This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

रजिस्ट्री सं० डी० एल० ( एन ) 04/0007/2003-05

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

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 7]

नई दिल्ली, फरवरी 6 फरवरी 12 , 2011 , शनिवार/माथ 17-माघ 23 , 1932 NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 6-FEBRUARY 12, 2011 , SATURDAY /MAGHA 17-MAGHA 23 ,1932

No. 7]

इस भाग में भिन्न पृष्ठ संख्या दी जाती है जिससे कि यह पृथक संकलन के रूप में रखा जा सके

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

भाग II- खण्ड 3-उप-खण्ड (ii)

PART II- Section 3-Sub -section(ii)

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

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय (कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 398. केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2) की धारा 24 कीउप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित किए जाने वाले मामले अभियोजन , अपीलों, पुनरीक्षण अथवा इन मामलों से उद्भूत अन्य मामलों का कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट , बंगलौर तथा इसकी सर्किट बेंच , धारवाड में संचालन करने के लिए निम्नोक्त वकीलों को विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है:-

क्र. सं. वकील का नाम हाई कोर्ट और इसकी बेंच का नाम

कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट, बंगलौर श्री सी.एच. जाधव

कर्नाटक हाई कोर्ट की सर्किट बेंच , श्री एम.बी. कनवी

धारवाड

[सं. 225/48/2009- एवीडी- II ] वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव

(1099)

334 GI/2011

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(Department ofPersonnel and Training) NewDelhi, the 4th February, 2011

S. O. 398.-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 the following Advocates as Special Public Prosecutor ofthe Central Bureau of Inves- tigation in the Karnataka High Court at Bangalore and its CircuitBench atDharwad for conducting the prosecution appeals , revisions or other matters arising out ofthe cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment .

Name ofthe High Court and its Bench

Sl. Name of the Advocate No.

1. Shri C. H. Jadhav

Karnataka High Court at Bangalore

Karnataka High Court at Circuit Bench at Dharwad

2. Shri M. B. Kanavi

[No. 225/48/2009-AVD- II] V.M. RATHNAM, Dy. Secy.

1100

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932,

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी , 2011

MedicalEducation Society, Jaipur " for the purpose ofsaid section for the A. Y. 2010-11 and onwards .

Provided that the society conforms to and complies withthe provisions ofsub-clause (vi) ofclause (23C) of Section 10 ofthe Income-taxAct, 1961 reas with rule 2CA oftheIncome-tax Rules , 1962.

का. आ. 399 , केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा अपराध प्रक्रिया संहिता, 1973 (1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए इलाहाबाद उच्च न्यायालय , इलाहाबाद में अभियोजन , अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों या दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित मामलों से उत्पन्न अन्य मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए श्री प्रणय कृष्ण , वकील को केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो का विशेष लोक अभियोजक नियुक्त करती है ।

[No.CCTT / PR/Addl.CIT (Hqrs . )/10(23C) (vi)/2010-11/6196] MUKESH BHANTI , Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

जयपुर, 4 फरवरी, 2011

सं 24/2010-11

[सं. 225/59/2010- एवीडी- II ] वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव

New Delhi, the 4th February, 2011

S. O. 399. In exercise ofthe 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 Pranay Krishna , Advocate, as Special Public Prosecutor of the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Allahabad High Court at Allahabad for conducting the prosecution appeals , revisions or other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi Special Police Establishment.

का. आ. 401.-आयकर नियम, 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड ( 23 सी) की उपधारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एतद्‌द्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-11 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से "भिवाड़ी जेवियर एजुकेशनल सोसायटी , भिवाड़ी, जिला- अलवर" कोस्वीकृति देते हैं बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर यम, 1962 केनियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के खण्ड( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[No. 225/59/2010- AVD- II] V.M. RATHNAM, Dy. Secy.

[क्रमांक: मुआआआआआ ( मु )/ जय/10 (23 सी) (vi )/10-11/6414] मुकेश भान्ती, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त Jaipur, the 4th February, 2011 No. 24/2010-11

कार्यालय मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त जयपुर, 31 जनवरी , 2011 सं 23/2010-11

S. O. 401.-In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- clause (vi) ofclause (23C) of Section 10 of the In- come- tax Act, 1961 (43 of1961) read with rule 2CA ofthe Income- tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Bhiwadi Xavier Edu- cational Society, Bhiwadi, Distt. -Alwar " for the purpose ofsaid section for the A. Y. 2010-11 and onwards:

Provided that the society conforms to and complies withtheprovisions ofsub-clause (vi) ofclause (23C) of Section 10ofthe Income- tax Act, 1961 read with rule 2CA ofthe Income- tax Rules , 1962.

का. आ. 400.-आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( 1961 का 43 वां ) की धारा 10 के खण्ड (23 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त , जयपुर एत‌द्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-11 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से " श्री बीरबल मेडिकल एजुकेशन सोसायटी, जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते है बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम , 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के उप-खण्ड ( 23 सी) की उपधारा (vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[No. CCIT/JPR/Addl.CIT(Hqrs . )/10( 23C) (vi )/ 2010-11/6414] [क्रमांक: मुआआआआआ (मु ) जय/ 10( 23 सी) ( vi )/10-11/6196] मुकेश भान्ती, मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

OFFICE OF THE CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX

MUKESH BHANTI, Chief Commissioner of Income-tax जयपुर, 4 फरवरी , 2011 सं 25/2010-11

Jaipur, the 31st January, 2011 No. 23/2010-11

S. O. 400.- In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub-clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 ofthe In- come-taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA ofthe Income-tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income- tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Shree Birbal

का. आ. 402. आयकर नियम, 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय आयकर अधिनियम, 1961 ( 1961 का 43वां) की धारा 10 के खण्ड( 23 सी) की उपधारा ( vi ) के द्वारा प्रदक्ष शक्तियोंका प्रयोग करते हुए मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त, जयपुर एत‌द्वारा निर्धारण वर्ष2010-11 एवं आगे के लिए कथित धारा के उद्देश्य से "पूजा एजूकेशनल सोसायटी, जयपुर " को स्वीकृति देते हैं बशर्ते कि समिति आयकर नियम 1962 के नियम 2 सी ए के साथ पठनीय 1101 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 की धारा 10 के खण्ड( 23 सी ) की उपधारा ( vi ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप कार्य करे ।

[क्रमांक: मुआआआआआ ( मु )/जय/10( 23 सी ) ( अप)/10-11/6415] मुकेश भान्ती , मुख्य आयकर आयुक्त

परीक्षा कराएगा और उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 139 की उप धारा ( 1 ) के अंतर्गत आय विवरणी प्रस्तुत करने की नियत तिथि तक ऐसे लेखाकार द्वारा विधिवत सत्यापित एवं हस्ताक्षरित लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट मामले में क्षेत्राधिकार रखने वाले आयकर आयुक्त अथवा आयकर निदेशक को प्रस्तुत करेगा;

Jaipur, the 4th February, 2011 No. 25/2010-11

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

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

S. O. 402. In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub-clause (vi ) of clause (23C) of Section 10 of the In- come-taxAct, 1961 (43 of 1961) read with rule 2CA of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 the Chief Commissioner of Income-tax, Jaipur hereby approves " Pooja Educational Society, Jaipur" for the purpose of said section for the A.Y. 2010-11 & onwards .

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

Provided that the society conforms to and complies with the provisions of sub - clause (vi) of clause (23C) of Section 10 ofthe Income-taxAct , 1961 read with rule 2CA ofthe Income-tax Rules, 1962 .

(ख) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा [No. CCIT/JPR/Addl.CTT (Hqrs .)/ 10(23C)(vi)/2010-11/6415] MUKESH BHANTI , Chief Commissioner of Income-tax

(ग) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप-पैराग्राफ ( iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(घ) अपना अनुसंधान कार्य करना बंद कर देगा अथवा इसके अनुसंधान कार्य को जायज नहीं पाया जाएगा; अथवा

वित्त मंत्रालय (राजस्व विभाग) (केन्द्रीय प्रत्यक्ष कर बोर्ड ) नई दिल्ली, 7 फरवरी , 2011

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

का. आ. 403.-सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर नियमावली, 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और 5ङ के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-2011 के आगे से संगठन फ्लोरोसिस रिसर्च एंड रूरल डेवलपमेंट फाउंडेशन , दिल्ली को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है, अर्थात: -

[अधिसूचना सं. 07/2011/फा. सं. 203/21/2010-आ.क.नि.- II ] संजय कुमार लाल , अवर सचिव ( आ.क.नि.- II) MINISTRY OF FINANCE (Department ofRevenue) (CentralBoard ofDirectTaxes) New Delhi, the 7th February, 2011 (i ) अनुमोदित संगठन को प्रदत्त राशि का उपयोग वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए किया जाएगा ;

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

S. O. 403. It is hereby notified for general infor- mation that the organization Fluorosis Research & Rural Development Foundation, Delhi has been approved by the Central Government for the purpose of clause (ii) of sub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 35 ofthe Income-tax Act, 1961 (saidAct), read with Rules 5C and SE of the Income-tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules) , fromAssessment Year 2010-2011 and onwards in the category of ' Other Institution ', partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions, namely: -

(iii ) अनुमोदित संगठन वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए इसके द्वारा प्राप्त राशि के संबंध में अलग खाता बही रखेगा अनुसंधान करने के लिए प्रयुक्त राशि उसमें दर्शाई गई हो, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 288 की उप धारा ( 2 ) के स्पष्टीकरण में यथा परिभाषित किसी लेखाकार से अपनी खाता बही की लेखा 1102

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

PART II-SBC. 3 (11 ) ] 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 mem- bers or its enrolled students ;

35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रयोजनार्थ कर निर्धारण वर्ष 2010-2011 के आगे से संगठन केलकर एजुकेशन ट्रस्ट, मुम्बई को निम्नलिखित शर्तों के अधीन अनुसंधान कार्यकलापों में लगी ' अन्य संस्था' की श्रेणी में अनुमोदित किया गया है, अर्थात:-

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

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

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect of the sums received by it for scientific research, reflect therein the amounts used for carrying out research, get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub -section (2) of Section 288 ofthe saidAct and furnish the report of such aduit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income -tax or the Director ofIncome- 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 saidAct;

(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 autditor shall accompany the report of audit referred to above .

