

0.31

55/1B2P5

31.92

55/1B1P9

17.11

56/2A1P1

2.72

56/2B1P1

14.15

58/P1

2.89

59/3

5.66

59/7

11.36

60/1P1-P1

42.85

61/1

48.10

61/2CP1

0.06

61/4

0.10

62/1A

34.10

63/2P1

1.43

63/3

2.20

63/4

84.62

67/1

7.92

Total 3.505 Acres

12.Dakshina

Mangalore

Talipadi

184/1A

10.579

Kannada

184/1B

2.802

846

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12. Dakshina

Mangalore

Talipadi

184/2A

1.734

Kannada

184/2B

6.617

184/4B-pl

22.295

184/4C

16.242

184/4D

5.62

184/7A

0.074

184/7B

1.299

184/8A

3.36

184/8B

11.496

188/4BP1

0.938

188/4BP2

188/5Pl

11.602

188/7A

23.555

188/9BP1

188/9BP2

15.171

308/1

6.898

308/2AP1

88.457

308/3B

0.498

309/lBPl

14.031

309/3A

27.711

309/3B

24.205

309/4

1.437

309/5B

4.204

Total

3.058 Acres

13.Dakshina

Mangalore

Simanturu 7/1A

34.25

Kannada

9/18A

15.53

9/18B

1.02

9/20Pl

24.59

9/21A2

0.19

9/21B2

40.09

9/22B1

18.98

9/22B3P4

0.83

9/28

12.66

9/29

19.30

9/30

37.37

21/7A

1.56

21/8AP1

15.11

22/1AP1

55.81

23/1P1

33.92

23/2AP1

43.69

23/2B1

16.52

23/3

2.60

23/5P1

0.80

23/6P1

11.24

23/8AP1

27.33

13.Dakshina

Mangalore

Simanturu 23/8BP1

6.91

Kannada

23/9P1

4.59

23/10P1

49.15

39/1A1

12.45

39/1A2P1

5.68

39/1A3P1

7.64

40/4

13.33

40/5

29.43

40/8

23.64

41/4AP1

0.26

41/4AP2

10.00

41/5

24.40

41/7A

30.53

41/7BP1

14.37

41/9AP1

3.00

41/9AP2

17.69

41/9B

9.41

41/9C

2.91

55/1

63.11

56/1

52.12

56/2

17.98

56/3

19.72

56/4

3.70

56/5

3.13

69/1AP1

61.17

69/2A1

17.31

Total

9.170 Acres

14.Dakshina

Mangalore Atikaribettu

3/9

20.17

Kannada

3/10P1

16.00

3/10P2

1.02

4/6A

13.91

78/12P1

1.61

78/1B

4.04

80/3P1

13.28

81/9A

4.69

81/9B

2.50

81/9C

1.44

81/9D

31.82

81/10A

2.46

81/ l0B

9.02

81/ l0C

1.48

81/22BP1

1.32

82/1

12.03

82/2

1.71

82/3

9.21

82/4

20.82

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

847

14. Dakshina

Mangalore Atikaribettu

82/7

3.23

82/8Pl

27.48

82/16P1

1.32

82/20

13.84

82/25

7.21

83/3

29.73

87/2A

8.19

87/2A

88/2Pl

71.12

90/1D

1.11

90/8A

4.90

90/8B

2.46

90/8C

10.72

90/10P1

1.86

Total 4..517 Acres

15.Dakshina

Mangalore

Kavatara

3/1

7.78

Kannada

3/2

15.86

3/3

6.63

3/4

6.52

3/8

13.47

3/12

9.81

3/13

16.5

4/3

4.23

4/4

24.00

4/4Pl

30.19

4/7

4.03

4/8

7.63

70/1

17.08

73/11

2.67

73/12

4.56

73/13

14.54

73/14

14.47

73/16Pl

4.00

73/16P2

2.58

73/17

9.53

73/18

3.78

74/9

16.16

74/11

0.21

74/13

17.04

74/14

0.24

75/5

48.12

77/2

17.02

77/3

9.07

77/4

4.37

77/19

23.88

15. Dakshina

Mangalore

Kavatara

77/20

1.73

77/21

0.74

Total 3.584 Acres

16.Dakshina

Mangalore

Karnire

10/1Pl

11.53

Kannada

11/1P2

38.661

15/8A

0.771

15/8B

2.663

15/9A

3.735

15/9B

0.196

15/10A

4.709

15/10B

3.074

15/10C

4.036

15/11

22.827

15/12Pl

31.919

15/13

3.476

15/14P1

2.368

15/16

3.014

16/1

8.685

16/3

14.194

16/4P1

41.694

17/4P1

5.93

17/5

24.662

17/6P1

3.00

17/6P2

8.006

18/3

7.849

18/4

5.778

18/5

1.553

18/12

6.907

13/7P1

34.501

29/10A

18.688

29/14P3

19.468

29/15

7.185

29/16

1.929

29/19

0.325

29/22

7.394

29/23

21.215

32/8

0.082

32/9

19.997

32/10

36.595

32/12

4.445

32/11P1

27.127

33/1P1

19.283

33/4

7.076

33/5

31.867

35/10

5.612

848

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

16. Dakshina Mangalore

Karnire

35/11

2.437

Kannada

35/14A

7.091

35/15

3.703

35/21P1

11.894

35/22

14.414

36/24

9.063

36/25

0.194

36/26

4.276

36/27

2.932

36/28

0.569

36/29P2

7.896

36/35

9.533

49/2

8.436

49/6

8.712

49/9

4.168

49/ 10

6.074

49/12

0.036

49/13

10.564

49/15

2.245

49/16

8.015

49/17

10.323

49/18

9.334

49/19

2.553

50/2C3AP1

48.267

Total 7.168 Acres

17. Dakshina Mangalore

Balkunje

5/8

26.78

Kannada

5/l0P2

40.00

6/1

23.54

6/2

12.5

6/3

1.64

6/l3

14.02

6/14P1

24.63

6/20

31.72

7/1

41.82

7/2

8.56

7/4P1

4.71

7/7

1.09

7/8

13.19

68/l-pl

25.65

68/3-pl

26.25

68/8-pl

51.61

69/12pl

58.00

69/12P2

31.03

96/0

40.29

Total 4.770 Acres

18.Udupi

Karkala

Inna

47/B1A1

77.91

113/4

6.76

114/1A1A1

62.316

125/1

126/pl

32.395

127/2pl

30.367

127/4

12.187

127/5pl

3.163

127/6

2.015

127/7

14.325

128/5Pl

128/5P2

128/5P10

128/5Pl1

128/5P12

1.467

128/6Pl

128/6P2

7.088

128/7P1

3.384

129/1p1

38.269

129/5pl

18.758

130/13

130/14

7.069

130/18

11.483

143/3A

39.569

148/1

9.957

148/2P1

19.407

148/3

17.986

148/4P1

79.835

148/5P2

41.454

148/8P1

26.259

148/9

7.865

152

21.397

190/1BP1

20.541

191/1

21.518

233/1

16.741

235/4

15.836

235/2

89.165

237/1P1

7.243

237/2

70/734

239/1AP1

51.233

239/1B

7.632

239/2B

57.275

239/3

15.416

262/1

2.947

262/2

64.665

262/3A

15.875

262/4

19.677

Total 11.622 Acres

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

849

19.Udupi

Udupi

Nandi Koor

4/20BP-2

18.02

7/6P-1

0.68

8/1AP-1

10.58

8/4BP-2

7.19

8/3

16.02

8/4AP-1

0.64

8/1BP-2

12.10

8/5

12.57

8/6

0.72

8/7

1.06

8/8

4.10

13/1

7.80

13/3P1

29.66

13/4AP1

3.86

13/4B4C 10

9.00

13/4CP3

6.51

13/5

19.818

13/6

1.694

13/9

38.696

14/11BP2

0.86

191/1AP1

10.00

191/1BP2

13.00

191/1C2P4

46.00

191/1cp3

23.13

192/1AP1

12.81

192/1B2P4

26.8

Total 3.333 Acres

20 Udupi

Udupi

Santoor

22/1P2

1 58.407

22/7

2.09

47/1A

32.866

47/1B

3.729

47/2

10.091

47/3

6.314

47/4

82.06

48/1

2.688

48/5

61.71

48/6

1.76

63/1

19.686

63/4

27.247

64/2

7.22

64/3

38.929

64/9

12.413

64/11B

11.21

64/12B

3.758

65/1P1

10.74

65/2

1.625

65/3

11.962

65/4

8.703

20. Udupi

Udupi

Santoor

65/10

10.977

76/9-Pl

2.624

77/9

15.176

77/11

3.19

78/4

3.071

78/5

14.809

78/8

24.177

78/10

4.93

78/11

10.476

80/2

12.73

80/4

9.56

80/5

3.388

80/6

14.461

80/7

3.91

80/8

2.74

80/11

6.789

81/2

0.29

81/3

21.315

81/4

11.514

81/5

0.129

81/6

12.947

81/7

5.805

81/8

0.946

81/9

8.536

34.859

Total 7.546 Acres

21 Udupi

Udupi

Yelluru

8/5

21. 971

8/6

24.802

8/10

7.224

8/16

1.884

8/19

45.824

9/1

27.574

9/2

22.102

9/3

13.35

14/3

26.97

14/10

27.985

15/12

17.762

39.059

22/22P1

52.485

23/3-P2

67.036

23/3P1

112

23.06

112/P1

12.30

113/1A

86.786

113/1B

5.405

113/1C1

37.917

113/1C2

14.026

118/1P1

56.093

119/1

36.224

850

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

21. Udupi

Udupi

Yelluru

119/2A

119/2B

13.561

119/5

3.995

148/1A

27.03

148/1B

51.841

148/2

9.757

149/1A

9.66

149/lA3

91.236

192

56.82

193/1A

53.09

193/2

8.17

195/2

10.50

195/3A

1.13

195/9A

25.31

195/l0A

17.26

196/1

13.03

196/2

3.75

310/2

34.686

318/17p-l

19.46

340/1

19.029

365/1

19.321

395/1

3.478

395/2

51.607

408/1

21.86

408/2

33.6

408/3A

15.24

408/3B

5.94

409

20.73

413/2B

10.92

413/2D2

10.73

413/2D3

43.11

467/1

19.179

467/2

40.676

469/1A

7.271

469/2A

27.19

469/4

5.541

469/5

61.133

473/1

35.173

473/3

25.693

474/lP1

57.74

474/2

7.831

478/1A2

4.187

478/1B

8.793

478/2

13.871

478/3A

14.929

21.Udupi

Udupi

Yelluru

478/5A

3.04

478/6A1

17.619

478/6B

7.009

481/3

23.879

481/5-pl

12.571

486/1

3.59

486/2

21.015

511/1B

16.488

511/1C

47.701

511/1D

8.427

Total 20.312 Acres

22 Udupi

Udupi

Belpu

1/2AP 1

23.429

3/2A2

36.749

3/2B

23.701

4/2

20.725

4/3

31.321

4/4B

18.303

4/5

22.833

4/6B

2.828

4/9

13.861

4/10

8.85

5/8B

9.235

5/9

19.363

6/1

1.627

Total 2.328 Acres

23 Udupi

Udupi

Kalatturu 9/2A2P2

5.476

9/2B3

8.879

9/2DP2

1 13.561

32/4AP-5

17.78

32/7

2.76

32/8

1.212

32/9

6.586

32/14

5.81

32/15

9.47

32/16

4.73

32/27

3.556

32/29

17.76

32/30-P1

18.354

32/30-P2

14.59

32/30A

9.13

32/31

1.072

32/32A-P2

6.056

32/32B

3.961

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

851

23. Udupi

Udupi

Kalatturu 32/35

4.644

32/38B-p2

16.142

32/46

10.22

33/1

22.074

35/2B-pl

0.606

35/3

45.744

39/1P1

0.77

39/2P1

30.883

39/5P1

10.819

39/10Pl

1.065

39/11

10.22

39/12A

0.289

39/12B

3.019

39/12C

1.956

39/13

1.621

40/lA

2.007

40/1D

2.418

40/IE

4.195

40/1F-pl

4.523

40/4A

40/8A-p2

7.389

40/8BP-2

14.019

86/1

6.673

86/8

5.719

86/9Pl

28.678

89/4

23.602

89/5

2.077

89/6

23.933

91/7

18.982

91/8

7.916

91/9P1

12.673

92/3

6.641

92/6B

0.658

92/9D

0.977

92/9EP-1

3.67

92/9F

5.977

92/10

1.535

92/11A

14.84

35.616

94/3

24.674

94/5

10.603

94/9AP-l

13.236

94/11

0.353

94/12-P2

2.68

95/2

23. Udupi

Udupi

Kalatturu 95/5A

13.231

95/5B

1.74

95/6

5.293

112/1

3.733

112/2B3P-pl 26.255

112/3A

23.743

112/3B

4.46

112/4DP-1

1.848

113/2A3P-3

18.819

113/2B1P-2

25.281

113/2CP-2

30.925

115/1A1P-1

2.21

115/1A2P-2

42.488

115/IBP-1

57.496

115/16AP-1

16.93

116/2D

15.649

144/P1

58.871

148/2AP3

24.07

148/2BPl

17.494

148/3

12.937

164

12.758

Total 11.283 Acres

24.Udupi

Udupi

Paduru

94/1A

4.313

104/4P1

2.190

104/20

3.70

104/21

3.903

104/22P1

8.044

104/22P2

4.948

104/24p2

45.645

104/27

19.297

104/28

20.048

104/29

15.041

104/31

5.649

105

26.767

140/2P2

42.979

141/3A

10.596

141/3B-p2

9.170

142/P1

29.697

143/1P1

19.434

143/2P1

36.273

144/1P5

8.369

Total 3.161 Acres

[F. No.P-25011/1/2009-Sup.]

B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

852

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Je ,oa jkstxkj ea=kky;

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 293-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Vh vkbZ ,l lh

vks fyfeVsM] te'ksniqj 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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 51@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 30&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&26012@23@93&vkbZ vkj (,e)º

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/dkjh

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

S.O. 293.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 51/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of TISCO Limited, Jamshedpur and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 30-12-2010.

[No. L-26012/23/93-IR (M)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL -CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BHUBANESWAR

Present:- Shri J. Srivastava, Presiding Officer, C.G.I.T.

cum -Labour Court, Bhubaneswar

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 51/2001

Date of Passing Award 16th November 2010

BETWEEN:

The Management of the Divisional Manager,

(Geological Services), TISCO Ltd.,

Jemshedpur

...1st Party-Management

AND

Their workman Smt. Sarati Majhi,

W/o. Late Rama Majhi,

C/o North Orissa Workers Union,

Rourkela -12

.....

2nd Party-Workman

APPEARANCES

M/s. P.K. Mohanty

....

For the 1st Party-

& Associates, Advocates.

Management

None

....

For the 2nd Party-

Workman

AWARD

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour

have referred the present industrial dispute existing between

the employers in relation to the Management of M/s. TISCO

and their workman in respect of the matters specified in the

schedule vide their letter No. L-26012/23/93-IR (Misc.) dated

18-01-1999 for adjudication to thisTribunal.

2. The dispute as mentioned under the schedule is

as below :—

‘‘Whether the action of the Management of TISCO

Ltd. in terminating the services of Late Shri Rama Majhi,

P.No. 195563 (now represented by his wife) w.e.f. 1-4-

1992 is justifed? If not, to what relief is the late workman

(represented by his wife) entitled to?”

3. The 2nd Party Smt. Sarati Majhi, legal heir

(representative) of the deceased-workman Shri Rama Majhi

has filed her statement of claim in which she has stated

that Late Rama Majhi originally joined the service under

the 1st Party-Management as mazdoor in October 1986. He

was transferred to Paradip Port in the month of August,

1992 and after putting in 8 years service he was lastly

denied work with effect from 1-4-1992 by the 1st Party-

Management without any written order. The deceased

workman Shri Rama Majhi raised an industrial dispute before

the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central),

Bhubaneswar, but meanwhile he died on 17-5-1993. After

the death of Shri Rama Majhi his wife Smt. Sarati Majhi

applied to the Central Government to implead her as party

in the case and accordingly the present reference was made.

The 1st Party-Management did not comply with the

provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is unfair,

illegal and in violation of natural justice. Therefore, she is

entitled to reinstatement in service in place of her deceased

husband with full back wages and other benefits.

4. The 1st Party-Management has replied in its written

statement that Late Rama Majhi was engaged as a

temporary mazdoor in the Geological Prospecting/Drilling

jobs for a period of 85 days as per letter dated 13-10-1987.

The job was of intermittent nature. After expiry of 85 days

his temporary employment came to an end as there was no

work. Again in the month of December 1989 Late Rama

Majhi was offered temporary engagement as mazdoor for a

period of 85 days from 23-12-1989 to 17-3-1990 and after

expiry of the said 85 days his temporary employment came

to an end. Again on 23-3-1990 he was offered job for a

period of 85 days from 26-3-1990 to 18-6-1990. Since his job

was over on 2-6-1990 his temporary engagement came to

an end on 3-6-1990. Again through a letter dated 10-8-1990

he was offered temporary employment for a period from

14-8-1990 to 31-3-1991. Since his temporary job was over,

his engagement came to end on 13-3-1991. Late Rama Majhi

was again engaged by letter dated 28-3-1991 for a period

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

853

from 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1992 and with the expiry of the above

period his engagement came to an end. He was again offered

temporary job by letter dated 20-5-1992 for a period of 30

days from 22-5-1992 to 26-6-1992 which came to an end

after the expiry of 30 days. Therefore, it is wrong to allege

that the services of late Rama Majhi were terminated with

effect from 1-4-1992. Late Rama Majhi died on 17-5-1993.

Therefore, the reference has become infructuous. The

services of Late Rama Majhi were never terminated, rather

it come to an end automatically as per terms of the contract

of engagement. The terms of the offier letters clearly

stipulated that his services were required for a particular

project and as soon as the project will be over, his services

would come to an end. Even at times when the project was

completed/suspended earlier, then the duration of the

temporary engagement offered to Late Rama Majhi got

reduced. It is denied that Late Rama Majhi was engaged by

the 1st Party-Management in October 1986 and he was

transferred to Paradip Port in the month of August, 1992.

The present case squarely falls within the ambit of Section

2(oo) (bb) of the I.D. Act and there cannot be any justifiable

grievance of the 2nd Party on the score of alleged

termination of service of Late Rama Majhi. The reliefs

sought for at Para-7 are legally not available to Smt. Sarati

Majhi and her contention that she is able to do the job of

mazdoor is of no consequence to her.

5. Following issues were framed on the pleadings of

the parties :—

ISSUES

Whether Shir B.S. Pati has locus-standi to represent

the case of the 2nd Party?

Whether the reference is maintainable?

Whether the action of the Management in terminating

the services of the workman with effect from 1-4-1992

is justified?

If not, to what relief is the Late workman (represented

by his wife) entitled to ?

6. The case proceeded exparte against the 1st Party-

Management because of its repeated absence.

7. The 2nd Party Smt. Sarati Majhi, wife of the

deceased workman Late Rama Majhi has filed her sworn

affidavit and seven documents in the shape of xerox copies

which have been exhibited from Ext. -1 to Ext. -7 in support

of her case.

8. The 1st Party-Management have not filed any

evidence either oral or documentary.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO. 1

9. The 1st Party-Management has challenged the

locus standi of Shri B.S. Pati, General Secretary, North Orissa

Workers Union, Rourkela to represent Smt. Sarati Majhi,

wife of the deceased-workman in this case. A petition dated

1-3-2000 in this behalf was moved by the 1st Party-

Management on which this issue was framed,but later, as it

seems on perusal of the order sheet dated 26-7-2001 that

the 1st Party-Management has not pressed the above

petition. Hence it was rejected by this Tribunal as not

pressed. It is further revealed that Shri B.S. Pati has moved

a petition on 12-2-2009 for withdrawal of his authorization.

Therefore challenge to the locus standi of Shri B.S. Pati to

represent the 2nd Party in this case has become redundant

and there remains neither any dispute in this regard nor

Shri B.S. Pati is now representing the case on behalf of the

2nd Party. This issue is decided accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 2

10. This issue relates to the maintainability of the

reference. The present reference has been brought out by

the wife of the deceased workman Late Rama Majhi who

raised the dispute before the Asstt. Labour Commissioner

(Central) Bhubaneswar during his life time, but on his

death the matter was pursued by his wife. In this reference

the dispute is with regard to the justification of action of

the Management of TISCO Limited in terminating the

services of Late Shri Rama Majhi with effect from 1-4-1992.

This question can be looked into by this Tribunal and if

his termination is found unjustified the 2nd Party Smt. Sarati

Majhi will certainly be entitled to certain relief except the

reinstatement of the 2nd Party in place of Late Rama Majhi.

The 1st Party-Management has not been successful in

establishing that the reference in the present form is not

maintainable. As such it is held that the reference is

maintainable. This issue is decided in affirmative and in

favour of the 2nd Party.

ISSUE NO. 3

11. The 2nd Party Smt. Sarati Majhi has filed her

sworn affidavit along with seven documents in support of

her case. She has stated that Late Rama Majhi joined the

services in TISCO, Jamshedpur as a Mazdoor in October

1986 and was engaged in Geological Prospecting/Drilling

job. He worked for more than 240 days in all the calendar

years from 1986 to 1992, but all of a sudden he was denied

employment from 1-4-1992 without any reason. He raised

the industrial dispute before the Asstt. Labour

Commissioner (Central), Bhubaneswar on 29-3-1993 which

was admitted, but ended in failure. Thereafter the dispute

was referred to Industrial Tribunal, Bhubaneswar for

adjudication by the Government of India. Her husband

died on 17-5-1993 during pendency of the dispute. She

applied to the Central Government to implead her as a party

in the dispute. The Government of India pleased to refer

the dispute as to whether she is entitled to reinstatement

with full back wages and other service benefits. She has

also filed three letters of engagement of Late Rama Majhi

Ext. -1 to Ext. -3 which relate to the period from 17-10-1988

to 9-1-1989, 17-1-1989 to 11-4-1989 and 19-4-1989 to

12-7-1989 respectively. She has also filed three documents

of payment of bonus for the years ending 31-3-1989,

854

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

31-3-1991 and 31-3-1992, Ext.-4 to Ext. -6 which show that

bonus was paid to late Shri Rama Majhi for the aforesaid

years. Ext.-7 is the xerox copy of the letter dated 21-9-1992

written by Rama Majhi to the appropriate authority of TISCO

for reinstatement of his services. The 1st Party-Management

has not filed any evidence or document in contradiction to

the sworn affidavit of Smt. Sarati Majhi and the documents

referred to above. The1st Party-Management, instead has

admitted in Para-6 of its written statement that late Rama

Majhi was firstly engaged for a period of 85 days vide

letter dated 13-10-1987 and with break of certain days, he

was engaged from 23-12-1989 to 17-3-1990, 26-3-1990 to

18-6-1990, 14-8-1990 to 31-3-1991, 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1992 and

22-5-1992 to 22-6-1992. The specific case of the 2nd Party

is that the services of late Rama Majhi were terminated

with effect from 1-4-1992. Therefore the burden lies on the

1st Party-Management to establish that Late Rama Majhi

was offered employment after 1-4-1992 from 22-5-1992 to

22-6-1992. This burden has not been successfully

discharged by the 1st Party-Management. Hence it is to be

taken as true that the services of Late Rama Majhi were

terminated with effect from 1-4-1992. As per admission of

the 1st Party-Management late Rama Majhi was engaged

for a period from 1-4-1991 to 31-3-1992. In this way late

Rama Majhi had lastly rendered continuous service for a

period of more than 240 days. Therefore, he comes under

the definition of retrenched workman and the 2nd Party is

entitled to the benefit of provisions of Section 25-F of the

Industrial Disputes Act. Since the services of late Rama

Majhi were for a fixed term and temporary in nature, he

cannot claim re-employment or reinstatement in service.

Therefore the action of the Management in terminating the

services of late Shri Rama Majhi with effect from 1-4-1992

is held justified, but since he has rendered continuous

services for more than 240 days in the last 12 months from

the date of cessation of his job, he or his successor is

entitled to the retrenchment benefit. This Issue is decided

accordingly.

ISSUE NO. 4

12. Since the action of the Management of TISCO in

terminating the services of late Rama Majhi with effect

from 1-4-1992 is well and justified the 2nd Party Smt. Sarati

Majhi is not entitled to be absorbed or reinstated in the

post which was held by her husband Late Rama Majhi

prior to 1-4-1992. The relief of reinstatement can only be

granted to the person who had held that post, not to any

one else. Therefore the 2nd Party is only entitled to claim

retrenchment benefits under the provisions of Section

25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act. It has not been stated

by the 1st Party-Management that prior to cessation of

employment of late Rama Majhi with effect from 1-4-1992

he was given one month’s notice in writing. Therefore the

2nd Party shall receive one month’s wages in lieu of notice

and compensation equivalent to 15 days regular pay for

every completed year of continuous service or any part

thereof in excess of six months. This issue is decided

accordingly.

13. The 2nd Party Smt. Sarati Majhi is therefore

entitled to the relief as per findings of Issue No. 4. The 1st

Party-Management shall comply with the order within two

months of the publication of the award.

14. Award is passed accordingly.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 294-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ Hkkjr

b.MLVªh;y flD;ksjVh l£ol] fldUnjkckn dkUVªSDVj xSl vkWFkksfjVh

bfUM;k 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

90@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30&12&2010

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@8@2004&vkbZ vkj (,e)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

S.O. 294.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 90/

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 M/s. Bharat Industrial Security Services

Secunderabad [Contractor of GAIL (India) Ltd.

Rajahmundry] and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 30-12-2010.

[No. L-30011/8/2004-IR (M)]

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 28th day of September, 2010

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 90/2004

Between:

The General Secretary,

GAIL (KG) Basin Security Services

Employees Union, D. No. 80-19-8,

Gopalnagar, Rajahmundry-533103

...Petitioner

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

855

AND

The Deputy General Manager (HR),

M/s. GAIL (India) Ltd., Jetty Avenue,

Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry- 533103.

The Proprietor,

M/s. Bharat Industrial Security Services, 199,

1st floor, Sikh Road, Vikh Vill. Near Diamond

Point, Secunderbad- 500 009. ....Respondents

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner :

Sri Meesala Satyanarayana,

Authorised Representative.

For the Respondent :

Sri Narendra Kumar,

Authorised

Representative for R2.

AWARD

This petition has been registered on the basis of

reference received from Government of India, Ministry of

Labour by its order No. L-30011/8/2004-IR (M) dated

18-6-2004 to resolve the dispute under section 10(1) (d) of

the I.D.Act, 1947 between the workman ex. security guards

and management i.e., Contractor M/s. Bharat Industrial

Security Services, Secunderabad and their workman.The

terms of reference is under :

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the termination of services of S/Shri

Ch. V. Prasad and 11 others (as per list), Ex-Security

Guards w.e.f. 1-11-2003 by the contractor M/s. Bharat

Industrial Security Services, Secunderabad working

in M/s. GAIL (India) Ltd., Rajahmundry as alleged

GAIL (K.G. Basin) Security Services Employees Union,

Rajahmundry is legal and/or justified? If not, to what

relief the concerned workmen are entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.

No. 90/2004 and notices were issued to the parties.

2. Upon receipt of the notice the workman has filed

claim statement wherein it is stated that GAIL (K.G. Basin)

Security Services Employees Union, is a registered trade

union which is espousing the cause of the workman

employed in GAIL as security guards whose names and

tenure and place of posting has been detailed in para 2 of

the claim statement. It has been further averred that the

management is principal employer appointing contract

agencies from time to time for providing the services of

security guards. The workman of this case were interviewed

by the management through the Executive Officer and

management No. 2 were appointed by management No.1

for time being. Management No.1 as principal employer by

assigning contractor regarding security services were

responsible regarding payment of monthly salaries,

deduction of Provident Fund as per norms and rules. Entire

supervision and control and discipline amongst the security

guards were performed by management No. 1. Management

No. 1 changed the terms of the contract through the

agreement regarding security services employees, however,

the workman in dispute continued their services even after

the change of contractor. It has further been stated that

regarding the Petitioner workman of this case, no prime

conditions were prevailed that only pensioner

ex-servicemen are eligible for this services. There are

persons belonging to ex-servicemen category and civilians

recruited as security guards. Both the type of security

personnel were sincerely sorted out their responsibilities

and they followed the discipline of the organization.

However, in the month of October, 2003, the management

No. 2 served one month retrenchment notice to the

Petitioner of this case stating therein that as per contract

agreement conditions signed with management No.1 only,

ex-servicemen shall be continued as security guard with

management No.1, basing on this condition, the Petitioner

were stopped from working by the management No. 1 from

1-11-2003.

3. The Petitioner workmen requested the management

that they have crossed their ages, they are not in a position

to get alternative employment. The nature of job they are

performing is purely of non-technical nature and they have

gained sufficient experience through all these years, thus,

there is no need to retrench them. It was also appraised

that in future recruitment only ex-servicemen could be

appointed in security services.

4. The management did not pay any heed to the

request of the Petitioner and due to arbitrary decision of

the management the workmen in dispute along with their

family were drawn on roads and the families are suffering a

lot and their livelihood had been curtailed. It has been

further alleged that the issue has been raised before

Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) within a notice period.

Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) Visakhapatnam

advised the management to withdraw the retrenchment

notice and allow the Petitioner to continue in the service,

however, the management did not come to a amicable

settlement and the matter was referred to the government.

It has been alleged that the action of the management is

illegal, unlawful and arbitrary. It is violative of principles of

natural justice. Therefore, the Petitioner workmen had

requested this tribunal for their reinstatement in the service

with continuation of the service and for making order for

payment of the wages.

5. Respondent management No.1 has filed counter

statement which is independent counter statement.

Wherein it is stated that the company is a contract agency

sponsored by Director General of Resettlement, Ministry

of Defence who is required to deploy 100% ex-servicemen

as security guard under their contract with management

No. 1 i. e., Gas Authority of India Ltd., (K.G. Basin),

Rajahmundry. The Management No.2 has entered into

contract as Director General of Resettlement sponsored

contract agency and said contract has come into effect

from 1-1-2003, in the said contract, the conditions stiputated

856

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

is that management No. 2 will deploy 100% Ex-servicemen

to meet the demand of security services required by

management No. 1. Ex-servicemen means retired personnel

of the armed forces qualifying for the status of

Ex-servicemen. The definition of Ex-servicemen as per

Director General of Resettlement is that any person who

has served in army/Navy/Air Force for a pensionable

service period are fulfilled, laid down criteria for earning

his pension are considered as Ex-servicemen. It is further

stated as per agreement management No. 2 have to deploy

100% Ex-servicement as security guards to discharge its

contractual obligation, any breach of contract will lead to

termination of contract. In order to fulfill the condition of

contract the management has no other option but to remove

civilian security guards and deploy Ex-servicemen in their

place. The management has indentified 12 civilian security

guards who did not posses qualifying service as non-

pensioners category thereby management No. 2 has

removed them from service by giving one month’s notice

and further giving alternative employment in the sister

concern of the management No. 2 but the Petitioner security

guards did not respond, thus, they denied the offer of the

management No. 2. Thus, the management No. 2 was forced

to remove the 12 security guards w.e.f. 1-11-2003 and their

amount has been settled.The pay package of the security

gurards was being paid regularly inclusive of terminal

benefits, hence, no service benefit need to be paid to them.

Their services were governed by rules and provison of

contract labour act and the provision of Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 will not attract. The condition of the contract

had come into effect from 1-1-2003 through a letter

addressed to the management No. 2 requesting to deploy

Ex-servicemen in place of 12 security guards. The GAIL

further demanded to deploy 100% Ex. service personnel,

the management No. 2 was not award as to whether these

12 civilian security guards had been working prior to

1-1-2003. Except to hear from them that they have been

working for GAIL under provisions of contract agencies.

But this management has appointed them from 1-1-2003.

The management No.1 is not involved in appointment or

engagement of these 12 security guards in the contract

service of management No. 2. The Petitioner security guards

were engaged by management No. 2 only and they were

employed for a specific period of the contract and their

services were liable to be come to an end on the termination

of the contract. As such, their claim is unsustainable in the

eye of law.

6. Management No. 1 is of the firm conviction in

view of the present security threats in and around GAIL

installation they wanted to revamp its security terms by

successfully deploying ESM Personnel. They felt that

removal of civilian guards is essential and inevitable to

attend its organizational goal. That was the main reason

that management No. 2 was forced to remove the civilian

guards to engage Ex-servicemen. It has further been

contended that as per terms of the contract administration,

discipline, payment of wages, distribution of uniforms,

taking of disciplinary action and supervisory work etc.,

which is the subject matter of the contracting agency, that

is management No. 2. It has further been stated that the

management No. 2 has given notice as well as alternative

employment to the Petitioner workmen but they have not

availing this opportunity for the reasons best known to

them. They are not entitled for reinstatement and they are

not entitled for any relief and their claim petition be

dismissed.

7. No documents have been filed. Rejoinder counter

statement reiterating their earlier stand has been filed.

8. Management No. 1 has also filed their counter

statement challenging therein that there is no master and

servant relationship between claimant and the GAIL. It has

been alleged that claimants are the employees of security

agency and the said security agency is registered under

Contract Labour Act and has taken license for providing

security services. The job performed by the Petitioner’s

are not prohibited under Sec. 10 of the Contract. The

Petitioner workmen were working under the supervision

and control of the security agency who have been making

their attendance, issuing instructions to each of them from

time to time and making all sorts of payment to them. GAIL

has nothing to do with these things. The agency has private

service through a written contract. The GAIL is a public

sector undertaking is subject to various instructions from

department of Government of India and demands of public

enterprises, Ministry of Heavy Industries and Public Sector

Enterprises is competent authority to issue guide lines.

The department of Public Enterprises in one of its

guidelines has advised all the public sector undertakings

to avail the services of Director General of Resettlement

sponsored agencies which deploy only Ex-Servicemen. The

same was subsequently reiterated by DPE in its guidelines

dated 1-2-1999.

9. GAIL Installations are of highly sensitive nature

and an industry of great importance to the nation with a

view to protect the plant from any insurgent and subversive

activity and for the purposes of security and safety point

of view specialized agencies with competent staff with

specialized training and experiences are required to be

deployed. There is no relationship of master and servant

between the Petitioner of this case and agency of the GAIL

and no relief could be granted against the GAIL. It has

been stated that union has no locus standi to file the

petition. The GAIL has further raised the same objections

which the management has given through written statement.

They have further reiterated that GAIL being a public

sector undertaking is bound to follow government

instructions with regard to rehabilitation of Ex-servicemen

issued by Director General of Resettlement as per clause 2

(II) of the agreement entered into between the GAIL and

management No. 2 ‘‘all personnel to be deployed by the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

857

management No. 2 should fall within the category of Ex-

servicemen under medical category A and the Exemplary

charactor, who have served in the Army/Navy/Air Force

and have unblemished of the service and are not above the

age of 45 years besides being physically and medically fit.

In case the security care takers of age below 45 years are

not available, the contractor will be permitted to deploy

security guards within the age of 58 years in line with DGR

guidelines.” The said agreement does not stipulate any

condition/for engagement of civilian security guards.

10. It has further been alleged that GAIL has neither

any knowledge nor any scope about the personnel engaged

by the security agencies and the experiences gained by

those workmen. The contention of the workmen that they

have strictly following the organizational discipline, GAIL

does not have any knowledge about the discipline being

maintained by the security guards in their organization.

Management No. 2 being their employer was controlling

and supervising its security guards and they were

responsible to maintain discipline in the orgainzation and

taking corrective actions including initiative of disciplinary

action in event of any disciplinary action, thus information

can be available from the Management No. 2. It has further

been alleged that the GAIL’s terminals are situated at

different places are vulnerable to attack and areas whose

installation or set up are considered soft target by extremist/

hostile elements. Protection of these installations is very

vital and any disruptions may put the company standstill.

Thus, the security of these installations calls for specialized

competencies and skills. The specialized competencies can

not be acquired through experience only. Ex-servicement

are specialized and acquired requisite skill while working in

the defence services are better equipped because of

acquisition of job training and their long experience in the

defence services. They can certainly handled the security

related problems more effectively than the civilian security

guards.

11. The Respondent No. 1 has already reiterated that

retrenchment notices has been given by Management

No. 2 and alternative employment has also been offered by

the Management No. 2 which workman has not accepted

and they have resorted to agitational path by way of hunger

strike/fast unto death in front of the gate of GAIL at

Rajahmundry. Hence, they does not deserve any sympathy

or leniency. The petition is devoid of any merit and

deserves to be dismissed.

12. Both the parties have filed their evidence.

Respondent No. 1 has filed letter dated 14-6-2002 regarding

sponsorship of security agency addressed to the Director,

Employment, Director General of Resettlement, xerox copy

of letter dated 25-7-2002 addressed to Mr. T. R. K. Murthy,

Chief Manager (HR), GAIL regarding sponsorship for

security and allied services.

13. The workman has filed affidavit of Sri Karri Sankar

Kumar, along with xerox copy of certificate of registration

of trade union, Ex. W1, name of the members of GAIL

security services employees union dated 5-11-2000 Ex.

W2, original I- card of Maheswari Security Services issued

by Command Security Services and Sainik Synergic Power

and Bharat Industrial Security Services. Bharat Industrial

Security Services (an Ex-servicemen enterprises) notice of

termination addressed to K. Sanakar Kumar dated

30-9-2003 Ex. W7, xerox copy of guildelines for functioning

of security agencies Ex. W8, xerox copy of a Sainik Synergic

Power letter dated January, 2001 addressed to Ch. V. Prasad

Ex. W9. Xerox copy of the letter dated 25-9-2003 on the

letter head of National Ex-Servicemen Co-ordiantion

Committee addressed to DGM (HRD) GAIL, (2) Mr. Raju

Chairman and Managing Director, M/s. Bharat Industrial

Security Services Ex. W10 and copy of the request for

withdrawal of termination notice Ex. W11 given by all the

12 Petitioners.

14. Sri K. Sankar Kumar has filed affidavit and

produced himself for cross-examination and he has been

cross-examination at length.

15. Sri M. Kondaiah, Manager HR, GAIL India has

filed his affidavit as his examination in chief and has

produced himself for cross-examination.

16. Management No. 2 has filed affidavit of Retired

Lt. Col. S. S. N. Raju, proprietor of M/s. Bharat Industrial

Security Service, Secunderabad. In support of his counter

statement he has filed bio-data of 12 Petitioners of this

case, 12 appointment orders regarding Petitioners of this

case, letter of GAIL No. GAIL/KGB/RJY/SEC. 2003/7395

dt. 27-1-2003 and termination notice dated 30-9-2003. He

has produced himself for cross-examination and has been

cross-examined by the opposite party.

17. All the three parties have filed their written

arguments and have made oral submissions also.

18. Learned Counsel for the workmen has argued

that it is undisputed fact that Petitioner workmen of this

case were employed by M/s. Bharat Industrial Security

Service and they were deployed for security and safety of

GAIL . He has further argued that it is also undisputed fact

that the workmen of this case were retrenched w.e.f.