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

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

(a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referred to in sub- paragraph (iii ) of paragraph 1; or

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referred to in sub-paragraph (iii ) of paragraph 1; or

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

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

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

(ख ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ ( iii ) में उल्लिखित अपनी लेखा परीक्षा रिपोर्ट प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा (d) ceases to carry on its research activities or its research activities are not found to be genuine ; or

(ग ) पैराग्राफ 1 के उप- पैराग्राफ (iv ) में उल्लिखित वैज्ञानिक अनुसंधान के लिए प्राप्त एवं प्रयुक्त दान का अपना विवरण प्रस्तुत नहीं करेगा; अथवा

(e) ceases to conform to and comply with the pro- visions ofclause (ii) of sub- section ( 1) of sec- tion 35 of the said Act read with rules 5C and 5Eofthe said Rules .

[Notification No.07/2011 /F . No. 203 /21 /2010/ITA- II] SANJAY KUMAR LAL, Under Secy. (ITA- II) नई दिल्ली , 7 फरवरी , 2011

(ङ) उक्त नियमावली के नियम 57 और 55 के साथ पठित उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 35 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के खंड ( ii ) के प्रावधानों के अनुरूप नहीं होगा तथा उनका पालन नहींकरेगा ।

का. आ. 404. सर्वसाधारण की जानकारी के लिए एतद्वारा यह अधिसूचित किया जाता है कि केन्द्र सरकार द्वारा आयकर | नियमावली , 1962 ( उक्त नियमावली ) के नियम 5ग और 55 के साथ पठित आयकर अधिनियम , 1961 ( उक्त अधिनियम ) की धारा

[अधिसूचना सं. 08/2011 /फा. सं. 203/32/ 2010- आ.क.नि.- II ] संजय कुमार लाल , अवर सचिव ( आ.क.नि. - Ⅱ ) भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माम 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

NewDelhi , the 7th February, 2011

S. O. 404. It is hereby notified for general infor- mation that the organization Kelkar Education Trust, Mumbai has been approved by the Central Government forthe purpose of clause ( ii ) of sub -section ( 1) of Section 35ofthe Income-taxAct, 1961 (saidAct), read with Rules SCand SE ofthe Income-tax Rules , 1962 (said Rules), from Assessment Year 2010-2011 and onwards in the category of'Other Institution ' , partly engaged in research activities subject to the following conditions , namely: - (1) The sums paid to the approved organization shall beutilized for scientific research;

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

(iii) The approved organization shall maintain separate books of accounts in respect ofthe sums received by it for scientific research, reflect thereinthe amounts used for carrying out research, get such books audited by an accountant as defined in the explanation to sub -section (2) of Section 288 of the saidAct and furnish the report of such aduit duly signed and verified by such accountant to the Commissioner of Income -tax or theDirec- torofIncome- tax havingjurisdiction overthe case, by the due date of furnishing the return of income under sub- section (1) of Section 139 ofthe saidAct;

1103 (iv) The approved organization shall maintain a separate statement ofdonations received and amounts applied for scientific research and a copyofsuch statement duly certified by the auditor shall accompany the report of audit referredto above.

3. The Central Government shall withdraw the approval ifthe approved organization: - (a) fails to maintain separate books of accounts referredto in sub-paragraph (iii) ofparagraph 1; or

(b) fails to furnish its audit report referredto in sub-paragraph ( iii) of paragraph 1; or (c) fails to furnish its statement ofthe donations received and sums applied for scientific research referred to in sub -paragraph (iv) of paragraph 1; or

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

(c) ceases toconform to and complywiththepro- visions ofclause(ii) of sub -section (1) of Sec- tion35ofthe saidAct read with rules SCand SEofthe saidRules.

[NotificationNo.08/2011 /F. No. 203 /32/2010/TTA-I SANJAY KUMAR LAL, Under Secy. (ITA- II)

स्वास्थ्य एवं परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्य इवं परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 16 सितम्बर, 2010

उक्त अनुसूची में

का. आ. 405. भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् अधिनियम , 1956 ( 1956 का 102 ) की धारा 11 की उपधारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केन्द्र सरकार , भारतीय चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करके , अर्हता की नामावली में परिवर्तन के कारण उक्त अधिनियम की प्रथम अनुसूची में निम्नलिखित और संशोधन करती है, नामतः (क) "मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता " शीर्षक [ इसके बाद कालम ( 2 ) को रूप में निर्दिष्ट के अन्तर्गत " कन्नूर विश्वविद्यालय , केरल " के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्मलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, नामत:

(2)

(3)

एम डी ( जनरल मेडिसिन )

"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (जनरल मेडिसिन ) "

(यह अप्रैल, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद आयुर्विज्ञाम अकादमी , परियराम , केरल में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में कन्नूर विश्वविद्यालय , केरल द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । 1104

(2)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART I-SBC. 3 (ii)]

(3)

एमडी (डीवी एल)

" डॉक्टर ऑफ ( डर्मिटोलोजी , वेनेरोलोजी और लेप्रोसी ) "

(यह अप्रैल , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद आयुर्विज्ञान अकादमी , परियराम , केरल में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में कन्नूर विश्वविद्यालय , केरल द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता होगी ) ।

(हीडीवीएल)

"डिप्लोमा इन डर्मिटोलोजी, वेनेरोलोजी और लेप्रोसी"

(यह अप्रैल , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद आयुर्विज्ञान अकादमी , परियाराम , केरल में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में कन्नूर विश्वविद्यालय , केरल द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

"बाल स्वास्थ्यमें डिप्लोमा "

डीसीएच

" ओटोलेरिनोलोजी में डिप्लोमा "

(यह सितम्बर , 2009 में अथवा उसके बाद आयुर्विज्ञान अकादमी , पेरियराम , केरल में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में कन्नूर विश्वविद्यालय , केरल द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता होगी ) ।

डीएल ओ.

(यह अप्रैल , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद आयुर्विज्ञान अकादमी , पेरियाराम , केरल में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में कन्नूर विश्वविद्यालय , केरल द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

(ख) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " शीर्षक [इसके बाद कॉलम (2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] के अन्तर्गत " मणिपुर विश्वविद्यालय " के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, नामतः-

" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसन ( भौतिक चिकित्सा एवं)

पुनर्वासन"

एम डी ( पी एम आर )

(यह अप्रैल , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद क्षेत्रीय आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , इम्फाल में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में मणिपुर विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

(ग) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता " शीर्षक ( इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ) के अन्तर्गत " डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर महाराष्ट्र " के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप ( इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट) शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः:-

" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( जनरल सर्जरी )

एम. एस. ( जनरल सर्जरी )

एम डी (डी वीएल)

(यह जून, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय, कोल्हापुर महाराष्ट्र" में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर महाराष्ट्र द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता होगी ) । " डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( डर्मिटोलोजी, वेनेरोलोजी एवं लेप्रोसी ) "

"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( शरीर रचना विज्ञान ) "

(यह जून, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर महाराष्ट्र " में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर महाराष्ट्र द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । एम डी (शरीर रचना विज्ञान )

" बाल स्वास्थ्य में डिप्लोमा "

(यह मई, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर महाराष्ट्र" में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर महाराष्ट्र द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

डीसी एच

(यह जून, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय, कोल्हापुर महाराष्ट्र" में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर महाराष्ट्र द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हत होगी ) । 1105 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3)

(2)

डीआर्थो

" हड्डी रोग विज्ञान में डिप्लोमा"

(यह जून, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविालय , कोल्हापुर महाराष्ट्र" में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय , कोल्हापुर महाराष्ट्र द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । (घ) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " शीर्षक ( इसके बाद कॉलम (2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ) के अन्तर्गत " नागपुर विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्र " के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कॉलम (3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ) शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः-

एम एस (नेत्र रोग विज्ञान )

"मास्टर ऑफ ( नेत्र रोग विज्ञान )

(यह दिसम्बर , 2006 में अथवा उसके बाद जे. एन. मेडिकल कॉलेज , स्वांगी , वर्धा में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में नागपुर विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

(ङ) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " शीर्षक ( इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ) के अन्तर्गत " आर.टी.एम. नागपुर विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्र " के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप ( इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ) शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंडर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, नामतः-

एम एस ( नेत्र रोग विज्ञान )

"मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( नेत्र रोग विज्ञान)

(यह दिसम्बर , 2006 में अथवा उसके बाद जे. एन. मेडिकल कॉलेज , स्वांगी , वर्धा में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के नागपुर विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

(च) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " शीर्षक ( इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट) के अन्तर्गत " दत्ता मेघे आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान, विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्र" के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप ( इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट) शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टिएवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः-

एम एस ( नेत्र रोग विज्ञान)

" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( नेत्र रोग विज्ञान )

(यह दिसम्बर , 2006 में अथवा उसके बाद जे. एन. मेडिकल कॉलेज, स्वांगी , वर्धा में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में दत्ता मेघे आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्रद्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता होगी ) ।