1-11-2003 and it is also undisputed fact that one month

notice was given to the Petitioners but the manner in which

the Petitioners were employed itself is against the principles

of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He has argued that the

work for which the Petitioners were employed is of perrnnial

nature for which regular personnel should have been

appointed and made permanent employees of GAIL. The

management No. 1 has resorted to unfair labour practice

by deploying the contract security services personnel for

perennial nature job and thus it is violative of principles of

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Moreover, no retrenchment

compensation was given, gratuity to the Petitioners have

also not been given after the termination of the services

and the non-payment of gratuity along with the monthly

wages is unfair labour practice and is against the principles

858

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

of Payment of Wages Act. Learned Counsel for the

Petitioner has placed reliance on the case law of 1999 (1)

CLR 959 in the matter between Haryana State Electricity

Board Vs. Suresh and others etc., wherein the Hon’ble

Supreme Court laid down that the ‘‘so-called contract

system was mere camouflage, smoke and screen and

disguised in almost a transparent veil which could easily

be pierced and the real contract relationship between the

principal employer on the one hand, and employees on the

other, could be clearly visualized.” He has argued that the

issue of conract labour and providing employment on basis

of contract employment is sham and camouflage system of

employment with a view to deprive the workman from

regularization and absorption in the service.

19. Against this argument of Learned Counsel for

the Petitioner workman, Learned Counsel for the

Respondent No. 2 Bharat Industrial Security Service has

argued that there was no prohibition of contract labour nor

any notification has been issued by the government to

prohibit contract labour, the workmen of the present case

were employed by Respondent No. 2 on a demand being

made from the Respondent No.1 for deployment of 12

security guards who were of ex. servicemen cadre. The

Petitioner of this case were deployed on the basis of the

agreement entered into between Respondent No. 1 and 2

wherein the terms of contract was that of personnel to be

deployed by management No. 2 should fall within the

category of ex. Servicemen under medical category A and

of exemplary charactor who have served in the Army/Navy/

Air Force and have unblemished record of service and are

not above the age of 45 years besides being physically

and medically fit. Though the management No. 2 entered

into contract on the above terms but had deployed civilian

security guards, when Respondent No. 1 insisted to provide

only ex. Servicemen security guard for the deployment in

their organization and indicated that non-providing of ex.

Servicemen cadre security guard amounts to infringement

of the terms of the contract which may terminate the

contract, the services of the Petitioners who are not

ex.servicemen was withdrawn from the GAIL they were

further given option to take alternative employment under

the organization of Respondent No. 2 either at Hyderabad

or at Secunderabad.

20. The Petitioner workmen were engaged for

deployment in the GAIL Security Services on the basis of

the contract entered into between the Management No. 1

and 2 and the main term of the contract was stipulated that

person deployed should be an ex. servicemen, the

Petitioners being not ex. servicemen were retrenched after

giving notice and alternative employment as such, no

illegality has been committed.They have relied on case

law reported in 2001(91) FLR page 182 between Steel

Authority of India and National Union Wager Front

Workers and others and another judgment of Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Civil Apeal No 4263/2006, Steel Authority

of India vs.Union of India and another deliverd by Hon’ble

Justice S.B. Singh & Dalveer Bhandari, a xerox copy has

been filed before this tribunal. In another case C.A. No.

1351-53 of 2002 in the matter of workers of Nilgiri Coop.

Mkt. Society Ltd., Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others,

delivered by Hon’ble Justice Y. K. Sabharwal & S. B. Sinha

on 5-2-2004. The Respondent has further relief on the case

law reported in 2001 (88) FLR page 850 of Kolkatta High

Court in the matter of Indian Oil Corporation Maintenance

Contractor’s Workers’ Union and others,wherein it has been

held by Hon’ble Kolkatta High Court that, ‘‘under Sec. 10

and 21 of the Contract Labour Act- contract labourers-

once have entered into tripartite settlement - The same is

binding upon them -They are now estopped and precluded

from contending that they are the direct employees of

principal employer.” It is further held that ‘‘ even in the

case where the job of contract labour is of perennail nature

there is no automatic absorption.” On the basis of these

pronouncements of Hon’ble Supreme Court and the

Hon’ble High Courts Learned Counsel for the management

has contended that he employees have been appointed on

the basis of the contract as such,they can not challenge

the basis of their entrance in the service and they can not

claim direct relationship with the management No. 1. There

was no direct relation of master and servant between

Respondent No. 1 and the Petitioners. Petitioners were

employed by the Respondent No. 2 on the basis of an

agreement entered into between Respondent No. 2 and

No. 1, the basis of which was to supply or provide the

security services through ex. service personnel of the Amry/

Navy/Air Force. Since Respondent No. 2 has not provided

ex.Service personnel there was apprehension of the

termination of the contract if the services of the present

Petitioners were continued with GAIL as such, to save the

very basis of the contract, the services of these persons

were retrenched with alternative job which they have

refused to accept, as such, the contention of Learned

Counsel for the workmen that the securtiy services job is

perennial in nature and a sham contract transaction has

been entered into between Respondent No. 1 and No. 2

hence, the termination of employment is unfair labour

practice, is contrary to the facts in light of the above cited

pronouncements of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and has

no binding effect in the present case and the workmen of

this case are not liable to get any benefit on the ground of

the alleged perennial nature of the work.

21. He has further argued that the term of reference is

that ‘‘ whether the termination of services of S/Shri Ch. V.

Prasad and 11 others (as per list), ex-Security Guards w.e.f.

1-11-2003 by the contractor M/s. Bharat Industrial Security

Services, Secunderabad working in M/s. GAIL (India) Ltd.,

Rajahmundry as alleged GAIL (K.G.Basin) Security Services

Employees Union, Rajahmundry is legal and/or justifief?

The term of the reference and question for determination

of this tribunal is very limited as to whether the termination

of the services on 1-11-2003 by Respondent No. 2 is legal

and justifief or not?”

22. This tribunal has to consider,

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

859

(I)

Whether the termination of services of S/Shri

Ch. V. Prasad and 11 others (as per list), ex.

Security Guards w.e.f. 1-11-2003 by the

contractor M/s. Bharat Industrial Security

Services, Secunderabed working in M/s. GAIL

(India) Ltd., Rajahmundry as alleged GAIL (K.G.

Basin) Security Services Employees Union,

Rajahmundry is legal and/or justified?

(II) If not, to what relief concerned union workmen

are entitled to?”

23. Point No. (I): It is undisputed fact that Petitioners

S/Shri Ch. V. Prasad and 11 others of this case were

appointed by Bharat Industrial Security Services,

Secunderabad to work as security guards in GAIL India

Ltd., K.G. Basin, Rajahmundry. It is also undisputed fact

that their services were terminated on 1-11-2003. Through

the Petitioner has not stated in so many words that they

were employed on the basis of the contract between

Respondent No. 1 and No. 2, the Petitioners themselves

have stated in guarded language that management No. 1 is

principal employer and from time to time the contract

agencies will be appointing or dealing with security guards.

In para 4 of the claim statement it has been alleged that the

management No. 1 is contractor for security services of

GAIL K.G. Basin area,Rajahmundry appointed by

management No.1 for time being. In para 6 of the claim

statement they have alleged that on instruction of

management No.1 the workman in dispute were recruited

as security guards under different contractors or contract

agencies and posted in different places of GAIL. Presently

these security guards brought to the control of management

No. 2. This prove that the Petitioner workmen have

contended that the payment of wages are being made and

being controlled by Management No. 2 and these workmen

were working under other contract agencies or contractors

prior to working under management No. 2. Not only that in

para 10 of their claim statement the Petitioner workmen

have stated that in the month of October, 2003 the

management No. 2 have given one month’s notice to the

above listed workmen stating that as per the contract

agreement signed with the management No. 1 only ex.

Servicemen shall be continued as security guards. Basing

on this condition, the 12 workmen listed above were

stopped by Management No.2 from 1-11-2003. This prove

that the services were terminated after giving one month

notice. The said notice has been filed by the workmen as

Ex. W7/1 wherein in para 3 of the said notice it has been

mentioned ‘‘keeping the above in view, a one month notice

is hereby given to you in order to secure employment

elsewhere. It is also to inform you that the undersigned is

prepared to provide employment to you in one of the sister

organizations at Hyderabad/Secunderabad. The order of

termination will come into effect after completion of 30 days

from the date of receipt of this letter by you.” This letter is

dated 30-9-2003. The content of Ex. W7/1 prove that Bharat

Industrial Security Services have given one month prior

notice with an option to provide employment in their own

sister organization, but the Petitioner workmen has not

mentioned in their claim statement that they were provided

with the alternative employment and they have refused to

accept the alternative employment. This shows that the

workmen of this case were reluctant to accept the alternative

employment offered by the Respondent No. 2.

24. The Petitioner workmen have filed the list of

persons working in the GAIL Security Service Employees

Union i.e. Ex. W2. The workmen Sri K. Sankar Kumar, of the

present case has filed identity card issued by Maheshwari

Security Services, date of issue is 1-4-1995, another identity

card of Commando Security Services issued to Sri K. Sankar

Kumar place of duty being K.G. Basin as care taker. When

this copy was issued is not mentioned. He has further field

ID card issued by Sainik Syndergic Power as security

caretaker. The last identity card is that of Bharat Industrial

Security Services. This prove that the workmen has been

working under the different security agencies from time to

time as contract worker. They have not filed any proof that

they were employed only by the Bharat Industrial Security

Services from the very beginning as is being claimed in

claim statement. They were given notice wherein the term

of contract was also mentioned and alternative employment

under the terms of the contract the Bharat Industrial

Security Services has agreed to provide the services of

only ex. servicemen to the Respondent No.1 but the

Respondent No. 2 in utter disregard of the term of the

contract has provided the services of the security guards

which has not been accepted by the management of the

Respondent No. 1. The Respondent No. 2 has no other

option but to ask the Petitioner workmen to search for

another alternative employment or agree to accept the

alternative employment offered by the Respondent No. 2.

No unfair labour practice has been done in the present

case because, the services of the Petitioner was not

terminated all of a sudden. They were given one month

notice with alternative offer of employment, as such, it can

not be said that the contractor Bharat Industrial Security

Services has committed any illegality or its action is

unjustified. The action of M/s. Bharat Industrial Security

Services, Secunderabad is legal and justified as they have

given notice as well as alternative employment.

25. Though it has not been referred to this tribunal

for adjudicating whether the transaction is sham or actual

or not since it has been raised by the Learned Counsel for

the workman during course of the argument that being the

job of perennial nature, action of employing contract labour

is unjustified and violative of principles of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947, the statement of the workman Sri K.

Sankar Kumar is relevant. In his cross examination he has

stated that the workmen were working for about 10 months

at Respondent No. 2’s organization, though they were

offered alternative employment in his sister organization

but the salary they were offering was too low to accept it.

This material fact has not been disclosed in the claim

statement. He has stated that he does not know that

860

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

sponsored agency will be work on contract upto 4 years

and that period will not exceed. The witness Sri K. Sankar

Kumar has further accepted that the Respondent No. 2

used to give pay slip giving the details of deductions

towards PF and ESI etc. The pay slip shows inclusion of

payment of gratuity and other benefits. No where in the

statement he has alleged that Respondent No.1 has ever

employed or interviewed these persons for their

deployment as security guards. He has further stated that

he used to work under different security agencies. He has

further accepted that he has filed an application for

recruitment before Respondent No. 2 with his bio-data in

printed form supplied by Respondent No.2. This prove

that all the Petitioner of this case were fully aware that

they are being employed by Respondent No. 2, they applied

for the appointment before organization of Respondent

No. 2, thus, the contention of Learned Counsel for the

Petitioner union that the action of employment of contract

labour is a sham and violation of principles of Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 is uncalled for, it has go no force

because the Respondent No.1 has not taken any step to

recruit these persons in their organization since there was

agreement between the Respondent No.1 and No. 2 and

Respondent No.1 requested Respondent No.2 to provide

security guards with specific qualification and standard

that they should be Ex-Servicemen retired from Army/

Navy/Air Force then it can not be said that the job of

security guard was perennial in nature and appointment

of the contract labour is violative of principles of natural

justice or unfair labour practice has been committed by

Respondent No.1.

26. To sum up from the above discussion, this

tribunal is of the opinion that the Petitioner workmen of

this case were employed by Respondent No. 2 on the

basis of a contract entered into between Respondent no.

1 and Respondent No. 2 for providing security guard ie.,

EX-servicemen category and the workmen of this case

were not ex-servicemen as such, they were withdrawn from

the GAIL, notice was given to them to seak alternative

employment within one month and also alternative

employment by the Respondent No. 2 in their own sister

organization which the workmen has not accepted as such,

the action of M/s.Bharat Industrial Security Services in

terminating the services of present 12 Petitioners is legal

and justified. Point No. (I) is decided accordingly.

27. Point No.(II): It has been concluded that the

action of the Management No. 2 in terminating the services

of the workmen of this case is legal and justified. One

month prior notice was given to the workmen to seek

alternative employment or to accept the alternative offer

of employment given by the management of Respondent

No. 2, the Petitioners haye not accepted the same as such,

they are not entitled through this claim petition and the

petition deserves to be dismissed. Point No. (II) is decided

accordingly.

28. The reference is decided as such and hence, the

action of the management of Bharat Industrial Security

Services is held to be legal and justified and workmen are

not entitled for any relief.

Award passed accordingly.Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 28th day of

September, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined

the Petitioner

for the Respondent

WWl: Sri K. Sankar Prasad

MWl: Sri Mohan Kondaiah

MW2: Sri S. S. N. Raju

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex.WI: Copy of registration certificate of trade union

Ex.W2: Copy of list of workmen of GAIL Security Service

Employees Union

Ex.W3: Copy of ID card of Mr. K. Shankar Kumar by

Maheshwari Security Services

Ex.W4:

Copy of ID card of Mr. K. Shankar Kumar by

Commando Security Services

Ex.W5:

Copy of ID card of Mr. K. Shankar Kumar by

Sainik Synergic Power Security Services

Ex.W6:

Copy of ID card of Mr. K. Shankar Kumar by

Bharat Industrial Security Services

Ex.W7/1:Copy of notice of termination of Mr K. Shankar

Kumar by Bharat Industrial Security Services

Ex.W8:

Copy of guidelines for functioning of security

agencies

Ex.W9: Copy of circular issued by Sainik Synergic

Power

Ex.W10: Copy of representation of Petitioners through

National Ex-servicemen Co-ordination Committee

to RI and R2 jointly dt. 25-9-2003

Ex.W11: Copy of representation of Petitioners through

National Ex-servicemen Co-ordination Committee

to RI and R2 jointly dt. 28-10-2003

Ex.WI2: Copy of Form -XVII Register of wages dated

August, 2003.

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex.M1: Copies of applications of 12 Petitioners (Bunch)

Ex.M2: Copies of appointment orders (Bunch)

Ex.M3: Copy of Lr. No. GAIL/KGB/RJY/SEC/2003/7395

Dt. 27-1-2003

Ex.M4:

Copy of termination order dt. 30-9-2003

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

861

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2010

dk-vk- 295.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Jh ih-

lR;kukjk;.k] Bsdsnkj fgUnqrku isVªksfy;e dkiksZjs'ku 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 89@2003) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&30011@32@2003&vkbZ vkj (,e)º

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

S.O. 295.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 89/2003)

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 HPCL Visakhapatnam HPCL Mahurapudi

Shri P Satyanarayana, Contractor and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 30-12-2010.

[No. L-30011/32/2003-IR (M)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT

AT HYDERABAD

PRESENT : SHIR VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding

Officer

Dated the 30th day of September, 2010

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 89/2003

BETWEEN:

The President,

Public Sector Undertaking (Government of India)

Contract & Casual Workers’ Union,

Burugupudi-533 292, Korukonda Mandalam,

East Godavari District.

. . . .Petitioner

AND

The Chief General Manager,

HPCL, Visakha Refinery, P.B.No.15, Malkapuram,

Visakhapatnam -530011.

The Station Incharge, Refuelling Station,

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn., Ltd., Madhurapudi,

East Godavari Dist.

Sri P. Satyanarayana,

Contractor,

Madhurapudi Airport Area,

Korukonda Mandalam,

Madhurapudi, East Godavari District

....Respondents

APPEARANCES:

For the Petitioner :

M/s. K.Annapurna Reddy & S.

Nanda, Advocates

For the Respondent :

Sri Dr. P. B. Vijay Kumar, Advocate

AWARD

This reference is received from Government of India,

Ministry of Labour by its order No. L-3011/32/2003-

IR(Misc) dated 1-1-2004 under Section 10(1)(d) of the I.D.

Act, 1947 for adjudication to this Tribunal between the

management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

and their workman. The term of reference is as under:

SCHEDULE

“Whether M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited is the employer of the workman Shri N. Raju,

ex-Driver-cum Refillng Operator, Refulling Station

Airport Area, Madhurpudi, Rajahmundry, East

Godavari Dist.? If yes, whether the action in

terminating the services of the workman w .e.f.

9-10-2002 on the ground of misconduct is legal and/

or justified? If not, to what relief the Public Sector

Undertakings (Govt. of India) Contract &Casual

Workers Union, Burugupudi is entitled?”

The reference is numbered in this Tribunal as I.D.

No. 89/2003 and notices were issued to the parties.

2. The workman has filed his claim statement on

receipt of the notice stating therein that he worked as

Heavy Vehicle Driver-cum-Refilling Operator in the

Refuelling Station owned by Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited, Madhurapudi which is being managed

by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited. In the

beginning of December, 1988 he was appointed as incharge.

He performed his duty with full integrity though three of

the heavy vehicles have no explosive license even then

applicant workman was working on these vehicles. Later

on it was informed that the workman is a contract employee

though the contention of the management is incorrect.

The Petitioner has been shown as contract worker under

contractor Sri P. Satyanarayana, who is the proprietor of

Hawke Security Services. On 29-9-2002 while going to the

house of Station incharge the workman met with an

accident at Ramadasupeta as a result of which he sustained

severe injuries and at the same time while backing the

vehicle a lady also sustained injuries. Immediately the

workman and the lady were admitted in the Government

Hospital, Rajahmundry and he was discharged from the

hospital on 7-10-2002 and was advised to take rest. The

Station Incharge advised the Petitioner to meet the Senior

Regional Manager(Sales)Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited. Visakhanatnam who directed the

workman to meet Deputy Manager and explain the

situation. The workman called on DGM on 29-9-2002 who

informed the Petitioner that he will direct the Station

Incharge to allow him to duty.

862

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. When the Petitioner went to Station Incharge he

refused to entrust the duty to the Petitioner. Thereby the

Petitioner was unlawfully tenninated without showing any

reason. No opportunity was given to the Petitioner.

Petitioner raised industrial dispute and conciliation

proceeding was started which resulted in failure. Hence,

the Petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service with

full back wages.

4. Respondent management has filed counter

statement stating therein that Rajahmundry ASF or the

Respondent management never appointed Petitioner. They

placed purchases order on M/s Hawk Eye Security

Services for providing the services HV driver, helper and

security guard as such, the Petitioner was deployed by

M/s. Hawk Eye Security Services. They have further denied

that the explosive license was not obtained by the

Respondent. More over, the obtaining of the explosive

license is not a matter of concern in the present case. The

Petitioner was never paid by the Respondent management.

He was never advised by Station Incharge to bring the

vehicle to his residence. On 29-9-2002 Petitioner

unauthorizedly took away the jeep No. APSQ 7474 from

corporation’s premisses and hit a stationery tipper lorry

No. AHF 6699 from behind thereby woman named Mrs.

Ch. Nagarathnam was injured. She was taken to the

hospital by another contract worker. The Petitioner also

sustained some injury. It has been alleged that at the time

of accident Petitioner was under the influence of alcohol.

Therefore, the contractor has disengaged Petitioner from

the service. The Petitioner was neither appointed by the

management nor he was terminated from the services by

the management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited. The petition is devoid of merit and deserves to be

rejected.

5. Parties had filed their evidence. workman has filed

letter addressed to Assistant Labour Commissioner(C) by

President of the union dated 27-11-2002, certificate of

aviation dated 3-5-91, the certificate of Aviation Officer of

Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited dated 4-7-92,

certificate of Aviation Officer dated 28-6-89, certificate of

Senior Aviation Officer dated 30-1-90, certificate of Base

Manager Lloyd Helicopters, Yanam, Duty pass dated

18-4-96 at the time of visit of Prime Minister, and

memorandum of workman submitted to Hon’ble Labour

Minister.

6. The Petitioner workman has filed his affidavit and

presented himself for cross-examination. He has marked 7

documents Ex. W1 to W7.

7. Respondent has filed affidavit of Sri B.N. Rao,

Dy. Manager (HR), Visakha Regional Office, Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited and produced him for

cross-examination. Respondent has filed documents

Ex.M1 to M8 i.e., EPF remittance for the year 2001-02,

2002-03, 2003-04 are Ex.M1 to M3. Copy of conciliation

proceeding Ex.M4, reply to representation Ex.M5,

Proceeding before Assistant Labour Commissioner(C)

Ex.M6, copy of FIR Ex. M7 and representation of Union

Ex.M8. These documents show that the employer of the

workman was M/s. Hawk Eye Security Services.

8. Both the parties have filed their written arguments.

I have heard oral arguments and I have also gone through

the written arguments filed by the parties. The Learned

Counsel for the Petitioner has contended that the Petitioner

was appointed in December, 1988 along with Sri P. Srinivas.

On fateful day of 29-9-2002 while going to the residence of

Station Incharge he met with an accident in which he

sustained severe injuries and one lady pedestrian was

also injured. He along with injured lady was admitted in

the hospital from there he was discharged on 7-10-2002.

On 9-10-2002 he reported Station Incharge who directed

him to meet the Manager who instructed Station Incharge

to entrust duty to the Petitioner but Station Incharge did

not oblige and disengaged the Petitioner from the service.

The action of the management is unwanted. Against this

argument of the counsel for the workman, Learned Counsel

for the Respondent has argued that the Petitioner was

never appointed by the management of Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited, he was an employee of

Hawk Eye Security Services and they have terminated the

services of the Petitioner on the ground that he ran the

vehicle on 29-9-2002 under influence of alcohol.

9. This tribunal has to consider following questions:

(I) Whether M/s. Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited is employer of workman Sri N. Raju?

(II) If yes, whether their action in terminating the

services of Sri N. Raju ex-Driver-cum Refilling Operator,

Refulling Station Airport Area, Madhurpudi, Rajahmundry,

East Godavari Dist.?

(III) If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?

10. Point Nos. (I) & (II) : Both these points are inter

connected with each other as such, they are being

disposed off together. Workman has contended that he

was engaged by the corporation in the year 1988, but, he

has impleaded Sri P. Satyanaryana, Contractor, Airport

Area.He has not been able to explain why he has impleaded

contractor as R3 in this petition if he has no concern with

the said contractor. The Petitioner workman has not been

able to file any document to prove that he was appointed

by management of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited. He has filed Ex.Wl certificate issued by Aviation

Officer dated 3-5-91 which clearly speaks that N. Raju was

working as contract workman. This is the document of the

Petitioner himself, the workman has filed another service

certificate Ex. W2 issued by Station Incharge, Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited dated 30-1-90 therein also

it has been mentioned that N. Raju is working under

category of contract workman. He has further filed Ex.W3

i.e, character certificate that he bears good character. Three

important documents Ex.W2, Ex.Wl and W4 produced by

the Petitioner prove that he was a contract worker. Ex.W6

is recommendatory and Ex.W7 is new years greeting. All

these documents simply prove that the Petitioner has

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

863

worked with Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited as

contract worker. Thus, the contention of the Petitioner

that he was engaged by the Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited or appointed by HPCL, does not find

support from the documents produced by Petitioner

himself. The Petitioner has filed his affidavit and produced

himself for cross examination. In his cross examination he

has admitted that he has not filed any identity card that he

joined in the service in the year 1988, he was not given

any appointment order. He stated that he was paid salary

by Sri R.K. Raju, Aviation Officer. He has replied in negative

that he was paid salary by Hawk Eye Security Services or

that Hawk Eye Security Services has appointed him. He

has stated that he was removed from service because he

was hospitalized. A suggestion was given to him that he

was not appointed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited to which he has replied in negative. He has simply

stated that officers used to send him on personal work. It

may be true that the officer of the company might be

sending him for personal work, but that not itself does

confer the order of appointment by the company’s officers.

As against the above documentary and oral evidence of

the Petitioner, the Respondent has also filed EX.MI to M8

in which EX.Ml and M3 are relevant and important

documents relating to EPF settlement remittance of the

workman Sri N. Raju, wherein Hawk Eye Security Services

has been mentioned as the employer of Sri N. Raju.This

fact has been disclosed by the Sri B.N. Rao, Manager, HR

to whom a suggestion was given that Petitioner was

appointed by R1. Further, when the Petitioner was issued

with the certificate by the officers of the Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited they have mentioned him

as contract worker. The Petitioner has filed those

documents and he is relying on those documents then, he

can not back out from his own documents which prove

that the Petitioner was a contract worker working under

Hawk Eye Security Services. Thus, by mere oral statement

of the Petitioner it can not be said that the Petitioner was

appointed by Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited

or the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited was

employer of the Petitioner. The Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited has not appointed Petitioner as per

counter statement and the statement of the Respondent’s

witness Sri B.N. Rao and documents EX.W2 to W4 and

MI to M3. Accordingly, this tribunal is of the opinion that

the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited is not the

employer of the Petitioner nor it has terminated the services

of the Petitioner Sri N. Raju. As such, the question of

legality and justifiability of termination of services order

by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited does not

arise. Point No.(I) & (II) mentioned in the reference is

decided accordingly.

11. Point No. (III) : As discussed in foregoing para

of this award the Petitioner workman is neither employee

of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited nor he has

been terminated by the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation

Limited. He claimed the relief from the Hindustan Petroleum

Corporation Limited but, he is not entitled for any relief

from Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited and his

claim deserves to be dismissed. He is not entitled for any

relief. Hence, this award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 30th day of

September, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

the Petitioner

the Respondent

WWl: Sri N. Raju

MWl: Sri B. N. Rao

Documents marked for the Petitioner

Ex. W1:

Certificate issued by Aviation Officer, HPCL,

RJYdt.3-5-91

Ex. W2:

Certificate issued by Sr. Aviation Officer,

HPCL, RJY dt. 30-1-90

Ex. W3:

Certificate issued by Aerodrome Officer, RJY,

dt. 28-6-89

Ex. W4:

Certificate issued by Aviation Officer, HPCL,

RJY, dt. 4-7-92

Ex. W5:

Certificate dated 3-12-97 letter from Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited to Petitioner

to quote tender

Ex. W6:

Letter dt. December, 1998 issued by Loyed

Hilicopters Pvt. Ltd.

Ex. W7:

Greetings from HPCL to Petitioner dt. 2-1-98

Ex. W8:

PM’s visit pass issued to Petitioner dt. 18-4-96

Documents marked for the Respondent

Ex. M1:

Copy of conciliation of remittances of EPF

for 2001-02

Ex. M2:

Copy of conciliation of remittances to EPF for

2002-03

Ex. M3:

Copy of conciliation of remittances to EPF for

2003-04

Ex. M4:

Copy of conciliation proceeding ofALC(C),

Visakhapatnam

Ex. M5:

Copy of reply dt. 3-2-2003 to representation

dt. 27-11-2002

Ex. M6:

Copy of proceedings of ALC(C), Visakhapatnam

Ex. M7:

Copy of FIR of SHO, PS. Traffic, Rajahmundry

Ex. M8:

Copy of representation by Union to ALC(C),

Visakhapatnam

Ex. M9:

Copy of Handling contract dated 15-5-97

Ex. M10:

Copy of filed purchase order of Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited dt. 24-5-09

Ex. M11:

Copy of filed purchase order of Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited dt. 6-9-99

Ex. M12:

Copy of filed purchase order of Hindustan

Petroleum Corporation Limited dt. 15-12-99

864

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 30 fnlEcj] 2010

dk- vk- 296-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14 dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj xU?kekj?ku

vk;ju ekbUl vkiQ vks ,e lh fyfeVsM mM+hlk 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;] Hkqous'oj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 79@2001) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 30&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&26011@10@2000&vkbZvkj (,e)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 30th December, 2010

S. O. 296.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.79/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure, in the

Industrial dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of Gandhamardhan Iron Mines of O. M.C.

Ltd. (Orissa) and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 30-12-2010.

[ No. L-26011/10/2000-IR (M)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

PRESENT :

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C. G. I.T.-cum-Labour Court,

Bhubaneswar.

Tr. Industrial Dispute Case No. 79/2001

L-26011/10/2000-IR (M), dated 18-08-2000

Date of Passing Order—26th November 2010

BETWEEN

The Management of the Senior Manager,

Gandhamardhan Iron Mines of O.M.C. Ltd.,

At./PO. Suakati, Dist. Keonjhar (Orissa)

Orissa-758 001.

. . .1st Party-Management.

And

The Workman represented through the

General Secretary, Keonjhar Mines and Forest

Workers Union (AITUC), At./Po. Barbil,

Distt. Keonjhar, Orissa.

. . . .2nd Party-Workman.

APPEARANCES :

M/s. Banoj Kr. Pattanaik,

For the 1st Party-

Advocate.

Management.

General Secretary.

For the 2nd Party-

Union.

AWARD

Case taken up today in the Lok Adalat. Advocate

for the 1st Party-Management is present and filed hazira.

The General Secretary of the 2nd Party-Union is also

present but he has not filed hazira.

A petition through Advocate on behalf of the 2nd

Party-Workman was filed on 4-5-2010 to withdraw the case

stating that both the parties have agreed to settle the

dispute amicably and the workmen do not want to

proceed further with the terms of reference of the case.

The statement of claim has been filed by the General

Secretary of the 2nd Party-Union and the case is being

represented by the Advocate of the Union. Advocate

appearing for the 1st Party-Management has not opposed

the petition. As such the petition dated 4-5-2010 to

withdraw the case given by the 2nd Party-workmen is

allowed and no dispute award is passed.

Dictated & Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 297-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14 dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iatkc us'kuy

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 55@06)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&12&2010 dks

izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@41@2006&vkbZvkj (ch&2)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2011

S. O. 297.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 55/06)

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 Punjab National Bank and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 29-12-2010.

[ No.L-12012/41/2006-IR (B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

865

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-

CUM-LABOUR COURT JAIPUR

PRESENT : N. K. PUROHIT Presiding Officer

I. D. 55/06

Reference No. L-12012/41/2006-IR (B-II)

Dated : 28-8-2006

Shri Ghanshyam

S/o Shri Naruram Sharma

C/o Shru Gulam Ali Abdul Ji & Sons

Main Market, Jhalarapatan,

Jhalawar (Raj.)

V/s

The Branch Manager

Punjab National Bank

Jhalarapatan

Jhalarawar (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 :-

“Whether the workman Shri Ghanshyam S/o Shri

Nanuram Sharma was in continuous service for more

than 240 days of the Bank between 10/2001 to

11-10-2004. If yes, whether the action of terminating

the service of the workman by the Manager, Punjab

National Bank, Jhalarapatan Branch w.e.f. 11-10-2004

is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the

employee is entitled to and from which date ?”

2. Pursuant to the receipt of reference order, the

registered notices were issued to both the parties. It

appears from the proceedings of the case that the

representative on behalf of the management had filed his

authority letter on 18-12-2006 but on said date the post of

the Presiding Officer was lying vacant. Therefore, after

posting of the Presiding Officer in the month of September,

2009 fresh notices were issued to both the parties.

3. It also appears that the claim statement was filed

by the representative on behalf of the workman on 19-1-10

but none appeared on behalf of the management side. It

further reveals that the representatives of the both the

sides were present on 25-8-10 but on next date i.e. 7-10-10

none appeared on behalf of the workman. Thus, the case

was posted on 2-11-10 for filing reply. On the said date

also none appeared on behalf of the workman. Therefore,

ex-party proceedings were drawn against him.

4. The Bank’s management has filed the reply on

24-11-10. But both the parties have not adduced any

evidence in support of their respective case and except

claim statement and its reply, there is neither any oral

evidence nor any documentary evidence on the record.

5. The workman has pleaded in the claim statement

that he had worked under the employer from October, 2001

to 11-10-2004 as class IV servant and he had worked

continuously for more than 240 days in each calendar year

but he has been disengaged from 11-10-2004 in violation

of the provisions of Section 25(F) of the I.D. Act. The

management has denied the claim of the workman and has

averred in the reply that the claimant was never appointed

as class IV employee. It has been denied that the claimant

had worked continuously from October 2001 to 11th

October, 2004.

6. In reference under adjudication the question

under consideration is whether the workman was in

continuous service for more than 240 days and whether

the alleged action of termination of his service is legal and

justified?

7. It is well settled that if a party challeges the

legality of an order or action of the management, the initial

burden lies upon him to prove illegality of the alleged

action and if no evidence is produced, the party invoking

jurisdiction of the court must fail.

8. In the present matter, after filing claim statement

the workman has not appeared to adduce any oral or

documentary evidence to substantiate his claim. Under

these circumstances, there is no material on record to

adjudicate the reference under consideration 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.

9. Award as above.

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 298-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14 dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkU/zk 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;] gSnjkckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k ,y lh vkbZ Mh

133@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

24&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&39025@1@2010&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

866

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2011

S. O. 298.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (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 Andhra Bank 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 8th day of September, 2010

Industrial Dispute No. L.C. 142/2007

BETWEEN :

Sri G.. Vivekananda,

S/o Girivenkaiah,

R/o Surya Medical Shop,

Naidupet (M), Pillarigudi Street,

. . . Petitioner

Nellore

AND

1. The General Manager (Personnel),

Andhra Bank, Head Office,

Hyderabad.

2. The Assistant General Manager,

Andhra Bank, Zonal Office,

Nellore District

. . .Respondents

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner :

M/s. G. Vidya Sagar,

K. Udaya Sri & P. Sudheer Rao,

Advocates

For the Respondent

M/s. S. Udayachala Rao,

S. Vikramaditya Babu,

S. Mujib Kumar & M. Raghamani,

Advocates

AWARD

This is a petition filed under Sec. 2 A (2) of the I.D.

Act by Sri G. Vivekananda challenging the order

compulsory retirement from the bank’s service dated

22-5-2000 and numbered in this Court as L.C.I.D. No.

142/2007 and notices were issued to the parties.

2. Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the

order of compulsory retirement. As the case is posted for

filing of counter and documents, Respondent No. 2 has

submitted memo stating that the post of Assistant General

Manager has been shifted to Andhra Bank Zonal Office at

Tirupathi. Thereafter, Petitioner sought time for submission

of petition with amended cause title.

3. On 8-9-2010, workman or his counsel called

absent. Petitioner’s counsel has not filed amendment

application as directed through order dated 20-7-2010, as

such, this case is dismissed for non-compliance of the

order dated 20-7-2010. Accordingly, a Nil award is passed.

Transmit.

Dictated to Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant

transcribed by her and corrected by me on this the 8th day

of September, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for

Witnesses examined for the

the Petitioner

Respondent

NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 299-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj nsuk 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;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh&2@9

vkWiQ 2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12011@105@2004&vkbZvkj (ch&II)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2011

S. O. 299.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award Part-II (Ref. No.

CGIT-2/9 of 2005) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal/Labour Court-2, Mumbai now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

867

employers in relation to the management of Dena Bank

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 29-12-2010.

[ No. L-12011/105/2004-IR (B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K.B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/9 of 2005

Employers in Relation to the Management of Dena Bank

The Chief Manager

Dena Bank

Mumbai City Regional Office

Fort

Mumbai-400 023.

AND

Their Workmen

The General Secretary

Dena Bank Employees Union

17, Horniman Circle

Fort Mumbai-400 023.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer

Ms. Nandini Menon

Advocate.

For the Workmen

Mr. M. B. Anchan,

Advocate.

Mr. P. L. Raorane, Representative

Mumbai, dated 30th November, 2010.

AWARD

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its Order No. L-12011/105/2004-IR(B-II)

dated 20-10-2004 in exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub-section (1) and sub-section 2(A) of

Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred

the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for

adjudication:

“Whether the action of the management of Dena

Bank, Mumbai City, Regional Office, Mumbai in

terminating the services of Shri Santosh M

Vishwasrao is justified? If not, what relief the

workman, Shri Santosh M. Vishwasrao is entitled

to?”

2. The union has filed the statement of claim at Ex-4.

According to it workman Shri Santosh M- Vishwasrao was

a temporary sub-staff in Dena Bank, Overseas Branch,

Mumbai. He was paid Rs. 80 per day on voucher- Vouchers

are with the Bank. The workman worked continuously since

12-6-1992 for 10 years without any break in the service

therefore, he was eligible to be regularized in the service

as a permanent sub-staff of the Bank. The workman made

a representation to that effect for regularization of his

services therefore abruptly he was terminated from the

service without any notice or assigning any reasons w.e.f.

7-7-2002. During his service, his work was cleaning,

sweeping and swabbing of the office premises daily. He

also used to clean furniture. Besides that he used to serve

water to the staff. He used to keep the tiffin boxes of

officers on their table. He used to attend telephone calls

during lunch hours. He used to attend the cash department

when ever required. He used to file the record and vouchers

etc. He was paid less wages than the minimum scale

prescribed for sub-staff.

3. He was dismissed from the service illegally

without any notice. Therefore, the workman applied to

ALC ( C). As conciliation failed, the matter was referred to

Labour Ministry. The Ministry of Labour and Employment

sent this reference to this Tribunal. The union therefore

prays that the termination of service of this workman

Santosh be declared illegal, malafied and invalid and not

justified. They also pray that the first party Bank be

detected to reinstate the concerned workman in service

with full backwages, with continuity of service and his

service should be declared regularized.

4. The first party i.e. the management of Dena Bank

has resisted the statement of claim vide its written

statement at Ex. 10. According to them, the workman

cannot be said to have worked continuously in the Bank

for a period of one and half year as envisaged in Section

25 B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. According to them,

Bank has no employer-employee relationship with

Shri Santosh Vishwasrao. He is not a workman as defined

under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

Shri S. Vishwasrao was never in regular employment with

the Bank. He was never issued any employment letter. He

has also never signed muster or attendance register. His

name was also not set out in the wage register.

5. According to the first party, for recruitment of

subordinate staff against permanent vacancy, they are

required to follow the recruitment procedure as per the

guide lines given by the Government. After following

the procedure, list of eligible candidates is prepared in

the order of merit. In the leave period of permanent

employee, such persons are posted. Their service ceases

automatically soon after the regular employee reports his

duty.

6. The workman was engaged by the overseas

branch of Mumbai main office for doing odd jobs and he

was paid lump sum amount proportionate to his work. His

services were purely on temporary basis and of casual

nature. Neither he was appointed as employee of Bank,

868

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

nor he has served for continuous period of 10 years as

has been alleged. He was never competent to be appointed

in the sub-staff cadre against permanent vacancy.

According to them, he was not appointed as their sub-

staff, and as he never worked continuously for 10 years,

as a temporary worker, he cannot claim regularization of

his service. Question of termination of his service also

does not arise as he was never appointed or employed in

the cadre of sub-staff of the Bank. The first party thus

submits that the workman is not entitled to be regularised

in the service and he is not entitled to any relief as claimed

for, therefore, they pray that the reference be rejected. My

Learned Predecessor has framed the issues at Ex-17.

7. The reference was fixed for hearing. The workman

has also filed his affidavit at Ex-19. He was partly cross-

examined on 11-6-2009. However, thereafter number of

dates were given. However workman did not turnup to

face the further cross-examination. Ultimately the Treasurer

of the union, Mr. P. L. Raorane has passed withdrawal

purshis Ex-27. As the union has withdrawn the reference,

the same deserves to be rejected for want of prosecution.

Thus I pass the following order:

ORDER

The reference stands rejected for want of prose-

cution.

Date : 30-11-2010

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 300-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj enzkl iksVZ

VªLV ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k] psUubZ

ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 69@95) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 24&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&33012@5@95&vkbZvkj (,e)@(ch&II)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2011

S. O. 300.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 69/95)

of the Industrial Tribunal, Chennai now as shown in the

Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the

employers in relation to the management of Madras Port

Trust and their workmen, which was received by the

Central Government on 24-12-2010.

[No. L-33012/5/95-IR (M)/(B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

TAMIL NADU, CHENNAI-600104

Tuesday, the 28th Day of September, 2010

PRESENT :

Thiru S. F. AKBAR, B. Sc. B. L., Presiding Officer,

Industrial Tribunal

Industrial Dispute No. 69/1995

[In the matter of dispute for adjudication Under Sec.

10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 between the

Workman and the Management of Madras Port Trust,

Madras]

BETWEEN

Shri P. Sivakumar,

150/12, Srinivasapuram,

Foreshore Estate,

Madras-600028.

. . . Petitioner

AND

The Chairman,

Madras Port Trust,

Rajaji Salai,

Madras-600 001.

. . .Respondent

REFERENCE : Order No. L-33012/5/95-IR (Misc.)

Dated 20-10-95, Ministry of Labour,

Govt. of India, New Delhi.

This dispute coming on for final hearing on

21-9-2010, upon perusing the reference, Claim and Counter

statement and all other material papers on record and upon

hearing the arguments of Thiru V. Panneerselvam, Advocate

appearing for the Workman and of Tvl. R. Arumugam,

B. Haribabu and N. Krishnakumar, advocates appearing

for the Management and this dispute having stood over

till this day for consideration, this Tribunal made the

following.

AWARD

The Government of India have referred the following

issue for adjudication by this Tribunal :

“Whether the action of the management of Madras

Port Trust in terminating the services of Sri P. Sivakumar,

Mazdoor, w.e.f. 31-12-90 is justified? If not, to what relief

the workman is entitled?”

BRIEF AVERMENTS IN THE CLAIM STATEMENT :

2. Thiru S. Ponnusamy, who was employed as a

Lascar Gr.I in Marine Department, in the Madras Port Trust

died in harness. The petitioner was appointed on

compassionate ground as a Shore Mazdoor on 12-2-90.

On a charge of misconduct that the certificate produced

by the petitioner in proof of his age and qualification was

bogus, the petitioner’s services were terminated on and

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

869

from 31-12-90. The discharge was an order of dismissal for

a misconduct. Even if the petitioner was a probationer, he

cannot be discharged on a charge of misconduct without

any enquiry. The order of termination is not an Order of

termination simplicitor. The order refers to production by

petitioner of bogus records for gaining appointment.

The order of termination casts a stigma. Therefore the

disciplinary procedure should have been followed as

required under Madras Port Trust Employees

(Classification Control and Appeal) Regulations, 1988. The

petitioner has worked more than 240 days. Since

retrenchment procedure was not followed the orders of

termination is ab initio void. The petitioner seeks an award

holding that the action of the Port Trust in terminating the

services of the petitioner is not justified and directing his

reinstatement in service, with continuity of service,

backwages and attendant benefits.

BRIEF AVERMENTS IN THE COUNTER STATE-

MENT :

3. One S. Ponnusamy was employed as Lascar Grade

II (Y) marine and died on 3-10-1983 while in service. His

widow Smt. Vasantha, produced a Birth certificate

certifying that P. Sivakumar was born on 25-12-1963 and

Ponnusamy and Vasantha are his parents. Based on these

documents P. Sivakumar’s name was registered as

dependant of the deceased employee and was appointed

as Mazdoor on 12-2-90 and he was placed under Probation

for a period of 2 years. The petitioner produced his School

Certificate and also the Attestation form. The Asst.

Vigilance Officer and Asst. Superintendent (V) went in

search of the said school and noticed that no such school

exists in the given address. Another attempt has been

made along with P. Sivakumar to locate the school in

which P. Sivakumar stated to have studied. The said

P. Sivakumar on the way itself admitted that he had not

studied in the said school viz. St. Albert Hr. Elementary

School, Mylapore, Madras-4 which is non-existent and he

obtained the school certificate (Record sheet) through

some other source. The petitioner stated to be the

dependant of Ponnusamy had produced the School

Certificate misrepresenting his age, qualification, date of

birth etc. On the basis of a bogus certificate since such

school was not in existence. Therefore his probation in

the post of Mazdoor was terminated under M.P.T.

Employees (Appointment, Promotion etc.) Regulation,

1977 by an Order dated 31-12-90. The production of bogus

school certificate of a school which is not at all in existence

is a serious matter of indiscipline and hence his probation

was terminated rightly. The question of conducting an

enquiry does not arise in this case since the petitioner

was under probation and during the probation period his

probation was terminated. The termination of his probation

is not a penalty and hence no enquiry was conducted.

The termination of his probation is not retrenchment.

Therefore the question of not following the retrenchment

procedure never arises in this case. The respondent seeks

dismissal of the above dispute.

4. Before remand, on behalf of Petitioner no one

was examined and Exs. W1 to W9 were marked by consent.

On behalf of Respondent/Management, MW1 Thiru

T. Subba Rao has been examined and Exs. M l to M 10

were marked.

After remand on behalf of Petitioner, Ex. Wl1 to W14

were marked by consent. On behalf of Respondent/

Management, MW2 R. Prabakar has been examined and

Ex. M1l to M45 were marked.

5. The Point for consideration is whether the action

of the management of Madras Port Trust in terminating

tha services of Sri P. Sivakumar, Mazdoor, w.e.f. 31-12-90

is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

6. Point : The Petitioner P. Sivakumar is the son of

one S. Ponnusamy who was appointed as Lascar Grade II

(Y) in the Marine Department of the Respondent Port Trust

vide Order dated 24-12-1969. The appointment order of

the said Ponnusamy has been marked as Ex.M12. Thiru

Ponnusamy died in harness on 3-10-83 as could be seen

from Ex. M 13 Death Certificate issued by the Corporation

of Madras. After the death of S. Ponnusamy his widow by

name Vasantha produced a sworn affidavit. Ex. M 15 and

made a request for appointing the Petitioner

P. Sivakumar, claiming him as one of the two sons on

compassionate grounds. The said Vasantha produced also

the Birth Certificate Ex. M 16 in evidence of the date of

birth of Sivakumar, and his date of birth has been mentioned

as 25-12-63. The petitioner Sivakumar was registered as a

dependant of the deceased Ponnusamy and was enrolled

as a rank casual in Traffic Department with effect from

27-9-88 as evident from Ex. M 17. He was later appointed

as Mazdoor on 12-2-90 as would be evident from Ex. M 18.

He was under probation for a period of two years. The

petitioner on his appointment would appear to have

produced Ex. M19. Proforma declaration dated 16-9-88

and Ex. M20 Attestation form besides Ex.M21 a School

Certificate and Ex. M22 a Conduct Certificate. As per

column 10 of Ex. M20 the petitioner would claim that he

has studied up to VIII Std. and the date of entering the

school is 13-6-69 and the date of leaving is 16-6-77. The

name of the school has been given as Albert Higher

Elementary School, Mylapore.

7. The Respondent Port Trust had received letters

complaining that the petitioner joined the services of the

Port Trust by adopting fraudulent methods and presumably

the Port Trust started probing. The ananymous letters

received by the Port Trust are Ex.M23 and Ex.M24 is the

report of the Vigilance officer. It could be gathered from

Ex. M 24 Report of the Vigilance Officer that the petitioner

Sivakumar is the son of retired employee by name

Vinayagamurthy and he entered the services of the Port

Trust impersonating as the dependant of another deceased

870

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

employee i.e Ponnusamy. In the Vigilance report, the

dependants of Vinayagamurthy are his wife Panchalai two

sons by name V. Sivakumar, V. Sivabadam and daughter

V. Sivagami. Interestingly enough V. Sivakumar son of

Vinayagamurthy would appear to have the falsely claim as

the son of the deceased employee Ponnusamy. In other

words V. Sivakumar (Son of Vinayagamurthy) has

impersonated P. Sivakumar (Son of Ponnusamy). It may

be noted that it has not been established that the deceased

Ponnusamy had a son by name Sivakumar. Thus evidently

this is an instance of impersonation and on the basis of

such impersonation the petitioner had gained entry into

the Port Trust as an employee.

8. This is not only a case of impersonation but also

is a case of forgery of the School Certificate and Conduct

certificate marked as Exs. M21 and M22. The Port Trust on

coming to know of the foul play addressed a letter to the

District Elementary Officer, and sought a report as to the

genuineness of the School certificate produced by

Sivakumar. The letter is Ex. M34 dated 17-1-2009. The

authority concerned by its reply dated 10-2-09 marked as

Ex.M35 would state categorically that there is no such

school in existence in Mylapore circle. It is thereafter the

Memorandum dated 6-7-2009 marked as Ex.M33 has been

served on the petitioner and the petitioner has been

directed to submit his explanation and no explanation

having been submitted by the petitioner, a domestic

enquiry has been conducted. The enquiry was fixed on

19-3-2010 and 14-5-2010 and the petitioner failed to attend

the enquiry.

9. The probation of the petitioner was terminated by

Order dated 31-12-90 marked as Ex. M25. TIle petitioner

raised a dispute before this Tribunal and an award dated

9-1-2001 marked as Ex.M 26 was passed setting aside the

temrination and liberty was given to the Port Trust to take

appropriate action according to law. The respondent filed

a Writ Petition in W.P. No. 16130/2001 aggrieved by the

said award and in the mean time the petitioner got reinstated

without. prejudice to the Writ Petition vide Order dated

14-3-2008 marked as Ex.M27. The petitioenr was back in

employment on the basis of Ex.M28 dated 17-3-2008. He

was in service upto 7-8-2010 as could be seen from

Ex. M 29. His services were again terminated on 6-8-2010

with effect from 8-8-2010 on the ground that W. P. No.

16130/2001 was allowed by Hon’ble High Court by order

dated 8-6-2010 setting aside the Award passed by this

Tribunal dated 9-1-2001 as evident from Ex. M37. This is

how the matter again before this Tribunal for disposal.

10. At this juncture, a pertinent reference may be

made to Ex.M38 to Ex.M44. Ex. M38 is a document

evidencing dissolution of marriage of Ponnusamy with

one Kanagarani. Ex.M38 evidences marriage of Ponnusamy

with one Vasantha on 22-8-1982. Under Ex.M40 dated

11-10-82 Ponnusamy had made a request to include second

wife Vasantha’s name for the purposes of Provident fund

and Medical Card etc. In the nomination form for Death-

cum-retirement, Gratuity and provident fund. Ponnusamy

had nominated the second wife Vasantha and one

Sivabadam as his adopted son. It would be evident from

Ex.M41 and M42. A pertinent reference may be made to

the entries available in Ex.M43 Form N. Ponnusamy died

on 3-10-83 and thereafter his wife Vasantha applied for

Family pension in Ex. M 43. In Column 5 of Ex. M 43

Vasantha would specifically state that. she has no sons or

daughters except the adopted son Sivabadam. Vasantha

filed before the Port Trust a fresh Form N duly notorised

and it is Ex. M44. At this juncture. an inevitable reference

has to be made to the date of birth of the petitioner as

stated in Ex.MI9 and the date of birth is 25-12-63, whereas

in the sworn affidavit Ex. M15 Vasantha would give the

age of P. Sivakumar, the petitioner as 21 years as on

30-1-86. This is a glaring contradiction in the case of the

petitioner. Ex. M39 is the Marriage Certificate issued by

the Temple and it appears the date of marriage is 4-10-82.

This evidences marriage of Ponnusamy with Vasantha.

Ponnusamy admittedly died on 3-10-83. The Petitioner

admittedly is born on 25-12-63. It is also not the case of

the petitioner that the petitioner was born through the

first marriage with Kanagarani. If so it is quite buffling as

to how between 4-10-82 the date of marriage of Ponnusamy

with Vasantha and the date of death of Ponnusamy on

3-10-83 the petitioner P. Sivakumar aged 21 years as on

30-1-86 could be in existence. As per Ex. M 38 the first

marriage between Ponnusarny and Kanagarani was

solemnised on 1-9-1971 and the said marriage was dissolved

as per Ex.M38 on 18-8-81. The second marriage between

ponnusamy and Vasantha took place on 22-8-82 as per Ex.

M39. As per Ex.M 16 the date of birth of the petitioner is

25-12-63 and his father’s name has been shown as

Ponnusamy and mothers name has been shown as

Vasantha. In Ex. M44 his application for Family pension

the age of Vasantha is given as 32 years. If so she should

have been born in the year 1952. In Ex. M16 birth certificate

of the petitioner, his date of birth has been given as 25-12-63

and his mother is Vasantha. If so the age, of his mother

Vasantha on 25-12-63 would have been 11 years. It could

not be believed that Vasantha had given birth to Sivakumar

the petitioner when she was just 11 years. The documents

would speak volumes about the fraud played by the

petitioner on the Port Trust.

11. It is worthwhile to note that the petitioner did

not produce any oral or documentary evidence to deny

the charges after remand by the High Court. Not even

the petitioner nor the said Vasantha entered the witness

box to deny the definite case of the Respondent Port

Trust.

It has been laid down in a decision of the Supreme

Court of India reported in Union of India & Ors And M.

Bhaskaran, G. Radhakrishnan, C. Devan ( 1996 I LLJ 781)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

871

that employment secured by playing fraud on employer is

voidable and it is open to the employer to recall

appointment order. In the same decision, the need for

complying with the principles of natural justice before

removing such employees has been emphasized. It has

been observed that removal of employees amount to

recalling of fradulently obtained appointment orders. It

has been highlighted that mere continuance of service for

number of years cannot create any equity in favour of

such employees or create any estoppel against the

employer.

In R. Arumugam Vs. (1) The Director or Medical

Services; Teynampettai Chennai-6, (2) The Joint

Director of medical Services Virudhunagar (3) The

District Medical Officer Virudhunagar and (4) The

Medical Officer, Govt. Hospital, Rajapalayam ( 2006 Writ

L.R. 132) the petitioner therein was dismissed from

service for having impersonated and thereby securing

appointment by producing false certificates. It was laid

down in the said case, the petitioner being the

beneficiary of the fraud committed with by petitioner or

somebodyelse such employee would not be entitled to

any relief.

In Superintendent of Post Offices and others and

R. Valasina Babu [2007 (2) L. L. N. 132] the Apex Court has

taken the view that an employment obtained on the basis

of a false caste certificate, the moments such certificate is

cancelled the employee would not be entitled to continue

in service.

If the facts of this case are analysed in the back

drop of these decisions, it would be clear that the petitioner

would not be entitled to any relief. If so this industrial

dispute deserves to be dismissed.

In the result, an award is passed dismissing the

industrial dispute. No costs.

Dated at Chennai, this 28th day of September, 2010.

THIRU S. F. AKBAR, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 69/95

LIST OF WITNESSES EXHIBITS

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON THE SIDE OF

PETITIONER/WORKMAN :

W.W.1

: None

WITNESSES EXAMINED ON TIlE SIDE OF

RESPONDENT/MANAGEMENT :

M Wl

: T. Subba Rao

MW2

: R. Prabakar

EXHIBITS MARKED ON THE SIDE OF PETITIONER

WORKMAN

DATE

DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

No.

1 .

20-9-88

Ex. W 01

Intimation for Medical

Examination (All Xerox)

2 .

27-9-88

Ex. W 02

Enrolrnent order as Casual

Mazdoor

3 .

12-02-90

Ex. W 03

Appointment order as

Mazdoor

4 .

31-12-90

Ex. W 04

Order of discharge

5 .

27-10-93

Ex. W 05

Representation to Regl.

Labour Commissioner

6 .

31-05-94

Ex. W 06

Reply by the Management

to the Regl. Labour Com-

missioner, Madras

7 .

18-11-94

Ex. W 07

Representation to the

Regl. Labour Commissioner,

Madras

8 .

21-06-95

Ex. W 08

Conciliation Failure report

9 .

20-10-95

Ex. W 09

Reference by the Govern-

ment

10 .

31-12-90

Ex. W 10

Termination order issued

to the petitioner by the

Respondent

11.

08-06-10

Ex. W 11

Order of High Court

Madras in W.P. No. 6130

of 2001.

12 .

14-03-08

Ex. W 12

Reinstatement order

issued by the Respondent

to Petitioner

13 .

05-04-08

Ex. W 13

Pay Fixation Order issued

by the Respondent to

Petitioner

14.

—

Ex. W 14

2nd Termination Order

issued by the Respondent

to Petitioner

ON THE SIDE OF RESPONDENT MANAGEMENT

Date

DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENT

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

16-9-88

Ex. M 01

Declaration form given by

the petitioner

27-9-88

Ex. M 02

Memo for enrolment of

Casual Labour

872

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

12-02-90

Ex. W 03

Appointment order

—

Ex. M 04

Acceptance letter by the

petitioner

06-03-90

Ex. M 05

Declaration given by the

petitioner

—

Ex. M 06

School Record sheet

31-12-90

Ex. M 07

Termination order

31-05-94

Ex. M 08

Counter filed before Regl.

Labour Commissioner

11-03-95

Ex. M 09

-do-

—

Ex. M 10

Madras Port Trust

Employees Regulations.

11.

22-07-1988 Ex. M 11

Chairman’s approval

12.

24-12-1969 Ex. M 12

Appointment of Date

S. Ponnusamy as lascar &

his acceptance

13.

26-10-1983 Ex. M 13

Death certificate of Late

S. Ponnusamy

14.

—

Ex. M 14

Dependent register

15.

30-01-1986 Ex. M 15

Sworn affidavit of Smt.

P. Vasantha

16.

07-04-1986 Ex. M 16

Birth Certificate of Shri

P. Sivakumar

17.

27-09-1988 Ex. M 17

Appointment of Shri

P. Sivakumar as rank

casual

18.

12-02-1990 Ex. M 18

Appointment of Shri

P. Sivakumar as mazdoor

19.

16-09-1988 Ex. M 19

Proforma declaration

given by Shri P. Sivakumar

at the time of appointment

as rank casual

20.

06-03-1990 Ex. M 20

Attestation Form

21.

16-06-1977 Ex. M 21

School Certificate

22.

16-06-1977 Ex. M 22

Conduct Certificate

23.

23-10-1988 Ex. M 23

Letter from an unknown

person endorsd by vigi-

lance

Officer

04-11-1988 and another

letter from one Shri Raju

received by the Respon-

dent.

24.

06-10-1990 Ex. M 24

VO’s report

25.

31-12-1990 Ex. M 25

Termination order issued

to Shri P. Sivakumar

26.

09-01-2001 Ex. M 26

Award given by Hon’ble

Industrial Tribunal

27.

14-03-2008 Ex. M 27

Reinstatement order

28.

17-03-2008 Ex. M 28

Acceptance letter by

Shri P. Sivakumar

29.

06-08-2010 Ex. M 29

Restoration of the

dismissal order

dt. 31-12-1990

30.

15-05-2008 Ex. M 30

Two cheques given to

Shri. P. Sivakumar for

backwages.

31.

15-05-2008 Ex. M 21

Acknowledgement by

Shri P. Sivakumar

32.

15-05-2008 Ex. M 32

Cheque issued and

acknowledge by Indus-

trial Tribunal

33.

06-07-2009 Ex. M 33

Memorandum with

annexeres given to Shri

P. Sivakumar

34.

17-01-2009 Ex. M 34

Letter to DEEO

35.

10-02-2009 Ex. M 35

Reply from DEEO

36.

10-03-2010 Ex. M 36

Notice of the 1st and 2nd

03-05-2010

preliminary hearing

37.

08-06-2010 Ex. M 37

Hon’ble High Court order

dt. 08-06-2010 WP. No.

16130

38.

18-08-1981 Ex. M 38

Document in support of

divorce of devorce of Smt.

Kanagarani

39.

04-10-1982 Ex. M 39

Solemnization of marriage

with Smt. Vasantha

40.

11-10-1982 Ex. M 40

Requisition letter from

Late S. Ponnusamy to

include

41.

04-01-1983 Ex. M 41

Nomination given by Late

S. Ponnusamy for Death-

cum-Retirement Gratuity

42.

12-01-1983 Ex. M 42

Nomination of PF by Late

S. Ponnusamy

43.

23-11-1983 Ex. M 43

Form N Given by Smt.

Vasantha

44.

15-02-1984 Ex. M 44

A Fresh Form N given by

Smt. Vasantha

45.

—

Ex. M 45

Letter from Late

S. Ponnusamy

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

(1)

(2)

(3)

(4)

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

873

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 301.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Vsªfuax f'ki

pk.kD; 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&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh&2 @43@2010)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&12&2010 dks

izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&31012@16@2010&vkbZvkj(ch&II)º

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2011

S.O. 301.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No CGIT-2/43 of 2010) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal 2, Mumbai as

shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between

the employers in relation to the management of M/s.

Training Ship Chanakya and their workman, which was

received by the Central Government on 29-12-2010.

[No. L-31012/16/2010-IR (B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT

K. B. Katake,

Presiding Officer.

Reference No. CGIT-2/43 of 2010

Employers in Relation to the Management of Training

Ship Chanakya

Capt. Superintendent

Training Ship Chanakya

At Village Karve, Nerul

Navi Mumbai - 400 706

And

Their Workmen

Ms. Deepali Raut

C/o. Mohindersingh Kabul Singh

OT Section, B.K. No. 1302

Near Station Road

Ulhasnagar-421 004.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer :

Mr. M. B. Anchan, Advocate.

For the Workmen :

No appearance.

Mumbai, dated 8th December, 2010

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour and

Employment by its Order No. L-31012/16/2010-IR (B-II)

dated 07-04-2010 in exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (d) of sub section (1) and Sub-section 2A of Section

10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 have referred the

following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“ Whether the action of Captain Superintendent,

Training Ship,, Chanakya, Mumbai in terminating the

services of Ms. Deepali Raut, ex-LDC w.e.f. 1-4-2008

is legal, just and proper ? What relief the workman

concerned is entitled to ?”

Notices were served on both the parties. However

second party though duly served, remained absent.

registered AD receipt to that effect is at Ex-4. The second

party Ms. Deepali Raut did not appear and file the statement

of claim therefore, this reference cannot be decided on

merit and deserves to be rejected . Thus I pass the following

order.:

ORDER

Reference stands rejected for want of prosecution.

Date : 08-12-2010

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 302-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ;wdks 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;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k lhthvkbZVh

,uthih@62@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

29&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&12012@41@1994&vkbZvkj(ch&II)º

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2011

S.O. 302.—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/62/2006) 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 UCO Bank and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 29-12-2010.

[No. L-12012/41/94-IR (B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

874

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOURT COURT, NAGPUR

Case No.CGIT/NGP/ 62 of 2006

Dated 14-12-2010

Petitioner/Party No. 1

Shri Nagraj Laxman Shetty

New Manjari Colliery, Post - Shivaji

Nagar, Tq. Varora,

Distt. Chandrapur,

Chandrapur.

Versus

Respondent/Party No. 2

The Divisional Manager

UCO Bank, Divisional Office,

108, Sushil Bhawan,

Balraj Marg, Dhantoli,

Nagpur- 440 012.

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 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

UCO Bank and their workman, Shri Nagraj Laxman Shetty

(‘‘the workman’’ for brevity) as per letter No. L-12012/41/

94-IR (B-II) dated 28-4-1994, with the following schedule

to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Jabalpur for

adjudication :-

“ Whether the action of the management of UCO

Bank, New Majri Branch in terminating the services

of Shri Nagraj Laxman Shetty, temporary sub-staff

w.e.f. 30-11-91 is justified ? If not, what relief is the

said workman entitled to ?”

Subsequently as per Order No. L-12012/41/94-IR

(B-II) dated 18-04-2006, of the Ministry of Labour and

Employment, New Delhi the reference was transferred to

this Tribunal (CGIT, Nagpur) for disposal according to law.

The workman and the management of UCO Bank,

New Majri Branch filed their respective statement of claim

and written statement respectively on receipt of notice from

the Tribunal.

The workman in his statement of claim has pleaded

inter-alia that the UCO Bank is a Nationalised Bank and the

service conditions of the workman employed in UCO Bank

are governed by the Bipartite Settlement and as per circulars

issued by the head office of the Bank to regulate the

provisions of service conditions and he was initially

appointed on 19-5-1990 @Rs. 10 per day and worked upto

30-11-1991 and he was not paid wages for Sunday and

Holidays and was put to hard labour beyond the working

hours of the Bank and on 30-11-1991, he was removed from

employment by the Manager, New Majri Branch, without

assigning any reason and in his place another daily wager

was appointed and there was no need for the Branch

Manager to remove him from the job, particularly, when

there was shortage of Peons and in circular No. CHO/PAS/

4/90 dated 31-3-1990, the Head Office of UCO Bank had

made it clear that persons engaged on daily wages basis in

the branches would be absorbed in permanent employment

of the bank, depending upon the work load of the branch

and against his such unauthorized and illegal termination

from service, he approached the Assistant labour

Commissioner (C), Chandrapur (‘‘ALC’’ in short) and before

the ALC, the management of the bank took a plea that he

was never their workman and/or was not working in their

branch and thus not entitled to be taken into permanent

employment and he is entitled for the benefit of the

settlement between the union and the management in 1989

and in terms of the said settlement, he should have been

given permanent employment and due to the resistance of

his claim by the management before the ALC, there was

failure of the conciliation proceeding and on such failure

report by the ALC, the reference was made by the Central

Government . The workman has prayed for setting aside

the order of termination and for his reinstatement in service

with continuity of service and back wages and other

consequential benefits.

The management have resisted the claim of the

workman by filing the written statement and pleading inter-

alia that the complainant (workman) was not appointed as

an employee of the UCO Bank at any point of time and as

such, there was no cause of issuing any termination order

and there was no relation between the complainant and the

bank as emmployee and employer and the complainant

had been doing the work of cleaning, sweeping and dusting

etc in the branch for a limited period of the day and the

total works used to be about two to three hours per day

and not more than that and the complainant was being

paid for the work done by him and the payment was not an

account of salary and as such there was no question of

making payment of wages for Sundays and Holidays and

as the complainant was not an employee of the bank, there

was no question of assigning any reason and the

complainant is not entitled for the benefit of the settlement

between the union and the bank and the complainant is

not entitled for any relief.

In his rejoinder, the workman has mentioned that

he had worked in the branch in place of a Peon and used to

attend all the duties that are performed by a Peon and that

the plea of the bank that he was performing limited work is

engineered only to make at attempt to reduce the quantum

of gravity of their illegality, which they are not permitted to

do and before the ALC and other places, the management

had never contended that he was employed for a limited

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

875

period and he was engaged for fulll day’s work right from

19-5-1990 to 30-11-1991 and was paid wages @Rs. 10 per day.

In support of his claim, the workman examined

himself as a witness. No witness was examined by the

management.

In his evidence on affidavit, the workman has

reiterated the facts mentioned in the statement of claim

and in the rejoinder.

It is necessary to mention here that the workman

has not produced any document to show that he worked

continuously from 19-5-1990 to 30-11-1990. However, the

workman alongwith his statement of claim has filed the

documents submitted by him before the ALC during the

conciliation proceeding. In his application dated 3-2-1992,

written in English, he has mentioned that he was working

from 1st April, 1991 in UCO Bank, New Majri Branch on

casual basis and was being paid @Rs. 10 per day till

27-4-1991 and thereafter he was being paid Rs.15 till he was

discontinued from the bank on 28-12-1991 and as he was

about to complete 240 days, the Branch Manager told him

orally not to come to the bank, in view order received by him

from his higher authorities. In the letter dated 3-2-1992 written

in Marathi and submitted to the ALC, the workman has

mentioned that he worked in the bank from 27-4-1991 to 28-

12-1991. In his affidavit, the workman has mentioned that he

was appointed on 19-5-1990 by the bank to work as a Peon

on daily wages basis and was paid the salary /wages @Rs.

10 per day till 30-11-1991 and he worked for more than 545

days. From such documents, it is clear that the claim of the

workman that he worked for 545 days is not correct.

The admitted facts that he was being paid @Rs. 10

daily also clearly shows that he was engaged part time in

the bank as claimed by the management, otherwise, he

should have been paid the prescribed wages of Rs. 41 per

day (as found from the circular dated 31-3-1990) in case of

his engagement was for the full day.

Taking into consideration the above mentioned facts,

it is found that there is no material on record to hold that

the workman was continuously working from 19-5-1990 to

30-11-1991, when according to him, he was terminated.

There is also no evidence on record to show that he had

worked for 240 days in the year immediately preceding the

date of his alleged termination on 30-11-1991. So far the

circular dated 31-3-1990 is concerned ; the same is also not

applicable to the workman. In view of such facts, neither

he is entitled to the protection u/s 25-F of the Act nor to

any other relief. Hence, it is ordered :

ORDER

The action of the management of UCO Bank, New

Majri Branch in terminating the services of Shri Nagraj

Laxman Shetty, temporary sub-staff w.e.f. 30-11-1991 is

justified and the workman is not entitled to any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 3 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 303-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh;

thou chek fuxe 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 lhthvkbZVh@,ylh@vkj@150@97) dks izdkf'kr djrh

gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 29&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&17012@19@96&vkbZvkj(ch&II)º

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2011

S.O. 303.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No CGIT/

CL/R/150/97) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of Life Insurance Corporation of India

and their workmen, which was received by the Central

Government on 29-12-2010.

[No. L-17012/19/96-IR (B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM -LABOUR COURT,

JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/150/97

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

Shri G. K. Sawarkar,

R/o 42, Garam Gadda Road,

Station Bazariya,

Bhopal

....Workman/Union

Versus

The Zonal Manager,

Life Insurance Corp. of India,

Zonal office, Hoshangabad Road,

Bhopal

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 9th day of December, 2010

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour,

vide its Notification No. L-17012/19/96-IR (B-II) dated

27-5-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication

by this tribunal :—

“ Whether the action of the management of LIC of

India in terminating the services of Shri G.K. Sawarkar

w.e.f. 1-3-95 and recovery of Rs. 2042 from his is legal

and justified ? If not, to what relief the said workman

is entitled?”

876

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The workman did not appeared in the reference

inspite of notice. Lastly the then Tribunal proceeded exparte

against the workman on 3-4-2008.

The management appeared and filed

vakalatnama. It is orally submitted that there is no statement

of claim and therefore there is no dispute. The management

has submitted that he doesnot want to file any Written

Statement in the case.

Considering the above aspect in the case, it is

evident that there is no case of the workman to be answered

in the reference. Thus it is a case of no dispute.

In the result, no dispute award is passed without

any costs.

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] 3 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 304-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj osLVuZ bafM;k

f'ki;kMZ 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@Je U;k;ky;&2] eqEcbZ ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k lhthvkbZVh&2 @10@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 29&12&2010 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&36011@10@2005&vkbZvkj(ch&II)º

jes'k flag] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 3rd January, 2011

S.O. 304.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award Part II (Ref. No

CGIT-2/10 of 2006) of the Central Government Industrial

Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the

Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers

in relation to the management of M/s. Western India

Shipyard Ltd. and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 29-12-2010.

[No. L-36011/10/2005-IR (B-II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, MUMBAI

PRESENT : K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-2/10 of 2006

Employers in Relation to the Management of Western

India Shipyard Ltd.

The Managing Director

Western India Shipyard Ltd

Mormugao Harbour,

Mormugao

Goa- 403 803.

AND

Their Workmen

Shri Neville De Oliveira

Bairo Nobre

Ribandar Patto

IL has

Goa- 403 006.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employer :

Mr. K. S. Kerkar, Advocate

For the Workmen :

No appearance.

Camp: Goa, dated 24th November, 2010

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour &

Employment by its order No. L-36011/10/2005-IR (B-II) dated

13-01-2006 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause

(d) of sub section (1) and sub-section 2A of Section 10 of

the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 have referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication :-

“ Whether the claim of the disputant Shri Neville De

Oliveira that he is a workman under Section 2 (s) of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, if yes whether the claim of the

management of M/s. Western India Shipyard Ltd., Goa to

dismiss him from services w.e.f. 24-7-2004 is legal and

justified ? If not justified, what relief is the disputant

concerned entitled to ?”

After receipt of the reference notices were

isssued to both the parties. The workman Shri Neville De

Oliveira has filed his statement of claim at Ex.-5. According

to him he is a workman. He had joined services of Western

India Shipping Ltd. since October 1995 as a ‘‘Supervisor

Grade-III Category.’’ He was confirmed in the service by

the management w.e.f. 1/-5-1996. By letter dt. 24-9-1996 he

was promoted in Grade-0-2 w.e.f. 1-1-97. Considering the

performance of the worker, on 1-9-97, they gave an

officiating allowance of Rs. 250 to officiate him as ‘Work

Perpetrator’. By their letter dt. 1-3-98 the management

redesignated the workman as an Engineer Mechanical

performing all the jobs. The management also promoted

the workman as a Sr. Mechanical Engineer by their letter

dt. 1-9-98. It indicates that workman was doing his duties

well.

The Western India Shipyard Ltd. is a Company

engaged in the business of ocean going ship repairs and

Ship building. It has various customers including domestic

and international clients as well. There are 500 permanent

workmen and more than 600 contract employees in its

regular and permanent job operation. According to

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

877

workman, he was working as a supervisor Grade-III

category from 1-11-1995 to 1-7-2002. due to his excellent

performance thereafter he was promoted as Assistant

Manager w.e.f . 1-7-2002. Workman was Assistant Manager

before he was dismissed. However as an Assistant Manager

the nature of duties performed by him was manual and that

of a workman as defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial

Disputes Act 1947. According to him, he was unionized

member of the Goa Trade and Commercial Workers Union.

(AITUC) and was extended the benefit of the wage

settlement signed between union/workman and the

management of Western India Ship Yard Ltd. on 5-4-2004.

The workman was also eligible for Labour welfare benefits

such as provident fund, ESI Labour welfare fund and other

dues . The workman was required to sign the attendance

was governed by rules and regulations of Western India

Ship Yard Ltd.

According to him by a letter dt. 24-7-2004, the

management of Western India Ship Yard Ltd. dismissed

him stating that his service stands dismissed with immediate

effect as Management has lost confidence in him.

According to him management alleged that workman had

instigated a section of officers and managers to strike and

he was found leading the striking employees. It was also

alleged that the company sustained heavy loss due to the

act of the workman. There is also fear in security and

safety of ship and crew members. It was also alleged that

provisions of industrial Disputes act were not applicable

to the workman. According to him, this letter of dismissal is

false and baseless. The allegations therein are false and

baseless. He denies those allegations. According to him,

the management has issued letter of dismissal without

considering his reply or without any inquiry against him.

The said action of dismissal is arbitrary and high handed

on the part of the management.

Immediately after the letter of dismissal, the

workman has raised industrial dispute before ALC (C). The

workman submitted before the ALC to quash and set aside

the order of dismissal and requested to reinstate him in the

service with full backwages and continuity in service. The

company filed their reply dt. 5-1-2005 contending not to

entertain the complaint of the workman and to close to

matter stating that second party workman is an officer and

not a workman. They also refused to attend the conciliation

proceedings. The reply of management was contrary and

inconsistent to the statement and averments made by the

workman. Management instead of attending the conciliation

proceeding, filed another letter dated 21-2-2005 asking

Assistant Labour Commissioner (C) not to take cognizance

of the complaint filed by the workman . Workman filed his

rejoinder denying all the contentions made by the

management.

Finally Shri Anil Kumar DGM and (Pers & HR)

attended the conciliation proceeding on behalf of the

management. However, the conciliation proceeding ended

in a failure. The workman has no source of income. He is

facing acute financial crisis. According to him, the dismissal

of his services by the management is entirely illegal and

unjustified and bad in law. Therefore he prays that the

order of dismissal dt. 24-7-2004 be quashed set aside. He

further prays that he be reinstated in service with full back

wages and continuity in service. He also prays for

subsistence allowance during the pendency of the matter.

The first party i.e. management of Western India

Ship Yard Ltd. resisted the statement of claim by filing its

written statement at Ex.-9. According to them, the person

concerned infact was working as Assistant Manager. He

was doing managerial work. He was supervising the work

of his subordinates. He used to allot the work to the

workmen working under him. He used to supervise their

work. He used to report about the day to day work of the

workmen. He was supposed to recommend their leave. He

used to decide which workman to be retained for overtime

work. He used to take action against the workmen whose

work was not satisfactory. He was appointed in the

supervisory Grade -III Category. Subsequently he was

promoted to 0-2 Category which is a supervisory category

(Management cadre) from 1-1-98 he was promoted to the

post of Junior Mechanical Engineer. Since 1-7-2000, he was

promoted as Assistant Manager and is not a ‘workman’ as

defined under Section 2 (s) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

They denied the contents in para 3 of the

Statement of Claim. According to them, there are 400

workers working with the company. They denied that, they

have employed contract workers for regular work.

According to them, the Assistant Manager used to take

independent decisions about the correctness of the

settings after repairs. They denied that the letter of dismissal

is arbitrary and illegal. They denied that allegations are

false. According to them, Mr. R.S. Singh the then Sr. Vice

President on 18-7-2004 had asked for explanation. However

second party had refused to give any explanation as he

was working in a managerial cadre and not governed by

standing orders. He was dismissed, as Company lost faith

in him.

They denied that they failed to attend before

conciliation officer. According to them all the allegations

made in the statement of Claim are false. Neither the second

party is workman nor he was removed illegally therefore,

they pray that reference be rejected.

10.

My Learned Predecessor has framed the

following issues for my determination. I record my findings

thereon for the reasons to follow :

Issues

Findings

1. Whether the second party

is a workman ?

2. Is the second party entitled

for reinstatement and other

ancillary reliefs ?

3. What order ?

As per final of order

878

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Reasons

Issue No. 1 :-

11.

In the case at hand, sufficient oportunity was

given to the second party to lead his evidence by filing

his affidavit and affidavit of his witnesses. However he

never appeared before the Tribunal therefore, by way of

abundant precaution notice was issued to the second party.

It remained unserved as second party has left the place.

Second party is not attending the proceeding and remained

absent since last number of dates therefore, his advocate

was also allowed to withdraw his vakalatnama vide purshis

Ex-37.

12.

In short there is no oral evidence on record.

However as there is statement of claim and written

statement, Issues were also framed therefore, I would like

to decide these issues in the light of pleadings and the

material available on record.

13.

This issue no. 1 goes to the root of the case.

According to the second party he is ‘workman’. It is

contended in the statement of claim Ex.-5 that he used to

do his work manually. However doing one’s work manually

is not the only test to define whether a person is workman.