एम. डी. ( मनश्यिकित्सक )

" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( मनश्यिकित्सक ) "

(यह जून, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद जे. एन. मेडिकल कॉलेज , स्वांगी , वर्धा में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में दत्ता मेघे आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , विश्वविद्यालय, महाराष्ट्र द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्साअर्हता होगी ) ।

"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( माइक्रोबायोलोजी ) " एम. डी. ( माइक्रोबायोलोजी )

(यह अप्रैल, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद जे. एन. मेडिकल कॉलेज, स्वांगी , वर्धा में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में दत्ता मेघे आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान, विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

एम. डी. ( बायोकेमिस्ट्री)

" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( बायोकेमिस्ट्री) "

(यह मई, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद जे. एनः मेडिकल कॉलेज , स्वांगी , वर्धा में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में दत्ता मेघे आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

"मास्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (सामुदायिक चिकित्सा) " एम. डी. ( सामुदायिक चिकित्सा)

(यह मई, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद जे. एन. मेडिकल कॉलेज , स्वांगी , वर्धा में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में दत्ता मेघे आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान , विश्वविद्यालय , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । 1106

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA FEBRUARY 12, 2011/MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-Sac. 3 (ii) ] (छ) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " शीर्षक ( इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ) के अन्तर्गत " परमश्री डॉ. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय , नवी मुंबई , महाराष्ट्र" के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएंगा , नामतः-

एम डी/एम एस ( ओबीजी)

" मास्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी (प्रसूति रोग विज्ञान एवं स्त्री रोग विज्ञान ) " (यह मई, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद डा. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय, नवी मुंबई, महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पदमश्री , डा. डी. वाई. पाटिल विश्वविद्यालय , नवीं मुंबई द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता होगी ) । (ज) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता " शीर्षक [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट] के अन्तर्गत " प्रवर आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान (मानद विश्वविद्यालय ) लोनी , महाराष्ट्र" के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कॉलम (3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्का तक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, नामतः-

"मेडिकल रेडियो थिरेपी में डिप्लोमा "

डीएम आर टी

(यह जून , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद ग्रामीण मेडिकल कालेज लोनी , महाराष्ट्र में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में प्रवर आयुर्विज्ञान संस्थान ( मानद विश्वविद्यालय ) लोनी , महाराष्ट्र द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । (झ) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " शीर्षक [ इसके बाद कॉलम (2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट] के अन्तर्गत " राजस्थान स्विविद्यालय " के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, नामत:-

" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( शरीर रचना विज्ञान ) " एम. एस. ( शरीर रचना विज्ञान)

(यह 1981 में अथवा उसके बाद जे.एल.एन. मेडिकल कॉलेज , अजमेर , राजस्थान में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में राजसंगीन विश्वविद्यालय , द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता होगी ) ।

(अ ) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " शीर्षक [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] के अन्तर्गत " राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय जयपुर " के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः-

" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( शरीर रचना विज्ञान ) एम. एस. ( शरीर रचना विज्ञान)

(यह 1981 अथवा उसके बाद जे.एल.एन. मेडिकल कॉलेज , अजमेर , राजस्थान में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में राजस्थान स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , जयपुर द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

(ट) " मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता " शीर्षक [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट के अन्तर्गत " पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय" के प्रति पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि एवं उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा, नामत:-

"मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( नेत्र रोग विज्ञान ) " एम एस ( नेत्र रोग विज्ञान )

(यह मार्च, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज , एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , पुरुचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अहंता होगी ) ।

" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( बाल चिकित्सा) " एम. डी. ( बाल चिकित्सा)

(यह मार्च, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज , एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , पुरुचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी निविधालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( जर्नल सर्जरी ) "

एम. एस. ( जर्नल सर्जरी )

(यह मार्च, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज , एवं अनुसंधान 1107 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(3)

(2)

संस्थान , पुडुचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( स्वास्थ्यचिकित्सा) " एम. डी. ( स्वास्थ्य चिकित्सा )

(यह मार्च , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज , एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , पुडुचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

" डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( मनश्चिकित्सीय ) " एम. डी. (मनश्चिकित्सीय )

(यह मार्च, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज, एवं अनुसंधान संस्थान , पुडूचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( क्षयरोग तथा श्वसनतंत्र मेडिसिन )

"डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( क्षयरोग तथा श्वसनतंत्र मेडिसिन) "

(यह वर्ष मार्च, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज , एवं रिसर्च इंस्टीट्यूट , पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

एम. एस. ( अस्थिरोग विज्ञान )

" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( अस्थिरोग विज्ञान ) "

(यह वर्ष मार्च , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज , एवं रिसर्च इंस्टीट्यूट , पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( ईएनटी) " एम. एस. (ईएमटी) (यह वर्ष मार्च, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज , एंड रिसर्च इंस्टीट्यूट , पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी प्रसूति रोग तथा स्त्री विज्ञान विशेषज्ञ )

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन/मास्टर ऑफ-सर्जरी प्रसूति रोग तथा स्त्री विज्ञान विशेषज्ञ ) (यह वर्ष मार्च , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी मेडिकल कॉलेज , एंड रिसर्च इंस्टीट्यूट , पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में पांडिचेरी विश्वविद्यालय द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

(ढ ) श्री बालाजी विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय , पांडिचेरी के सामने शीर्षक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता [ जोकि आगे कॉलम (2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद शीर्षक पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण [ जोकि आगे कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के सामने निम्नलिखित शामिल किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-

एम एस ( नेत्र रोग विज्ञान )

मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( नेत्र रोग विज्ञान )

(यह वर्ष मार्च , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री बाला जी विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय , पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

एम डी ( बाल रोग विशेषज्ञ )

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( बाल रोग विशेषज्ञ )

(यह वर्ष मार्च, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान , पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री बाला जी विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय , पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( जनरल सर्जरी )

एम एस ( जनरल सर्जरी ) (यह वर्ष मार्च , 2010 अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा 334GI/11-2 1108

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

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

(3)

अनुसंधान संस्थान, पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री बाला जी विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय , पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( जनरल मेडिसीन ) एम डी ( जनरल मेडिसिन)

(यह वर्ष मार्च, 2010 अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री बाला जी विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय, पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (मनोश्चिकित्सा) एम डी ( मनोरिचकित्सा)

(यह वर्ष मार्च, 2010 अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान , पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री बाला जी विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय , पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

एम डी (क्षय रोग एवं श्वसनतन्त्र मेडिसिन)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( क्षय रोग एवं श्वसनतन्त्र मेडिसिन)

(यह वर्ष मार्च, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान , पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री बाला जी विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय, पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( अस्थिरोग विज्ञान )

एम. एस. ( अस्थिरोग विज्ञान )

( यह वर्ष मार्च, 2010 अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान, पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री बाल्या विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय, पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर होगी ) । न्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( ईएनटी):

एम. एस. ( ईएनटी)

(यह वर्ष मार्च, 2010 अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान, पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जी रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री बाला जी विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय, पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी )।

एम डी एम एस ( ओबीजी )

डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी. (प्रसूति रोग तथा स्त्री रोग विशेषज्ञ)

(यह वर्ष मार्च , 2010 अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान, पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री बाला जी विद्यापीठ विविद्यालय , पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

संवेदनाहरक में डिप्लोमा

डीए

होगी) ।

(यह वर्ष मार्च, 2010 अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान, पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री बाला जी विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय , पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता चिकित्सा रेडियो ( विकिरण ) निदान में डिप्लोमा 'डीएमआरडी

(यह वर्ष अप्रैल , 2010 अथवा उसके बाद महात्मा गांधी चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा अनुसंधान संस्थान, पांडिचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में श्री बाला जी 1109 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(3)

(2)

विद्यापीठ विश्वविद्यालय , पांडिचेरी द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी) ।

(ड) दी तमिलनाडु डा. एम.जी.आर चिकित्सा विद्यालय , चेन्नई के सामने शीर्षक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता [ जोकि आगे कॉलम (2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद शीर्षक पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण [ जोकि आगे कॉलम (3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के सामने निम्नलिखित शामिल किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-

एम. डी. /एम. एस. ( ओबीजी)

डाक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी (प्रसूति रोग तथा स्त्री रोग विशेषज्ञ )

(यह वर्ष मार्च , 2010 अथवा उसके बाद तिरूनेलवेली मेडिकल कॉलेज , तिरूनेलवेली में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में दी तमिलनाडु डा. एम.जी.आर मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय , चेन्नई द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । एम. डी. ( पेडिक्ट्रिक्स)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( पेडिक्ट्रिक्स)

(यह वर्ष मार्च, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद तिरूनेलवेली मेडिकल कॉलेज , तिरूनेलवेली में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में दी तमिलनाडु, डा. एम.जी.आर , मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय , चेन्नई द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।.