On the other hand, fact is not disputed even by the second

party that at the time of his dismissal he was working as

Assistant Manager. the duties and work of Assisstant

Manager cannt be same as that of a workman. No doubt he

was empowered to allot the work to the workers working

under him. He was supposed to supervise work of the

workers. He was also supposed to make report of day to

day work of the workers working under him. From the

nature of work, by no stretch of imagination it can be said

that the second party was workman as defined in Section 2

(s) of Industrial Disputes Act. On the other hand, he was

doing supervisory/ managerial work. Assistant Manager

thus cannot be called ‘workman’ as he is doing supervisory

work and drawing basic pay more than Rs. 11,000 . The

said contention raised in the written statement of first

party is not denied by the second party. Neither second

party denies the averments by filing his affidavit nor

produced any document to show that he was not doing

supervisory work as has been alleged in the written

statement. On the other hand, his designation as Assistant

Manager clearly shows that he was working in a capacity

as a managerial staff and he was not a ‘workman’ as has

been alleged. Therefoe I come to the conclusion that the

second party is not ‘workman’ as defined under Section

2(s) of Industrial Disputes Act. Accordingly I decide this

issue no. 1 in the negative.

Issue No. 2 :-

14.

As the second party is held not a workman, he

cannot challenge the legality of his termination before this

Tribunal. In short, neither the second party is a workman

nor his termination can be challenged before this Tribunal.

Therefore, question of reinstatement and other ancillary

relief/benefits does not arise. Accordingly I decide the issue

no. 2 in the negative. Thus I pass the following order :

ORDER

Reference stands rejected.

Date: 24-11-2010

Camp : Goa

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 305-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lh- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp]

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

146@89) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&1&2011

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@104@89&vkbZvkj(lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2011

S.O. 305.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 146/89)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. C.C.L. and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 4-1-2011.

[No. L-20012/104/89-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s. 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I. D.

Act

Reference No. 1846 of 1989

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the Management of

Saruber Colliery of M/s. C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

PRESENT : Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers :

None.

For the Workman :

None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal.

dated the 20-12-2010

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

879

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/104/89-IR (Coal-I) dated

10-11-89 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal :—

“ Whether the action of the management of Sarubera

Colliery of C.C. Ltd., P. O. Sarubera, Dist. Hazaribagh

by not granting other benefits of CPC such as, casual

leave for 12 days, earned leave for 33 days and

Gazetted holidays for 18 days to Shri Radha Dusadh,

Mining Sirdar w.e.f. 1-12-1971 which he is getting

scale of pay under CPC rules is justified ? If not, to

what relief the workman concerned is entitled ?”

In this reference case both the parties have filed

their respective written statements and documents. The

examined two witnesses, namely, MW-1, D.K. Sen and MW-

2, V.K. Srivastava on 2-8-1995 and closed its further evidence

on 17-4-1997. Thereafter the case was fixed for adducing

evidence by the workman. But no evidence was produced

on behalf of the workman. Again registered notice was

sent on 20-5-2010 fixing the case for adducing evidence by

the workman 19-8-2010. But neither party appeared. Then

the case was adjourned to 20-10-2010. Even on that date

neither the concerned workman nor the sponsoring union

appeared inspite of sending registered notice. The

management was also not present.

In view of such circumstances the award was

reserved for passing of the award on the basis of

documents available on record.

Perused the records. As per case of the

concerned workman it appears that he was appointed in

the year 1961 and in course of time he passed Mining

Sirdar Certificate in the year 1971. He was promoted to the

post of Mining Sirdar Grade -II in the year 1971 and was

placed in C.P.C.’s scale of pay, but he was not given the

benefits of casual leave, earned and paid holidays as

admissible to the employees governed by C.P.C. pay scales,

for which he has raised the dispute.

As per case of the management is that in the year

1971 the concerned workman was a Timber Mistry

Category-IV in the Wage Board Pay Scale and he was

governed by the Certified Standing Orders of M.C.D.C.

Ltd. in regard to other service conditions. He was a daily

rated worker and he was not a Pre-wage Board monthly

rated employee. He was appointed as Mining Sirdar Gr.II

w.e.f. 1-12-71 (monthly rated post) by Office Order dated

1-12-71 issued by the Dy. Superintendent of Collieries,

Sayal. He was thus a post Wage Board monthly rated

employee and he could get leave and other benefits as per

the Certified Standing Orders and as per the

recommendations of the Central Wage Board to the Coal

Industry to the extent accepted by the Central Government.

As per the Certified Standing Orders of NCDC and the

recommendations of the Central Wage Board to the Coal

Industry to the extent accepted by the Central Govt, he was

entitled to earned/annual leave as per Sec. 52 of the Mines

Act, 1952, sick leave as recommended by the Wage Board

vide para 14 of Chapter XIII of the report of the Central

Wage Board for Coal Industry without the benefit of

accumulation. He was not entitled to casual leave with pay.

The recommendations made by the Wage Board regarding

casual leave were not accepted by the Central Government.

He was entitled only to 7 paid holidays as already provided

in the Manumder Award and subsequent Award and also in

para 16 of Chapter XIII of the Wage Board Report.

Considering the facts and circumstances stated

above, I come to the conclusion that the action of the

management of Sarubera Colliery of C.C. Ltd., P.O.

Sarubera, Dist. Hazaribagh by not granting other benefits

of C.P.C. such as, casual leave for 12 days, earned leave for

33 days and Gazetted holidays for 18 days to Ragha Dusadh,

Mining Sirdar w.e.f. 1-12-1971 is justified and the concerned

workman is not entitled to any relief.

This is my Award.

H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 306-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch- lh-

lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

253@90) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&1&2011

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@147@90&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2011

S.O. 306.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 253/

90) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 4-1-2011.

[No. L-20012/147/90-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s. 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I. D.

Act

Reference No. 253 of 1990

PARTIES : Employers in relation to the Management of

Golukdih Open Cast Project of M/s. BCCL

880

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AND

Their Workmen

Present : SHRI H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers :

Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate.

For the Workman :

None.

State : Jharkhand.

Industry : Coal.

dated the 1st December, 2010

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/147/90-IR (Coal-I) dated

19-10-90 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub section (1) and Sub-section 2(A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal :—

“ Whether the management of Golukdih Open Cast

Project under Bastacolla Area of BCCL was justified

in not regularising Shri Rama B. P. Chainman as

Loading Clerk ? If not, to what relief the workman is

entitled to and from what date ?”

The case of the concerned workman is that he is

a permanent workman of M/s.B.C.C.Ltd. He was employed

on 18-2-1994. His Identity Card No. is 120136. He has been

working as Loading Clerk since 12-12-1987 satisfactorily

and to the entire satisfaction of all concerned in the

Golukdih Open Cast Project of BCCL. After having worked

for more than six months regularly he was eligible for being

regularised as a loading clerk, but the management did not

regularise him. The employer neither paid him wages

payable to a loading clerk nor regularised him as such in a

most illegal and an unjustified manner. The concerned

workman represented several times for his regularisation

but without any affect. The union of the workman raised

an industrial dispute before A.L.C. (C), Dhanbad which

ended in failure and thereafter the dispute was referred to

this tribunal for adjudication.

It has been prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal be

pleased to pass an award directing the management to

regularise the concerned workman w.e.f. 12-12-1987 with

full back wages.

The case of the management is that the

concerned workman holds the substantive post of a

Chainman and is in Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘F’.

He belongs to Survey Cadre of Technical & Supervisory

Staff. JBCCI has framed Cadre Scheme for promotion of

workman belonging to different cadres in the time scales

from one post to next higher post. No rule has been framed

as far by JBCCI fixing criteria for change of cadre. It is

submitted that if persons belonging to one particular

cadre is permitted to be promoted or regularised in another

cadre, there is bound to be resentment and disturbance of

Industrial peace as the persons of that cadre will be deprived

off their chance of promotion. Therefore no rule exists for

change of cadre and no workman can demand for his

promotion from his existing grade to next higher grade in

another cadre by way of regularisation in another cadre.

The demand of the concerned workman for his change to

loading cadre of clerical staff and for his promotion from

Technical and Supervisory Grade ‘F’ to clerical Grade-II

and his regularisation as loading clerk will not only cause

supersession of his seniors in survey cadre in techincal

and Supervisory Grade, but also cause Supersession of

persons in Loading Cadre and other clerical cadre. Therefore

the management can not accede to his demands. The

demand of the concerned workman for his regularisation

as loading clerk merely on the ground that he performed

some jobs of loading clerk for a period of about 5 months

also as a temporary stop gap measure, has no merit at all

and the same can not be acceeded to. Therefore, he is not

entitled to any relief.

It has been prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal be

graciously pleased to pass the Award holding that the

concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

Both the parties have filed their respective

rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of

the paragraphs of each other’s written statement.

The management has produced MW-1, Murari

Mohan Ray, who has proved Exts. M-1, M-1/1, M-2 and

M-2/1. But no witness has been produced on behalf of the

workman though the notice by registered post was sent to

the sponsoring union. First notice was sent on 23-7-2010

and second notice was sent on 28-9-2010 but none

apppeared on behalf of the workman. No evidence was

adduced by the workman though the managment examined

Sri M.M. Ray as MW-1 on 21-10-1994, but that witness

was not cross-examined by the workman. After giving

adjournments the case was again fixed on 27-8-10 for

adducing further evidence on behalf of the management,

but none appeared on that date on behalf of the workman,

Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate, apearing on behalf of the

management closed its evidence. Thereafter, the case was

fixed for adducing evidence by the workman. Since none

was present on behalf of the workman the evidence of the

workman was closed and the argument of the management

was heard.

Considering the facts and circumstances stated

above, I hold that the management of Golukdih Open Cast

Project under Bastacolla Area of BCCL was justified in not

regularising Shri Rama B. P. Chaninman as Loading Clerk

and accordingly the concerned workman is not entitled to

any relief.

This is my Award.

H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh 2011

dk-vk- 307.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ lh- ,e-

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

881

ih- Mh- vkbZ- ,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 la-&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 252@90) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

4&1&11 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@64@90&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2011

S.O. 307.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 252/90)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 1, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. CMPDIL, and their workmen, which was received by

the Central Government on 4-1-2011.

[No. L-20012/64/90-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s. 10 (1) (d) (2A) of I. D.

Act

Reference No. 252 of 1990

Parties : Employers in relation to the Management of

Central Mine Planning & Design Institute Ltd.

AND

Their Workmen

Present : Shri H. M. Singh, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers :

Shri B. K. Sinha, Dy. Manager (P)

For the Workman :

None.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

dated the 2nd December, 2010

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/64/90-IR (Coal-I) dated

19-10-90 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

Sub-Section (1) and 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following dispute for

adjudication to this Tribunal :—

“ Whether the demand of the workman/union that

Shri L.K. Mondal and nine others as per list Annex-D

Store Mazdoors should be reinstated with back wages

and allowed benefits under NCWA-III is justified ? If

so, to what relief these workman are entitled and

from which date ?”

ANNEXURE-D

Name of the workman :

Shri Banwari Mahto S/o Shri S. Mahto.

Shri Jaibi S/o Shri Dhupal.

Shri N.K. Mondal S/o Shri D.C. Mondal.

Shri Yogendra Thakur S/o Shri Ramavatar.

Shri L. K. Mondal S/o Shri D.C. Mondal.

Shri Deep Chand S/o Shri P. Mahto.

Shri Shayam Nandan S/o Shri P. Lal

Shri Rula Ram S/o Shri R. Ram

Shri Binay Ram S/o Shri K. Ram

10. Shri Charku S/o Shri Hiralal.

The case of the concerned workman, in brief, is

that the concerned workman having worked continuously

since January, 1983 have been arbitrarily discharged while

retaining juniors besides employment of new persons as

casual or on voucher payment from time to time, till date,

their retrenchment is grossly arbitrary, illegal and void. In

the eye of law the workmen are factually are legally entitled

to reinstatement and regularisation in Category-I with

retrospective effect of their orginal date of engagement

with full back wages and attendant service benefits.

The case of the management , in brief, is that the

engagement of the casuals and contract workers are wholly

de-centralised and their engagements are made by the

concerned unit only subject to the requirement arising out

of casual exigencies of work like bush/grass cutting, loading

and unloading of store materials, etc. and nowhere it is any

how related with deployment of casual/contract workers of

the other units/establishments of CMPDIL. The engagement

of such casual/contract workers, arising out of the exigencies

of work remains continued till the demand of the work is

there and their services are dispensed with when such nature

of casual work is over. In such circumstances, the concerned

workmen are not entitled to get any relief.

The concerned workmen represented till

30-6-1996. After that they have not represented though

registered notice was sent to them on 22-7-2010 and again

on 28-9-10 fixing the date for adducing evidence by the

workman. But none represented on behalf of the workmen,

though the representative of the management appeared.

In such circumstances the evidence of the workmen was

closed and the case was reserved for passing of the award

and the parties were directed to file written argument within

15 days, if they so desired. But no written argument was

filed by the workman. Therefore, it seems that neither the

sponsoring union nor the concerned workman are

interested to contest the case.

Accordingly, I render a ‘No Dispute’ award in

the present industrial dispute.

H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

882

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 308.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ch- lh- lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la&2] /uckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 49@2006) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 4&1&2011 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@36@2006&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2011

S.O. 308.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 49/2006)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 4-1-2011.

[No. L-20012/36/2006-IR (CM-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT: SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE No. 49/2006

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of

Barora Area-I of M/s. BCCL and their workmen.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman

None

On behalf of the employers :

Mr. B. M. Prasad,

Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 16th Dec., 2010

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section

10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/36/2006-IR (CM-I), dated 10-7-2006/28-7-2006.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the demand of the Bihar Colliery Kamgar

Union from the management of BCCL Barora Area-I

that Sh. Ramdhir Ram be given grade ‘A’ w.e.f.

27-10-97 and Spl. Gr. w.e.f. 1-1-2001 with all

consequential benefits is justified? If so, to what

relief is the workman entitled?”

2. The instant case as sponsored by the union

concerned relates to the claim of Shri Ramdhir Ram for

giving him Grade ‘A’ and Special Grade with effect from

27-10-97 and 1-1-2001 with all consequential benefits

respectively.

3. On going through the case record I find the case

was running for filling W.S. -cum-rejoinder on behalf of the

management as well as for an order over the petition (dated

12-11-2009) filed on behalf of the workman concerning his

uninterestedness to contest the case with the prayer to

pass ‘No dispute’ Award.

4. Despite the registered notices dated 20-10-2010,

the representative of the workman did not appear.

Shri B. M. Prasad, Ld. Advocate for the management is

present. The case record discloses the facts that the

workman had filed a petition dated 12-10-2009 which was

seen by Shri B.M. Prasad, Ld. Advocate for the management

on 16-12-2010 which is under the signature of the workman

Ramdhir Ram, stating therein that the workman is not

interested to contest the case, hence ‘No dispute ’ Award

be passed. No objection to it was raised on behalf of the

aforesaid Ld. Counsel for the management.

5. Considering the aforsaid facts and circumstances,

I find and hold that workman Shri Ramdhir Ram, whose

cause was sponsored by the union concerned for his up-

grading, himself appears to be disinterested or unwilling

to present with his case. So it is not pertinent to carry on

the proceeding. Therefore, it is closed and accordingly

order is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 309.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ch- lh- lh- ,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds

deZdkjksa ds chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh;

ljdkj vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la&2] /uckn ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 58@2005) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 4&1&2011 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@276@2004&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2011

S.O. 309 .—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 58/2005)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

883

Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 4-1-2011.

[No. L-20012/276/2004-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT: SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE No. 58/2005

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of

Lodna Colliery of M/s. BCCL and their workmen.

APPEARANCES:

On behalf of the workman

Mr. Ram Ratan Ram,

Advocate

On behalf of the employers :

Mr. D. K. Verma,

Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 7th Dec., 2010

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section

10(1)(d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L- 20012/276/2004 -IR(C-I), dated, the 2nd June, 2005.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Lodna

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Sri Brahmdeo

Bhuiya, M/L, is justified? If not, to what relief is the

concerned workman entitled ?”

2. The case of the workman as sponsored by the

Union in brief is that the workman Brahmdeo Bhuia bearing

personnel No. 02621837, Miner/Loader was a permanent

employee in Lodna Colliery since 18-7-1979. He had been

performing his job sincerely, regularly and punctuality and

never neglecting his duty but the management alleging

against him for unauthorised absence from his duty issued

Chargesheet No.L-130/02 dated 3-10-02. He submitted his

satisfactory reply to the Chargesheet that he had been

absent from his duty from 30-6-2002 due to severe illness

of his son and wife and for his illiteracy, he could not inform

the management of it, being unaware of the normal rules of

the Company. Though he several times represented himself

before the authority concerned to resume his service yet

his grievance went unheard. Meanwhile the management

dismissed him from his service with effect from 18-7-2003

without rhyme or reason as well as without domestic

enquiry. So his dismissal was unjustified in the eye of law.

So the workman has claimed for his reinstatement in service

with his full back wages.

3. On the other hand the pleadings of the management

is that the workman is a permanent employee of Lodna

Colliery working as Miner/Loader since 18-7-1979 and as

per Form B Register his date of birth is 21-4-1954. The

workman began to habitually absent without information

and sufficient cause as in the last previous years 2000,

2001, 2002 in which his attendance were 228, 149 and 7

days respectively. In the year 2001 the management allowed

him to resume his duty with minor punishment of deduction

of one S.P.R.A. Despite the punishment the workman did

not improve his attendance and again began to absent

from his duty with effect from 3-6-2002, for which he was

chargesheeted 3-10-2002 (Ext. M-2). Despite the service of

the chargesheet upon the workman, no reply was submitted

on his behalf. So the management decided to hold a

departmental enquiry and accordingly Shri S. Surin,

Personnel Manager of Lodna Colliery as Enquiry Officer

was appointed and according the domestic enquiry was

held in accordance with the principle of natural justice.

Further alleged, despite the several notices even through

registered post, and notices having been pasted in the

Notice Board, the workman did not appear before the

Enquiry Officer to participate in the enquiry without any

sufficient cause. It resulted in conducting an exparte

enquiry in which the Enquiry Officer found him guilty of

the charges levelled against him and submitted the enquiry

report, upon which the Disciplinary Authority issued

second show cause notice to the workman, who did not

submit any representation; thereafter the workman was

dismissed for his proved misconduct. As such his dismissal

was quite legal and justified. It was urged on behalf of the

management to firstly decide the fairness of the domestic

enquiry as a preliminary issues and if enquiry is found not

fair and proper and then the management be allowed to

adduce evidence afresh.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the instant case under adjudication, I find on

the admission of the sponsoring union as per the petition

dated 6-12-2007 that the union accepted the enquiry fair

and proper. Secondly relevant documents particularly

related to the domestic enquiry which is utterly exparte,

having marked as exhibits for the management. Accordingly

the domestic enquiry as preliminiary issue was held by this

Tribunal as fair, proper and in accordance with the principle

of natural justice as per order dated 31-1-2008.

5. On the consideration of admitted facts of the

domestic enquiry I find that the domestic enquiry though

proceded exparte yet inspite of several notices (five notices)

(Ext. M-3 series) having been issued by the Enquiry Officer

Sri H. Surin, Personnel Manager of Lodna Colliery by virtue

of his appointment by the Manager concerned as per the

884

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Office Order dated 10-12-2002 (Ext. M-1) though the

concerned workman Brahmdeo Bhuiya, Miner/Loader did

not appear. A Memo of charge dated 3-10-2002 (Ext. M-2)

which is alleged to have been issued to the concerned

workman on his working place address, alleges that he had

over stayed for 78 days from 1-7-2002 to 1-10-2002 without

permission/information to the competent authority

amounting to misconduct under clause 26-1-1 of the

C.S.O.(Certified Standing Order of the Company) after

granting his 4 days leave from 26th to 29th June, 2002. The

enquiry proceedings dated of relevant 4 days (Ext. M-4) all

along indicate the absence of the concerned workman

Brahmdeo Bhuiya before the aforesaid Enquiry Officer and

at last it culminated into the submission of his enquiry

report dated 26-6-2003 (Ext. M-5) against the workman by

holding him guilty of the said charges as habitual absentee.

The enquiry report palpably proves his attendance 228,

149 and 7 days in the previous years (including disputed

year 2002) 2000, 2001 and 2002 respectively. It deals with

18-12-2001, 24-05-2002 and deductions of one S.P.R.A. under

the heads ‘‘Date of absence, date of joining and

punishment noted against the year 2001 in which the

workman was in attendance for 149 days but it does not

justify anywhere else the reasons of the deduction of the

aforesaid S.P.R.A. So the Enquiry Report itself appears to

be too ambiguous in the term of the English Calendar year.

The Enquiry Officer concerned holding him guilty also held

him a habitual absentee labourer but it does not stand

proved in view of his aforesaid attendance for the previous

two years, namely 2000, 2001 respectively rather it proves

the continuous service of the workman as a Miner/Loader

who works in the underground Mines as defined under

Section 25B of the I.D. Act, 1947. Amittedly, the status of

the concerned workman as permanent Miner/Loader is

undisputable.

6. In this proceeding, I find that the dismissal order

(Ext. M-7) was passed by the Project Officer of Lodna

Colliery to the concerned workman Brahmdeo Bhuiya,

following the submission of the aforesaid enquiry report

by the Enquiry Officer Shri H. Surin, Personnel Manager of

Lodna Colliery, the Certified Standing Order under clause

6.13 under the head ‘‘Employer” means as defined or

assigned to in Section 2(d) of the Industrial Employment

(Standing Orders) Act, 1946 which means the owner of the

Industrial Establishment and also includes authority

appointed by such Government or any person responsible

to the owner for the supervision and control of the

Industrial Establishment but as I think, it does not include

the Project Officer of the aforesaid Colliery as an employer,

so the dismissal of this person, permanent Miner/Loader

by the Project Officer of the Colliery is quite null and void.

7. In view of the aforesaid materials available on the

case record I find that the concerned workman was never

earlier charged for any absenteeism. So the allegation

against him to be a habitual absentee from his duty seems

to be untenable.

8. In the result, I find and hold that the action of the

management of Lodna Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing

Sri Brahmdeo Bhuiya, M/L is illegal and unjustified.

Consequently, he is entitled to reinstatement in his service

from the date of his dismissal with continuity of service

but without any back wages. The management is directed

to reinstate the concerned workman in his service within

three months from the date of the publication of award in

the Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 4 tuojh 2011

dk-vk- 310-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-

lh-,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] la&2 /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

07@2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 4&1&2011

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&20012@406@2000&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 4th January, 2011

S.O. 310.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 07/2001)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workman, which

was received by the Central Government on 4-1-2011.

[No. L-20012/406/2000-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

Present:- SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10(1)

(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE No. 7 of 2001

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s.

BCCL and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman

Mr. T.P. Jha, Advocate.

On behalf of the employers :

Mr: D. K. Verma, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 15th December, 2010

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

885

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-20012/406/2000-IR (C-I), dated 12th January, 2001.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management in not

regularising Sri Jai Prakash Thakur as a Clerk w.e.f.

30-3-92 is justified? If not, to what relief is the workman

entitled?”

2. This case relates to the regularisation of Sri Jai

Prakash Thakur as a Clerk w.e.f. 30-3-92 under the

management of M/s. BCCL.

3. From perusal of the case record I find that the

present case under adjudication was running at the stage

of hearing argument. Meanwhile copy of office order Vide

Ref.No. BCCL/GM/LA/PER 2009/3400 dated 20/24-4-09 filed

on behalf of the management with submission that the

workman J.P. Thakur has been regularised in Clerical Grade-

III, as communicated by the G.M. (P&IR) Koyla Bhawan

vide Office Order No. BCCL/GM/P&IR)/SECY/09/158 dated

28-2-2009 subject to the terms and condition as stated

therein.

4. So, no longer the aforesaid industrial dispute under

reference exists for adjudication by this Tribunal because

the workman concerned has been regularised as a Clerk

Grade-III. Under this circumstances, the case is closed and

accordingly order is passed.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh 2011

dk-vk- 311-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj iSjkekm.V

,;jost 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 61@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5&1&2011 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@73@2007&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 311.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No 61/2007)

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 M/s. Paramount Airways and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 5-1-2011.

[No. L-11012/73/2007-IR (C-I)]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 16th December, 2010

Present: A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 61/2007

[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 Paramount Airways and their Workman]

Between

Sri N. Ananth Kumar

1st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

The General Manager (HR) :

2nd Party/Management

Paramount Airways

Alexander Square

No. 34/35, Sardar Patel Road,

Chennai-600032

Appearance:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: M/s. S. Gunaseelan & C.

Venkatesan, Advocates.

For the 2nd Party/Management : Sri Patrick Ryan,

Advocate.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its

Order No. L-11012/73/2007-IR(CM-I) dated 25-10-2007

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of

Paramount Airways Pvt. Ltd. Chennai in discharging

the services of Sri N. Anantha Kumar, Cabin Helper

w.e.f 9-09-2006 is justified and legal? If not, to what

relief is the concerned workman entitled?”

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal

has numbered it as 61/2007 and issued notices to both

sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed their petition under Section

2(A) (2) and Counter Statement as the case may be.

886

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

3. The averments in the petition necessary for the

decision are stated below:

The petitioner entered service under the Respondent

on 26-05-2006 on the issuance of an appointment order. He

joined as a Cabin Helper and has been drawing a monthly

salary of Rs. 6,000. He had been under Contractor, Universal

Service under Jet Airways. While so, one Mr. Kevin Jinnu,

Cabin In-charge and Technician of Respondent contracted

petitioner through petitioner’s superior. On demand of

Mr. Kevin Jinnu and believing his assurance of better

salary, direct employment with the Respondent Company,

job security and other advantages petitioner resigned from

Jet Airways and joined Respondent Airways. Appointment

order does not whisper it as temporary or contractual in

nature. Petitioner has been working over 12 hours a day

without availing any statutory leave or other facilities. For

the first 3 months he was not given salary, which if

pressurized for he was threatened to be discountiuned from

work. The same later paid in the 4th month was actually

lesser than that had been promised. The Management got

irritated and wanted to victimize him. His service was

terminated on 8-9-2006 without any notice. He has not

committed any misconduct. No enquiry was conducted on

the basis of any charge-sheet issued. His termination is

illegal and void. To a legal notice dated 20-09-2006 no

response was found. Hence the ID raised, which having

failed the reference is occasioned. He has not been

employed elsewhere after his termination. Hence the

termination is to be set aside and he be reinstated with all

benefits.

4. The allegations in the Counter Statement necessary

for adjudication are as follows:

To tide over emergencies certain standard

appointment orders are issued other than from the

Corporate Office for deploying workmen at Airport for

peripheral work such as House Keeping, Security, etc. Their

regularization is done by Corporate Office on merits.

Petitioner was appointed in the above manner to clean the

interiors of the Aircraft without following normal procedure

of recruitment. He was recruited for the specific purpose of

cleaning, etc. on account of inability of the Contractor to

supply sufficient Cabin Helpers. The fact was not

communicated to the Corporate Office and his salary of

Rs. 3,000 per month could not be released in time. The

Contracor later made good the shortage of Cabin Helpers.

Hence he was discharged. Having not admittedly put in

240 days of service, no condition is to be fulfilled preceding

discharge. An appointment order was issued to him to

enable him get entry pass in the Airport. It is denied that he

worked for 12 hours in a day. His attempt is to enter into

service through devious backdoor method. His salary has

not been Rs. 6,000 per mensem. He accepted by cheque

Rs. 8,842 towards salary for 3 months without demur. Mr.

Kevin Jinnu, Cabin In-charge is not authority to decide

service matters of the Management. It is denied that he

made any commitment to the petitioner. When the

contingency was over petitioner’s contingent appointment

reached its logical conclusion. He has not committed any

misconduct. He was only dicharged on account of

redundancy as the contingency was over. He had worked

only for 90 days. He is under the employment of some

other agency. The petition is to be dismissed.

5. The points for consideration are:

(i)

Whether the discharge of the petitioner from

the service of the Management is justified and

legal?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?

6. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of WW1

and WW2 and Ex. W1 to Ex. W7 on the petitioner’s side

and that of MW1 and Ex. M1 to Ex. M7 on the side of the

Respondent.

Points (i) & (ii)

7. As per Memo dated 5-06-2009 filed by the

petitioner’s counsel in ID 61/2007 the evidence of WW2,

Sri C. Kannan claiming to be a Driver under the

Management is sought to be treated as common witness in

all the IDs viz. 61/2007, 62/2007 and 63/2007.

8. By way of common arguments it is argued on behalf

of the petitioners in ID 61/2007, ID 62/2007 and ID 63/2007

that Ex. W2-Appointment Order issued separately to each

individual workman partakes the characteristic of an

appointment of permanent nature. The appointment is w.e.f.

29-05-2006. They had been previously employed as Cabin

Helper under Jet Airways. They were called to the

Respondent Airways and were thus engaged. They were

issued ID Cards by the Management. They have been

illegally terminated w.e.f. 8-9-2006 without following the

legal formalities under the notion that the appointment is

temporary in nature. Though there is an agreement marked

as Ex. M1 between the Management and M/s. P.S.M.

Aviation (P) Ltd. as Contractor, the so-called Contractor

has not been impleaded. Except for the Ex. M1-Contract

Agreement there is no evidence at all to substantiate

anything respecting it to show the existence or otherwise

of any contractual obligations inter se the parties thereby.

Ex. M2 is shown as the usual format of appointment order

issued by the Management. The learned counsel continued

to argue that the petitioners are neither contract workers

nor casual employees but are permanent appointees. They

were appointed under the recommendation of Kevin Jinnu,

Officer of the Respondent Management. He has not been

examined to disprove the claim of the petitioners. The

discharge of petitioners in without any enquiry and the

petitioners are entitled to be reinstated.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

887

9. The contra arguments on behalf of the Respondent

are that the appointment of the petitioners was on a

contingency of inability of the Contractor to supply

sufficient Cabin Helpers, which when was over they have

been discharged. Their appointment was not on the normal

norms or procedure of recruitment. The Ex. W2 Appointment

order is not a permanent Appointment Order as can be

found on a contrast with the usual format of appointment

Order marked as Ex. M2. Petitioners have not completed

240 days in a Calendar Year prior to dispensation of

services. Compliance with Section-25F of the ID Act does

not arise. The Appointment Order was issued to enable

petitioners to get security clearance by the Ministry of

Civil Aviation. It does not have the trappings of a

permanent Appointment Order. Petitioners were to have

examined Mr.Kevin Jinnu to establish their case. Their

wages were Rs. 3,000 per month and not Rs. 6,000 as claimed.

The attempt of the petitioners is to get into service through

backdoor.

10. While the case of the petitioners is that they are

appointees on permanent basis under the Management

the same proposition of fact is keenly denied by the

Management. Petitioners seek to rely on Ex. W2-

Appointment Order under which they claim to have been

appointed on a permanent basis. In order to resolve the

controversy in the ID a decision centering around the

genuineness or validity of Ex. W2-Appointment Order is

the crucial factor. On a contrast with Ex. M2-Usual fromat

of Appointment Order as claimed by the Management

discernibly both are a bit different in pari-materia. Ex. W2-

Appointment Order issued to petitioner appears to be a

truncated part of Ex.M2 issued by the Management Ex. W2

conveys the petitioner an idea that they are appointed on

a regular basis with liability for superannuation at the age

of 58 years. The Management has no dispute that the

Appointment Order in question was not issued to the

petitioners and not by them. According to them it was

issued on a contingency of insufficient number of Cabin

Helpers supervening to be provided by the Contractor.

When the contingency was over they were discharged

and it is a discharge simplicitor and the provisions of the

ID Act are not applicable to the same. The further case of

the Management is that the Appointment Orders were

issued to them to enable them to get security clearance

from the Ministry of Civil Aviation. Their case again is that

petitioners have not completed 240 days continuous service

within a period of 12 Calendar Months preceding termination

and therefore under no strech of imagination they could be

thought of having blossomed right for regularization.

11. Here the case is not for regularization as such

but for reinstatement. Going by the Appointment Orders

what appears is that with the couched words therein the

petitioners have been led to be carried away by a belief of

they being appointed on a permanent basis under the

Management. The Appointment Order does not whisper

the nature of the appointment either as contractual or casual

in nature. The Appointment Order specifies the age at which

the appointees shall superannuate from service i.e. as 58

years. It is at this juncture that the petitioners have

happened to be discharged from service. It is not a

dismissal under a disciplinary proceeding after an enquiry.

There is no stigma against the petitioners.

12. Despite all these contentions as above the

question is whether the discharge of the petitioners is legal

and justified. When the appointment is neither casual nor

contractual and in as much as the appointment order

conveys an idea of an appointment of a permanent nature

conferred on the petitioners, in the absence of mention of

prevalence of any contingency as the background for the

appointment and the fact that the Appointment Order makes

it clear that the petitioners are to retire at the age of 58

years it is hardly possible to reasonably or legitimately

conclude that the petitioners have been appointed on a

temporary basis. From the nature of the Appointment Order

issued it is apt to hold that they are treated as appointees

on a permanent basis. Therefore, they are not with the

mandatory and statutory requirement of having to complete

240 days of service so as to presume them to have

completed continuous service of 1 year for entitlement of

the benefits under Section-25F of the ID Act. Even without

any such presumption they are just to be considered as

permanent employees as their appointment orders give

them such a conviction that they are permanently

appointed. The evidence let in by the Management is too

inadequate or unconvincing to lead to a contra view. What

we are concerned with in this adjudication process is

regarding the legality and justifiability of the discharge of

the petitioners from service. When workman in permanent

service or deemed permanent service are discharged, the

conditions under Section-25F of the ID Act have to be

followed which have not been complied with in the matter

of discharge of the petitioners from service. Therefore, the

discharged of the petitioners amounts to retrenchment and

the same is liable to be set aside and the petitioners are to

be reinstated into service forthwith and it is ordered

accordingly. After such reinstatement if by reason of the

couching of the appointment orders issued to them in a

manner as are different from the usual formats of the

appointment orders and therefore the same further require

to be made in the form or in consonance with the usual

practice, for want of which the appointment cannot be made

substantive, regularized or the workmen cannot be

absorbed into the service, the Management is at liberty to

decide by itself in accordance with what is proper and legal

as well as in accordance with the recruitment procedure

and norms thereof. As it is and on the facts the workmen

888

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

are entitled to be reinstated for violation of Section-25F of

the I D Act and thereafter it is open to the Management to

deal with them as mentioned above and according to law.

13. The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P. A. transcribed and typed by him,

correted and pronounced by me in the open court on this

day the 16th December, 2010)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

WW1 Sri N.

Ananthakumar

WW2, Sri C. Kannan

For the 2nd Party/Management :

MW1, Sri K. Vijaya

Kumar

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

12-04-2006

Copy of the Registration letter

to Universal Company in Tamil

and signed by the 1st Party/

Petitioner.

Ex.W2

26-05-2006

Copy of the Appointment

Order issued by the 2nd

Respondent.

Ex.W3

Copy of the daily permit pass

issued by the Bureau of Civil

Aviation.

Ex.W4

Copy of the University

Company Identity Card.

Ex.W5

20-09-2006

Copy of the legal notice issued

by the petitioner in English to

Respondent.

Ex.W6

9-08-2006

Copy of the letter demanding

salary from the Respondent.

Ex.W7

Copy of the application to

Labour Commissioner.

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

Copy of agreement between

Respondent Management and

PSM Aviation to supply Cabin

Helpers.

Ex. M2

Copy of the specimen regular

appointment order of 2nd party.

Ex. M3

26-05-2006

Copy of the Appointment

Order issued to the 1st Party.

Ex. M4

Letter issued by the 1st Party

to the 2nd Party claiming wages

with endorsement of 2nd Party

dated 9-8-2006.

Ex. M5

6-09-2006

Copy of the IDBI cheque No.

013305 dated 6-9-2006 for

Rs. 8,842 towards wages for

3 months.

Ex. M6

22-01-2007

Copy of the failure report in

RC No. B/589/06 issued by

the Labour Officer-III of

Government of Tamil Nadu.

Ex. M7

Copy of the authorization given

to Sri K. Vijaya Kumar to

represent on behalf of the 2nd

Party.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh 2011

dk-vk- 312-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ iSjkekm.V

,;jost 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 63@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5&1&2011 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@71@2007&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 312.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 63/2007)

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 M/s. Paramount Airways and their

workmen, which was received by the Central Government

on 5-1-2011.

[No. L-11012/71/2007-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 16th December, 2010

PRESENT : A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

889

Industrial Dispute No. 63/2007

[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 Paramount Airways and their Workmen]

BETWEEN

Sri N. Arumugam

1st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

The General Manager (HR), :

2nd Party/Management

Paramount Airways,

Alexander Square,

No. 34/35, Sardar Patel Road,

Chennai-600 032

APPEARANCE:

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

: M/s. S. Gunaseelan &

C. Venkatesan,

Advocates.

For the 2nd Party/Management : Sri Patrick Ryan,

Advocate.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its

Order No. L-11012/71/2007-IR(CM-I) dated 26-10-2007

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of

Paramount Airways Pvt. Ltd., Chennai in discharging

the services of Sri N. Arumugam, Cabin Helper w.e.f.

9-9-2006 is justified and legal? If not, to what relief is

the concerned workman entitled?”

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this

Tribunal has numbered it as 63/2007 and issued notices

to both sides. Both sides entered appearance through

their respective counsel and filed their petition under

Section 2(A) (2) and Counter Statement as the case may

be.

3. The averments in the petition necessary for the

decision are stated below:

The petitioner entered service under the Respondent

on 26-05-2006 on the issuance of an appointment order. He

joined as a Cabin Helper and have been drawing a monthy

salary of Rs. 6,000. He had been under Contractor, Universal

Service under Jet Airways. While so, one Mr. Kevin Jinnu,

Cabin In-charge and Technician of Respondent contracted

petitioner through petitioner’s superior. On demand of

Mr. Kevin Jinnu and believing his assurance of better

salary, direct employment with the Respondent Company,

job security and other advantages petitioner resigned from

Jet Airways and joined Respondent Airways. Appointment

order does not whisper it as temporary or contractual in

nature. Petitioner had been working over 12 hours a day

without availing any statutory leave or other facilities. For

the first 3 months he was not given salary, which if

pressurized for he was threatened to be discontinued from

work. The same later paid in the 4th month was actually

lesser than that had been promised. The Management got

irritated and wanted to victimize him. His service was

terminated on 8-09-2006 without any notice. He has not

committed any misconduct. No enquiry was conducted on

the basis of any charge-sheet issued. His termination is

illegal and void. To a legal notice dated 20-09-2006 no

response was found. Hence the ID raised, which having

failed the reference is occasioned. He has not been

employed elsewhere after his termination. Hence the

termination is to be set aside and he be reinstated with all

benefits.

4. The allegations in the Counter Statement necessary

for adjudication are as follows:

To tide over emergencies certain standard

appointment orders are issued other than from the

Corporate Office for deploying workmen at Airport for

peripheral work such as House Keeping, Security, etc. Their

regularization is done by Corporate Office on merits.