एम. डी. (संवेदनाहरण)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (संवेदनाहरण)

(यह वर्ष मार्च, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद किलपौक चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय , चेन्नई में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में दी तमिलनाडु, डा. एम.जी.आर. मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय , चेन्नई द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । एम. एस. ( अस्थिरोग विज्ञान)

मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( अस्थिरोग विज्ञान )

(यह वर्ष मार्च , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद कोयम्बटूर मेडिकल कॉलेज , कोयम्बटूर में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में दी तमिलनाडु, डा. एम.जी.आर, मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय , चेन्नई द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । एम. डी. ( डीवीएल )

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( चर्म रोग , रतिज तथा कुष्ठ रोग )

(यह वर्ष मार्च , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद किलपौक चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय , चेन्नई में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में दी तमिलनाडु , डा. एम.जी.आर. मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय , चेन्नई द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । एम. डी. एम. एस. (एनाटोमी)

डाक्स्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी

(एनाटोमी)

(यह वर्ष 1983 अथवा उसके बाद तांजावुर मेडिकल कालेज , तंजावूर में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में तमिलनाडु, डा. एम. जी. आर. मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय , चेन्नई द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

एम. एस. (जनरल सर्जरी )

मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( जनरल सर्जरी )

(यह वर्ष 2010 अथवा उसके बाद के.ए.पी. विश्वनाथन मेडिकल कालेज , त्रिची में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में दी तमिलनाडु, डा. एम.जी.आर. मेडिकल विश्वविद्यालय, चेन्नई द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

(ढ) मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता शीर्षक के अंतर्गत भारतीदासन विश्वविद्यालय , तमिलनाडु [ इसके बाद कॉलम ( 2 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] के सामने पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षिप्त रूप [ इसके बाद कॉलम (3 ) के रूप में निर्दिष्ट ] शीर्षक के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि के बाद निम्नलिखित को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः

एम. डी. /एम. एस. ( एनाटोमी)

डाक्स्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( विकिरण निदान )/

मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( एनाटोमी)

(यह वर्ष 1983 अथवा उसके बाद तंजावुर मेडिकल कालेज, तंजावुर में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में भारतीदसन विश्वविद्यालय , तमिलनाडु, द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । 1110

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011/MAGHA 23, 1932

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

(3)

( ण) मद्रास विश्वविद्यालय के सामने शीर्षक मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता [जोकि आगे कॉलम (2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद शीर्षक पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण [ जोकि आगे कॉलम (3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के सामने निम्नलिखित शामिल किया जाएगा, अर्थात्:

डाक्स्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी (एनाटोमी)

एम. डी. /एम. एस. ( एनाटोमी ) (यह वर्ष 1983 अथवा उसके बाद तंजावुर मेडिकल कालेज, तंजावुर में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में मद्रास विश्वविद्यालय, तमिलनाडु, द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

(त) विनायक मिशन विश्वविद्यालय, सलेम , तमिलनाडु के सामने शीर्षक मान्यता प्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता [ जोकि आगे कॉलम (2 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद शीर्षक पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण [ जोकि आगे कॉलम (3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के सामने निम्नलिखित शामिल किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:-

मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( ईएनटी )

एम. एस. (ईएनटी)

(यह अप्रैल, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद आरूपडाई वीडू मेडिकल कालेज , पुडुचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में विनायक मिशन विश्वविद्यालय , सलेम , तमिलनाडु द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (जैव रसायन )

एम. डी. (जैव रसायन)

(यह अप्रैल 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद आरूपडाई वीडू गडिकल कालेज , पुडुचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में विनायक मिशन विश्वविद्यालय , सलेम , तमिलनाडु द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (पेड्रिट्रिक्स)

एम. डी. (पेड्रिट्रिक्स)

(यह अप्रैल 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद. आरूपडाई वीडू मेडिकल कालेज , पुडुचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में विनायक मिशन विश्वविद्यालय , सलेम , तमिलनाडु द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

एम. डी./एम. एस. ( ओबीजी )

मास्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( प्रसूति रोग तथा स्त्री रोग विशेषज्ञ )

एम. डी. (डीवीएल )

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( चर्म रोग, रतिज तथा कुष्ठरोग)

(यह अप्रैल 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद आरूपडाई वीडू मेडिकल कालेज , पुडुचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में विनायक मिशन विश्वविद्यालय , सलेम , तमिलनाडु द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन (जनरल मेडिसिन ) एम. डी. (जनरल मेडिसिन)

(यह अप्रैल, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद आरूपडाई वीडू मेडिकल कालेज , पुड्डुचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में विनायक मिशन विश्वविद्यालय, सलेम , तमिलनाडु द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

डिप्लोमा इन आर्थोपेडिक्स ( डी. आर्थो ) (डी. आर्थो)

(यह अप्रैल, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद आरूपडाई वीडू मेडिकल कालेज , पुड्डुचेरी में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में विनायक मिशन विश्वविद्यालय , सलेम , तमिलनाडु द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( बायोकेमिस्ट्री) एम. डी. ( बायोकेमिस्ट्री)

(यह अप्रैल, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद विनायक मिशन मेडिकल कालेज , कराइकल में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में विनायक मिशन विश्वविद्यालय, सलेम, तमिलनाडु द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । 1111

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माभ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

(3)

(2)

एम. डी. (संवेदनाहरण)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( संवेदनाहरण )

(यह अप्रैल , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद विनायक मिशन मेडिकल कालेज , कराइकल में. प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में विनायक मिशन विश्वविद्यालय, सलेम , तमिलनाडु द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

(थ ) डॉ. आर.एम.एल. अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश के सामने मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता [ जोकि आगे कॉलम (2) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के अंतर्गत अंतिम प्रविष्टि और उससे संबंधित प्रविष्टि के बाद शीर्षक पंजीकरण के लिए संक्षेपण [जोकि आगे कॉलम ( 3 ) के रूप में संदर्भित है ] के सामने निम्नलिखित शामिल किया जाएगा , अर्थात्:

एम. एस. (ओबीजी)

" मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( प्रसूति रोग तथा स्त्रीरोग विशेषज्ञ)

(यह मई , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद ईरास लखनऊ मेडिकल कालेज , लखनऊ में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डॉ. आर. एम. एल. अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद, उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

एम. डी. (माइक्रोबॉयोलॉजी )

डॉक्टर ऑफ ( माइक्रोबॉयोलॉजी)

एम. डी. ( क्षयरोग तथा श्वसनतन्त्र रोग )

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( क्षयरोग तथा श्वसनतन्त्र रोग )

(यह मई , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद ईरास लखनऊ मेडिकल कालेज , लखनऊ में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डॉ. आर.एम. एल. अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

एम. डी. (मनोश्चिकित्सा)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( मनोश्चिकित्सा)

(यह मई, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद ईरास लखनऊ मेडिकल कालेज , लखनऊ में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डॉ. आर. एम. एल. अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद, उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

एम. डी. (डीवीएल)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( चर्म, रतिज तथा कुष्ठ रोग ).

एम. एस. (ईएनटी )

मास्टर ऑफ सर्जरी ( नाक , कान तथा गला)

(यह मई, 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद ईरास लखनऊ मेडिकल कोज, लखनऊ में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डॉ. आर. एम. एल. अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद, उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) ।

एम. डी. ( पेड्रिट्रिक्स)

डॉक्टर ऑफ मेडिसिन ( पेड्रिट्रिक्स)

(यह जून , 2010 में अथवा उसके बाद ईरास लखनऊ मेडिकल कालेज , लखनऊ में प्रशिक्षित किए जा रहे विद्यार्थियों के संबंध में डॉ. आर. एम. एल. अवध विश्वविद्यालय , फैजाबाद, उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा स्वीकृत किए जाने पर मान्यताप्राप्त चिकित्सा अर्हता होगी ) । सभी के लिए टिप्पणी: 1. स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रम के लिए स्वीकृत मान्यता 5 वर्ष की अधिकतम अवधि के लिए होगी जिसके बाद इसकी पुनरीक्षा की जाएगी ।

2. उप- धारा 4 में अपेक्षित अनुसार मान्यता को समय पर नवीकरण नहीं कराने के फलस्वरूप संबंधित स्नातकोत्तर पाठ्यक्रमों में निरपवाद रूप से दाखिला बंद हो जाएगा ।

[सं. यू 12012/173/2010- एमई( पी. II ) खंड-1 ]

अनीता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव 1112

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3( ii) ] MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE (DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE)

New Delhi, the 16th September, 2010

S.O. 405. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of the Section 11 of the Indian Medical Council Act, 1956 (102 of 1956), the Central Government, after cosulting the Medical Council ofIndia, hereby makes the following further amendments in the First Schedule to the said Act, due to change of nomenclature of the qualification namely:-

In the said Schedule-

(a) against " Kannur University, Kerala " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' [ hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entray relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3) ), the following shall be inserted, namely:-

(2)

(3)

"Doctor ofMedicine (General Medicine) " MD (General Medicine)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Kannur University, Kerala in respect of the students being trained atAcademy ofMedical Sciences , Pariyaram, Kerala on or afterApril, 2010) .

MD(DVL)

"Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venereology& Leprosy) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Kannur University, Kerala in respect ofthe students being trained at Academy of Medical Sciences , Pariyaram, Kerala on or afterApril, 2010).

DDVL

"Datama Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Kannur University, Kerala in respect ofthe students being trained at Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram, Kerala on or afterApril, 2010).

"Diploma in Child Health"

DCH

DLO

"Diploma in Otolaryngology"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Kannur University, Kerala in respect of the students being trained at Academy of Medical Sciences, Pariyaram, Kerala on or afterApril, 2010).

(b) against "Manipur University " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' [ hereinafter referred to as column (2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' (hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 ) ), the following shall be inserted, namely:-

"Doctor ofMedicine (Physical Medicine

&Rehabilitation)"

MD (PMR) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Manipur University, in respect of the students being trained at Regional Institute of Medical Sciences , Imphal on or afterApril, 2010).

(c) against " Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualifica- tion' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation forRegistration' [hereinafter referred to as column(3) ], the following shall be inserted, namely:-

"Master ofSurgery (General Surgery) " MS (General Surgery)

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. D. Y. Patil University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra in respect of the students being trained at Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Kolhapur on or after June, 2010).