Petitioner was appointed in the above manner to clean the

interiors of the Aircraft without following normal procedure

of recruitment. He was recruited for the specific purpose of

cleaning, etc. on account of inability of the Contractor to

supply sufficient Cabin Helpers. The fact was not

communicated to the Corporate Office and his salary of

Rs. 3,000 per month could not be released in time. The

Contractor later made good the shortage of Cabin Helpers.

Hence he was discharged. Having not admittedly put in

240 days of service, no condition is to be fulfilled preceding

discharge. An appointment order was issued to him to

enable him get entry pass in the Airport. It is denied that he

worked for 12 hours in a day. His attempt is to enter into

service through devious backdoor method. His salary has

been Rs. 6,000 per mensem. He accepted by cheque

Rs. 8,842 towards salary for 3 months without demur. Mr.

Kevin Jinnu, Cabin In-charge is not authority to decide

service matters of the Management. It is denied that he

made any commitment to the petitioner. When the

contingency was over petitioner’s contingent appointment

reached its logical conclusion. He has not committed any

misconduct. He was only discharged on account of

redundancy as the contingency was over. He had worked

only for 90 days. He is under the employment of some

other agency. The petition is to be dismissed.

5. The points for consideration are:

890

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(i)

Whether the discharge of the petitioner from

the service of the Management is justified and

legal?

(ii) To what relief the concerned workman is

entitled?

6. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of WW1

andWW2 and Ex. W1 to Ex. W7 on the petitioner’s side

and that of MW1 and Ex. M1 to Ex. M7 on the side of the

Respondent.

Points (i) & (ii)

7. As per Memo dated 5-6-2009 filed by the

petitioner’s counsel in ID 63/2007 the evidence of WW2,

Sri C. Kannan claiming to be a Driver under the

Management is sought to be treated as common withness

in all the IDs viz,. 61/2007, 62/2007 and 63/2007.

8. By way of common arguments it is argued on behalf

of the petitioners in ID 61/2007, ID 62/2007 and ID 63/2007

that Ex. W2—Appointment Order issued separately to each

individual workman partakes the characteristic of an

appointment of permanent nature. The appointment is w.e.f.

29-05-2006. They had been previously employed as Cabin

Helper under Jet Airways. They were called to the

Respondent Airways and were thus engaged. They were

issued ID Cards by the Management. They have been

illegally terminated w.e.f. 08-09-2006 without following the

legal formalities under the notion that the appointment is

temporary in nature. Though there is an agreement marked

as Ex. M1 between the Management and M/s. P.S.M.

Aviation (P) Ltd. as Contractor, the so-called Contractor

has not been impleaded. Except for the Ex. M1—Contract

Agreement there is no evidence at all to substantiate

anything respecting it to show the existence or otherwise

of any contractual obligations interse the parties thereby.

Ex. M2 is shown as the usual format of appointment order

issued by the Management. The learned counsel continued

to argue that the petitioners are neither contract workers

nor casual employees but are permanent appointees. They

were appointed under the recommendation of Kevin Jinnu,

Officer of the Respondent Management. He has not been

examined to disprove the claim of the petitioners. The

discharge of petitioners is without any enquiry and the

petitioners are entitled to be reinstated.

9. The contra arguments on behalf of the Respondent

are that the appointment of the petitioners was on a

contingency of inability of the Contractor to supply

sufficient Cabin Helpers, which when was over they have

been discharged. Their appointment was not on the normal

norms or procedure of recruitment. The Ex. W2 Appointment

order is not a permanent Appointment Order as can be

found on a contrast with the usual format of appointment

order marked as Ex. M2. Petitioners have not completed

240 days in a Calendar Year prior to dispensation of

services. Compliance with Seciton-25F of the ID Act does

not arise. The Appointment Order was issued to enable

petitioners to get security clearance by the Ministry of Civil

Aviation. It does not have the trappings of a permanent

Appointment Order. Petitioners were to have examined Mr.

Kevin Jinnu to establish their case. Their wages were Rs.

3,000 per month and not Rs. 6,000 as claimed . The attempt

of the petitioners is to get into service through backdoor.

10. While the case of the petitioners is that they are

appointees on permanent basis under the Management

the same proposition of fact is keenly denied by the

Management. Petitioners seek to rely on Ex. W2-

Appointment Order under which they claim to have been

appointed on a permanent basis. In order to resolve the

controversy in the ID a decision centering around the

genuineness or validity of Ex. W2—Appointment Order in

the crucial factor. On a contrast with Ex. M2—Usual format

of Appointment Order as claimed by the Management

discernibly both are a bit different in pari-materia. Ex. W2-

Appointment Order issued to petitioner appears to be a

truncated part of Ex. M2 issued by the Management Ex.

W2 conveys the petitioner an idea that they are appointed

on a regular basis with liability for superannuation at the

age of 58 years. The Management has to dispute that the

Appointment Order in question was not issued to the

petitioners and not by him. According to them it was issued

on a contingency of insufficient number of Cabin Helpers

supervening to be provided by the Contractor.When the

contingency was over they were discharged and it is a

discharge simplicitor and the provisions of the ID Act are

not applicable to the same. The further case of the

Management is that the Appointment Orders were isssued

to them to enable them to get security clearance from the

Ministry of Civil Aviation. Their case again is that petitioners

have not completed 240 days continuous service within a

period of 12 Calendar Months preceding termination and

therefore under no stretch of imagination they could be

thought of having blossemed right for regularization.

11. Here the case is not for regularization as such but

for reinstatement. Going by the Appointment Orders what

appears is that with the couched words therein the

petitioners have been led to be carried away by a belief of

they being appointed on a permanent basis under the

Management. The Appointment Order does not whisper

the nature of the appointment either as contractual or casual

in nature. The Appointment Order specifies the age at which

the appointees shall superannuate from service i.e. as 58

years. It is at this juncuture that the petitioners have

happened to be discharged from service. It is not a

dismissal under a disciplinary proceeding after an enquiry.

There is no stigma against the petitioners.

12. Despite all these contentions as above the

question is whether the discharge of the petitioners is legal

and justified. When the appointment is neither casual nor

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

891

contractual and in as much as the appointment order

conveys an idea of an appointment of a permanent nature

conferred on the petitioners, in the absence of mention of

prevalence of any contingency as the background for the

appointment and the fact that the Appointment Order makes

it clear that the petitioners are to retire at the age of 58

years it is hardly possible to reasonably or legitimately

conclude that the petitioners have been appointed on a

temporary basis. From the nature of the Appointment Order

issued it is apt to hold that they are treated as appointees

on a permanent basis. Therefore, they are not with the

mandatory and statutory requirement of having to complete

240 days of service so as to presume them to have

completed continuous service of 1 year for entitlement of

the benefits under Section-25F of the ID Act. Even without

any such presumption they are just to be considered as

permanent employees as their appointment orders give

them such a conviction that they are permanently

appointed. The evidence let in by the Management is too

inadequate or unconvincing to lead to a contra view. What

we are concerned with in this adjudication process is

regarding the legality and justifiability of the discharge of

the petitioners from service. When workmen in permanent

service or deemed permanent service are discharged, the

conditions under Section-25F of the ID Act have to be

followed which have not been complied with in the matter

of discharge of the petitioners from service. Therefore, the

discharge of the petitioners amounts to retrenchment and

the same is liable to be set aside and the petitioners are to

be reinstated into service forthwith and it is ordered

accordingly. After such reinstatement if by reason of the

couching of the appointment orders issued to them in a

manner as are different from the usual formats of the

appointment orders and therefore the same further require

to be made in the form or in consonance with the usual

practice, for want of which the appointment cannot be made

substantive, regularized or the workmen cannot be

absorbed into the service, the Management is at liberty to

decide by itself in accordance with what is proper and legal

as well as in accordance with the recruitment procedure

and norms thereof. As it is and on the facts the workmen

are entitled to be reinstated for violation of Section-25F of

the ID Act and thereafter it is open to the Management to

deal with them as mentioned above and according to law.

13. 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 16th December, 2010)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Exmined:—

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

WW1 Sri N.

Arumugam

WW2, Sri C. Kannan

For the 2nd Party/Management :

MW1, Sri K. Vijay

Kumar

Documents Marked:

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex.W1

26-05-2006

Copy of the Appointment Order

Ex.W2

02-06-2006

Copy of the daily Permit Card

issued by the Bureau of Civil

Aviation

Ex.W3

Copy of the Universal Service

Identity Card

Ex.W4

09-06-2006

Copy of the Temporary Pass

issued by the Jet Airways

Ex.W5

28-03-2007

Copy of the Conciliation Failure

Report

Ex.W6

09-08-2006

Copy of the letter to Vice-

President, Sri Gopalakrishan

Ex.W7

20-09-2006

Copy of the legal notice.

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

Copy of agreement between

Respondent Management and

PSM Aviation to supply Cabin

Helpers

Ex. M2

Copy of the specimen regular

appointment order of 2nd party

Ex. M3

26-05-2006

Copy of the Appointment

Order issued to the 1st Party

Ex. M4

Letter issued by the 1st Party

to the 2nd Party claiming wages

with endorsement of 2nd Party

dated 09-08-2006

Ex. M5

06-09-2006

Copy of the IDBI cheque No.

013305 dated 06-09-2006 for

Rs. 8,842 towards wages for

3 months

Ex. M6

22-01-2007

Copy of the failure report in

RC No. B/590/06 issued by

the Labour Officer-III of

Government of Tamil Nadu.

Ex. M7

Copy of the authorization given

to Sri K.Vijaya Kumar to

represent on behalf of the 2nd

Party

892

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 313-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

iSjkekmaV ,;jost 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

62@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5&1&2011

dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y- 11012@72@2007&vkbZ vkj (lh,e&I)º

Mh-,l-,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S. O. 313.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 62/

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 M/s. Paramount Airways and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 5-1-2011.

[ No. L-11012/72/2007-IR (CM-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

CHENNAI

Thursday, the 16th December, 2010

PRESENT : A. N. Janardanan, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 62/2007

(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 Paramount Airways and their

Workman)

BETWEEN

Sri G. Sankar Ganesh

1st Party/Petitioner

Vs.

The General Manager (HR)

2nd Party/Management

Paramount Airways

Alexander Square

No. 34/35, Sardar Patel Road

Chennai-600032

APPEARANCE :

For the 1st Party/Petitioner

M/s. S. Gunaseelan &

C. Venkatesan, Advocate

For the 2nd Party/

Sri Patrick Ryan, Advocate

Management

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide

its Order No. L-11012/72/2007-IR-(CM-I) dated 26-10-2007

referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal

for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

“Whether the action of the management of

Paramount Airways Pvt. Ltd., Chennai in discharging

the services of Sri G. Sankar Ganesh, Cabin Helper

w.e.f. 9-9-2006 is justified and legal? If not, to what

relief is the concerned workman entitled?”

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this

Tribunal has numbered it as 62/2007 and issued notices to

both sides. Both sides entered appearance through their

respective counsel and filed their petition under Section-

2(A)(2) and Counter Statement as the case may be.

3. The averments in the petition necessary for the

decision are stated below :

The petitioner entered service under the Respondent

on 26-5-2006 on the issuance of an appointment order. He

joined as a Cabin Helper and have been drawing a monthly

salary of Rs. 6,000. He had been under Contractor,

Universal Service under Jet Airways. While so, one

Mr. Kevin Jinnu, Cabin In-charge and Technician of

Respondent contacted petitioner through petitioner’s

superior. On demand of Mr. Kevin Jinnu and believing his

assurance of better salary, direct employment with the

Respondent Company, job security and other advantages

petitioner resigned from Jet Airways and joined

Respondent Airways. Appointment order does not whisper

it as temporary or contractual in nature. Petitioner had

been working over 12 hours a day without availing any

statutory leave or other facilities. For the first 3 months he

was not given salary, which if pressurized for he was

threatened to be discontinued from work. The same later

paid in the 4th month was actually lesser than that had

been promised. The Management got irritated and wanted

to victimize him. His service was terminated on 8-9-2006

without any notice. He has not committed any misconduct.

No enquiry was conducted on the basis of any charge

sheet issued. His termination is illegal and void. To a legal

notice dated 20-9-2006 no response was found. Hence

the 10 raised, which having failed the reference is

occasioned. He has not been employed elsewhere after

his termination. Hence the termination is to be set aside

and he be reinstated with all benefits.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

893

4. The allegations in the Counter Statement necessary

for adjudication are as follows:

To tide over emergencies certain standard

appointment orders are issued other than from the

Corporate Office for deploying workmen at Airport for

peripheral work such as House Keeping, Security, etc.

Their regularization is done by Corporate Office on merits.

Petitioner was appointed in the above manner to clean the

interiors of the Aircraft without following normal procedure

of recruitment. He was recruited for the specific purpose

of cleaning, etc. on account of inability of the Contractor

to supply sufficient Cabin Helpers. The fact was not

communicated to the Corporate Office and his salary of

Rs. 3,000 per month could not be released in time. The

Contractor later made good the shortage of Cabin Helpers.

Hence he was discharged. Having not admittedly put in

240 days of service, no condition is to be fulfilled

preceding discharge. An appointment order was issued to

him to enable him get entry pass in the Airport. It is denied

that he worked for 12 hours in a day. His attempt is to enter

into service through devious backdoor method. His salary

has been Rs. 6,000 per mensem. He accepted by cheque

Rs. 8,842 towards salary for 3 months without demur.

Mr. Kevin Jinnu, Cabin In-charge is not authority to decide

service matters of the Management. It is denied that he

made any commitment to the petitioner. When the

contingency was over petitioner’s contingent appointment

reached its logical conclusion. He has not committed any

misconduct. He was only discharged on account of

redundancy as the contingency was over. He had worked

only for 90 days. He is under the employment of some

other agency. The petition is to be dismissed.

5. The points for consideration are: (i) Whether the

discharge of the petitioner from the service of the

Management is justified and legal? (ii) To what relief the

concerned workman is entitled?

6. Evidence consists of the oral evidence of WW1

and WW2 and Ex.W1 to Ex.W6 on the petitioner’s side

and that of MW1 and Ex. M1 to Ex. M7 on the side of the

Respondent.

Points (i) & (ii)

7. As per Memo dated 5-6-2009 filed by the

petitioner’s counsel in ID 62/2007 the evidence of WW2,

Sri C. Kannan claiming to be a Driver under the

Management is sought to be treated as common witness

in all the IDs viz. 61/2007, 62/2007 and 63/2007.

8. By way of common arguments it is argued on

behalf of the petitioners in ID 61/2007, ID 62/2007 and ID

63/2007 that Ex. W2. Appointment Order issued separately

to each individual workman partakes the characteristic of

an appointment of permanent nature. The appointment is

w.e.f. 29-5-2006. They had been previously employed as

Cabin Helper under Jet Airways. They were called to the

Respondent Airways and were thus engaged. They were

issued ID Cards by the Management. They have been

illegally terminated w.e.f. 8-9-2006 without following the

legal formalities under the notion that the appointment is

temporary in nature. Though there is an agreement marked

as Ex. M1 between the Management and M/s P. S. M.

Aviation (P) Ltd. as Contractor, the so-called Contractor

has not been impleaded. Except for the Ex. M1-Contract

Agreement there is no evidence at all to substantiate

anything respecting it to show the existence or otherwise

of any contractual obligations interse the parties thereby.

Ex. M 2 is shown as the usual format of appointment order

issued by the Management. The learned counsel

continued to argue that the petitioners are neither contract

workers nor casual employees but are permanent

appointees. They were appointed under the

recommendation of Kevin Jinnu, Officer of the Respondent

Management. He has not been examined to disprove the

claim of the petitioners. The discharge of petitioners is

without any enquiry and the petitioners are entitled to be

reinstated.

9. The contra arguments on behalf of the

Respondent are that the appointment of the petitioners

was on a contingency of inability of the Contractor to

supply sufficient Cabin Helpers, which when was over

they have been discharged. Their appointment was not

on the normal norms or procedure of recruitment. The

Ex.W2 Appointment order is not a permanent Appointment

Order as can be found on a contrast with the usual format

of appointment order marked as Ex. M 2. Petitioners have

not completed 240 days in a Calendar Year prior to

dispensation of services. Compliance with Section-25F of

the ID Act does not arise. The Appointment Order was

issued to, enable petitioners to get security clearance by

the Ministry of Civil Aviation. It does not have the

trappings of a permanent Appointment Order. Petitioners

were to have examined Mr. Kevin Jinnu to establish their

case. Their wages were Rs. 3,000 per month and not

Rs. 6,000 as claimed. The attempt of the petitioners is to

get into service through backdoor.

10. While the case of the petitioners is that they are

appointees on permanent basis under the Management

the same proposition of fact is keenly denied by the

Management. Petitioners seek to rely on . Ex.W2-

Appointment Order under which they claim to have been

appointed on a permanent basis. In order to resolve the

controversy in the ID a decision centering around the

genuineness or validity of Ex.W2-Appointment Order is

the crucial factor. On a contrast with Ex. M2-Usual format

of Appointment Order as claimed by the Management

discernibly both are a bit different in pari-materia. Ex.W2-

Appointment Order issued to petitioner appears to be a

truncated part of EX.M2 issued by the Management.

EX.W2 conveys the petitioner an idea that they are

894

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

appointed on a regular basis with liability for

superannuation at the age of 58 years. The Management

has no dispute that the Appointment Order in question

was not issued to the petitioners and not by them.’

According to them it was issued on a contingency of

insufficient number of Cabin Helpers supervening to be

provided by the Contractor. When the contingency was

over they were discharged and it is a discharge simplicitor

and the provisions of the ID Act are not applicable to the

same. The further case of the Management is that the

Appointment Orders were issued to them to enable them

to get security clearance from the Ministry of Civil

Aviation. Their case again is that petitioners have not

completed 240 days continuous service within a period of

12 calendar months preceding termination and therefore

under no stretch of imagination they could be thought of

having blossomed right for regularization.

11. Here the case is not for regularization as such

but for reinstatement. Going by the Appointment Order

what appears is that with the couched words therein the

petitioners have been led to be carried away by a belief of

they being appointed on a permanent basis under the

Management. The Appointment Order does not whisper

the nature of the appointment either as contractual or

casual in nature. The Appointment Order specifies the

age at which the appointees shall superannuate from

service i.e. as 58 years. It is at this juncture that the

petitioners have happened to be discharged from service.

It is not a dismissal under a disciplinary proceeding after

an enquiry. There is no stigma against the petitioners.

12. Despite all these contentions as above the

question is whether the discharge of the petitioners is

legal and justified. When the appointment is neither casual

nor contractual and in as much as the appointment order

conveys an idea of an appointment of a permanent nature

conferred on the petitioners, in the absence of mention of

prevalence of any contingency as the background for the

appointment and the fact that the Appointment Order

makes it clear that the petitioners are to retire at the age of

58 years it is hardly possible to reasonably or legitimately

conclude that the petitioners have been appointed on a

temporary basis. From the nature of the Appointment Order

issued it is apt to hold that they are treated as appointees

on a permanent basis. Therefore, they are not with the

mandatory and statutory requirement of having to

complete 240 days of service so as to presume them to

have completed continuous service of 1 year for

entitlement of the benefits under Section-25F of the ID

Act. Even without any such presumption they are just to

be considered as permanent employees as their

appointment orders give them such a conviction that they

are permanently appointed. The evidence let in by the

Management is too inadequate or unconvincing to lead

to a contra view. What we are concerned with in this

adjudication process is regarding the legality and

justifiability of the discharge of the petitioners from service.

When workmen in permanent service or deemed permanent

service are discharged, the conditions under Section-25F

of the ID Act have to be followed which have not been

complied with in the matter of discharge of the petitioners

from service. Therefore, the discharge of the petitioners

amounts to retrenchment and the same is liable to be set

aside and the petitioners are to be rein stated into service

forthwith and it is ordered accordingly. After such

reinstatement if by reason of the couching of the

appointment orders issued to them in a manner as are

different from the usual formats of the appointment orders

and therefore the same further require to be made in the

form or in consonance with the usual practice, for want of

which the appointment cannot be made substantive,

regularized or the workmen cannot be absorbed into the

service, the Management is at liberty to decide by itself in

accordance with what is proper and legal as well as in

accordance with the recruitment procedure and norms

thereof. As it is and on the facts the workmen are entitled

to be reinstated for violation of Section-25F of the ID Act

and thereafter it is open to the Management to deal with

them as mentioned above and according to law.

13. 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 16th December, 2010).

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined :-

For the 1st Party/ :

WW1, Sri G. Sankar Ganesh

Petitioner

WW2, Sri C. Kannan

For the 2nd Party/

MW 1, Sri K. Vijayakumar

Management

Documents Marked :

On the Petitioner’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. W1

26-05-2006

Copy of the Appointment Order

issued by the Respondent

Ex. W2

02-06-2006

Copy of the Daily Permit Card

issued by Bureau of Civil

Aviation

Ex. W3

—

Universal Service Identity Card

Ex. W4

—

Copy of the Conciliation Failure

Report

Ex. W5

—

Copy of the letter to Vice

President, Sri Gopalakrishnan for

demanding salary

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

895

Ex. W6

29-09-2006

Copy of the legal notice

On the Management’s side

Ex. No.

Date

Description

Ex. M1

—

Copy of agreement between

Respondent Management and

PSM Aviation to supply Cabin

Helpers

Ex. M2

—

Copy of the specimen regular

appointment order of 2nd party

Ex. M3

26-05-2006

Copy of the Appointment Order

issued to the 1st Party

Ex. M4

—

Letter issued by the 1st Party to

the 2nd Party claiming wages with

endoresement of 2nd Party dated

09-08-2006

Ex. M5

06-09-2006

Copy of the IDBI cheque no.

013305 dated 06-09-2006 for

Rs. 8,842/- towards wages for

3 months

Ex. M6

22-01-2007

Copy of the failure report in RC

No. B/588/06 issued by the

Labour Officer-III of Government

of Tamil Nadu.

Ex. M7

—

Copy of the authorization given

to Sri K. Vijaya Kumar to represent

on behalf of the 2nd Party.

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 314-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14 dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj vkbZ ,u th

okL;k 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] cSaxyksj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 11@2006)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 04&01&2011 dks

izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&12012@6@2006&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S. O. 314.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 11/

2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-

cum-Labour Court, Bangalore as shown in the Annexure,

in the Industrial dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of ING Vysya Bank Ltd. and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 04-01-2011.

[ No. L-12012/6/2006-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT,

BANGALORE-560 022.

Dated : 10th December, 2010

Shri S. N. Navalgund, Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 11/2006

IParty

II Party

Smt. P. S. Jayashree,

The Vice President,

No. 194, Aishwarya,

ING Vysya Bank Ltd.

100 Ft Ring Road,

No. 22, M. G. Road,

BSK III Stage,

Bangalore-560001

Bangalore-560085

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the

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) has referred this dispute vide order

No. L-12012/6/2006-IR (B-1) dated 17th March, 2006 for

adjudication on the following Schedule :

“Whether the action of management of M/s.ING

Vysya Bank Ltd., in imposition of punishment of

dismissal from service on the workman Smt. P. S.

Jayashree, Clerk/Telephone Operator, Accounts

Department Corporate Office, ING Vysya Bank Ltd.,

with effect from 19-11-2002 is legal and justified? If

not, to what relief she is entitled and from which

date?”

2. Pursuant to the notices issued by this tribunal to

the parties both entered their appearance through their

respective advocates and filed the claim statement and

counter statement.

3. The first party in her claim statement contended

that she was taken as a trainee in the second party bank

by order dated 14-11-1978 and after her successful training

in clerical duties placed her on probation by order

dated 25-9-1979 on monthly salary of Rs.190 w.e.f.

1-7-1979 for the post of Clerk and was asked to attend the

duties of sharoff in exigencies which is according to the

training that she had undergone and after completion of

the probationary period considering her merits and

devotion to duty her services were confirmed and while

she was working as Clerk at Mangalore Branch of the

second party transferred to Zone-1, Corporate Office,

896

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Bangalore by order dated 19-07-1996 and pursuant to the

said order she was relieved from the Mangalore branch on

10-08-1996 with instructions to report immediately for duty

at Bangalore and on the same day without any valid

reasons and without canceling or revoking the earlier

transfer order dated 10-8-1996 the Sr. Manager issued

another transfer order asking her to report for duty in

Accounts department, Corporate office at Dhondusa

Complex, Bangalore as Receptionist-cum-Telephone

Operator and being confused by the two orders issued on

the same date she approached the Sr. Assistant General

Manager, Accounts Department, C.O, Bangalore with a

request to take her as Clerk cum Shroff duty at Zone-1,

Corporate Office, Bangalore as per the order dated

10-08-1996 as she is not trained as Receptionist-cum-

Telephone Operator, the said Sr, Assistant General

Manager by misrepresentation and with a malafide

intention informed her that he will look into the matter

only after she joining for the post of Receptionist-cum-

Telephone Operator and left with no other option she

reported for duty as Receptionist cum Telephone Operator

w.e.f. 19-08-1996. It is further contended that she was

surprised to receive an article of charges dated 13/

19-12-1996 charging her for unauthorized absent from

20-8-1996 to 30-11-1996 and though she submitted her

satisfactory reply to the said charge sheet without any

valid reasons and with an ulterior motive to punish her

with no fault of her, the Chief Manager (employee relations)

though being not the Disciplinary Authority himself

designated as an enquiry officer ordered for an enquiry

and he himself appointed a legally trained person as the

Presenting Officer to his convenience and concluded the

enquiry hurriedly without giving reasonable opportunity

to her to defend and before completing that enquiry she

was issued with another charge sheet dated 24-12-1997

for her unauthorized absence for the period

1-12-1996 to 15-11-1997and called upon her to submit her

explanation and she submitted her reply dated 08-01-1998

and though her explanation was satisfactory disciplinary

enquiry was initiated and he concluded both the enquiry

hurriedly without giving her sufficient opportunity with

utter violation of principles of natural justice and by order

dated 31-3-1999 an im-proportionate punishment of

reduction in basic pay for two years was imposed. It is

further contended that she was served with another charge

sheet dated 28/31-03-2002 for remaining unauthorized

absent for the period 16-11-97 to 14-3-2002 and though

she submitted satisfactory reply without any valid reasons

she was subjected to disciplinary enquiry and that enquiry

was also concluded in utter violation of principles of

natural justice and the impugned punishment of dismissal

has been imposed. She also contended that the findings

of the enquiry officer are perverse in nature and the

punishment imposed is disproportionate etc.

4. In the counter statement filed on behalf of the

second party it is contended that on the request of the

first party she was transferred from Mangalore to

Corporate office at Bangalore by order dated 10-8-1996

and on the exigencies of work she was entrusted with the

work of Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator which is

administrative decision basing on the past experience of

the first party but the first party who reported as

Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator on 19-8-1996 did

not attend the office from 20-8-1996 unauthorisedly and

inspite of several memos sent to her residential address

advising her to report for duty she did not respond as

such she was issued with the articles of charges dated

13/19-12-1996 in respect of her unauthorized absence from

20-08-1996 to 30-11-1996 and as explanation/reply

submitted by her were found to be not satisfactory,

Domestic Enquiry was instituted against her by appointing

Shri G. D. Jayaprakash, Vice President-A&1 as enquiry

officer and Shri T.K. Jayachand as Presenting Officer and

ultimately the enquiry officer for the failure of the first

party to appear before him placing her exparte concluded

the enquiry and submitted his findings holding her guilty

of the charge. It is further contended inspite of instituting

the DE through articles of charges dated 13/19-12-1996

the first party since did not report for duty and continued

to remain unauthorized absent for the subsequent period

for her unauthorized absence from 1-12-1996 to 15-11-1997

one more article of charge dated 24-12-1997 was served on

her and dissatisfied of her reply enquiry was initiated by

appointing the enquiry officer and presenting officer and

since she failed to appear before the enquiry officer he

placed her exparte and after conclusion of the enquiry

submitted his findings holding her guilty and after serving

the findings of the enquiry officer and calling upon her to

submit her explanation considering the seriousness of

proved charges of both the charge sheets, the first party

was imposed with the punishment of reduction of basic

pay by two stages vide order dated 31-3-1999 and she

challenged the said order by filing the writ petition before

the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 25772/2000

and the same came to dismissed as not maintainable. It is

further contended that even after imposing the punishment

of reducing her basic pay she was called upon to report to

duty through memo dated 17-01-2002 but she did not report

for duty and continue to remain absent from 16-11-1997 to

14-3-2002 another articles of charge dated 28/31-3-2002

was issued to her calling upon her to submit her explanation.

Since she failed to submit her explanation a DE was initiated

appointing the enquiry officer and presenting officer and

the first party in response to the enquiry notice written a

letter seeking for copies of documents relied on by the

management and a reply was given to her that same will be

furnished to her on the date of preliminary enquiry and

accordingly on 3-7-2002 when she appeared before the

enquiry officer she was furnished with the documents

relied on by the management and the enquiry officer

rejected her request to engage an advocate on the ground

that the management representative is not a legally trained

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

897

or legally qualified person permitting her to take the

assistance of anyone of her co-employee/office bearer of

the union for defending her case in the enquiry but later

she did not appear before the enquiry officer and ultimately

the enquiry officer after recording the evidence of

management witnesses and documents submitted his

findings dated 1-8-2002 holding her guilty of the charge.

Then while forwarding copy of the findings of the enquiry

officer show cause notice dated 2-8-2002 was issued to

her calling upon her to submit her representation.

Accordingly she submitted her explanation dated

10-8-2002, and as it was not found to be satisfactory the

impugned punishment of dismissal was passed by the

disciplinary authority by considered order and in all the

enquiries she was given fair and proper opportunity by

the enquiry officer and due to her adamant behaviour and

attitude the management had no other go except to pass

order dismissing her from the service.

5. Having regard to the contention of the first party,

my Learned Predecessor while framing the preliminary

issue as to ‘whether the Domestic Enquiry conducted

against the first party by the second party is fair and proper’

after receiving the evidence of both parties and hearing

the arguments of learned advocates by his detailed order

dated 5th May 2008 answered the said issue in the

affirmative holding it was fair and proper. There being no

dispute that on her request by order dated 19-7-1996 she

was transferred from Mangalore to Zone- 1 Corporate

Office Bangalore and was relieved from Mangalore on

10-8-1996 and she reported as Receptionist-cum -telephone

operator w.e.f. 19-8-1996 and from the next day onwards

i.e. from 20-8-1996 she did not attend to duty at all and it

is also borne out from the records and an undisputed fact

that though two charge sheets were issued against the

first party dated 13/19-12-1996 and 24-12-1997 and was

punished by reduction in basic pay for two years and was

also served with a memo to report for duty she did not

report to duty and came to be served with 3rd charge

sheet and after conclusion of the enquiry and on receipt

of the enquiry finding taking her reply, the impugned order

of dismissal has been passed, the points that remains for

my consideration are

(i) Whether the first party after reporting to duty as/

Receptionist-cum-telephone operator w.e.f.

19-8-1996 is justified in remaining absent without

making any representation to the management/

second party expressing her grievance for being

asked to report as Receptionist-cum-Telephone

Operator?

(ii) If not whether the punishment of dismissal imposed

by the management is disproportionate?

6. On appreciation of the pleadings by way of Claim

Statement, counter statement and the evidence made

available by the management during the course of enquiry

in the light of the arguments addressed by the learned

advocates appearing for the parties, my finding on both

the points are in the negative for the following reasons :—

Reasons

No doubt from the documentary evidence made

available by the first party during the enquiry of preliminary

issue it is clear and undisputed that she was taken as

probationary Clerk by office order dated 14-11-1978 and

after completion of the training by letter dated 25-7-1979

her service was confirmed as Clerk on a monthly salary of

Rs. 190 w.e.f. 1-7-1979 with a direction to attend the duties

of Sharoff whenever she asked to do so and by order

dated 19-7-1996 on her request she was transferred to

Zone-1, Corporate Office, Bangalore with direction to

proceed to report for duty at the said office after reporting

of substitute and by order dated 10-8-1996 she was relieved

from Mangalore with instruction to report for duty at Zone-

1, Corporate Office, Bangalore and she also reported

accordingly as a Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator

on 19-8-1996 at Bangalore and later from the very next

date she remained absent. As far as the contention of the

first party that she was not expected to work as a

Receptionist- cum-Telephone Operator and she was forced

to report to that post by the Sr.Assistant Manager and

she joined under protest absolutely there is no material

except her own statement in the claim statement and

affidavit filed on preliminary issue. Whether willingly or

on the compulsion of Sr. Assistant Manager when she

reported as Receptionist-cum-Telephone Operator at

Bangalore on 19-08-1996 she would not have remained

absent from 20-08-1996 on her own without filing any

representation to the management or the officer concerned

at the office where she reported. This attitude on the part

of the first party taking decision by herself of remaining

absent from the very next date of reporting her duty as a

Receptionist -cum-Telephone -Operator on 19-8-1996

cannot be justified by any reason. Moreover, it is an

admitted fact that before she was applying for the job with

second party bank she had worked as telephone Operator

in P&T department which she has unequivocally admitted

in her cross examination on 30-8-2007, it cannot be said

that she had no knowledge of telephone operator work.

Therefore, only because the management/second party

did not give her training in telephone operator work she

cannot claim that she had no knowledge in the work of

telephone operator. If at all the first party could not have

been entrusted with the work of Receptionist -cum-

telephone operator by the management and it amounts to

change in work condition she could have protested before

joining to duty on 19-8-1996 by giving representation to

the appropriate officer or immediately after reporting to

duty should have given representation to post her only to

clerical duties and ought not to have taken decision by

herself in remaining absent from duty from the very next

date of reporting to duty at Bangalore. Therefore, looking

from any angle the first party is not justified in remaining

absent from duty from 20-08-1996. It is borne out from the

record that after the first party was punished for reduction

898

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

in two years basic pay and served with that order along

with a memo to report for duty she failed to report and

served 3rd charge sheet which shows her adamancy and

disinterestedness in continuing her service with the

second party bank. Under these circumstances I arrived

at the conclusion of answering point No. 1 & 2 against the

first party and in the negative. In the result I pass the

following award :

AWARD

The reference is rejected holding that the action of

the management of M/s. Ing Vysya Bank Ltd. in imposing

the punishment of dismissal from service on the workman

Smt. P.S. Jayashree w.e.f. 19-11-2002 is legal and justified.

Consequently she is also not entitle for any relief. No

costs.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and

signed by me on 10-12-2010).

S. N. NAVALGUND, Presiding Officer

ANNEXURE

List of witnesses examined by the management

before the Enquiry Officer

1. Shri D. N. Murthy, Manager, HRD

Mw 1

Documents exhibited for the Management before the

Enquiry Officer

Copy of memo dated 17-01-2002 addressed

to the first party/CSE

MEX-1

Copy of the order dated 14-03-2002 addressed

to first party/CSE.

MEX-2

Copy of the order dated 31-03-1999 addressed

to first party/CSE.

MEX-3

List of witnesses examined by the first party/CSE before

the Enquiry Officer.

Nil

List of Documents of 1st party/CSE marked in the Enquiry

Nil

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk- vk- 315-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj Hkkjrh; jsyos

foÙk fuxe 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 1@2009) dks izdkf'kr

djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 3&1&2011 dks izkIr gqvk Fkk A

¹la- ,y&41012@106@2006&vkbZ vkj (ch&I)º

jes'k ¯lg] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S. O. 315.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No. 1/2009)

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 Indian Railway Finance Corporation

and their workmen, received by the Central Government

on 3-1-2011.

[ No. L-41012/106/2006-IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

NO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX,

DELHI.

I. D. No. 1/2009

Shri Rajinder Prasad S/o Sh.P.P.Chamoli,

R/o B-102 , Hari Nagar II, Badarpur, New Delhi-110044.

. . . Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Indian Railway Finance Corporation (IRFC),

UGF, East Tower, N.B.C.C. Place, Bhisham Pitameh Marg,

Pragati Vihar, Lodi Road, New Delhi.

.... Management

AWARD

Indian Railway Finance Corporation Limited (in

short the Corporation) collects funds from general public

through fixed term bonds and provides the fund so

collected for rolling stock of the Indian Railways. The

Corporation engages share transfer agents and retainer

of accounts, who render services to it. Share transfer

agents work as internal auditor while retainer of accounts

handles accounts, registers and documents of the

Corporation. In 1996 M/s. Allied Computers Techniques

Private Ltd. was working as share transfer agent with the

Corporation. Services of Shri Ram Prasad were engaged in

January, 1996 through the said share transfer agent.

M/s. Karvy Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Shiva Associates

were appointed share transfer agents in due course of

time. Rajinder Prasad continued to serve the Corporation

through share transfer agents, referred above. He made

representations to various authorities, including the Prime

Minister of India for his absorption in services of the

Corporation. When he could not get redressal of his

grievances, he opted to file a writ petition before High

Court of Delhi being WP No. 1771/1999. Aforesaid share

transfer agents filed their counter affidavits before High

Court of Delhi in the said writ petition. On 29th of January,

2003, High Court disposed of that writ petition with liberty

to Shri Rajinder Prasad to approach authorities under

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) for redressal

of his grievances. He filed a claim statement before the

Conciliation Officer, Government of N.C.T., Delhi, raising

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

899

an industrial dispute before him. There it came to light that

appropriate Government is the Central Government and

not the Government of N.C.T., Delhi. He filed a claim

statement before the Conciliation Officer (Central) raising

an industrial dispute before him. Since conciliation

proceedings failed the appropriate Government referred

the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order

No. L-31012/106/2006-IR (DI), New Delhi dated 7-9-2007,

with following terms:

“Whether it is fact that Shri Rajinder Kumar is a

workman of the Indian Railway Finance Corporation

(IRFC)? If so, whether the action of the management

in not regularizing the services of the applicant by

the management is proper and justified ? If not, what

relief he is entitled to?”

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Rajinder Prasad

pleading that he was an employee of the Corporation,

working with it since January, 1996. He was employed as

an assistant in bond section of the Corporation. He claimed

to have annexed various correspondence to demonstrate

his direct employment with the Corporation. With a view

to circumvent its legal obligations towards him and other

employees, the Corporation did not pay salary directly to

him. His salary was paid through share transfer agent,

namely, M/s. Allied Computer Technique Pvt. Ltd. The

amount of salary, so paid to him, was reimbursed to the

said share transfer agent by the Corporation. Though he

was discharging all his duties for the Corporation but he

was paid by a third party for whom he never did any work

nor visited their office. Thus technically the claimant was

never on the rolls of the Corporation, despite being their

employee. This unfortunate state of affairs continued till

September, 1998. On 20th of July, 97 he wrote to the

Corporation but no response was received. On 11th of

December, 97 he brought to the notice of the Corporation

pointing out that less salary was paid, without any other

benefits. He requested the Corporation for absorption of

his services. In November, 97 he wrote to the Hon’ble

Minister seeking absorption of his services with the

Corporation. On 4th of December, 97, employees addressed

a detailed representation to the Corporation, with a prayer

for regularisation of their job. Letters were also addressed

to Hon’ble Prime Minister’s Office in that regard, which

were responded to on 21-5-98. In October, 98 the

Corporation appointed M/s. Karvy Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

as its share transfer agent and in May, 2000 M/s. Shiva

Associates was appointed as share transfer agent. Left

with no option, he approached High Court of Delhi under

its writ jurisdiction, seeking regularization of his services.

Vide order dated 24-3-99, High Court restrained the

Corporation from terminating his services. Writ petition

was disposed of, vide order dated 29-1-2003 with

permission to him to raise the dispute before the appropriate

authority under the Act. The High Court directed the

adjudicatory authority under the Act to decide the matter

in the light of precedent laid by the Apex Court in Steel

Authority of India Ltd. [ JT 2001 (7) S.C. 208 ]. M/s. Allied

Computer Techniques Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Karvy Consultants

Pvt. Ltd. filed their counter before High Court of Delhi. After

disposal of his petition, the Corporation had not allowed

him to enter its premises and thus terminated his services.

He raised a dispute before Labour Office, Kashmere Gate,

Delhi, where it came to his notice that Labour Commissioner

(Central) has the jurisdiction in the matter. On 13-10-05 he

filed a claim before the Conciliation Officer (Central). Since

the corporation adapted adamant attitude, the conciliation

proceedings failed. He presents that action of the

Corporation in not regularizing his employment and further

terminating his services is bad on facts and law. He is

unemployed since the date of termination of his services.

He seeks reinstatement with seniority, back wages and other

benefits, besides regularization of his services with the

Corporation.

3. With a view to give contest to the claim petition

filed by Shri Rajinder Prasad, the Corporation filed its

written statement running into 47 pages. When attempts

were made to read contents of the written statement, it

came to light that the Corporation had beaten about bush,

without pleading facts in a straight jacket manner. The

approach of the Corporation is deprecated.

4. Out of the written statement it could be made out

that the Corporation pleads that it is not an ‘industry’

within the meaning of clause (j) of section 2 of the Act and

the claimant is not a workman. It asserts that there were no

employer and employee relationship between the parties.

Hence there was no industrial dispute. The Corporation

pleads that from assertion of the claimant, it appears that

he was an employee of the share transfer agents, who was

his pay master. It has been projected that the claimant was

never on the roll of the Corporation, hence his claim for

regularisation in the services of the Corporation is

unfounded. Claimant had connived with the share transfer

agent, when he filed writ petition before High Court of

Delhi. It has been pleaded that the claimant nowhere,

asserts as to when he applied for a job with the

Corporation. The Corporation, being an instrumentality

of the State, has to follow a procedure for recruitment.

Claimant nowhere pleads that he ever applied for the job

with the Corporation and was recruited for the said post

through recruitment process. The claimant is making an

effort to enter the job with the Corporation through back

door. When claimant was not in the service of the

Corporation no question arises in respect of his removal

from service. It has been agitated that when claimant claims

that there was an arrangement of his engagement through

share transfer agents, he ought have arrayed those share

transfer agents as respondents. Representations made by

him were part of his modus operandi to get job with the

Corporation through back door entry. At no point of time

salary of the claimant was passed on to share transfer

900

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

agents for delivery to the claimant. Documents relied by

the claimant does not espouse his cause. He nowhere

agitates that he was ever misled by the said arrangement

through which he was employed. His claim is false. He has

wrongly asserted that he is unemployed since the date of

his termination. No relief much less relief of reinstatement

with continuity, besides regularization in service can be

granted to him. His claim, being devoid of merits, is liable

to be dismissed.

5. Shri K. R. Menon (WW1), Shakul Puri (WW2),

Vipin Senger (WW3), Manohar Lal (WW4), Rajinder

Prasad (WW5), Shri S. K. Ajmani (WW6) and Shri Harish

Chand Shoudhi (by appointment of a local commissioner)

were brought in witness box on behalf of the claimant.

Shri S. Radha Krishnan was examined on behalf of the

management.

6. Arguments were heard at the bar Shri Umesh

Gulati, authorized representative, advanced arguments

on behalf of the claimant. Shri R. P. Kapur authorized

representative, raised his submissions on behalf of the

Corporation. 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. At the outset a claim was made on behalf of the

Corporation that it is not an ‘industry’ within the meaning

of clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act. It has been agitated

that the Corporation is not an undertaking, manufacture,

or calling of employers. It does not carry out any business

or trade. There is no profit motive activity undertaken by

the Corporation. Hence it cannot be termed as an ‘industry’

as defined under the Act. Contra to submissions made by

Shri Kapur, Shri Gulati projects that the activities of the

Corporation fall within the ambit of the definition of

‘industry’. To adjudicate the question so raised, it is

expedient to have a glance on the definition of word

‘industry’, as contained in clause (j) of Section 2 of the

Act, which is reproduced thus:

“Industry” means any business, trade, undertaking,

manufacture or calling of employers and includes any

calling, service, employment, handicraft, or industrial

occupation or avocation of workmen”

8. The definition of “industry” is both exhaustive

and inclusive. It is in two parts. The first part says that it

“means any business, trade, undertaking, manufacture or

calling of employers” and then goes to say that it “includes

any calling, service, employment, handicraft or industrial

occupation or avocation of workman”. Thus one part

defined it from the stand point of the employer, and the

other part from the stand point of the employees. The first

part of the definition gives the statutory meaning of the

industry, whereas the second part deliberately refers to

several other items of industry and bring them in the

definition in an inclusive way. The first part of the definition

determines any industry by reference to occupation of

employers in respect of certain activities viz., business,

trade, undertaking, manufacture or calling. The second

part views the matter from the angle of employees and is

designed to include something more in what the term

primarily denotes. By this part of the definition any calling,

employment, handicraft, industrial occupation or

avocation of workmen is included in the concept of

industry. This part gives extended connotation.

9. Gloss was put on the definition of word

“industry” by the High Courts and the Apex Court time

and again. The question as to what is “industry” has

continuously baffled and perplexed the courts. A graph

of the cases decided by the Apex Court, if plotted on the

background of the expression used in two parts of the

definition of “Industry”, would represent rather a zig zag

curve. There have been, various judicial ventures in

this rather volatile area of law. The decided cases show

that the efforts were made to evolve test by reference to

characteristics regarded as essential for constituting an

activity as an “Industry”. Various cases would show

that the Apex Court has been guided more by empirical

rather than a strictly analytical approach. Most of the

decision have centered around the expression

“undertaking” used in the definition. In Bangalore Water

Supply and Sewerage Board (1978 Lab. I.C. 778) the Apex

Court reviewed the earlier decisions on interpretation of

the wide words encompassed in the definition and

formulated positive and negative principles for

identifying “industry” as enacted by clause (j) of Section

2 of the Act. It would be expedient to reproduce the

authoritative pronouncement of the Court, in the very

words set out in the majority decision, handed down by

Justice Krishna lyer, which are extracted thus :

“1. “Industry” as defined in S. 2 (j) and explained in

Banerji (AIR 1953 S.C. 58) has a wide import.

(a) Where (i) systematic activity, (ii) organized by

Co-operation between employer and employee

(the direct and substantial element is chimerical),

(iii) for the production and/or distribution of goods

and services calculated to satisfy human wants

and wishes (not spiritual or religious but inclusive

of material things or services geared to celestial

bliss i.e. making, on a large scale prasad or foods)

prima facie, there is an “industry” in that enterprise.

(b)

Absence of profit motive or gainful objective is

irrelevant, be the venture in the public, joint, private

or other sector.

is the nature of the activity with special emphasis

on the employer-employee relations.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

901

(d) If the organization is a trade or business it does

not cease to be one because of philanthropy

animating the undertaking.

II. Although Section 2(j) uses words of the widest

amplitude in its two limbs, the re-meaning cannot be

magnified to overreach itself.

(a) “Undertaking” must suffer a contextual and

associational shrinkage as explained in Banerjee

and in this judgement, so also, service, calling and

the like. This yields the inference that all organized

activity possessing the triple elements in 1(supra),

although not trade or business, may still be

‘industry’ provided the nature of activity, viz. the

employer-employee basis, bears resemblance to

what we find in trade or business. This takes into

the fold ‘industry’ undertaking, calling and

services, adventures, “analogous to the carrying

on the trade or business”. All features, other than

the methodology of carrying on the activity viz in

organizing the co-operation between employer

and employee, may be dissimilar. It does not matter,

if on the employment terms there is analogy.

III. Application of these guidelines should not

short of their logical reach by invocation of creeds, cults

or inner sense of incongruity or outer sense of motivation

for or resultant of the economic operations. The ideology

of the Act being industrial peace, regulation and resolution

of industrial disputes between employer and workmen,

the range of their statutory ideology must inform the reach

of the statutory definition. Nothing less, nothing more.

(a) The consequences are (i) profession, (ii) clubs,

(iii) education institutions, (iv) co-operatives (v)

research institutes, (vi) charitable projects and (vii)

other kindered adventures, if they fulfil the triple

tests listed in 1 (supra), cannot be exempted from

the scope of Section 2 (j).

(b) A restricted category of professions, clubs, co-

operatives and even gurukulas and little research

labs may qualify for exemption if in simple ventures,

substantially, and going by the dominant nature

criterion, substantively no employees are

entertained but in menial matters, marginal

employees are hired without destroying the non-

employee character of the unit.

themselves, free or for small honoraria or like

return, mainly drawn by sharing in the purpose or

cause, such as lawyers volunteering to run a free

legal services clinic or doctors serving in their

spare hours in a free medical centre or ashramites

working at the bidding of the holiness, divinity or

like central personality, and the services are

supplied free or at nominal cost and those who

serve are not engaged for remuneration or on the

basis of master and servant relationship, then, the

institution is not an industry even if stray servants,

manual or technical, are hired. Such eleemosynary

or like undertakings alone are exempt not other

generosity, compassion, developmental passion

or project.

IV. The dominant nature test :

(a) Where a complex of activities, some of which qualify

for exemption, other not, involves employees on

the total undertaking, some of whom are not

“workmen” as in the University of Delhi case (AIR

1963 S. C. 1873) or some departments are not

productive of goods and services if isolated, even

then, the predominant nature of the services and

the integrated nature of the departments as

explained in the Corporation of Nagpur (AIR 1960

S. C. 657) will be the true test. The whole

undertaking will be industry although those who

are not “workmen” by definition may not benefit

by the status.

(b) Not withstanding the previous clauses, sovereign

functions, strictly understood (alone) qualify for

exemption, not the welfare activities or economic

adventures undertaking by govt. or statutory

bodies.

funcitons, if there are units which are industries

and they are substantially serverable, then they

can be considered to come within S. 2(j)

(d) Constituitonal and competently enacted legislative

provisions may remove from the scope of the A

categories which otherwise may be covered

thereby.

V. We over rule Safdarjung (AIR 1970 S.C. 1407), Solicitors

case (AIR 1962 S. C. 1080), Gymkhana (AIR 1968. S. C.

554), Delhi University (AIR 1963 S. C. 1873), Dhanraj Giriji

Hospital (AIR 1975 SC 2032) and other rulings whose ratio

runs counter to the principles enunciated above, and the

Hospital Mazdoor Sabha (AIR 1960 SC 610) is hereby

rehabilitated.”

10. Principles laid down in Bangalore Water Supply

& Sewerage Board (supra) hold ground. Therefore, the

controversy raised will be adjudicated in view of the law

laid by the Apex Court in the precedent referred above.

The Corporation agitates that it is not an Industry. The

view point held by the Corporation is that no profit motive

activities are being carried on by it. No business is being

run, hence the Corporation cannot be termed as an

“industry”. Except the facts referred above, the

902

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Corporation nowhere projects any other factors to lay

emphasis on the proposition that it is not an ‘industry’.

Contra to it the claimant agitates that the Corporation is

an ‘industry’.

11. In Baroda Borough Municipality [1957(1) LLJ 8]

the Apex Court held that through municipal activity could

not be truly regarded as business or trade, yet it would fall

within the scope of expression ‘undertaking’. Non-profit

undertaking of the municipality were included in the

concept of ‘industry’ even if there is no private enterprise.

The court reiterated that branches of work that can be

regarded as analogous to carrying out of a trade or business

would fall within the meaning of ‘Industry’ in clause (j) of

Section 2 of the Act. In reaching the decision, the Apex

Court relied precedent in D. N. Banerji (supra) and ruled

that it would be sufficient that the activity is an

‘undertaking’ analogous to the carrying on of a trade or

business and inolves cooperation between the employers

and employees. This result was reached by extending the

meaning of the expression ‘undertaking’ to cover

adventures not strictly trade or business but ‘objects vary

similar’. Reference can also be made to Madras Gymkhana

Club Employees Union (supra).

12. In Indian Standard Institute [1966 (1)LLJ 33] the

Apex Court suggested that in order to be recognized as an

undertaking analogous to trade or business, the activity

must be an economical activity in the sense that it is

productive of material goods or material services. In

Bangalore Water Supply and Sewerage Board (supra), the

Apex Court laid down that an activity systematically or

habitually undertaken for the production or distribution

of goods for rendering material services to the community

at large or a part of such community with the help of

employees is an undertaking. An ‘industry’ thus was said

to involve cooperation between the employer and

employee for the object of satisfying material human

needs but not for oneself nor for pleasure nor necessity

for profit lack of business and profit motive or capital

investment would not take out an activity from the sweep

of ‘industry’. If other conditions are satisfied. It is the

activity in question which attracts the definition and the

absence of investment of any capital or the fact that the

activity is conducted for profit motive or not, would not

make material difference. conversaly mere existence of

profit motive will not necessarily convert the activity into

“industry’ if other tests are not satisfied.

13. As projected by the Corporation it collects

funds from general public through fixed term bonds and

provides the money so collected for rolling stock of Indian

Railways. Shri Kapur does not dispute that the activities

undertaken by the Corporation are systematic. As detailed

above, the Corporation made a claim of not being an

industry merely on the count that no profit motive activities

were being carried on. Lack of business, profit motive or

capital investment would not take out the Corporation

from the sweep of definition of word ‘industry’, since

other standards laid by the Apex Court in Bangalore Water

Supply and Sewerage Disposal Board (supra) stand

satisfied. The activities carried on by the Corporation are

systematic for rendering material services to the community

at large, with the help of its employees. Therefore, absence

of profit motive will not take out the activities of the

corporation from the ambit of the definition of an ‘industry’

given in clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act. It is concluded

that the Corporation is an ‘industry’ within the meaning of

clause (j) of Section 2 of the Act and contention raised in

that regard is unfounded.

14. Corporation asserts that there is no relationship

of employer and employee between the parties, since the

claimant was an employee of share transfer agents, who

were his pay masters. Shri Kapur argued that in his claim

statement, the claimant projects that there was an

arrangement and he was being paid through the share

transfer agents. He claims that pleadings in that regard

make it clear that the claimant admits himself to be an

employee of share transfer agent. According to him, when

the claimant was an employee of share transfer agent, who

paid salary to him, it does not lie in his mouth to agitate

that he was an employee of the Corporation.

15. When a dispute is raised in respect of existence

of relationship of employer and employee between the

parties, in that situation onus lies on the claimant to

establish such relationship. To discharge that onus the

claimant has examined Shri K. R. Menon, Vice President

of Karvy Computer Share Pvt. Ltd., who were working as

registrar and share transfer agent for the Corporation since

19th August, 1998. He unfolds that an agreement, which

is Ex. WW1/1, was entered into between the Corporation

and Karvy Consultants Ltd., on the strength of which the

later firm undertook to perform and fulfil such functions,

duties and obligations and to provide such service as

mentioned in the agreement. In the agreement it was not

stipulated that the share transfer agent would be

employing any person with the Corporation. Therefore,

out of facts unfolded by Shri Menon it is crystal clear that

the share transfer agents were not to employ any person

for rendering services as detailed in Ex. WW 1/1 with the

Corporation. The Corporation could not get facts out of

the mouth of the witnesses to establish that the claimant

was an employee of share transfer Agent.

16. Shri Shakul Puri, Vice President of Karvy

Consultants Pvt. Ltd., now known as Karvy Computer

Share Pvt. Ltd. entered the witness box to lift the certain in

respect of relationship between the claimant and the

Corporation. He unfolds that he had seen the claimant

working in the office of the Corporation. The claimant had

filed a writ petition before High Court of Delhi wherein

Karvy Consultants Pvt. Ltd. was a party. He filed affidavit

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

903

EX.WW2/1 before the High Court. When Ex. WW2/1 is

perused, it came to light that Karvy Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

was appointed as registrar and transfer agent of the

Corporation in August, 1998. The Corporation requested

Shri Puri to route salary bill of 9 (nine) employees

employed by the Corporation through its record on and

around October, 98. Salary bill of nine employees were

being routed through M/s Allied Computer Techniques

Pvt. Ltd. till then, who were previous registrars and transfer

agents. Routing of salary of nine persons was a friendly

accommodation, which arrangement was entered into to

foster and cement a healthy working relationship between

the Corporation and registrar and share transfer agent.

During the course of his cross examination, he projects

that there was an oral arrangement between M/s Karvy

Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and the Corporation and in

pursuance of the said arrangement no appointment letter

was issued to those nine persons, referred by him in his

affidavit Ex.WW2/1. He denied that Shri Rajinder Prasad

was employed by Karvy Consultants Pvt. Ltd. However,

he admits that he was paid by Karvy Consultants Pvt. Ltd.

and money was being reimbursed by the Corporation as

per arrangement. The arrangement started in November,

98 and lasted till April or May, 2000. Facts projected by

Shri Puri gives a jolt to the stand taken by the Corporation

to the effect that the claimant was not its employee.

17. Shri Vipin Senger had placed documents

Ex.WW3/1 to Ex.WW3/11 over the record, which are

certified under Banker’s Book Evidence Act. Those

documents relate to saving bank account No. 01/008095

maintained by the claimant at Corporation Bank Bhikaji

Cama Place, New Delhi. These documents project that

certain cheques were deposited in the aforesaid saving

bank account by the claimant. The document, so referred

by Shri Senger, would be considered in subsequent

sections if need be. Shri Manohar Lal placed copies of

documents Ex.WW4/1 to Ex.WW4/26 over the record

which were brought by him from the office of the

Corporation. These documents would be considered in

subsequent sections, if need be.

18. Shri Rajinder Prasad swears in his affidavit

Ex.WW 5/A that was an employee of the Corporation since

January, 96. He was employed in Bond Section of the

Corporation. Ex. WW 5/1 to Ex. WW 5/4 refer to payments

made by the Corporation directly to him. Ex. WW 5/8 is a

document initiated by him which was signed by Shri S. K.

Ajmani, Manager of the Corporation and Shri C. S. Verma,

Company Secretary of the Corporation respectively.

Attendance sheet Ex. WW5/9 to Ex. WW5/11 project that

he regularly worked for the Corporation for the month of

July, 97, August, 97 and June, 98. Copy of the minutes

held on 14-7-98 were prepared by him which were signed

by Shri Sondhi, S. K. Ajmani and Shri S.Balachandran,

Executive Director and Shri C.SVerma, Company Secretary

of the Corporation, which minutes are Ex.WW5/12 and

Ex.WW5/13. Copy of the salary list of the staff of the

Corporation, containing his name for the month of

June, 99 and July, 99 are EX.WW5/14 and Ex.WW5/15,

which list has been signed by Sureshan, Accountant of

Karvy Computers Pvt. Ltd. at point A, Madhu

Accountant of Karvy Computers Pvt. Ltd. signed at

point B and Shri S. K. Ajmani , Manager of the Corporation

at point C and C. S Verma Company Secretary of the

Corporation at point D. He had also relied documents

Ex.WW5/16 to Ex.WW5/23, to show that he was an

employee of the Corporation. During the course of his

cross examination he projects that he was interviewed by

Shri C. S. Verma, Group Manager on 21st of January, 96.

He admitted that there was no authority with him to prepare

copies, which are Ex.WW5/5 to Ex.WW5/23, from its

originals.

19. Shri S. K. Ajmani presents that the Corporation

is competent to outsource matters relating to issuance of

bonds and for that purpose it had appointed registrars.

Registrars are required to be registered with SEBI. Registrar

are not supposed to pay salary to the employees of the

Corporation. Shri Harish Chand Sondhi unfolds that the

claimant was appointed in the Corporation by Shri C. S.

Verma. Shri Verma interviewed the claimant and then

appointed him. He (witness) worked on the post of Deputy

Manager with the Corporation since 1990-91 and worked

there upto 2002. Shri Harish Chand Sondhi projects that

he retired as Deputy Manager from the Corporation in

1990-91. After his retirement he rendered his services as

Consultant with the Corporation till 2002. Claimant was

appointed by Shri C. S. Verma, who took his interview and

engaged him. Claimant was working under him in the Bond

Section. He was working as Incharge in the Bond Section

since 1988. When he left the Corporation in 2002, the

claimant was working there at that time. During the course

of his cross examination he concedes that wages of the

claimant were being paid by Karvy Consultants, the

registrars appointed by the Corporation.

20. Shri S. Radhakrishnan swears in his affidavit

Ex. MW1/A that the claimant was never employed by the

Corporation either as an Assistant or as L.D.C. The

Corporation have its share transfer agents, internal

auditors and retainer of accounts, who work at its premises.

An employee of share transfer agent, Internal auditor and

retainer of accounts cannot be an employee of the

Corporation. The claimant is trying to get a back door

entry in the service of the Corporation. He was not

appointed by the Corporation at any point of time. During

the course of his cross examination he concedes that

Ex. WW 5/18 and Ex. WW5/21 bear his signatures while

Ex. WW5/23 bear signatures of Shri C. Verma at point A.

He further concedes that contents of Ex. MW1/W2

highlight that M.Kannan was appointed on a short term

vacancy, whose services have been regularized.

Ex. MW 1/W2 highlights that at one point of time there

904

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

were 15 employees who were working with the

Corporation.

21. When facts unfolded by the witnesses of the

claimant and Shri S. Radha Krishnan are appreciated, it

came to light that there was an arrangement between the

Corporation and share transfer agents to route salary bill

of nine employees, employed by the Corporation through

share transfer agents since 1998. It also emerge over the

record, as unfolded by Shri Menon, that share transfer

agents were not to employ any person for rendering

services to the Corporation. Affidavit Ex. WW2/1 was

filed by Shri Puri before High Court of Delhi, wherein he

projected facts relating to the arrangement between the

Corporation and share transfer agents. Therefore, out of

facts unfolded by Shri Menon and Shri Puri, it is evident

that nine employees, appointed by the Corporation were

shown as employees of share transfer agent through whom

their salary bills were routed. Share transfer agents were

interposed in between by the Corporation. These facts

led High Court of Delhi to pass order Ex.WW2/M1, making

observation to the effect that industrial adjudicator shall

decide the matter in the light of the decision by the Apex

Court in Steel Authority of India (supra). In writ

jurisdiction, the High Court was not supposed to

adjudicate disputed facts. Claimant claimed before the High

Court that he was an employee of the Corporation, which

fact was disputed. Shri Puri placed factum of arrangement

before the High Court by his counter affidavit and brought

it to the light of the day that nine employees were engaged

by the Corporation through share transfer agents.

Therefore, evidently, the share transfer agents were

interposed as a Contractor and in fact it was the principal

employer, namely, the Corporation who had employed him.

22. In Steel Authority of India Ltd. (supra) the

Apex Court was confronted with the proposition as to

whether automatic absorption of contract labour, working

in an establishment of the principal employer, as regular

employees follows on issuance of a valid notification under

sub-section (1) of section 10 of the Contract Labour

(Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1972 (in short the Act)

prohibiting the contract labour in the establishment

concerned. Catena of decisions were considered by the

Apex Court and it was laid therein that the contract labours

fall in three classes viz , (1) where contract labour is engaged

in or in connection with the work of an establishment and

employment of contract labour is prohibited either because

the industrial adjudicator/court ordered abolition of

contract labour because the appropriate Government

issued notification under section 10(1) of the Contract

Labour Act, no automatic absorsption of contract labour

working in the establishment was ordered, (2) where

contract was found to be a sham and nominal, rather a

camouflage, in which case the contract labour working in

the establishment of the principal employer were held,

and in fact and in reality to be the employees of the

principal employer himself. Indeed such cases do not relate

to the abolition of contract labour but present instances

wherein the court pierce the veil and declare the correct

position and as a fact at the stage after employment of

contract labour stood prohibited, (3) wherein discharge of

statutory obligation of maintaining a canteen in an

establishment the principal employer availed the services

of the contractor. The courts have held that the contract

labour would indeed be employees of the principal

employer. The Court ruled that neither Section 10 of the

Contract Labour Act nor any other provision in that Act,

whether expressly or by necessary implication, provides

for automatic absorption of contract labour on issuing a

notification by the appropriate Government under sub

section (1) of Section 10, prohibiting employment of

contract labour, in any process, operation or other work in

any establishment. Consequently the principal employer

cannot be required to order absorption of the contract

labour working in the establishment concerned. It was

further ruled therein that in Saraspur Mills case [1974 (3)

SCC 66], the workman engaged for working in the canteen

run by the Cooperative Society for the appellant were the

employees of the appellant mills. In Basti Sugar Mills

[ AIR 1964 S. C. 355 ] a canteen was run in the factory by

the Cooperative Society and as such the workers working

in the canteen were held to be employees of the

establishment. The Apex Court ruled that these cases fall

in class (3) mentioned above. Judgment in Hussain Bhai

(supra) was considered by the Apex Court in the said

precedent and it was ruled therein that the said precedent

falls in class (2), referred above. The Apex Court concluded

that on issuance of prohibitive notification under Section

10 of the Contract Labour Act prohibiting employment of

contract labour or otherwise, in an industrial dispute

brought before it by the contract labour in regard to

conditions of service, the Industrial Adjudicator will have

to consider the question whether the contractor has been

interposed either on the ground of having undertaken to

produce any given result for the establishment or for

supply of contract labour for work of the establishment

under a genuine contract or is a mere ruse/camouflage to

evade compliance of various beneficial legislation so as

to deprive the workers of the benefit there under. If the

contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage,

the so called contract labour will have to be treated as

employees of the principal employer who shall be directed

to regularize the services of the contract labour in the

establishment concerned, subject to the conditions as may

be specified by it for that purpose.

23. In view of law laid by the Apex Court, factual

matrix would be appreciated. As unfolded by Shri Puri

claimant and eight others were employed by the

Corporation, interposing the share transfer agents in

between. Shri Puri makes it clear that salary bill of those

nine employees were routed by the Corporation through

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

905

share transfer agents. His testimony makes it clear that in

fact it was the Corporation who was their employer.

Consequently it is evident that the arrangement so made

by the Corporation with share transfer agents was ruse

and camouflage, entered with a view to evade benefits

available to their employees. Veil, which stood lifted

through the affidavit of Shri Puri which is Ex. WW/2/1,

make it clear that in fact the claimant and 8 others were

employees of the Corporation. Consequently this Tribunal

is constrained to conclude that the arrangement so

interposed is sham and bogus, brought in between by the

Corporation with a view to avoid benefits to the claimant.

Resultantly it is announced that the claimant was in fact

an employee of the Corporation.

24. Findings recorded above are reaffirmed from the

documents, which would be appreciated now. Ex. WW5/1

to Ex.WW5/4 are cheques issued by the Corporation in

favour of the claimant. Ex.WW5/1 is the cheque for a sum

of Rs. 730 only issued on 23rd of February, 98 by the

Corporation in favour of the claimant. Ex WW5/2 was

issued by the Corporation on 5th of May, 98 in favour of

the claimant for a sum of Rs. 1130. Ex.WW/5/4 is the

another cheque issued in favour of the claimant by the

Corporation for a sum of Rs. 2000. No explanation was

offered as to why and for what services rendered by the

claimant, the cheques were issued by the Corporation in

his favour. Claimant agitates that he was an employee of

the Corporation and these cheques were issued in that

capacity.

25. 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.

26. Cheques referred above bring it over the record

that the Corporation dealt with the claimant as its

employee, when aforesaid cheques were issued in his

favour. Ex.WW5/6 is a letter received by the Corporation

from Surinder Kaur Bajaj, wherein she had showed her

annoyance for time taken in transfer of bonds in her

name. The said letter was marked to the claimant by Shri

S. K. Ajmani for disposal at his ends. Shri Ajmani enquired

from the claimant as to what was the problem in transfer of

bonds in the name of the lady. Piyush Aggarwal wrote for

Allora Traders Ltd. to the Company Secretary of the

Corporation seeking redemption of 100 bonds while

sending Ex.WW6/7 by fax, Shri Aggarwal invited

attention of the claimant for action in the matter. Claimant

dealt with an application of Dunlop Employees Provident

Fund for splitting of 1000 bonds into 19 certificates. He

records Ex.WW 5/8 detailing therein that certificates were

signed by the Directors on 24-6-98 and common seal of

the Corporation was fixed by him on those bonds in

presence of Manager (bonds) and Mr. Rishi. He presented

Ex.WW5/8 for consideration of Shri S. K. Ajmani,

Manager (bonds), who confirms the factum of affixation

of seal of the Corporation and forwards the document to

Group General Manager (bonds), who ordered registration

of those bonds in the name of Dunlop Employees Gratuity

Fund. Ex. WW5/14 and Ex. WW5/15 are list of the staff of

the Corporation prepared for release of salary for the month

of June and July, 99, wherein name of the claimant appears

as Shri R.P.Chamoli. These documents bear signature of

Shri Sureshan in the capacity of Accountant, Karvy

Consultants Pvt. Ltd. and Shri S. K. Ajmani, Deputy

General Manager (bonds) of the Corporation. In the same

manner Ex. WW5/17 is the list of the employees for release

of arrears from April, to November,96 and salary for the

month of February, 97. Ex.WW5/19 is the document issued

by Shri S. K. Ajmani commanding Shri Harish Chand

Shoudhi and the claimant to visit the Office of Karvy

Consultants on 19th of September, 98 to assess progress

of computerisation of 3rd series data. Ex.WW4/1 is the

document wherein the claimant deals with the bills

presented by M/s Shiva Associate for payment. He

recommends that the payment of Rs. 5650 may be made

to M/s Shiva Associates. His recommendations were

dealt with by Shri S. K. Ajmani and by Shri C. S. Verma. In

the same manner he dealt with a bill of M/s Shiva

Associates which document is Ex. WW4/15. Ex. WW4/17

was initiated by the claimant in respect of conveyance

charges wherein he recommends that those charges may

be restricted to Rs. 250 each only, which recommendation

is contained in Ex.WW4/17. He also deals with the bill of

M/s Shiva Associates and records that a sum of Rs. 6280,

including conveyance charges of Rs. 630 may be passed

for payment, which facts are projected in document

Ex. WW4/21. In the same manner he submits Ex.WW4/22

for sanction of payments of bill amounting to Rs. 6280

including conveyance charge of Rs. 630 in favour of

M/s Shiva Associates. These documents were dealt with

by the officers of the Corporation after recommendation

so recorded by the claimant. Besides the documents

referred above, Ex.WW4/25 is note sheet presented by

Shri Rajinder Singh to his superiors and ultimately it was

dealt with by Shri S. K. Ajmani and General Manager

(bonds) and Company Secretary. Out of the documents,

referred above, one and the only conclusion emerges is

906

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

that the claimant was performing his duties as an employee

of the Corporation, who used to report to the Manager

(bonds). Besides the above documents claimant have

brought photo copy of attendance register over the record

which are Ex. WW5/9, Ex. WW5/10 and Ex. WW5/11. Hence

it is crystal clear that the claimant was working as an

employee of the Corporation.

27. Shri Harish Chand Shoudhi unfolds in

unequivocal words that the claimant was working in bond

section of the Corporation under him, who was interviewed

and appointed C. S. Verma, General Manager (bonds).

Claimant worked there alongwith him till 2002. When he

left the Corporation in 2002, the claimant was working there

at that time. Facts so unfolded by Shri Harish Chand

Shondhi gives corroboration to the findings recorded

hereinabove. Consequently, it is concluded that

relationship of employer and employee existed between

the claimant and the Corporation. The Corporation took

direct services of the claimant and rooted his salary though

share transfer agents, which modus operandi is deprecated

by law.

28. Claimant projects that he filed a writ petition

before High Court of Delhi, wherein order dated 24-3-99

was passed, which is Ex. W-1 restraining the Corporation

from terminating his services. His writ petition was

disposed of vide order dated 29-1-2003 with permission to

raise dispute before the appropriate Government and the

industrial adjudicator was commanded to decide the matter

in pursuance of the decision of the Apex Court in Steel

Authority of India Ltd. (supra), copy of the order passed

by High Court of Delhi is Ex. WW2/M1. He t projects that

at that stage, the Corporation has not allowed him and his

other colleagues to enter its premises. He was removed

from the service of the Corporation and he approached

the Conciliation Officer. Facts projected by the Claimant

remained unassailed, when the Corporation tried to purify

his testimony by an ordeal of cross examination.

Consequently, it is evident that the claimant was in

continuous service of the Corporation since 1996 till

January, 2001.

29. “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 introduces 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 in 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.

30. An enquiry has to be made to find out whether

the workman has actually worked for not less than 240

days during a period of 12 calendar months immediately

preceding the retrenchment. As unfolded by the claimant

he rendered continuous service for 240 days with the

Corporation in 12 months preceding the date when

relationship of employer and employee were snapped.

Consequently it is evident that the claimant has been able

to establish that he rendered continuous service for more

than a year with the Corporation.

31. Claimant had brought it over the record that he

had rendered 240 days continuous service with the

Corporation in every calendar year. On 29-1-03 his petition

stood disposed of and thereafter he was not allowed to

enter the premises of the Corporation, to perform his

duties. The Corporation could not establish that services

rendered by the claimant were not continuous for a period

of one year, preceding from the date of his termination of

services. Hence it is evident that the claimant could

establish to have rendered continuous service for more

than 240 days in every calendar year.

32. Claimant highlights that his services were

dispensed with by the Corporation after 23-1-03. He makes

it clear that termination of services was not in consonance

with the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. Shri

S. Radha Krishnan nowhere projects that notice or pay in

lieu thereof was given to the claimant while terminating

his services. Rrenchment compensation was not paid to

him. Corporation was under an obligation to pay him

compensation at the time of retrenchment. Payment of

retrenchment compensation is a condition precedent to

order of retrenchment. Precident in Bombay Union of

Journalist case [1964 (1) LLJ 351] Adeshwar Lal (1970 Lab.

I.C. 936) and B. M. Gupta [1979 (1) LLJ 168] announced

that subsequent payment of compensation cannot validate

an invalidate order of retrenchment. His retrenchment

compensation was not paid to the claimant. Consequently

action of the Corporation falls within the mischief of

Section 25-F of the Act.

33. His services of the claimant were retrenched in

violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act. He

is entitled to reinstatement in service. Shri Kapur argued

that the Corporation is Government of India Undertaking,

which has rules of recruitment. According to him, when

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

907

claimant was engaged in violation of rules of retrenchment,

he is not entitled to reinstatement of service, since it would

amount to abrogation of these rules. On this count Shri

Gulati presents that M. Kannon joined services of the

management 29-9-2000, which fact has been brought over

the record through document Ex. MW1/W2. He argued

that Shri S. Radha Krishanan admits engagement of Shri

M.Kannon by the Corporation on 29-9-2000. Services of

Shri M. Kannon were subsequently regularized, admits

Shri S. Radhakrishnan in his testimony, presents Shri

Gulati. He claims that action of the Corporation in retaining

Shri M. Kannon in services, who was junior to the claimant

violates the provisions of Section 25-G of the Act, which

fact also make it clear that retrenchment of the claimant

was not in consonance with the procedure laid down by

the Act. Regularisation of service of Shri M. Kannon

highlights that a junior to him in service was regularized,

after his services were dispensed with by the Corporation

in an illegal manner. These facts make it clear that the

claimant could show a justification for a command to the

Corporation to reinstate his services.

34. Services of the claimant were dispensed with in

violation of the provisions of Section 25-F of the Act.

Circumstances projected by the claimant would show

justifiction for a command to the management to reinstate

his services. However, it is to be considered as to whether

the claimant was gainfully employed in the intervening

period. Though Rajinder Prasad claimed that he is

unemployed since the date of his termination, yet no

cogent evidence was produced by him in that behalf.

Consequently, this Tribunal has to a consider quantum of

wages, which can be awarded to the claimant for the

intervening period. No definite yeardstick for measuring

the quantum of wages/compensation is available. In S. S.

Shethy [1957 (II) LLJ 696]. The Apex Court indicated

some relevant factors which an adjudicator has to take

into account in computing compensation in lieu of

reinstatement, in the following words :

"The Industrial Tribunal would have to take into

account the terms and conditions of employment, the

tenure of service, the possibility of termination of the

employment at the instance of either party, the possibility

of retrenchment by the employer or resignation or

retirement by the workman and even of the employer

himself ceasing to exist or of the workman being awarded

various benefits including reinstatement under the terms

of future awards by Industrial Tribunal in the event of

industrial disputes arising between the parties in future.

.....In computing the money value of the benefits of

reinstatement, the industrial adjudicator would also have

to take into account the present value of what his salary,

benefits etc. would be till he attained the age of

superannuation and the value of such benefits would have

to be computed as from the date when such reinstatement

was ordered under the terms of the award.

Having regard to the considerations detailed above,

it is impossible to compute the money value of this benefit

of reinstatement awarded to the appellant with

mathematical exactitude and the best that any tribunal or

court would do under the circumstances would be to make

as correct as estimate as is possible bearing, of course in

mind all the relevant factors pro and con",

35. A Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court in

B.Choudhary Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court,

Jamshedpur (1983) Lab I.C. 1755 (1758) deduced certain

guidelines which have to be borne in mind in determining

the quantum of compensation viz. (i) the back wages

receivable; (ii) compensation for deprivation of job with

future prospect and obtainability of alternative

employment; (iii) employee's age; (iv) Length of service in

the establishment; (v) capacity of the employer to pay

and the nature of the employer’s business; (vi) gainful

employment in mitigation of damages; and (vii)

circumstances leading to the disengagement and the past

conduct. These factors are only illustrative and not

exhaustive. In addition to the amount of compensation, it

is also within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award

interest on the amount determined as compensation.

Furthermore, the rate of such interest is also in the

discretion of the Tribunal. Reference can be made to Tabesh

Process Shivakashi (1989 Lab. I. C. 1887).

36. In Assam Oil Co. Ltd. [1960 (1) LLJ 587] the

Apex Court took into account countervailing facts that

the employer had paid certain sums to the workmen and

her own earning in the alternative employment and ordered

that "it would be fair and just to direct the appellant a

substantial sum as compensation to her". In Utkal

Machinery Ltd. [1966 (1) LLJ 398] the amount of

compensation equivalent to two year salary of the

employee awarded by the Industrial Tribunal was reduced

by the Supreme Court to an amount equivalent to one

year salary of the employee in view of the fact that she

had been in service with the employer only for 5 months

and also took into consideration the unusual manner of

her appointment at the instance of the Chief Minister of

the State. In A. K. Roy [1970 (1) LLJ 228] compensation

equivalent to two years salary last drawn by the workmen

was held to be fair and proper to meet the ends of justice.