MD(DVL)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Dermatology, Venereology& Leprosy)"

(Thisshallbe a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. D. Y. Patil University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra in respect of the students being trained at Dr. D. Y. PatilMedical College, Kolhapur on or after June, 2010).

1113 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/ माथ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(3)

MD(Anatomy)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Anatomy) "

(Thisshallbe a recognised medical qualification when grantedby Dr.D. Y. Patil University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra in respect of the students being trained at Dr.D. Y. PatilMedical College , Kolhapur on or after May, 2010) .

DCH

"Diploma in ChildHealth"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when grantedbyDr. D. Y. Patil University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra in respect of the students being trained at Dr.D.Y. PatilMedical College, Kolhapur on or after June, 2010).

D.Ortho.

"Diploma in Orthopaedics "

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when grantedby Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Kolhapur, Maharashtra in respect of the students being trained at Dr. D. Y. Patil Medical College, Kolhapur on or after June, 2010).

(d) against "Nagpur University, Maharashtra " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification '[ hereinafter referred to as column (2)] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely:-

MS (Ophthalmology)

"Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when grantedby Nagpur University, Maharashtra in respect of the students being träified at J. N.Medicat College, Swangi, Wardha on or after December, 2006).

(e) against " RTM Nagpur University, Maharashtra " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2)], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration' (hereinafter referred to L Column(3 )] , the following shall be inserted, namely:-

MS (Ophthalmology)

Mast of Surgery (Ophthalmology) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by RTM Nagpur University, Maharashtra in respect ofthe students being trained at J. N.Matical College, Swangi , Wardha on or after December, 2006).

(f) against " Datta Meghe Institute of Medical Sciences University, Maharashtra" under the heading 'Recognised MedicalQualification ' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto undertheheading 'Abbreviation for Registration' ( hereinafter referred to as column ( 3 )] , the following shall be inserted, namely:

MS (Ophthalmology)

"Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by DattaMeghe Institute ofMedical Sciences University, Maharashtra in respect of the students beingtrained at J. N. Medical College, Swangi, Warritus on or after December, 2006) .

MD(Psychiatry)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Psychiatry)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification wheft granted by DattaMeghe InstituteofMedical Sciences University, Maharashtra in respect of the students being trained at J. N.Medical College, Swangi, Wardha on or after June,2010) .

MD(Microbiology)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Microbiology) "

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted byDattaMeghe InstituteofMedical Sciences University, Maharashtra in respect ofthe students being trained at J. N.Medical College, Swangi, Wardha on or afterApril, 2010) .

MD(Biochemistry)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Biochemistry)"

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by DattaMeghe Institute ofMedical Sciences University, Maharashtra in respect ofthe students beingtrained at J. N.Medical College, Swangi , Wardha on or afterMay, 2010).

MD(CommunityMedicine)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Community Medicine)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Datta Meghe Institute ofMedical Sciences University, Maharashtra in respect ofthe students being trained at J. N.Medical College, Swangi, Wardha on or after May, 2010) .

1114

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART II Sac. 3(ii) ] (g) against "Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra " under the heading ' Recognised MedicalQualification ' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' (hereinafter referred to as column(3 )], the following shall be inserted, namely:-- (2)

(3)

MD/MS ( OBG)

"Doctor ofMedicine/Master of Surgery (Obstetrics & Gynaecology)"

(Thisshallbe a recognised medical qualification when granted by Padmashree Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at Dr. D.Y. Patil University, Navi Mumbai , Maharashtra on or after May,2010)

(h) against "Pravara Institute of Medical Sciences (Deemed University, Loni, Maharashtra " under the heading 'RecognisedMedical Qualification ' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration ' [hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ], the following shall be inserted, namely

DMRT

"Diploma in Medical Radio Therapy"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pravara Institute ofMedical Sciences Deemed University, Loni, Maharashtra in respect of students being trained at Rural Medical College, Loni , Maharashtra on or afterJune, 2010).

(i) against " Rajasthan University" under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' [ hereinafter referredto as column (2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration' [ hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely:-

"Master ofSurgery (Anatomy) " MS(Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Rajasthan University in respect of students being trained at J.L.N. Medical College, Ajmer, Rajasthan on or after 1981)

(j ) against "Rajasthan University ofHealth Sciences , Jaipur " under the heading ' Recognised MedicalQualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ), the following shall be inserted, namely:-

"Master of Surgery (Anatomy) " MS(Anatomy)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Rajasthan University of Health Sciences , Jaipur in respect of students being trained at J.L.N. Medical College, Ajmer, Rajasthan on or after 1981)

(k) against"Pondicherry University" under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification ' [hereinafter referred toas column(2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' (hereinafter referred to as column (3 )] , the following shall be inserted, namely:--

"Master of Surgery (Ophthalmology) " MS (Ophthalmology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College&Research Institute, Puducherry on or after March, 2010) .

"Doctor ofMedicine (Paediatrics)" MD(Paediatrics)

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College&Research Institute, Puducherry on or after March, 2010).

"Master of Surgery (General Surgery) " MS (General Surgery)

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College& Research Institute, Puducherry on or after March, 2010) .

"Doctor of Medicine (General Medicine) " MD ( GeneralMedicine)

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College&Research Institute , Puducherry on or after March, 2010).

1115 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

MD(Psychiatry)

(2)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Psychiatry ) "

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College& Research Institute, Puducherry on or after March, 2010) .

MD(TB & RespiratoryDiseases)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Tuberculosis & RespiratoryMedicine)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College& Research Institute, Puducherry on or after March, 2010) .

MS(Ortho.)

"Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics) "

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Ponda.Busty University in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi M College& Research Institute, Puducherry on or after March, 2010) .

MS (ENT)

"Master of Surgery (ENT)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicheny University in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Medic College& Research Institute, Puducherry on or after March, 2010) .

MD/MS (OBG)

"Doctor ofMedicine/Master of Surgery(Obstetrics & Gynaecology) " (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Pondicherry University in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College& Research Institute, Puducherry on or after March , 2010) .

(1) against " Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University, Pondicherry" under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ], after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' [hereinafter referred to as column (3) ] , the following shall be inserted , namely:-

MS (Ophthalmology)

"Master of Surgery ( Ophthalmology) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University, Pondicherry in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute, Puducherry on or after March, 2010) .

MD(Paediatrics)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Paediatrics ) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Sri Balaji VidyapeethUniversity, Pondicherry in respect of students being trained at Mahatma GandhiMedical College & Research Institute, Puducherry on or after March, 2010).

MS (General Surgery)

"Master of Surgery (General Surgery) "

"DoctorofMedicine (General Medicine) " MD (GeneralMedicine)

MD(Psychiatry)

"Doctor ofMedicine ( Psychiatry) "

334GI/11-3 1116

(2)

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii)]

(3)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Tuberculosis & RespiratoryMedicine)"

MD(TB& RespiratoryDiseases)

"Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics )"

MS(Ortho.)

"Master of Surgery ( ENT) "

MS(ENT)

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University, Pondicherry in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute, Puducherry on or after March,2010).

MD/MS (OBG)

"Doctor ofMedicine/Master of Surgery (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) "

"Diploma in Anaesthesia "

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University, Pondicherry in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute, Puducherry on or after March , 2010).

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Sri Balaji Vidyapeeth University, Pondicherry in respect of students being trained at Mahatma Gandhi Medical College & Research Institute , Puducherry on or after March,2010).

"Diploma inMedical Radio Diagnosis " DMRD

(m) against "The Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai " under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification' [hercinafter referred to as column (2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration ' [ hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely:-

MD/MS (OBG)

"Doctor ofMedicine/Master of Surgery (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) "

"Doctor ofMedicine (Paediatrics) " MD(Paediatrics).

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by The Tamilnadu Dr. MGRMedical University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at TirunelveliMedical College, Tirunelveli on or after March, 2010)

"Doctor of Medicine (Anaesthesia)" MD(Anaesthesia) .

"Master of Surgery (Orthopaedics ) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by The Tamilnadu Dr. MGRMedical University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai on or after March, 2010)

MS(Orthopaedics) .

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Tamilnadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at Coimbatore Medical College, Coimbatore on or after March, 2010) .

1117 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(3)

(2)

MD(DVL)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Dermatology, Venreology & Leprosy)"

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai on or after March, 2010) .

MD/MS (Anatomy)

"Doctor ofMedicine/Master of Surgery (Anatomy) "

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at ThanjavurMedical College, Thanjavur on or after 1983 ) .

MS (General Surgery)

"Master ofSurgery (General Surgery) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Tamil Nadu Dr. MGR Medical University, Chennai in respect of students being trained at KAP Viswanathan Medical College, Trichy on or after March, 2010) .

(n) against " Bharathidasan University, Tamil Nadu" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [bereinafter referred to as column (2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading ' Abbreviation for Registration ' [hereinafter referred to as column (3) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely:-

MD/MS (Anatomy)

"Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Anatomy) "

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Bharathidasan University, Tamil Nadu in respect ofstudents being trained at Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur on or after 1983).

(0) against "Madras University, Tamil Nadu" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereinafter referred to as column (2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration ' [hereinafter referred to as column (3) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely:-

MD/MS (Anatomy)

"Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Anatomy) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Madras University, Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at Thanjavur Medical College, Thanjavur on or after 1983).

(p) against "Vinayaka Mission University, Salem, Tamil Nadu" under the heading 'Recognised Medical Qualification' [hereafter referred to as column (2) ] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration' (hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted, namely:-

"Master of Surgery (Ear, Nose & Throat) " MS (ENT) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Vinayaka MissionUniversity, Salem, Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at Aarupadai Veedu Medical College, Puducherry on or afterApril , 2010) .