In Anil Kumar Chakraborty [1962 (II) LLJ 483] the Court

converted the award of reinstatement into compensation

of a sum of Rs. 50000 as just and fair compensation in full

satisfaction of all his claims for wrongful dismissal from

service. In O. P. Bhandari [1986 (II) LLJ 509], the Apex

Court observed that it was a fit case for grant of

compensation in view of reinstatement. The Court awarded

compensation equivalent to 3.33 years salary as

reasonable. In M. K. Aggarwal (1988 Lab.I.C.380), the

Apex Court though confirmed the order of reinstatement

yet restricted the back salary to 50% of what would

otherwise be payable to the employee. In Yashveer Singh

908

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

(1993 Lab. I. C. 44) the court directed payment of Rs.75000

in view of reinstatement with back wages. In Naval Kishor

[1984 (II) LLJ 473] the Apex Court observed that in view

of the special circumstances of the case adequate

compensation would be in the interest of the appellant.

A sum of Rs. 2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu

of reinstatement. In Sant Raj [1985 (II) LLJ 19] a sum of

Rs. 2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of

reinstatement. In Chandu Lal [1985 Lab. I.C. 1225] a

compensation of Rs. 2 1ac by way of back wages in lieu

of reinstatement was awarded. In Ras Bihari [1988

Lab.I.C.107] a compensation of Rs. 65000 was granted in

lieu of reinstatement, since the employee was gainfully

employed elsewhere. In V. V. Rao (1991 Lab. I.C.1650) a

compensation of Rs. 2.50 lac was awarded in lieu of

reinstatement.

37. The claimant simply made a bald statement that

he is unemployed since date of termination of his service.

No cogent evidence was projected by him on that issue.

In such a situation it cannot be said that the claimant is

entitled for full back wages during the period he remained

out of job, on account of illegal retrenchment of his

services. However, considering the facts and

circumstances in entirety, I am of the view that the

Corporation is to be commanded to reinstate the services

of the claimant with continuity and 20% back wages from

the date of termination of his services till the date of his

reinstatement.

38. When a junior to the claimant has been regularized

in that proposition it does not lie in the mouth of the

Corporation to say that service of the claimant cannot be

regularized. Can corporation be permitted to treat equals

differently? Answer lies in negative. In Bal Kishan [1990

(I) LLJ 61] the Apex Court announced that no junior shall

be confirmed or promoted without considering the case of

his senior. The observations made by the Apex Court are

reproduced thus:

"In service, there could be only one norm for

conferment or promotion of persons belonging to

the same cadre. No junior shall be confirmed or

promoted without considering the case of his

senior. Any deviation from this principle will have

demoralizing effect in service apart from their

being contrary to Article 16(1) of the

Constitution."

39. The management projected that in Uma Devi

[2006 (4) SCC.1] the Apex Court ruled that a person who

entered service dehors the rules has no right for

regularization or continuance in service. The principle of

law laid by the Apex Court in the aforesaid case is not a

matter of dispute. Whether the law so laid would allow the

management to discriminate the claimants from Shri

M. Kannan, who was junior to him and placed on similar

padestal ? Such a proposition was considered by the Apex

Court in Pooran Chandra Pandey [2007 (12) Scale 304],

wherein it was announced that precedent in Uma Devi

(supra) cannot be applied mechanically without

considering facts of a particular case. In Uma Devi it was

ruled that a person, who entered the government service

dehors rules cannot claim as right for continuance or

regularization of service. However, the said decision

nowhere speaks of a case where regularization in service

has been sought in pursuance of fundamental rights

guaranteed by Article 14 of the Constitution. In Pooran

Chandra Pandey (supra) there were two sets of employees

who were daily wagers, that is (i) the original employees

of the U.P. State Electricity Board and (ii) the employees of

the society, who subsequently became employees of the

Electricity Board. The High Court ruled that there was no

ground for discriminating between the two sets of

employees. When issue reached the Apex Court it was

ruled that since the parties were all appointed in the society

before 4th of May, 1990, they cannot be denied benefit of

the decision of the Electricity Board dated 28th of

November, 1996, permitting regularization of the employees

of the Electricity Board who were working from before

4-5-1990. It was announced that to take a contrary view

would violate Article 14 of the Constitution. The courts

cannot read Uma Devi case in a manner which will make it

in conflict with Article 14 of the Constitution. Thus the

Apex Court made it clear in Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra)

that when regularization is to be ordered in pursuance of

Article 14 of the Constitution precedent laid down in Uma

Devi will not come in between.

40. Relying law laid in Pooran Chandra Pandey

(supra), it is announced that it does not lie in the mouth of

the corporation to seek refuse in the principles of law laid

in Uma Devi with a view to deny equality to the claimant.

Therefore, it is commanded that claimant, namely, Shri

Rajinder Prasad would be regularized in the service by the

management on the same standards on which Mr.Kannan

was regularized. He would be regularized from the date

whenever vacancies was available for him and in any

eventuality not later from the date when services of

Mr. Kannan were regularized.

41. In view of reasons detailed above, it is crystal

clear that the claimant has been able to establish a case for

reinstatement besides regularization in service.

Accordingly it is concluded that the Corporation is under

an obligation to reinstate the claimant with continuity and

20 % back wages from the date of his termination till the

date of his reinstatement, besides his regularization in

service. An Award is accordingly passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dated : 27-10-2010.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

909

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 316-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-

lh-,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 315@

2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5&1&2011

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@426@2001&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 316.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 315/

2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure

in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workmen,

which was received by the Central Government on

5-1-2011.

[No. L-20012/426/2001-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ( NO. 2) at DHANBAD

PRESENT: SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under

Section 10 (1) (d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 315 OF 2001

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Katras Area of

M/s. B.C.C. L. and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : None

On behalf of the employers : Mr. D. K.Verma, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 6th December, 2010

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10

(1) (d) of the I. D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L -20012/426/2001 dated the 27th November, 2001.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of East

Katras Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing

Shri Ruplal Manjhi from the services of the company

w.e.f. 26-12-97 is justified? If not, to what relief is

the concerned workman entitled ?’’

2. The case of the workman Ruplal Manjhi as

sponsored by the union in brief is that he was a permanent

employee as a Miner/Loader of East Katras Colliery of

M/s. B.C.C.L. Unfortunately due to his sudden falling ill,

he absented from his duty from 10-3-1997 to 24-3-1997 under

due information to the management. On his recovery from

ailment, he presented with his medical certificate to resume

his duty but management did not allow him to do so and

his resumption of duty kept in abeyance on various

pretext. It is alleged that in the meantime the Personnel

Officer took his signatures on some papers on the plea that

those were required in respect of paper formalities. But

the management served upon him with a dismissal letter as

per his letter No. BCCL/BK/PO/97/1266 dated 25-12-97 and

26-12-97 on the basis of ex parte enquiry report. Further it

is alleged that the ex parte domestic enquiry with reference

to providing ample opportunity to the workman to defend

the charges was merely eyewash rather he was not properly

intimated about the enquiry, so the alleged domestic

enquiry being based on surmises and conjectures was

totally against the principles of natural justice. Besides

that dismissal order and the apointment of Enquiry Officer

were not issued by the competent authority. He was not

given even time for mercy appeal as per mandatory

provision though his mercy representation dated

6-1-2000 before the C.M.D. M/s. BCCL is still awaited for

the comments of the Area Office Katras. Despite several

times approaches having made by the Union, such mala

fide attitude of the management delayed more than 4 years.

As such the management is alleged to have illegally and

arbitrarily deprived the workman of his right to protection.

Emphatically it is alleged on behalf of the workman to have

given due explanation for his absenteeism in the light of

his medical certificate which ought to have considered by

the management. So his dismissal was totally unjustified

and illegal being arbitrary and mala fide.

3. Whereas the case of the management as pleaded

in its Written Statement-cum-rejoinder is that without

prior information or permission, the workman

unauthorisedly absented from his duty with effect from

10-3-1997 as he did several times in the past. So Charge-

sheet No.48 dated 15-4-1997 (Ext. M-2) was issued to him

on his home address through Registered post, but he did

not submit any reply or any information about his absence.

Accordingly domestic enquiry was duly initiated against

the workman by the management. Despite several

informations by the Enquiring Officer to the workman, the

workman neither appeared nor sent any information of his

inability to attend the enquiry. Further it is alleged that

finding no alternative but to hold ex parte enquiry the

Enquiring Officer conducted the enquiry ex parte and

submitted his report (Ext. M-6) of his guilt of alleged

charges to the Disciplinary Authority who after considering

it and taking approval of the competent authority dismissed

him as per dismissal letter No. 1264 dated 26-12-1997

(Ext. M-7). Since the workman was a habitual absentee

910

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

even in the last 3 years, namely, as apparent from his

attendance 143, 126 and 063 days in the years 1994, 1995

and 1996 respectively. So in view of the fair domestic

enquiry based on the principles of natural justice, his

dismissal was legal and justified.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. At the out set, the perusal of the case record

manifests that the Learned Predecessor Presiding Officer

of this Tribunal after preliminary enquiry into whether the

domestic enquiry conducted against the concerned

workman was fair and proper and in accordance with the

principle of natural justice, held the domestic enquiry

accordingly as per the evidence of MW-1 Ratnakar

Mallick, the then P.O. as the Enquiring Officer who was

appointed by the Disciplinary authority for it (Ext.M-1). In

course of evidence of the aforesaid MW-1 the copy of the

chargesheet was marked as Ext.M-2, the reply to the

chargesheet as Ext.M-3, enquiry proceeding papers as

Ext. M-4 over which the signatures of the concerned

workman as Ext. M-5 series. According to him after the

completion of the enquiry, he submitted his report (Ext.

M-6), held him guilty of the charges levelled against him

disclosing the facts that he was given full opportunity to

defend his own case. So it was held that the domestic

enquiry was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle

of natural justice vide Order dated 27-3-2006, but the

aforesaid witness could not be cross-examined on account

of non-appearance of the anybody on behalf of the

workman.

5. Therefore the case came up for hearing argument

on merits. Even after coming of the Court in section, despite

registeted notices, none appeared on behalf of the workman

and atlast argument of Mr. D. K. Verma was heard on merit

for final adjudication.

6. On the consideration of the facts as pleaded on

behalf of both the parties and the evidence as adduced

mainly on behalf of the management, I find the following

factor emerging out of them, namely, facts and evidence

available on the case records are vital for adjudication:—

(a) Firstly the relationship between the employee and

the employer existed between the both parties.

The workman was a permanent Miner/Loader of

the management.

(b) Secondly, pleadings of both the parties is that the

domestic enquiry was held exparte whereas the

evidence of the solitary MW-1 Ratnakar Mallick,

the then P.O. of East Katras Colliery as the Enquiry

Officer has ascertained all along presence of the

workman in the enquiry proceeding under his

signatures (Ext. M-5) series. This is the vital

inconsistencies between the pleadings and the

evidence of the management suggesting gross

discrepancies which is evident from para-7 & 8 of

the W.S. -cum -rejoinder of the management.

of his W.S. is that after recovery he presented

and represented with the medical certificate before

the management and he was not allowed to

resume his duty on various pretext though the

concerned Personnel Officer had taken his

signatures on several papers as formalities.

Now evidence supportive to it has been adduced

on half of the workman due to non-appearance in the case.

Under these circumstances I would like to reply upon the

following authorities:—

(i) It has been held that if a particular plea is not

taken by a party, no finding can be given.

(Metallurgical and Engineering Consultant (India)

Ltd. -Versus - State of Bihar reported in 2001 LLR

823 (Jhar H. C.)

(ii) The plea not taken in the pleadings, canot be

raised in evidence - Kunwar Prasad -Versus -

Creating Garments (2001-88) FLR 556, (2001) 2

LLN 534 : 2001 LLR 617 (Bom. H. C.).

(iii) The plea though taken in the W.S. but not

supported with the evidence, will not be sufficient

to justify action of employer ( Management of

M/s. Brahamputra Board -Versus - Ashok Kumar,

2006 -LLR 672 (Del H. C.)

7. In support of the case of the management,

Shri D. K. Verma, Learned Counsel relying upon the

authority : 2006 LAB I. C. 2262 S. C. (D. B.) North Eastern

Karnataka R. T. Corpn. v. Ashappa & Anr., has submitted

that in the instant case the concerned workman Ruplal

Manjhi, being absent from his duty amounting to

misconduct was rightly dismissed from his service after

holding domestic enquiry fairly and properly and the

aforesaid authority is alleged to be applicable to the present

case. The ruling relates to the facts that a Bus conductor

remaining absent not only for more than three years but

also unauthorisedly remained absent on several occasions.

So his such misconduct resulted in his dismissal which

was not disproporationate to the charges. Further

submission of the Learned Counsel for the management

emphatically is that in the absence of any such factors

namely punishment being disporportionate to the gravity

of misconduct so as to disturb the conscience of the Court

or mitigating circumstances requiring the reduction of the

sentence or the past conduct of the workman, the Labour

Court cannot by way of sympathy alone exercise powers

under section 11A of the I. D. Act, 1947 and reduce the

punishment as held in the case of Orissa Cement Ltd. -

versus - Adikanda Sahu (1960) 1 L.L.J.518 (SC), New

Shorrock Mills -V- Maheshbhai T. Rao (1996) 6 SCC 590 as

referred in the authority (2008) 1 SCC (L & S) 170 which is

related to reservation of the physically handicapped

persons.

8. On going through both the authorities very

cautiously, very respectfully it is found that the Hon’ble

Apex Court has been pleased to observe that the Tribunal

exercises a limited jurisdiction and the jurisdiction to

interfere with the quantum of punishment could be

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

911

exercised only when, inter alia it is found to be grossly

disproportionate : the Tribunal may further exercise its

jurisdiction when the relevant facts are not taken into

consideration by the management which would have direct

bearing on the question of quantum of punishment (para-

11) of the former authority.

9. The fact of the latter authority refers to punishment

of dismissal for using abusive language which was held to be

not disporportionate. But in the instant case the concerned

workman Ruplal Manjhi being a Miner/Loader was dismissed

from his permanent service for his absentism as per the

domestic enquiry held by the management for the first time.

The perusal of the domestic enquiry proceeding ( Ext.M-4)

unfolds the recording of the statement of the workman

concerned Ruplal Manjhi by the Enquiring Officer (MW-1)

under which he seems to have stated to have fallen sick on 10-

3-97, then he got treatment at Benedih Hospital under Block-

II Area of M/s. BCCL upto 10-4-97 and thereafter he reported

for joining duty on 11-4-97 though he has admitted not to

have sent his sick information to the colliery which was

his fault and he undertook not to repeat such mistake in future.

10. Under the circumstances the fact of this case is

different from the factum of both the aforesaid authorities.

Admitedly in absence of any such domestic enquiry

concerning absentism held previously against the

concerned workman, the continuous service of this

workman under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947 cannot be deemed to be discontinued in the eye

of law. Despite the fact, for a single mistake of the workman

owing to his non reporting his sickness though fully

reported with the medical certificate for the disputed month

as ascertained by the workman himself during his cross-

examination, his dismissal from his service was not

proportionate and in gross violation of his fundamental

right under Article 14 of the Indian Constitution.

11. In view of the aforesaid finding, I hold that the

action of the management of East Katras Colliery of

M/s. BCCL in dismissing Shri Ruplal Manjhi from the

services of the Company with effect from 26-12-97 is

unjustified in the eyes of facts as well as the laws. He is

entitled to be reinstated in his service with back wages

with stoppage of one increment from the date of his

dismissal to the date of his reinstatement within 2 months

from the date of publication of the Award in the Gazette of

India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 317-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-

lh-,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

18 @2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5&1&2011

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@184@2003&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 317.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.18/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour

Court, No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workman,

which was received by the Central Government on

5-1-2011.

[No. L-20012/184/2003-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2 AT DHANBAD

PRESENT : SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 18 of 2004

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Western Jharia

Area of M/s. B.C.C. L. and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman : Mr. S. N. Ghosh, Advocate

On behalf of the enployers : Mr. U. N. Lal, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 9th December, 2010

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10

(1) (d) of the I. D. Act., 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L -20012/184/2003- IR (C-1) dated the 24th December,

2003.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of

M/s. BCCL Western, Jharia Area in dismissing

Shri Damodar Bahadur, Miner/Loader from service

w.e.f. 28-7-01 is just and fair? If not, to what relief is

the concerned workman entitled ?’’

2. The case as sponsored by the Union for the

workman Shri Damodar Bahadur, Miner/Loader is that just

after joining his service of BCCL on 12-12-97 he was sent

for training at Group Vocational Training Centre at

Murulidih under Mohuda Area from 12-12-97 to 23-3-1998,

for which he was issued certificate by the authority

concerned on the successful completion of his training.

Thereafter he was posted as under Miner/Loader at

Lohapatty Colliery where he all along performed his duty

satisfactory but at last he became a victim of anti-labour

912

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

policy of the management. Due to his sudden becoming

physically unfit, he could not attend his duty from

20-1-2000 to 6-2-2000 which was informed by him to the

concerned authorities of his illness. On the written

request to the Colliery Manager of the Area Shri Choubey

on 7-2-2002 to resume his duty, though he was allowed yet

the Attendance Clerk concerned in disobedience of the

order of the superior did not allow him to join his duty

rather he was made to run for a week. He fell unconscious

on 15-2-2000 for his mental tension and agony owing to

the in different attitude of the management. He had always

informed the management of his illness through Post

Office. Nonetheless a chargesheet dated 24/25-8-2000 was

malafide issued against him alleging as habitual absentee.

The charge is baseless because the tenure of his training

from 12-12-97, the date of his joining to 23-3-98 was not

treated his training on duty and his attendance 176 days in

the year 1998 as stated in the Chargesheet was much more

than the slab of 125 days being observed as per prevailing

norm of the BCCL and the attendance below that slab is

chargeable for a workman and its continued for 3 years is

treated as habitual absentee. Further pleading on behalf of

the workman is that the completion of entire enquiry

proceeding in a single day on 14-2-2001 as found during

the course of conciliation before the ALC (C), Dhanbad is

a matter of great surprise, suggesting out and out a table

work of the management. Non-supply of the Enquiry

proceding to the workman clearly sugests the fact that the

workman was totally kept unaware of it. Though a letter to

the workman on 13-7-2001 purported for the supply of the

copy of enquiry report and proceeding yet it was never

served upon him rather he got a copy of enquiry proceeding

only at the stage of the conciliation proceeding. Besides

that no second show cause notice was issued yet the

issuance of dismissal letter dated 27-7-2001 dismising him

from the service with effect from 28-7-2001 was quite illegal,

arbitrary and ultravires. So the enquiry was not only

vindictive but also illegal null and void.

3. Whereas conceding to the status of workman as

Miner/Loader at Lohapatty Colliery the pleading of the

management is that the unauthorisedly remained absent

from his duty since 20-1-2000. So he was isued chargesheet

dated 24/25-8-2000 (Ext.M-1) for his aforesaid absence as

well as for his habitual absence during the years 1998 and

1999 in which his attendances were 176 and 177 days

respectively. The reply of the workman dated 22-1-2001

(Ext.M-2) to the charges was unsatisfactory. Thereafter a

domestic enquiry was held by the Enquiry Officer Shri R.

Lakra, Personnel Manager of the said colliery as per his

appointment vide letter No.298-2001 (Ext.M-3) and the

concerned workman is alleged to have participated in it.

After due enquiry, the Enquiry Officer submited his Enquiry

report (Ext.M-6) in five pages that the charges levelled

against him was fully established. Consequently second

show cause notice dated 13-7-2001 was issued to the

concerned workman but he did not reply to it. So the

Disciplinary Authority basing on the Enquiry Proceeding

(Ext.M-5) (8 pages) and the Enquiry report (Ext.M-6)

decided to impose the punishment of dismissal and

accordingly the concerned workman was dismissed from

his service of the Company as per dismissal order No.1488

dated 27-7-2001 with effect from 28-7-2001 (Ext.M-9) on

having proved his misconduct. Ample opportunity is

alleged to have been given to the concerned workman as

per the principle of natural justice. So the action of the

management concerned in the dismissal of the workman

Damodar Bahadur, Miner/Loader from the service was just

fair and reasonable.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the instant case, on admission of both the

parties as well as on the consideration of the enquiry

papers of the management the relevant enquiry proceeding

papers were marked as Exts. M-1 to M-9, the domestic

enquiry against the workman concerned was held fair

proper and in acordance with the principle of natural

justice as per Order dated 25-4-06 of the Presiding Officer

of this Tribunal.

5. At the very out set, the perusal of the pleading of

the workman in para-2 in connection with his undergoing

training at the Group Vocational Training Centre at

Murulidih under Mohuda Area from 12-12-97, the date of

his joining to 23-2-1998, In lack of its specific denial on the

part of the management concerned just after his posting at

Lohapatty Colliery following his appointment on 12-12-97

stands undisputable, as it is settled law that the pleadings

of the workman, if not specifically denied by the

management amounts to admission and binding upon the

adverse party, namely, the management. Besides it the under

gone training by the workman for the specified period just

after his appointment as per settled law is deemed to be on

duty.

6. Bare reading of Chargesheet (Ext.M-1) discloses

attendance of the workman Nil, 176 and 177 days in the

year 1997, 1998 and 1999 respectively against 305 total

working days each year. But in view of the aforesaid

admitted facts concerning the workman who joined his

service on 12-12-1997, I find that since the date of his

joining he has undergone training for the said period

namely 12-12-97 to 23-9-98 i.e. 19 days and 82 days training

in the years 1997 and 1998 respectively. So the question of

his Nil attendance in the year 1997 is unteanable and his

82 days vocational training at the aforesaid training if

added to his attendance, 176 days comes to total 258 days

in the year 1998. The Certified Standing Order under clause

17.8 stipulates that if a workman remains absent

unauthorisedly exceeding 10 days the workman has on

application to explain it to the satisfaction of the Manager

concerned but in the instant cae no such any notice for his

absence in the year 1997 was given to the present workman

nor proceeding was drawn against him. The chargesheet

alleges his unauthorised absence since 20-1-2000 from his

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

913

duty, for which the aforesaid domestic enquiry was held

against the workman and in the said enquiry the workman

submitted his reply (reply dated 22-1-2001) which is just

after 2 days of his absence and threin he explained his

absence due to urgent work and again on his petition on

7-7-2000 he was ordered to resume his duty but he was not

allowed by the Attendance Babu (Attendance Clerk) and

in this way despite his frequent visit for a week he did not

get his job; meanwhile he suddenly but gravely fell ill on

15-2-2000. So his grave illness was his compelling

circumstances preventing him from presenting himself on

duty. His reply also refers to the enclosures of fhis health

certificate (Medical Certificate Ext.M5/3) and his information

letter through U.P.C. receipts to the Manager concerned.

In course of the domestic enquiry the workman also has

justified his absence for his illness submitting his Medical

Certificate etc. which is apparent from the Enquiry

Proceedings (Ext.M-5) and proceeding dated 14-2-2001 in

particular.

7. In view of the facts and circumstances the

Notesheet of the management (Ext.M-8) appears to be not

based on the factual ground of the case. Certified Standing

Order Clause 27.2.6 mandates ‘‘No order of discharge or

dismissal from service shall be made by an authority lower

than the appointing authority of the workman.’’ In this

case the dismissal against the concerned workman has

been passed by the Agent/Project Officer of the Colliery

concerned which is totally illegal. In these circumstances

I find and hold that the dismisal Order (Ext.M-9) dismissing

the concerned workman Shri Damodar Bahadur, Miner/

Loader of Lohapatty Colliery from his service is not at all

just and fair rather it appears to be unjust, unfair and

against the principle of natural justice. In view of his

continued service as Miner/Loader working underground

under Section 25B of the I.D. Act, 1947 he is entitled to be

reinstatement from the date of his dismissal namely

28-7-2001 with continuity of services bt without any back

wages. Management is directed to implement the award

within three months from the date of its publication in the

Gazette of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 318-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-

lh-,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k la-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 227@98)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5&1&2011 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@141@1998&vkbZvkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 318.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.227/98) of

the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No. 2, Dhanbad

as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute

between the employers in relation to the management of

M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by

the Central Government on 5-1-2011.

[No. L-20012/141/1998-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 2, AT DHANBAD

PRESENT: SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10 (1)

(d) of the I.D. Act., 1947

REFERENCE NO. 227 OF 1998

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of Katras Project

of M/s. B.C.C. L. and their workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman

: Shri B. Mahanty,

Executive Member

(Central) Bihar

Colliery Kamgar Union

Dhanbad

On behalf of the enployers : Mr. D. K.Verma, Advocate

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, Dhanbad, the 10th December, 2010

AWARD

The Government of India Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section 10

(1) (d) of the I. D. Act., 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L -20012/141/98-IR. (C-I) dated the 1-12-98.

SCHEDULE

‘‘Whether the action of the management of

Katras Project of M/s. BCCL in dismissing

Sri Ram Charitar Bhuia, Loader from the services of

the company w.e.f. 31-10-95 only on the ground of

unauthorised absence from duty from 11-6-93 is

justified? If not, to what relief the concerned

workman is entitled ?’’

2. The case of the sponsoring Union is that on his

application concerning the dismissal of workman Shri Ram

Charitar Bhuia of Katras Project Area of M/s.B.C.C.L., a

conciliation proceeding under File No.1/55/97 E-III was

started before the ALC (C), Dhanbad in which several

documents in support of the claim of the workman were

submitted but the management did not turn up; hence the

matter was referred by the Labour Ministry to this Tribunal

for adjudication. In fact, the concerned workman Ram

914

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

Charitar Bhuia was appointed in place of his deceased father

late Rameshwar Bhuia as per N.C.W.A. -V in the year 1992.

But the management concerned did not pay a single

furthing for his wages since the date of his joining the

service till the date of his alleged dismissal though several

times he made applications for the payment of his wages

yet the management kept mum. Not only the concerned

workman but also his family members suffered pain and

pang of hunger for ever. At last the management deliberately

dismissed the concerned workman only on the ground of

absenteeism which is not sufficient for his dismissal from

the services under the law, because there was no other

serious charge against him and accordingly it was claimed

for his reinstatement in his service with full back wages

right from 31-12-1992 to 11-6-1993.

3. Whereas the pleadings of the management is that

the workman was all along not regular rather a habitual

absentee from his duty several times during the short tenure

of his service since his posting at Katras Project following

his appointment on 31-12-1992. Despite a number of warnings

to him he remained absent, so charge-sheet was issued vide

letter dated 11-3-94 and he was allowed to join his duty with

the last warning vide letter dated 19-7-1994 after the

settlement between both the parties under which the

workman undertook not to repeat such misconduct in

future. Even then the workman joined his duty and

remained absent, so another charge-sheet for his habitual

absenteeism was issued vide dated 3-9-94 (Ext. M-2). In

response to the charge-sheet the workman submitted his

reply (Ext. M-3). But after finding it unsatisfactory

the management initiated a departmental proceeding,

appointing Shri P. N. Singh, the then Senior Personnel

Officer of Katras Project as Enquiry Officer as per letter

(Ext. M-1) who held domestic enquiry into the aforesaid

charges. The workman is alleged to have not only

participated but was also given full opportunity to defend

his own case as per enquiry proceeding papers under the

signature of the Presenting Officer as Ext. M-4-5 series and

the signatures of the workman as Ext. M-6 series. On

completion of the domestic enquiry in accordance with the

principles of natural justice, he submitted enquiry report

(Ext. M-7). The Disciplinary Authority after considering the

aforesaid proceeding as well as Enquiry Report dismissed

the workman from the services of the company with effect

from 31-10-95. So his dismissal is legal and justified.

FINDING WITH REASONS

4. In the instant case under adjudication, I find that

after hearing the argument on behalf of both the parties

and considering the materials available on the case record

this Tribunal was pleased to hold that the domestic enquiry

was fair, proper and in accordance with the principle of

natural justice at the preliminary issue on the basis of

examination of evidence of Shri P. N. Singh, Dy. P. M. as

MW-1 and workman Ramcharitar Bhuia as WW-1 on

behalf of the management and the union concerned

respectively. Thereafter it proceeded hearing argument on

merits.

5. On going through the pleadings of both the parties

and the materials available on the case record I find the

following facts are undisputable.

(i) The relationship between the workman and the

management as the employee and the employer

existed.

(ii) Workman Ramcharitar Bhuia was appointed

on 31-12-92 as Miner/Loader in place of his

deceased father late Rameshwar Bhuia as per

clause 9.3.2 of NCWA-V and the domestic

enquiry for the charges of his unauthorised

absence from his duty on 21-7-94 against the

workman was held fair, proper and in accordance

with the principle of natural justice.

6. The plea of Mr. B. Mohanty, the representative of

the workman inter alia is that the management not paid the

workman a single farthing for his wages since the date of

his joining his services till the date of his dismissal and

that his dismissal from his service on the ground of

absenteeism was illegal and arbitrary though the evidence

of workman Ramcharitar Bhuia as WW-1 appears to be

evident as stated in his Written Statement but his Written

Statement does not justify his absence from his duty on

the disputed date on account of his illness, though the

plea of illness reflects in the statement of the workman

under his signature Ext.M-1/5, in the domestic enquiry as

also stated in his reply (Ext.M-3). On the other side the

contention of Mr. D. K. Verma, for the management is that

unauthorised absence of the workman several times during

his short tenure of his service for which a number of times

warning to him, warranted the domestic enquiry for the

charges of his absence on the specified date without any

information and after the proof of his misconduct, twice

show cause notice was issued to him but he did not

respond to it. So his dismissal from his service was quite

just and proper.

7. Learned Counsel for the management submitted

relying the authority 2006 LAB I. C. 2262 (SC) (DB), North

Eastern Karnataka R. T. Corpn. V. Ashappa & Anr. as

held therein, by the Hon’ble Apex Court, in reference to

Section 11A of the I. D. Act, 1947 that a Bus Conductor

remaining absent not only for more than 3 years but also

unauthorisedly on several occasions amounting to a major

misconduct in his employment of running buses, was

dismissed from his service which was not to be substituted

with reinstatement (para-8). Further he quoted the authority

2005 (3) SCC-134 Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. Vs N. B.

Narawade (para-20) referred in 2008 (1) SCC (L & S)

170 related to reservation for physically handicapped

persons, submitting that it was held by the Hon’ble Apex

Court in reference to Section 11A of the I.D. Act, 1947 the

discretion of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal in

interfering with the quantum of punishment ordered by the

management where the workman concerned was found

guilty of misconduct is limited to the factors like punishment

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

915

being disproportionate to the gravity of misconduct, the

mitigating circumstances or the past conduct of the

workman (Para-10).

8. In the present case MW-1 P. N. Singh the then Sr.

Personnel Officer at Katras Project as the Enquirying

Officer by virtue of his appointment letter dated 12-10-1994

(Ext.M-1) held the domestic enquiry against the concerned

workman. The Charge-sheet (Ext.M-2) was issued to it the

workman submitted his reply (Ext.M-3). According to him

he had issued notices (Ext. M-4 series) to the workman,

who participated in it and defended his case as per the

enquiry proceeding papers (Ext.M-5) series over which

the signatures of the workman as Ext.M-6 series. After

completing the enquiry he held the workman guilty of

charge of absenteeism and accordingly submitted his

enquiry report as Ext.M-7. But the workman did not respond

to the second show cause notice which is Ext. M-8 and

thereafter on the approval of the G. M. (Ext.M-9) over the

note sheet of the Project Officer concerned, the dismissal

order dt. 31-10-95, handwritten carbon copy as Ext.M-10

was issued by the Project Officer of Katras Project against

the workman dismissing him from his service with effect

from 22-10-95 as contrasted with 31-10-95 under the

schedule. The entire proceeding bears not a single

documentary proceeding as to pervious disciplinary action

taken against this workman except collected informations

written by the concerned staff concerning the alleged

warning dated 8-5-93, 2-5-93 and 11-6-93 to the workman

for resumption of his duty. The management has no proof

of previous such misconduct except the present one against

the workman for a single misconduct. So far as the aforesaid

authorities are concerned, I am of the view that they refer

to graver misconduct of the employees concerned as

contrasted with the present misconduct which is minor

and it does not warrant in any way the dismissal of the

workman from his permanent service as defined under

section 25B of the I.D. Act, 1947. On the consideration of

the aforesaid tangible facts I find and hold that the action

of the management of Katras Project of M/s. BCCL in

dismissing the workman Shri Ram Charitar Bhuia, the

Miner/Loader from the services of the company with effect

either from 31-10-95 as per schedule or from 22-10-1995 as

per the dismissal order (Ext.M-10) only on the ground of

unauthorised absence from duty from 11-6-93 is palpably

unjustified and illegal. It would be proper to grant relief

for his reinstatement in his service from the aforesaid

alleged date of his dismissal but without any back wages.

The management is directed to implement the Award within

three months from the date of its publication in the Gazette

of India.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 319-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-

lh-,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

110@2002) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5&1&2011

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@147@2002&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 319.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.110/2002)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour

Court No. 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2011.

[No. L-20012/147/2002-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I, AT DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s. 10 (1) (d) (2A)

of the I.D. Act.

REFERENCE NO. 110 of 2002

Parties:

Employers in relation to the management of P.B. Area of

M/s. B.C.C. Ltd.

AND

Their workmen

PRESENT: SHRI H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri D. K. Verma, Advocate.

For the Workman : Shri B. N. Singh, Advocate.

State: Jharkhand

Industry : Coal

Dated, the 14 December, 2010

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/147/2002-IR (C-I) dated

7-10-2002 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

‘‘Whether the denial to regularise Md. Illias in the

post of Driver Cat. V and fixation of wages thereof

with effect from 26-11-92 by the management of P. B.

Area of M/s. B.C.C.L. is legal and justified? If not, to

what relief is the concerned workman entitled and

from what date ?’’

2. Written statement has been filed on behalf of

the concerned workman stating that the concerned

workman was initially appointed as U.G. Loader. Later on in

916

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

the year 1990 the Area management Dy. C.P.M., P.B. Area

deployed the concerned workman alongwith few others to

work as Driver as they all were holding heavy vechicle

driving licence. Considering their efficiency and

satisfactory performance the Dy. Chief Personnel Manager,

P. B. Area vide his office order dated 7-12-92 regularised

the concerned workman. As such the concerned workman

was very much entitled to fixation of wages on the post of

Driver Cat.-V with effect from the date of regularisation i.e.

7-12-1992. But his fixation was made illegally and arbitrarily

w.e.f. 12-10-98 vide office order of General Manager, P.B.

Area in Ref-BL/PIR/98/1939 dated 13-10-98. The

management adopted open discriminating attitude in pay

fixation of the concerned workman. Although all the person

were regularised on the post of Driver Cat. V, barring the

concerned workman, all the rest seven workman were given

benefit of fixation of wages from the year 1992 from the

date of regularisation.

It has been prayed that the Hon’ble Tribunal be

pleased to pass an award in favour of the concerned

workman.

3. Written statement has been filed by the

management stating that the concerned workman was

initially appointed as U.G. Loader, Group-V to work in

Undergound mine. In the year 1990, the concerned workman

was authorised to work as a driver trainee. As per the Cadre

Scheme, a workman has to be deployed as Khalasi and

then after garining some experiences of driving of heavy

vehicle, he is to be deployed as driver after trade test and

after gaining some experiences of driving of heavy vehicle

he is to be deployed as driver after trade test and after

gaining sufficient experience of driving of heavy vehicle,

the concerned workman has been regularised as a driver in

Category-V with sanction of the competent authority. He

was not deployed to work as a driver trainee under the

Cadre Scheme.

According to the rules of the company only Director

(Personnel) is the competent authority who issues office

order for regularisation of a particular workman in a

particular grade, after the recommendation of the

Departmental Promotion Committee duly constituted for

the said purpose. The concerned workman was regularised

as a driver in Catrgory-V vide order dated 22-9-98 according

to the sanction of the competent authority. The concerned

workman accepted his regularisation and did not raise any

protest against the order passed by the competent

authority for his regularisation w.e.f. 22-9-98. All on a

sudden the sponsoring union raised the industrial dispute

vide their letter dated 12-4-2001 after long delay, which is a

stale dispute.

It has been prayed that this Tribunal be pleased to

pass an award holding that the action of the management

is legal and justified and the concerned workman is not

entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective

rejoinders admitting or denying some contents of some of

the paragraphs of each other’s written statement.

5. The management has produced MW-I, Sitaram

Prasad.

The concerned workman produced himself as

WW-1 and has proved the documents, as Exts.W-1 and

W-2.

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the

concerned workman is that considering his efficiency and

satisfactory work the concerned workman was regularised

as driver w.e.f. 26-12-92, but he has not been paid wages

from 26-11-92 for driver. Instead of that he is paid wages

arbitrarily by the management from 13-10-98 which is

against the law.

7. In this respect the management argued that there

is delay of seven years in raising grievance. Moreover the

concerned workman accepted the pay of Driver w.e.f.

13-10-1998. There is post of khalasi and after gaining

sufficient experience of driving of vehicle and after trade

test he is to be deployed as driver. No trade test has been

taken and he cannot be given promotion from 26-11-92 as

he was appointed as Driver (Trainee). In this respect the

concerned workman has filed management’s order dated

3-2-90 by which he has been allowed to work as Driver (T)

as per Ext.W-1. He has been regularised as Driver

Category-V alongwith other co-workmen as per Ext.W-2

w.e.f. 26-11-92. In this respect MW-1, Sitaram Prasad, has

stated in cross-examination that I do not know if benefit’s

have been given to the concerned workman according to

Ext.W-1. He has also stated that I cannot say if any

document marked ‘X’ for identification was issued by the

management. Ext.W-1 is office order regularising the

concerned workman. It only shows that the concerned

workman is legally entitled to be treated having been

confirmed in the post of Driver Category-V from 26-11-92

and fixation of wages thereof with effect from 26-11-92.

The concerned workman has referred a decision of

Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in 1961 (I) LLJ 649—

1961 (3) FLR 83 Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. Meerut Vs. Badri

Prasad— in which Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down—

that the definition of permanent workman did not require

that such workmen should be employed throughout the

year. The work on which he is engaged should be of a

permanent nature and should last throughout the year.

The proper construction of the definition of ‘permanent

workmen’, is that he must be a workman engaged on a

work of permanent nature which lasts throughout the year

and who has completed his probationary period, if any,

being one engaged to fill in a temporary need of extra hands

on permanent jobs.

8. Considering the above facts and circumstances, it

shows that the concerned workman is entitled to fixation

of wages of Driver Category-V from 26-11-92.

9. Accordingly, I render the following award—

That the denial to regularies Md. Illias in the post of

Driver Category-V and fixation of wages thereof with effect

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

917

from 26-11-92 by the management of P. B. Area of M/s.

BCCL is not legal and justified. Management is directed to

act accordingly within 30 days from the date of publication

of the award.

H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 320-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ ch-lh-

lh-,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp] vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&1] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k

213 @2001) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 5&1&2011

dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&20012@325@2001&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 320.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial

Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government

hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.213/2001) of the Central

Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court No. 1,

Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between the employers in relation to the

management of M/s. B.C.C.L. and their workmen, which

was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2011.

[No. L-20012/325/2001-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. 1, DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s. 10 (1) (d) (2A)

of the I.D. Act.

REFERENCE No. 213 of 2001

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Ram Kanali

Colliery of M/s. B.C.C. L.

AND

Their workman

PRESENT: Shri H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

For the Employers : Shri H. Nath, Advocate

For the Workman : Shri D. Mukherjee, Secretary,

Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union

State: Bihar

Industry : Coal

Dated, the 15-12-2010

AWARD

By Order No. L-20012/325/2001-IR (C-I) dated

21-9-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour

has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of

sub-section (1) and sub-section (2A) of Section 10 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute

for adjudication to this Tribunal:

‘‘Whether the action of the management of Ram

Kanali Colliery of M/s. BCCL, in dismissing Md. Ali

Hussain from the service of the company w.e.f.

19-11-97 is justified? If not, to what relief is the

concerned workman entitled ?’’

2. The case of the concerned workman is that he had

been working as permanent workman since long with

unblemished record of service at Gazlitand Colliery. There

was a mine accident at Gazlitand and the mine was

completely drowned at Katri River water entered into the

mine resulting in death of about 80 workmen, as a result of

death of workmen, he lost his mental balance. As there was

no provision/facility in BCCL Hospital for treatment of

mentally ill patient so his relative had taken him to Ranchi

for treatment. His relatives and friends informed the

management about the aforesaid fact of illness. The

concerned workman also informed the management

through registered post about the same fact. After

recovering from his illness the concerned workman reported

for his duty alongwith medical certificate but he was not

allowed to resume his duty. Thereafter he came to know

that he had been dismised by the management on the basis

of alleged ex-parte enquiry. But the concerned workman

neither received any chargesheet nor any enquiry notice.

The allegation as levelled in the chargesheet does not

constitute any misconduct and the chargesheet was issued

by an unauthorised person. The concerned workman

represented before the management several times but

without any effect. Thereafter an industrial dispute was

raised before A.L.C. (C), Dhanbad but the same ended in

failure. So this dispute has been referred by the Government

of India, Ministry of Labour to this Hon’ble Tribunal for

adjudication. The dismissal of the concerned workman was

against the provisions of the Standing Order and

disproportionate to the alleged offence.

It has been prayed that this Hon’ble Tribunal be

pleased to answer the reference in favour of the workman

by awarding reinstatement of the concerned workman with

full back wages.

3. The case of the management is that the concerned

workman, Md. Ali Hussain, was permanent miner/loader of

Ramkanali Colliery. He absented unauthorisedly from his

duty w.e.f 7-2-97 without information/permission from the

management. In the past also he absented several times.

Accordingly he was chargesheeted vide letter dated

6-3-97 which was sent to him through registered post to

his permanent address. He did not send any reply to the

chargesheet. Thereafter it was decided to hold domestic

enquiry and Sri S. N. Dubey, Personnel Manager,

Ramkanali Colliery was appointed as Enquiry Officer to

hold the enquiry.

918

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

The Enquiry Officer sent several informations to the

concerned workman by his home address by registered

post, but the concerned workman did not appear and

accordingly the enquiry was held ex-parte. The Enquiry

Officer submitted his reply holding the concerned workman

guilty of the charge. Thereafter the concerned workman

was dismissed from services vide letter dated 19-1-97.

In view of the facts stated above, it has been prayed

that the Hon’ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award holding

that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have submitted their rejoinders

admitting or denying the contents of some of the

paragraphs of each other’s written statement.

5. The enquiry was held fairly and properly by order

dated 5-3-2010.

6. The management has examined MW-1, S. N. Dubey

and proved documents as Ext.M-1 to M-11.

The concerned workman has produced himself as

WW-1.

7. Main argument advanced on behalf of the

workman that the enquiry was ex-parte and no publication

in the Newspaper was done. Moreover, argument also

advanced that the original enquiry report is missing and

not available which has not been produced before the

Court. Second show-cause notice was not sent to the

concerned workman.

In this respect the management’s witness MW-1,

S. N. Dubey has stated at page 2 that the enquiry was held

ex-parte. In cross-examination at page 4 this witness stated

that I cannot produce the original documents. I am not in a

position to file any paper regarding missing of enquiry

paper. I have not filed the original papers.

I have no paper to show that the concerned workman

received the charge-sheet. In the enquiry paper there is no

paper to show that the chargesheet was issued under

registered post, and that was returned with the endorsement

of the postal peon. Regarding holding of enquiry it was not

published in any local newspaper. As per standing order

habitual absenteeism. It shows that the management has

not issued to the chargesheet to the concerned workman or

any notice has been published in the newspaper for giving

notice to the concerned workman. Ext. M-11 shows that no

second show-cause notice has been given, ex-parte enquiry

has been done which has been accepted proving misconduct

and he was dismissed from service.

8. The workman has referred 2010 (125) FLR 187 in

which Hon’ble Supreme Court held— ‘‘Industrial Disputes

Act, 1947— Section 25 -F — Constitution of India, 1950 —

Article 226 and 227 — In its award Labour Court, on finding

that the respondent employer had not complied with the

mandatory requirement of Section 25- F of the

Act, directed reinstatement of the appellant with continuity

of service and 50% back wages — In writ petition High

Court set aside the award of the Labour Court and directed

payment of compensation of Rs.50,000 in lieu of

reinstatement — Held, vide discretion is vested in the

Labour Court while adjudicating an industrial dispute

relating to discharge or dismissal of a workman — If the

Labour Court, after taking the pleadings of the parties and

circumstances of the case into consideration, has directed

re-instatement with 50% back wages High Court would not

interfere with such discretion in exercise of the powers

under Art, 226 & 227 of the Constitution — Apex Court

judgement in case of Harjinder Singh V. Punjab State

Warehousing Corporation, 2010 (124) FLR 700 (SC),

referred. Ratio of the Apex Court judgements in cases of

Mahboob Deepak V. Nagar Panchayat, Gajraula and

another, 2008 (116) FLR 379 (SC), and Ghaziabad

Development Authority and another V. Ashok Kumar and

another, 2008 (117) FLR 1198 (SC), distinguished and

explained — Impugned judgement and order of High

Court set aside — Direction issued for the forthwith

reinstatement of the appellant as a daily wager with 50%

back wages — Appeal allowed.’’

The workman also refered 1998 LLR -1097 in which

Supreme Court laid down — CHARGE - SHEET — Service

of — sent by registered post — Returned with postal

remarks ‘not found’ Does not amount to tendering to the

addressee — Cannot be legally treated to have been

served.

SHOW CAUSE NOTICE — Service of — By

publication in newspaper not shown to be popular in the

area — Compliance of — Not sufficient — Initiation of

disciplinary proceedings upon such effective service held

bad. Also referred 2009 LLR 252 in which Supreme Court

laid down DEPARTMENTAL PROCEEDINGS —

Departmental proceedings being a quasi judicial

proceedings — The charges levelled against the delinquent

officer must be found to have been proved — Management

witnesses merely tendering the documents and not proving

the contents thereof — The FIR relied upon could not be

treated as evidence — Further, the orders being non-

speaking cannot be sustained — Even otherwise the

disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the appellant

after five years of the incident.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances stated

above, I hold that the management has without following

the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and

without giving second show-cause notice and without

giving any fair opportunity by giving registered notice or

publication in the newspaper dismissed the concerned

workman from service which is not proper.

So, the action of the management of Ram Kanali

Colliery of M/s. BCCL in dismissing Md. Ali Hussain

from the services of the company w.e.f. 19-11-1997 is not

justified. Hence, the concerned workman is entitled to be

reinstated in service with 50% back wages with other

benefits. The management is directed to implement the

award within 30 days from the date of publication of the

award.

This is my Award.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

919

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 321.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ

ykbocSy ,fo;s'ku l£olsl 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] eqEcbZ ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 2@2004) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 5&1&2011 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@57@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 321.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 02/2004)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. Livewel Aviation Services and

their workman, which was received by the Central

Government on 5-1-2011.

[No. L-11012/57/2003-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, MUMBAI

JUSTICE G.S. SARRAF Presiding Officer

REFERENCE NO. CGIT-1/02 OF 2004

Parties :

Employers in relation to the management of

M/s.Livewel Aviation Services

And

Their Workmen

APPEARANCES :

For the Management :

Absent

For the Union :

Mr.Umesh Nabar, Adv.

Maharashtra

Mumbai dated the 18th day of November 2010.

AWARD

This is a reference made by the Central Government

in exercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub-section

1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 vide

Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi

Order No.L-11012/57/2003-lR (C-I) dtd.24-12-2003. The

terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Livewel Aviation Services, Mumbai in terminating the

services of 16 workmen (list enclosed) is justified? If

not, to what relief are these workmen entitled?”

The matter was taken up today. Shri Umesh Nabar,

learned advocate for the Union has submitted that the

employees have given application stating therein that

they are not interested in prosecution of the case.

Shri Nabar therefore, prays that the case be disposed of in

accordance the prayer of the employees.

2. In view of the above submission, the matter

stands disposed of for want of prosecution.

An Award is made accordingly.

Justice G. S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 322.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ tSV

ykWbV (bafM;k) 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; la-&1] ubZ fnYyh ds

iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 25@2010) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh;

ljdkj dks 5&1&2011 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@11@2010&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 322.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 25/2010)

of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour

Court-1, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. Jet Lite (India) Ltd., and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 5-1-2011.

[No. L-11012/11/2010-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR.R.K.YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO. I,

KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D.No. 25/2010

Shri Virender Dutt

T-45, East Mehram Nagar,

Palam Airport,

New Delhi.

....Workman

Versus

The Jet Lite (India) Ltd.,

A-110, Road No.5,

NH-8, Mahipalpur Extn.,

New Delhi.

....Management

920

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

AWARD

Jet Lite (India) Ltd, a subsidiary company of Jet

Airways, engaged Shri Virender Dutt as Junior Ramp

Security Assistant on 9th of July, 2007, on a fixed term of

contract for a period of 36 months. Shri Virender Dutt

joined his duties on 10th of July,2007. He was paid a sum

of Rs.7877 PM, besides other facilities. He absented

himself from his duties w.e.f. 1-11-2008. Telegram dated

21-11-2008 and letter dated 25-11-2008 were sent to him,

calling upon him to join his duties. When Shri Virender

Dutt failed to join his duties charge sheet dated

15-12-2008 was sent to him. He opted not to reply the

charge sheet. Shri, B.K.Tamber, Advocate, was appointed

as an Enquiry Officer. Shri Virender Dutt opted not to join

the enquiry proceedings. He was proceeded ex-parte.

Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary

Authority, who concurred with the findings of the

Enquiry Officer. A show cause notice was issued to Shri

Virender Dutt on 29th of January,2009. No response was

made to the said show cause notice. Ultimately he was

dismissed from service, vide order dated 5-2-2009. When

dismissal order was received, Shri Virender Dutt raised his

grievances before the Conciliation Officer. His employer

resisted his claim, which resulted in failure of conciliation

proceedings. 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-11012/11/2010-IR(CM-I)

New Delhi, dated 25th of March, 2010, with following

terms:

“Whether the action of the management of M/s.

Jet Lite (India) Ltd. in dismissing Shri Virender

Dutt Ramp Security Assistant from the services

w.e.f. 5-2-2009 is justified and legal? To what

relief is the workman entitled?”

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Virender Dutt

pleading that he was appointed as Junior Ramp Security

Assistant by Jet Lite (India) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as

the management) on fixed term of contract for a period of

36 months. He joined services on 10th of July,2007 and his

contract was to remain in operation till 9th of July, 2010.

He was paid monthly emoluments of Rs. 7,877 besides

other benefits. He passed basic course of 10 days at

Mumbai. At the time of joining his services, he passed

medical fitness test. He worked hard and in recognition of

his hard work, he was promoted to Ramp Security

Assistant. On 28-9-2008 at about 6.30 PM, while on duty

he sustained injuries on his head. He became

unconscious. No medical aid was provided to him. After

sometime he regained his conscious and at that juncture

he was made to attend to his duties. Even on next day he

felt deterioration in his health, but no medical assistance

was provided to him. When his conditions became bad to

worse, he was referred to Indian Spinal Injury Centre,

Vasant Kunj, by the management. One Dr. Dhruv declared

that he was losing vision of his eyes. He was referred to

Dr.Tarun Kapur for consultation. He asked the

management to provide him medical leave but to no avail.

When he was running from pillar to post for medical

treatment, the management became callous and dismissed

him from service by manipulating records of his

attendance. False evidence was created against him and

thereafter drastic action was taken. He made a complaint

to the Labour Commissioner in that regard. He presents

that action of the management in dismissing his services

is illegal. He claims reinstatement in service with

continuity and full back wages.

3. Claim was demurred by the management pleading

therein that the claimant absented himself from his duties

w.e.f. 1-11-2008, without permission or intimation. Charge

sheet dated 15-12-2008 was sent to him which was not

replied by the claimant. An Enquiry Officer was appointed

by the management. The claimant opted not to participate

in the enquiry proceedings, hence he was proceeded ex-

parte. The Enquiry Officer submitted his report to the

Competent Authority, who agreed with his findings. A

show cause notice was sent to the claimant which was

also not responded to. Considering gravity of the

charges, his services were dismissed, vide order dated

5-2-2009. Since the claimant was dismissed after a

domestic enquiry, in which he had opted not to

participate, he is not entitled for relief of reinstatement, as

claimed by him.

4. Management does not dispute appointment of

the claimant for a fixed term of 36 months. His monthly

emoluments are also not disputed. However, management

pleads that since he was appointed on a fixed term of

contract, which service can be dispensed with by serving

one months notice, the claimant cannot agitate a case for

reinstatement of his service. It has been asserted that

even otherwise his term of contract came to an end on

9-7-2010. Under these circumstances the appropriate

Government ought not to have referred the dispute to this

Tribunal for adjudication, claims the management. It has

been pleaded that assertion of the claimant to the effect

that records were fabricated, is unfounded. The enquiry

was conducted following principles of natural justice.

Since the claimant has been dismissed for a proved

misconduct his claim is liable to be dismissed, pleads the

management.

5. On pleadings of the parties following issues were

settled:

1. Whether the enquiry conducted by the

management is fair, just and proper?

2. Whether the punishment awarded to the

claimant commensurate to his misconduct?

3. As in terms of reference.

4. Relief.

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

921

6. Issue No. 1 was treated as preliminary issue. Shri

Brijesh Tamber (MW1) and Shri Bharat Bhushan (MW2)

were examined by the management on the preliminary

issue. Claimant entered the witness box to prove that the

enquiry was not fair and proper.

7. During the course of adjudication, parties were

persuaded to settle their grievances. Good sense

prevailed .on them and settlement was arrived at. Shri

Sourabh Munjal, authorised representative of the

management, made a statement that the management is

ready to pay a sum of Rs. l,55,000 to the claimant towards

his full and final settlement of claim. for reinstatement,

back wages,leaves, bonus, gratuity, retrenchment

compensation, besides. other benefits admissible to him,

He also asserted that on receipt of Rs. 1,55,000, the

claimant would not raise any claim against the

management before the Commissioner, Workmen

Compensation, Hari Nagar, New Delhi. The claimant

accepted the offer and made a statement on oath, which

runs as under :—

“I have heard the statement made by Shri

Sourabh Munjal, authorised representative of

the management. I accept the terms of settlement

offered by Shri Munjal. I undertake to accept a

sum of Rs.1,55,000 from the management

towards my all claims relating to reinstatement in

service, back wages, leaves, bonus, gratuity,

retrenchment, compensation, besides other

benefits

whatsoever

nature

from

the

management. I make it clear that in my claim

preferred before Commissioner Workmen

Compensation, Hari Nagar, New Delhi, I will

agitate my grievances only against the ESI

Authorities and not against the management.

My claim against the management before

Commmissioner Workmen Compensation, shall

stand satisfied on receipt of the payment

referred above and my grievances against the

management in that matter shall come to an end.

I will file an application before Commissioner,

Workmen Compensation, requesting him to

delete the name of the management from the

array of respondent. However, the management

shall provide me an experience certificate for

three years services rendered by me to them. On

payment of the aforesaid amount my all claims,

present or future against the management before

any forum including ESI authorities would come

to an end as satisfied”.

8. In view of the statement made cheque No. 007062

drawn on Cuffee parade, Mumbai branch of State Bank of

India, for a sum of Rs.1,55,000 was paid to the claimant

before the Tribunal, which cheque was accepted by him.

He confirmed to abide by the contents of his statement

referred above. In view of these facts it emerged, that

grievance of the claimant stood satisfied on receipt of the

cheque for a sum of Rs.1,55,000.

9. Since grievance of the claimant have been

remedied by payment of Rs.1,55,000, no dispute remain to

be adjudicated. No necessity is there to enter into the

adjudication of the issues detailed above. Since dispute

between the claimant and the management stands settled,

an award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the

appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 20-12-2010

ubZ fnYyh] 5 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 323.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj eSllZ bf.M;u

,;jykbUl 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] ubZ fnYyh ds iapkV

(lanHkZ la[;k 34@2007) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj

dks 5&1&2011 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&11012@47@2003&vkbZ vkj (lh&I)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 5th January, 2011

S.O. 323.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 34/

2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court-1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the

Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to

the management of M/s. Indian Airlines, and their

workman, which was received by the Central Government

on 5-1-2011.

[No. L-11012/47/2003-IR (C-I)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR.R.K.YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS

COMPLEX, DELHI.

I.D.No.34/2007

Shri Mehar Chand S/o Shri Siya Ram,

C/o AEU, 3 V.P.House, Rafi Marg,

New Delhi.

. . .

Workman

Versus

1. The General Manager (P),

M/s. Indian Airlines,

I.G.I. Terminal I, Palam,

New Delhi.

922

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

2. M/s Aroon Enterprises,

H.No.423 Village and post office Kapas Hera,

New Delhi -37.

3. M/s Sunshine Enterprises,

A-60 Nirmal Puri,

Lajpat Nagar -IV,

New Delhi - 24.

. . .

Management

AWARD

Vide award dated 20.8.2010 an industrial dispute

referred by the appropriate Government vide Order No. L-

11012/47/2003-IR(CM-1),

dated

23.2.2007

was

adjudicated. It was concluded in the award, referred

above, that Mehar Chand was an employee of the

Contractor. Since appropriate Government for making a

reference of the dispute was the Government of NCT,

Delhi, the Tribunal opted to refrain its hands from

adjudication of the controversy on merits.

2. Due to inadvertence, in the body of the award,

reference was made to the Airport Authority of India (in

short as the Authority) instead of M/s Indian Airlines as

the party who awarded contract for cleaning of aircraft A-

300, during night haults at IGI Airport, New Delhi, to M/s.

Aroon Enterprises and subsequently to M/s. Sunshine

Enterprises. Thus a typographical mistake emerged in the

award in respect of the name of the management. This

typographical mistake led M/s. Indian Airlines to move an

application for rectification of the error.

3. Notice of the application was sent to Mehar

Chand, who appeared and replied the application orally.

During the course of arguments it emerge that award

dated 20-8-2010 was published on 7-10-2010. Whether

this Tribunal can rectify the mistake, is a proposition

which needs consideration. The Apex Court in Grindlays

Bank (AIR 1981 SC 606) dealt with the aspect of powers of

the industrial Tribunal to recall the award passed by it.

Though the Apex Court dealt with different shade of

powers of the Tribunal, yet the law laid is relevant for

consideration, which is extracted thus:

“We are of the opinion that the Tribunal had the

power to pass the impugned order if it thought fit in the

interest of justice. It is true that there is no express

provision in the Act or the rules framed thereunder giving

the Tribunal jurisdiction to do so. But it is a well known

rule of statutory construction that a Tribunal or body

should be considered to be endowed with such ancillary

or incidental powers as are necessary to discharge its

functions effectively for the purpose of doing justice

between the parties. In a case of this nature, we are of the

view that the Tribunal should be considered as invested

with such incidental or ancillary powers unless there is

any indication in the statute to the contrary. We do not

find any such statutory prohibition. On the other hand,

there are indications to the contrary”.

‘The object of giving such wide powers is to

mitigate the rigour of the technicalities of the law, for

achieving the object of effective investigation and

settlement of industrial disputes, and thus assuring

industrial peace and harmony. The discretion thus

conferred on these authorities to determine the procedure

as they may think fit, however, is subject to the rules made

by the ‘appropriate Government’ in this behalf, Part III of

the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 makes rules

in this behalf, Rules 9 to 30 are the relevant rules

regulating procedure. State Governments too have. made

their own corresponding rules. Except to the extent

specified in sub-sec. (3), of S.11 of the Act and the rules

framed thereunder, the provisions of the Code of Civil

Procedure ,1908 are not applicable to proceedings before

the authorities mentioned in sub-sec. (1). The provisions

of the Evidence Act in their strict sense, likewise do not

apply

proceedings

before

the

authorities.

Nevertheless, all these authorities being quasijudicial in

nature objectively determining matters referred to them,

have to exercise their discretion in a judicial manner,

without caprice, and according to the general principles

of law and rules of natural justice.”

As is evident, this Tribunal has power to rectify the

typographical mistake emerging in the award dated

20-8-2010. Consequently it is ordered that as and when

reference to the management appears as the Authority in

the award, it may be read as M/s Indian Airlines. The

typographical

mistake/omissions

stands

rectified,

accordingly. It may be sent to the appropriate

Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 324-—tcfd eSllZ fgUnqLrku us'kuy Xykl ,.M

baMLVªht fyfeVsM ¹gkoM+k (if'pe caxky) {ks=k esa dksM la[;k

MCY;wch@5727 ds varxZrº (,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa

lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e]

1952 (1952 dk 19) (,rnqijkUr vf/fu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr)

dh /kjk 17 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds

fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd] dsUnz ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku nj ds

ekeys esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ ds fu;e mlds deZpkfj;ksa

ds fy, mDr vf/fu;e ds /kjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa

de fgrdj ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh leku izÑfr ds fdlh vU;

izfr"Bku ds deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ;k deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkUr ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr)

ds vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHk Hkh izkIr dj jgs gSaA

3- dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk] vc mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17

dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, rFkk bl laca/ esa le;≤ ij fofu£n"V 'krks± dks è;ku

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

923

esa j[krs gq,] mDr izfr"Bku dks mDr ;kstuk ds leLr mica/ksa ds

izpkyu ls 28&1&1963 ls vxyh vf/lwpuk rd ds fy, zNwV

iznku djrh gSA

¹la- ,l&35015@18@2010&,l,l&IIº

,l- Mh- tsfo;j] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2011

S.O. 324.—Whereas M/s. Hindusthan National

Glass & Industries Limited [under Code No. WB/5727 in

Howrah (West Bengal) Region] (hereinafter referred to as

the establishment) has applied for exemption under clause

(a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of the Employees’

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

(19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in section 6 of the said Act and the employees

are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits

provided under the said Act or under the Employees’

Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as

the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other

establishment of similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of

the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this

regard from time to time, the Central Government, hereby,

exempts the said establishment from the operation of all

the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from

28.01.1963 until further notification.

[No.S-35015/18/2010-SS-II]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 325-—tcfd eSllZ vUuiw.kkZ dkWVu feYl ,.M

baMLVªht fy-] dksydkrk (if'pe caxky) {ks=k esa dksM la[;k MCY;w

ch@111 ds varxZr) (,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us

deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952

dk 19) (blesa blds mijkar vf/fu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh

èkkjk 17 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr Hkkjr ljdkj

}kjk iznku dh xbZ NwV dks jí djus ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- mi;qZDr LFkkiu dks fnukad 8&1&1963 dh vf/lwpuk la-

11 (25)@62@ih,iQ- 2 }kjk mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17 (1)

(d) ds varxZr 1&8&1954 ls NwV iznku djrs gq, Hkkjr ds

jkti=k esa vf/lwpuk izdkf'kr dh xbZ Fkh A

3- vc ljdkj ds è;ku esa ;s ckr vkbZ gS fd mDr LFkkiu

us 6&1&2011 ls viuh NwV vH;£ir dj nh gS rFkk ;g] vc dksbZ

dk;Zdyki ugha dj jgh gSA

4- vr%] vc] mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17 dh mi&/kjk

(4) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, dsUnzh; ljdkj mi;qZDr

LFkkiu dks iznku dh xbZ NwV dks 6&1&2011 ls jí djrh gSA

¹la- ,l&35017@4@2010&,l,l&IIº

,l- Mh- tsfo;j] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2011

S.O. 325.— Whereas M/s. Sri Annapurna Cotton

Mills & Industries limited, Kolkata (under Code No. WB/

111 West Bengal region) (hereinafter referred to as the

establishment) has applied for cancellation of exemption

granted by Government of India under clause (a) of sub-

section (1) of section 17 of the Employees’ Provident

Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of

1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. Whereas a notification No.11(25)/62/PF,II dated

8-1-1963 granting exemption w.e.f. 1-8-1954 under section

17(1)(a) of the said Act to the said establishment was

published in the Gazette of India.

3. And whereas now it has come to the notice to the

Government that the establishment has surrendered its

exemption with effect from 6-1-2011 and it is no longer

carrying on any activity.

4. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by sub-section (4) of section 17 of the said Act

the Central Government hereby cancels the exemption

granted to the said establishment with effect from

6-1-2011.

[No.S-35017/4/2010-SS-II]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 326-—tcfd eSllZ VkVk dUly¯Vx bathfu;¯jx

fyfeVsM ¹eqacbZ&1 {ks=k esa dksM la[;k ,e,p@7951 ds varxZrº

(,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/

vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) (,rnqijkUr

vf/fu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh /kjk 17 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds

[k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd] dsUnz ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku nj ds

ekeys esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ ds fu;e mlds deZpkfj;ksa

ds fy, mDr vf/fu;e ds /kjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa

de fgrdj ugha gS vkSj deZpkjh leku izÑfr ds fdlh vU;

izfr"Bku ds deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ;k deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkUr ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr)

ds vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHk Hkh izkIr dj jgs gSaA

3- dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk] vc mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17

dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, rFkk bl laca/ esa le;≤ ij fofu£n"V 'krks± dks è;ku

esa j[krs gq,] mDr izfr"Bku dks mDr ;kstuk ds leLr mica/ksa ds

izpkyu ls 1&10&1994 ls vxyh vf/lwpuk rd ds fy, zNwV

iznku djrh gSA

¹la- ,l&35015@2@2010&,l,l&IIº

,l- Mh- tsfo;j] voj lfpo

924

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2011

S.O.

326.—Whereas

M/s. Tata

Consulting

Engineering Limited [under Code No. MH/7951 in

Mumbai-I Region] (hereinafter referred to as the

establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a)

of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Employees’

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

(19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees

are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits

provided under the said Act or under the Employees’

Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as

the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other

establishment of similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 17 of

the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this

regard from time to time, the Central Government, hereby,

exempts the said establishment from the operation of all

the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from

1-10-1994 until further notification.

[No.S-35015/2/2010-SS-II]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 327.—tcfd eSllZ ,f'k;u ihihth baMLVªht

fyfeVsM ¹ckanzk {ks=k esa dksM la[;k ,e,p@ch,,u@44135 ds

varxZrº (,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fuf/ vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19)

(,rnqijkUr vf/fu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh /kjk 17 dh mi&/

kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd] dsUnz ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku nj ds

ekeys esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ ds fu;e mlds deZpkfj;ksa

ds fy, mDr vf/fu;e ds /kjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa

de fgrdj ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh leku izÑfr ds fdlh vU;

izfr"Bku ds deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ;k deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkUr ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr)

ds vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHk Hkh izkIr dj jgs gSaA

3- dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk] vc mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17

dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, rFkk bl laca/ esa le;≤ ij fofu£n"V 'krks± dks è;ku

esa j[krs gq,] mDr izfr"Bku dks mDr ;kstuk ds leLr mica/ksa ds

izpkyu ls 6&1&2011 ls vxyh vf/lwpuk rd ds fy, NwV

iznku djrh gSA

¹la- ,l&35015@16@2010&,l,l&IIº

,l- Mh- tsfo;j] voj lfpo

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2011

S.O. 327.—Whereas M/s. Asian PPG Industries

Limited [under Code No. MH/BAN/44135 in Bandra

Region] (hereinafter referred to as the establishment) has

applied for exemption under clause (a) of sub-section (1)

of Section 17 of the Employees’ Provident Funds and

Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 (19 of 1952)

(hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees

are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits

provided under the said Act or under the Employees’

Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as

the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other

establishment of similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of

the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this

regard from time to time, the Central Government, hereby,

exempts the said establishment from the operation of all

the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from

6-1-2011 until further notification.

[No. S-35015/16/2010-SS-II]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 15 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 328.—tcfd eSllZ nkSjkyk vkSxsZfuDl fyfeVsM

¹esjB (mÙkj izns'k) {ks=k esa dksM la[;k ;wih@17378 ds varxZrº

(,rnqijkUr izfr"Bku ds :i esa lan£Hkr) us deZpkjh Hkfo"; fuf/

vkSj izdh.kZ mica/ vf/fu;e] 1952 (1952 dk 19) (,rnqijkUr

vf/fu;e ds :i esa lan£Hkr) dh /kjk 17 dh mi&/kjk (1) ds

[k.M (d) ds varxZr NwV ds fy, vkosnu fd;k gSA

2- vkSj tcfd] dsUnz ljdkj ds fopkj esa va'knku nj ds

ekeys esa mDr izfr"Bku ds Hkfo"; fuf/ ds fu;e mlds deZpkfj;ksa

ds fy, mDr vf/fu;e ds /kjk 6 eas fofu£n"V fu;eksa dh rqyuk esa

de fgrdj ugha gSa vkSj deZpkjh leku izÑfr ds fdlh vU;

izfr"Bku ds deZpkfj;ksa ds laca/ esa mDr vf/fu;e ;k deZpkjh

Hkfo"; fuf/ ;kstuk] 1952 (,rnqijkUr ;kstuk ds :i esa lan£Hkr)

ds vU; Hkfo"; fuf/ ykHk Hkh izkIr dj jgs gSaA

3- dsUnz ljdkj ,rn~}kjk] vc mDr vf/fu;e dh /kjk 17

dh mi&/kjk (1) ds [k.M (d) }kjk iznÙk 'kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx

djrs gq, rFkk bl laca/ esa le;≤ ij fofu£n"V 'krks± dks è;ku

esa j[krs gq,] mDr izfr"Bku dks mDr ;kstuk ds leLr mica/ksa ds

izpkyu ls 1&6&1993 ls vxyh vf/lwpuk rd ds fy, NwV

iznku djrh gSA

¹la- ,l&35015@69@2009&,l-,l-&IIº

,l- Mh- tsfo;j] voj lfpo

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

925

New Delhi, the 15th January, 2011

S.O. 328.—Whereas M/s. Daurala Organics

Limited [under Code No. UP/17378 in Meerut (Uttar

Pradesh) Region] (hereinafter referred to as the

establishment) has applied for exemption under clause (a)

of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of the Employees’

Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952

(19 of 1952) (hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2. And whereas in the opinion of the Central

Government, the rules of the provident fund of the said

establishment with respect to the rates of contribution are

not less favourable to employees therein than those

specified in Section 6 of the said Act and the employees

are also in enjoyment of other provident fund benefits

provided under the said Act or under the Employees’

Provident Funds Scheme, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as

the Scheme) in relation to the employees in any other

establishment of similar character.

3. Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers

conferred by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 17 of

the said Act and subject to the conditions specified in this

regard from time to time, the Central Government, hereby,

exempts the said establishment from the operation of all

the provisions of the said Scheme with effect from

1-6-1993 until further notification.

[No. S-35015/69/2009-SS-II]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 329.—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,oa MCY;w- lh-

,y- ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds chp

vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj vkS|ksfxd

vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky;] ukxiqj ds iapkV (lanHkZ la[;k 31@2007)

dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks 6&1&2011 dks izkIr

gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@121@2006&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2011

S.O. 329.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 31/

2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour

Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial

Dispute between management of M/s. Western Coalfields

Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central

Government on 6-1-2011.

[No. L-22012/121/2006-IR (C-II)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER,

CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT/NGP/31/2007

Date: 16-12-2010.

Petitioner/Party No. 1

The President/Secretary,

Bhartiya Koyla Khadan

Mazdoor Sangh, Patansaongi,

Tq. Saoner, Nagpur.

Versus

Respondent/Party No. 2:

The Sub Area Manager,

Western Coalfields Limited,

Makerdhora Sub Area,

Tq. Umrer, Nagpur.

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

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 Western Coalfields Limited and their

workmen, late Shri Pramod Govinda Thakre for

adjudication, as per letter No.L-22012/121/2006-IR(CM-II)

dated 14-6-2007, with the following schedule :—

“Whether the following two demands of the

Bhartiya Koyla Khadan Mazdoor Sangh is legal

and justified?

(i) Fixation of basic wages as per the scale of pay of

NCWA-VI in respect of S/Shri Ramu Shankar

and Sahdev on the higher post of PC Operations

(Excv) Gr. ‘A’ :

(ii) Correction of basic wages in respect of Shri

Ramsajivan, Dumper Operator. If so, to what

relief are they entitled?”

2. Though, in this case, the reference had been

received by the Tribunal on 3-7-2007 and the union

representative on behalf of the workman had been

directed to file the statement of claim, till 18-10-2010,

statement of claim had not been filed by the union

representative. However, in the interest of justice, on

18-10-2010, 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.

4. 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 8-11-2007, 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 defau1t of the parties.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

926

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : JANUARY 29, 2011/MAGHA 9, 1932

[PART II—SEC. 3(ii)]

ubZ fnYyh] 6 tuojh] 2011

dk-vk- 330-—vkS|ksfxd fookn vf/fu;e] 1947 (1947

dk 14) dh /kjk 17 ds vuqlj.k esa] dsUnzh; ljdkj ,oa Hkkjrh;

[kk| fuxe ds izca/ra=k ds lac¼ fu;kstdksa vkSj muds deZdkjksa ds

chp vuqca/ esa fu£n"V vkS|ksfxd fookn esa dsUnzh; ljdkj

vkS|ksfxd vf/dj.k@Je U;k;ky; la-&2] /uckn ds iapkV (lanHkZ

la[;k 53@1999) dks izdkf'kr djrh gS] tks dsUnzh; ljdkj dks

4&1&2011 dks izkIr gqvk FkkA

¹la- ,y&22012@77@1998&vkbZ vkj (lh&II)º

Mh- ,l- ,l- Jhfuokl jko] MsLd vf/dkjh

New Delhi, the 6th January, 2011

S.O. 330.—In pursuance of Section 17 of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central

Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No 53/

1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-

Labour Court No. 2, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in

the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation

to the management of FCI and their workmen, which was

received by the Central Government on 4-1-2011.

[No. L-22012/77/1998-IR (C-II)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (NO. 2) AT DHANBAD

PRESENT :

SHRI KISHORI RAM, Presiding Officer

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section

10(1) (d) and sub-section 2(A) of the I.D. Act, 1947

REFERENCE NO. 53 OF 1999

PARTIES :

Employers

relation

the

management of FCI, Ranchi and their

workman.

APPEARANCES :

On behalf of the workman :

Mr. C. Prasad, Advocate.

On behalf of the employers:

Mr. B. M. Prasad,

Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

Industry : Food

Dated, Dhanbad, the 15th December, 2010

AWARD

The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, in

exercise of the powers conferred on them under Section

10(1)(d) of the I.D. Act, 1947 has referred the following

dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their Order

No. L-22012/77/98/IR(CM-II), dated the 22nd January,

1999.

SCHEDULE

“Whether the action of the management of FCI,

Tatisilwai, Ranchi in terminating the service of

Smt. Budhni Devi without compliance of 25F and

other provisions of I.D. Act is right and justified?”

If not, to what relief is the workman entitled ?”

2. The case of the lady worker as stated in her

Written Statement that Smt. Budhni Devi, Lady Worker

was engaged as Casual Labour purely on temporary basis

by the management of FCI, Tatisilwai, Ranchi at first hand

from 1986 to 1995, but the management did not regularise

her, violating Rules/Act rather without rhyme or reason,

any notice or without payment of money arbitrarily

stopped her work. The management submitted his

comments in response to notice in the Industrial Dispute

raised by her before the ALC(C) Ranchi as under :—

“Smt. Budhni Devi was engaged as Casual

Labour on daily wages basis from March, 1986 to

February, 1995 which was purely and casual

nature basis.”

Despite the admission of the management it could

not be settled. It is alleged that the lady worker performed

her duty for more than 240 days in 12 months preceding

calendar years thereby she required the status of

regularisation in her service. The work she performed up to

1995 was of permanent and perennial nature. A list of

Casual Labours engaged at the FCI ARDC Tatisilwai from

1986 to 1994 prepared by the management as the name of

the lady worker concerned, showing her work place at the

godown. She has been paid the arrears of payment as per

payment sheet countersigned by the Assistant Manager

(D), FCI for that period for the period 1986 to 1994. The

matter of her regularisation was never raised by the FCI

Workers Union in rivalry of the Trade Unions. She has

suffered victimisation for her demand of her regularisation

in the service as a permanent worker. So she claimed for

reinstatement with full back wages as the management

action in terminating her service was mala fide, vindictive,

and unfair in colourful exercise of powers.

3. Further her case is that she performed the work of

loading and unloading of foodstaff in addition to other

works assigned to her by the management. She

continuously performed the job without any break during

the period from 1986 to 1995 as a casual worker. There is a

relationship between Master and servant but due to

collusion between the management and the union all the

workers sponsored by the union were regularised except

this lady worker, whose service was terminated contrary

to the rules and regularisation. She did not voluntarily

leave her engagement.

4. On the other hand the case of the FCI

management with specific denials to the allegations of the

lady worker is that the concerned lady was engaged as a

casual worker to perform miscellaneous casual jobs at the

depot such as bringing earth, water cow dung and its

plantering in particular at the time of fumigation over the

foodgrain, once or twice a month, brushing the

foodgrains from the godown and floor and filling it in the

separate bag once a week or so intermittently. Thus she

was intermittently used to be engaged of such occasions

and she continued to work as casual labour during the

period as she used to be engaged. She was not a

permanent worker nor appointed as a probationer against

permanent vacant post nor was provided with

employment for continuous work. She never put her

¹Hkkx IIó[k.M 3(ii)º

Hkkjr dk jkti=k % tuojh 29] 2011@ek?k 9] 1932

927

service continuously for 240 days in a calendar year,

because of his breakage in her service. The Union

operating in the organisation did not sponsor her cause

for her regular absorption under the management. After

regularisation of several temporary workers whose

causes were sponsored by the Trade Union the

availability of work for the casual labour substantially

reduced, so the management could not offer sufficient job

to the lady from the year 1995; in result, losing her interest

in undertaking casual job she willingly left her

engagement with the management. Since she had no

specific appointment against specific vacancy, no

question of termination of service arises. Hence the

management did not issue any order terminating her

service. Nor the lady worker can allege her services to

have been terminated nor she is entitled to raise any

industrial dispute under Section 2A of the I.D. Act, 1947.

The termination of service of a temporary or casual worker

for a stipulated period from time to time concerning casual

or temporary job does not amount to retrenchment, so

provision of Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 has no

application to the present case.

5. Finding with Reasons

In the instant case, from the scrutiny of the

pleadings and evidence as adduced on behalf of both the

parties, I find the following facts are undisputably

admitted :

(1) The Lady worker Budhni Devi was one of the

casual labourers engaged by the management

concerned absolutely on temporary basis

intermittently for collecting articles and

cleaning work at FCI godown Tatisilwai.

(2) Several temporary workers whose causes were