MD(Biochemistry)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Biochemistry) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Vinayaka Mission University, Salem , Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at Aarupadai Veedu Medical College, Puducherry on or afterApril, 2010) .

MD(Paediatrics)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Paediatrics) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Vinayaka Mission University, Salem , Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at AarupadaiVeedu Medical College, Puducherry on or afterApril , 2010) .

MD/MS (OBG)

"Doctor of Medicine/Master of Surgery (Obstetrics & Gynaecology) " (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Vinayaka MissionUniversity, Salem, Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at Aarupadai Veedu Medical College, Puducherry on or afterApril , 2010) .

1118

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

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

(3)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Dermatology, Venereology& Leprosy) "

MD(DVL) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Vinayaka Mission University, Salem, Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at

Aarupadai Veedu Medical College, Puducherry on or after April, 2010) . MD(GeneralMedicine)

"Doctor ofMedicine (General Medicine)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Vinayaka MissionUniversity, Salem, Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at Aarupadai Veedu Medical College, Puducherry on or afterApril , 2010) .

"Diploma in Orthopaedics "

D.Ortho . (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Vinayaka Mission University, Salem, Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at Aarupadai Veedu Medical College, Puducherry on or afterApril , 2010) .

"Doctor ofMedicine (Biochemistry) " MD(Biochemistry) (This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Vinayaka MissionUniversity, Salem, Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at VinayakaMission Medical College, Karaikal on or after April, 2010) .

"Doctor ofMedicine (Anaesthesia) " MD (Anaesthesia)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Vinayaka MissionUniversity, Salem, Tamil Nadu in respect of students being trained at VinayakaMission Medical College, Karaikal on or after April , 2010) .

(q) against " Dr. RML Avadh University, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh" under the heading ' Recognised Medical Qualification' (hereinafter referred to as column (2)] , after the last entry and entry relating thereto under the heading 'Abbreviation for Registration ' (hereinafter referred to as column (3 ) ] , the following shall be inserted; namely:-

MS(OBG)

"Master of Surgery ( Obstetrics & Gynaecology)"

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. RML AvadhUniversity, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Era's Lucknow Medical College, Lucknow on or after May, 2010).

"Doctor ofMedicine (Microbiology) " MD(Microbiology)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. RML Avadh University, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Era's Lucknow Medical College, Lucknow on or after June ,2010) .

MD(TB & Respiratory Diseases)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Tuberculosis & Respiratory Diseases ) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. RML AvadhUniversity, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being trained atEra's Lucknow Medical College, Lucknow on or after May, 2010) .

"Doctor ofMedicine (Psychiatry) " MD( (Psychiatry)

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. RML Avadh University, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being trained atEra's Lucknow Medical College, Lucknow on or after May, 2010).

MD(DVL)

"Doctor of Medicine (Dermatology, Venereology & Leprosy) "

(This shall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. RML AvadhUniversity, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being trained atEra's Lucknow Medical College, Lucknow on or after June, 2010) .

"Master ofSurgery (Ear, Nose & Throat ) " MS (ENT)

1119 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(3)

(2)

MD(Paediatrics)

"Doctor ofMedicine (Paediatrics) "

(Thisshall be a recognised medical qualification when granted by Dr. RML Avadh University, Faizabad, Uttar Pradesh in respect of students being trained at Era's Lucknow Medical College, Lucknow on or after June, 2010) .

Note to all: 1. The recognition so granted to a Postgraduate Course shall be for a maximum period of 5 years , upon which it shall have to be renewed .

2. Failure to seek timely renewal ofrecognition as required in sub-clause-4 shall invariably result in stoppage of admissions to the concerned Postgraduate Course .

[No. U.12012/ 173/2010- ME(P.II)Vol.1] ANITA TRIPATHI, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 3 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 406.-केन्द्र सरकार , दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा ( 10 ) की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त संक्तयों का प्रयोग करते हुए भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद् से परामर्श करके, उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची भाग-1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है, नामतः:-

2. बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, फरीदकोट द्वारा प्रदान की जा रही दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों को मान्यता देने के बारे में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग-1 के संबंध में क्रम संख्या 53 के सामने कॉलम 2 तथा 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में इसके पश्चात् निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा:-

" XII. राष्ट्रीय दंत चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय तथा अस्पताल , डेरा बस्ती, पंजाब

एम. डी. एस. (पेयडोडोंटिक्स एंड प्रिवेन्टिव डेंटिस्ट्री ) , बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्य विज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, फरीदकोट । ऐडोडोंटिक्स एंड प्रिवेन्टिव डेंटिस्ट्री दिनांक 29-5-2010 को या उसके

का प्रदान की गई । )

एम. डी. एस. ( कंजरवेटिव डेंटिस्ट्री तथा इंडोडोंटिक्स) , बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय, फरीदकोट । कंजरनेटिव डेंटिस्ट्री तथा इंडोडोंटिक्स

(यदिदिनांक 29-5-2010 को या उसके

बाद प्रदान की गई । )

एम. डी. एस. ( ओरल एंड मेक्सिलोफेसियल सर्जरी ) ; बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , फरीदकोट । ओरल एंड मेक्सिलोफेसियल सर्जरी

(यदिदिनांक 8-6-2010 को या उसके

बाद प्रदान की गई । )

एम. डी. एस. ( पेरिओडोंटोलॉजी ) ,

पेरिओडोंटोलॉजी

बाबा फरीद स्वास्थ्यविज्ञान विश्वविद्यालय , फरीदकोट ।

[सं. वी. 12017/70/2005 -डी. ई. ] (यदिदिनांक 8-6-2010 को या उसके बाद प्रदान की गई । )

अनिता त्रिपाठी , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 3rd December, 2010

S.O. 406. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section (2) of Section 10 ofthe Dentists Act, 1948 ( 16of 1948), the CentralGovernment, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part-I ofthe Schedule to the said Act, namely:-

2. In the existing entries of columns 2 & 3 against Serial No. 53, in Part- I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act , 1948 (16of 1948) pertaining to recognition ofdental degrees awarded by Baba Farid University of Health Sciences , Fridkot, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder:-

"XII . National Dental College &Hospital,

DeraBassi, Punjab

MDS, (Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry), MasterDental Surgery

Baba Farid University of Health Sciences , Faridkot .

Paedodontics and Preventive Dentistry (ifgranted on or after 29-5-2010) 1120

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (ifgranted onor after 29-5-2010) Oral& Maxillofacial Surgery (ifgrantedon or after 8-6-2010)

Periodontology (ifgrantedon or after 8-6-2010)

विदेश मंत्रालय

(सीपीवी प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी, 2011

का. आ. 407.-राजनयिक और कॉसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में, केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री मागेश कुमार, सहायक को 1-2-2011 से भारत के राजदूतावास , मस्कत में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी. 4330/1/2006 ] आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव (कोंसुलर) MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPVDivision) New Delhi, the 1st February, 2011

S. O. 407. In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 ofthe Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948) , the Central Government hereby authorize Shri Magesh Kumar, Assistant Embassy of India, Muscat to perform the duties of Assistant Consular Officer with effect from 1st February, 2011 .

[No. Τ. 4330/1/2006] R. K. PERINDIA , Under Secy. (Consular) नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी, 2011

का.आ. 408.- राजनयिक और कोंसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क) के अनुसरण में, केंद्र सरकार एतद्द्वारा श्री राजकुमार दुग्गल, सहायक को 3-2-2011 से भारत के कौंसलावास , फ्रैंकफर्ट में सहायक कॉसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. टी. 4330/1/2006 ] आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव ( कोंसुलर ) New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2011

S.O. 408.- In pursuance of the clause ( a) of the Section 2 of the Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act, 1948 (41 of 1948 ) , the Central Government

[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii) ] MDS, (Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics ), Baba Farid University ofHealth Sciences , Faridkot MDS, (Oral& Maxillofacial Surgery), Baba FaridUniversity ofHealth Sciences , Faridkot.

MDS, (Periodontology) , Baba Farid University of Health Sciences , Faridkot .

[No. V- 12017/70/2005 -DE]

ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

hereby authorize Shri Raj Kumar Duggal , Assistant Consulate General of India, Frankfurt to perform the duties ofAssistant Consular Officer with effect from 3rd February, 2011.

[No. Τ. 4330/1/2006] R. K. PERINDIA , Under Secy. (Consular) मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय (उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 11 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 409.-सार्वजनिक परिसर ( अवैध कब्जे खाली कराना ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा 3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए तथा मानव संसाधन विकास मंत्रालय , उच्चतर शिक्षा विभाग के दिनांक 16 जनवरी, 2009 के का.आ. संख्या में भारत सरकार की अधिसूचना का अधिक्रमण करते हुए , इस अधिक्रमण से पहले की गई अथवा समाप्त की जाने वाली बातों को छोड़कर केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा श्री दिलान कुरैशी , एसोशिएट प्रोफेसर , जामिया मिलिया इस्लामिया को उपर्युक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजनार्थ सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के पद के समकक्ष अधिकारी के रूप में संपदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है । वे जामिया मिलिया इस्लामिया की स्थानीय सीमाओं के अन्दर जामिया मिलिया इस्लामिया से संबंधित और उसके प्रशासनिक नियन्त्रण में आने वाले सार्वजनिक परिसरों के संबंध में उपर्युक्त अधिनियम द्वारा अथवा के तहत सम्पदा अधिकारी के शक्तियों का उपयोग और कर्तव्यों का पालन करेंगे ।

[सं. एफ. 6-24/2008- डैस्क( यू) ] जुगलाल सिंह, अवर सचिव

MINISTRYOF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT (Department ofHigher Education) New Delhi, the 11th January, 2011

S.O. 409.- In exercise of powers conferred by Section 3 ofthe Public Premises (Eviction ofUnauthorised Occupants ) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) and in supersession of thenotification ofthe Government of India in the Ministry ofHumanResource Development, Department ofHigher Education, number S.O. dated the 16th January, 2009, [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

except as respects things done or omitted to be done before such supersession, the Central Government hereby appoints Sh. Dillan Qureshi , Associate Professor, Jamia Millia Islamia, being an officer equivalent to the rank ofa Gazetted Officer of Government, to be Estate Officer, for the purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred, and perform the duties imposed, on the Estate Officer by or under the said Act, in respect of the public premises within the local limits ofJamia Millia Islamia campus belonging to and under the administrative control ofthe Jamia Millia Islamia .

[No. F. 6-24/2008 - Desk (U) ] JUGLAL SINGH, Under Secy.

विद्युत मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 410. केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम ( 4 ) के अनुसरण में विद्युत मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन ऊर्जा दक्षता ब्यूरो , चतुर्थ तल , सेवा भवन , आर. के. पुरम , नई दिल्ली-110 066 को, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृंद ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है , एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करती है ।

[सं. 11017/4/2010- हिंदी ] अशोक लवासा , अपर सचिव MINISTRY OF POWER New Delhi , the 28th January, 2011

S. O. 410. In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) ofRule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the union) Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies Bureau of Energy Efficiency, 4th Floor, Sewa Bhawan, R. K. Puram , New Delhi - 110066, the staff whereof have acquired 80 % working knowledge ofHindi .

[No. 11017/4/2010-Hindi] ASHOK LAVASA, Addl . Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 28 जनवरी, 2011

का. आ. 411. केन्द्रीय सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम 10 के उप-नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में विद्युत मंत्रालय , नई दिल्ली के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रणाधीन एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड, नई दिल्ली , एनएचपीसी लिमिटेड, फरीदाबाद तथा पावरग्रिड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लिमिटेड, गुड़गांव के निम्नलिखित कार्यालयों को, जिनके 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारीवृंद

1121

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, एत‌द्वारा अधिसूचित करती है :

1. एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड , तपोवन-विष्णुगाड हाइड्रो पावर प्रोजेक्ट, कागभुषंडि ऑफिस, बद्रीनाथ रोड, जोशीमठ, जिला : चमोली ( उत्तराखंड )

2. एनएचपीसी लिमिटेड , कोटली भेल जल विद्युत परियोजना स्टेज- II, कौड़ियाला , जिला: टिहरी गढ़वाल , उत्तराखंड

3. पावरग्रिड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लि. , पंचकुला 400/220 केवी उपकेंद्र , प्लाट नं. 24 , अलीपुर इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट , बरवाला पंचकुला ( हरियाणा ) -134 118

4. पावरग्रिड कारपोरेशन ऑफ इंडिया लि. , मकान नं. 1571 , पुलिस चौकी रोड , सैक्टर-23 , सोनीपत ( हरियाणा ) -131001

[सं. 11017/4/2010-हिंदी ] अशोक लवासा , अपर सचिव New Delhi , the 28th January, 2011

S. O. 411. In pursuance of Sub Rule (4) ofRule 10 of the Official Language (Use for official purposes of the union) Rules , 1976 the Central Government hereby notifies the following offices , under the administrative control of NTPC Limited, New Delhi, NHPC Limited, Faridabad and Powergrid Corporation of India Ltd. , Gurgaon, the staff whereof have acquired 80% working knowledge ofHindi .

1. NHPC Limited, Tapovan-Vishnugad Hydro Power Project, Kagbhusandi Office , Badrinath Road, Joshimath , Distt . Chamoli (Uttrakhand) .

2. NHPC Limited, Kotli Bhel HE Project Stage- II, Kaudiyala, Distt . Tehri Garhwal , Uttrakhand.

3. Powergrid Corporation of India Limited , Panchkula, 400/220 KV Sub Station, Plot No. 24, Alipur Industrial Estate, Barwala Panchkula (Haryana) -134 118 .

4. Powergrid Corporation of India Limited, HouseNo. 1571 , Police Chowki Road, Sector-23, Sonepat (Haryana)-131 001 .

[No. 11017/4/2010-Hindi]

ASHOK LAVASA, Addl. Secy.

1122

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART II -SBC. 3(ii)] उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई , 2010

का.आ. 412.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स झीन शी डाय लिमिटिड , यूनिट आर 1 /एफ, मौलम स्ट्रीट, जोर्डन , कोवलून, हांगकांग द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जीपीई " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( पॉकेट स्केल- टेबलटाप टाइप ) जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " गंगा " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे मैसर्स शुभ वेइंग स्केल , 5050 , सिरकीवालां, हौज काजी , दिल्ली -110006 द्वारा बिना किसी बदलाव या जुडाव के भारत में बिक्रित किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/463 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( पॉकेट स्केल- टेबलटाप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 200 ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 500 मि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 10 मि ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

WIRE STAMPINGST SEUNG STUD

412

आकृति-2 सीलिंग प्रावधान का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

स्केल के विपरीत कार्नर पर सीलिंग वायर और स्टड से सीलिंग किया गया है । कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार से वेइंग मशीन को खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग किया गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है । उपकरण में केलिब्रेशन के लिए बाहरी पहुंच है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भीदिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि. ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10* 5x10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 259 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित, निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1123 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS , FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumerAffairs)

New Delhi, the 15th July, 2010

S.O. 412. 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 wou he 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 saidAct, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non-automatic weighing instrument (Pocket Scale- Table top type) with digital indication of high Accuracy (Accuracy class -II) of series "GPE" and with brand name " GANGA" ( hereinafter referred to as the said model) , maunfactured by M/ s Xin Shi Dai Ltd, Unit P.1/F, Maulam Street, Jordon , Kowloon , Hongkong and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/s Shubh Weigbing Scales , 5050, Sirkiwalan, Hauz Quazi, Delhi 110006 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/463;

The said model is a strain gaúge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Pocket Scale- Tabletop type) with a maximum capacity of 200 g. and minimum capacity of 500 mg. The verification scale interval (e) is 10mg. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid Crystal Diode (LCD ) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1Model

STAMPINGSTUD →SEALINGHIRE

412

Figure- 2 Schematic diagram of Sealing provision ofthe model

The scale is being sealed by the sealing wire and stud from the opposite corner. Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe model is given above.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said, Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg . and with number of verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1 mg. to 50mg. and with number of verification scale interval(n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100mg . or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10k, or 5x10k, k being the positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the approved model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM- 21 / (259)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 334GI/11-4 1124

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 15 जुलाई , 2010

का.आ. 413.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स झीन शी डाय लिमिटिड , यूनिट आर 1/एफ , मौलम स्ट्रीट, जोर्डन, कोवलून , हांगकांग द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जीबीई " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित , अंकक सूचन सहित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक परसन बेइंग मशीन ) जिसके ब्राण्ड का नाम " गंगा " है , (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे मैसर्स शुभ वेइंग स्केल , 5050 , सिरकीवालां, हौज काजी , दिल्ली-110006 द्वारा बिना किसी बदलाव या जुडाव के भारत में बिक्रित किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/462 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलेक्ट्रोनिक परसन वेइंग मशीन ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 150 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

LCD DISPLY

OPERATING SHITHES

0000

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

स्केल के विपरीत कार्नर पर सीलिंग वायर और स्टड से सीलिंग किया गया है । कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार से वेइंग मशीन को खेले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग किया गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है । और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 150 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 5x10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक. पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (259)/2009 ]

बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1125 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 15th July, 2010

S.O. 413. 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 Person Weighing Machine) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series "GBE" and with brand name " GANGA" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , maunfactured by M/s Xin Shi Dai Ltd, Unit R 1 /F, Maulam Street, Jordon, Kowloon, Hongkong and sold in India without any alteration or additions by M/s Shubh Weighing Scales , 5050, Sirkiwalan , Hauz Quazi , Delhi 110006 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/ 462;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Person Weighing Machine) with a maximum capacity of 150 kg. and minimum capacity of 2kg . 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 theweighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

LCA DISPLY

6000

OPERATING SHITNES

413

Figure- 2 Sealing provision of the indicator of model

The scale is being sealed by the sealing wire and stud from the opposite corner . Sealing shall be done to prevent opening ofthe weighing machine for fraudulent practice . Atypical schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe 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 instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance ofsame series with maximum capacity upto 150kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10k, or 5x10k, wherek is a positive or negativewhole 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 /(259)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1126

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011/MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART I - SFC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 9 दिसम्बर, 2010

का.आ. 414.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट । माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स उमा मैकेनिकल वर्क्स, 39 , के पी एन कालोनी, 5वीं स्ट्रीट, तिरूपुर-641601 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता- III ) वाले " यूएमपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " उमा टैक " है . (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/482 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता और 1000 कि. ग्रा. न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

SANG PAB

1414

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्पले पर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुड़े हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10* , 2x10*, 5x10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 292)/2010 ]

बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1127 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 9th December, 2010

S.O. 414. 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 ofthe 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 " UMP " and with brand name " UMA TECH" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maünfactured by M/s . Uma Mechanical Works , 39, K.P.N. Colony, 5th Street, Tirupur-641601 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/482 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with 2maximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of4 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 200g. It has a taredevice a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing results . instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-2

STANDIG PLATE

SBALIK PO

RUMAST

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of the sealing provision ofthe model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by whole in base plate & top cover of display, than seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with seal .A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (12) of section 36 of the said, Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50 and up to 5000 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k , 2x10k, or 5x10k, 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 (292 )/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1128

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 9 दिसम्बर, 2010

का.आ. 415.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त, सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जेस डिवाइसिज प्रा. लि. 102 , साउथ एक्स प्लाजा II , 209 मस्जिद मोठ , नई दिल्ली -110049 , भारत विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एन वाई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलैक्ट्रोनिक बेबी तोलन मशीन ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जेएस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/405 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलैक्ट्रोनिक बेबी तोलन मशीन ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन माप्यान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है. जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 6 वोल्ट डीसी पर कार्य करता है ।

000 SEAL WI LEAD SAD SEAL

UP SAJDE JES

Mar 20 Kg.Mo 100..Clam

415 आकृति -2 उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

स्केल की बाटम साइड में बनाए गए छेद में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर छेद पर सीलिंग की जाती है । स्टाम्पिंग के लिए स्केल की बाडी में लीड सील के साथ सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 , 5x10 के, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 250 )/2010 ]

बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1129 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 9th December, 2010

S.O. 415.-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) ofSection 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government hereby approves and issues the certificate of approval of the model of non -authomatic weighing instrument (Electronic Baby Weighing Machine) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series " NY" and with brand name " JES" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/s . JES , Devices Pvt . India Ltd. , 102, South Ex. Plaza -II , 209 Masjid Moth, New Delhi - 110049 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/10/405;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Baby WeighingMachine) with a maximum capacity of 20 kg . and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verification scale interval ( e) is 5kg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates 6 Volts DC .

Figure-2

SEAL WI

LEAD SQU

SEAL

BASE

000 UP SAITIE JES

Max 20 Kg.Min 100 g. - 59 Class

415 Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram ofthe sealing provision ofthe model

Sealing is done through the hole , made in the bottom side of the scale, and then sealing wire is passed through these holes . Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the body ofthe scale with 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 .

[F.No.WM- 21/ (250)/2010] 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) inthe range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg to 2 g and with verification scale interval1(n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of5g or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10k, or 5x10k, wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1130

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 9 दिसम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 416.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्तरिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः, अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा (7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जेस डिवाइसिज प्रा. लि. 102 , साउथ एक्स प्लाजा II , 209 मस्जिद मोड़ , नई दिल्ली -110049 , भारत विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " एक्स वाई " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलैक्ट्रोनिक व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जेस " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/406 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( इलैक्ट्रोनिक व्यक्ति तोलन मशीन ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 120 कि.ग्रा. है न्यूनतम क्षमता 400 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) 20 ग्रा.। इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 6 वोल्ट डीसी पर कार्य करता है ।

SELE

PAN

416

SELE

BASE

CFIF

आकृति-2 उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

स्केल की बाटम साइड में बनाए गए छेद में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर छेद पर सीलिंग की जाती है । स्टाम्पिंग के लिए स्केल की बाडी में लीड सील के साथ सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट को जोड़ा गया है। मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल (एन ) सहित 200 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 ", 2x10", 5x10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं डब्ल्यूएम-21 (250 )/2010 ] बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1131 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 9th December, 2010

S.O. 416. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the preserbed 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 ) Ruies , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over peans 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 (Electronic Person Weighing Machine ) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - ill) of Series " XY" and with brand name " JES" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), maunfactured by M/s JES , Devices Pvt Ltd. , 102, South Ex. Plaza -II, 209 Masjid Moth , New Delhi - 110049 India and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/406;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Electronic Person Weighing Machine) with a maximum capacity of 120kg. and minimum capacity of400 g . The verfication scale interval (e ) is 20g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 6 Volts DC.

Figure- 2

LL SELE

PAN

1416

BESE

SELE

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

Sealing is done through the hole, made in the bottom side of the scale, and then sealing wire is passed through these holes . Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the body of the scale with 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 . Adip 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 200kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 ' e' value of 5g or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10k, or 5x10k, wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured .

[ F.No.WM- 21 / (250)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 334GI /11-5 1132

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

नई दिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2010

का.आ. 417.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णितः मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और मांप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त माँडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा; 1.

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स लक्ष्मीं इलैक्ट्रोनिक्स, 100 ए, गांधी रोड, एनिपारपल्यम पुडुर बस स्टाप , अविनाशी रोड, तिरूपुर-641652 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जैड-टीटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जोडिक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदनं चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /10/408 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

PLATFORM

REAR DISPLAY TOP COVER

SEAL

BOTTOM COVER

आकृति -2 माडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुडे हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोडा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1x10 , 2x10* 5x10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 255 )/2010 ]

बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान ( भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

1133 New Delhi , the 14th December, 2010

S.O. 417. 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 " Z - TT" and with brand name " ZODIAC" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/s Lakshmi Electronics , 100A, Gandhi Road, Aniparpalayam Pudur Bus Stop , Avinashi Road, Tirupur -641652 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/408;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type) with 2 maximum capacity of 30kg. and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verfication scale interval (e) is 5g. It has a tare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) display indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-2

PLATFORIA

417

REAR DISPLAY

SEAL

TOP COVER

BOTTOM COVER

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of the sealing provision ofthe model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connnected 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 ofsealing 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 externai 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 Img to 2 g . and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 10,000 ' e' value of5g . or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10k, or 5x10k , wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle , design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F.No.WM- 21 / (255)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1134

[PART I -Sec. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932.

नईदिल्ली, 14 दिसम्बर, 2010

का.आ. 418. केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और गाप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का करते हुए मैसर्स लक्ष्मी इलैक्ट्रोनिक्स, 100 एं, गांधी रोड , एनिपारपल्यम पुड्डुर बस स्टाप , अविनाशी रोड , तिरूपुर -641 652 द्वारा विनिर्मित नननथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जैड- पीएस " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जोडिक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/10/409 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. और व्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक रेत आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोरून परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

REAR COVER

SEALING TAG

FRONT COVER

KET PAD

आकृति 2- मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्पले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकालकर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील के साथ जुडे हुए डिस्पले के बेस प्लेट और टॉप कवर में बने दो छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उस से अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5,000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10* , 2x10 , या 5x10 के , के हैं , जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 255 )/2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1135 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

New Delhi, the 14th December , 2010

S.O. 418. 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 instruncat (Platform type) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series " Z - PS " and with brand name " ZODIAC" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , maunfactured by M/ s . Lakshmi Electronics, 100A , Gandhi Read, Aniparpalayam Pudur Bus Stop , Avinashi Road , Tirupur -641 652 and which is assigned the approval mark INT/09/ 10/409;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with aximum capacity of 1000kg . and minimum capacity of 4 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 200g . It has ataredevice in a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) display indicates the weighing resuîtes . nc instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1

REARCOVER

SEALING TAG

FRONT GOVER

DISPLAY

0000 KEY PAJJ

Figure 2- Schematic Diagram of the sealing provision ofthe model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connnected 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 inA/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 ofthe 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 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* 2x10k, or 5x10k, 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 (255)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1136

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 21 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 419.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अबकेन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स यामातो स्केल कं. लि. , 5-22 साएंबा शु. आकाशी- 873-8688 , जापान विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग रेफ. Y ( II ) के " एच " श्रृंखला के स्वचालित कैच वेइंग उपकरण ( चेक व्हीयर ) जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " यामातो " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे भारत में मैसर्स बोस्व लि. , प्लाट नं. 4 , फेज- IV, वेरना इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , वेरना , सलेसेट , गोवा -403722 द्वारा विपणीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/539 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी और प्रकाशित करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित कैच व्हीयर उपकरण है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 2200 ग्रा. न्यूनतम क्षमता 5 ग्रा. और मापमान अंतराल ' डी' 0.10 ग्रा. है । इसकी अधिकतम गति रेंज 10 एम/मिनट से 100 एम/मिनट है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड डिस्पले ( एल सी डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट्स और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

LOVERPLATE

12266 g

NAN CONTROL YOURO EVA- 003

UEFAR SECTION A

419

आकृति 2- मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का सीलिंग डायग्राम

डिप स्विच की पहुंच को रोकने के लिए कवर प्लेट ( जैसाकि आकृति में दिखाया गया है ) पीसीबी ईवीए 0015 एफ पर दो स्क्रू के साथ फिक्स की गई है । इन स्क्रू के शीर्ष पर छेद हैं । इन स्क्रू के छेदों में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सील किया गया है ।

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उस से अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10* या 5x10 *, के हैं, जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 (301 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1137 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2011

S.O. 419. 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 ofthe said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of automatic catch weighing instrument (Check Weigher ) belonging to Accuracy class , Ref Y ( II) of "H " series with brand name " YAMATO " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/s Yamato Scale Co. Ltd. , 5-22 Saenba Sho , Akashi - 873-8688 , Japan and marketed in India by M/s BOSCH Limited Plot No. 4, Phase IV, Verna Industrial Estate, Verna, Slacette, Goa - 403722 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/539;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based automatic Catch weighing instrument . It has maximum capacity 2200g . with minimum capacity of 5g . and scale interval ' d' is 0.10g. It has a maximum speed range of 10m/min to 100m/min. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Liquid Crystal Diode ( LCD) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1 Model

COVER PLATE

1220:6

ARCHON A

419

Figure 2- Sealing Diagram of the sealing provision ofthe model

The Cover Plate (as shown in the figure) will be fixed with two screws over PCB EVA 0015F to stop access to DIP switch. These screws has got holes in head . Sealing wire will pass through holes in screws and will be sealed .

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

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10kor 5x10k , wherek is a positive or negative whole number or equal to zero , manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which , the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No. WM -21 ( 301 )/ 2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1138

नई दिल्ली, 21 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 420.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स हैदराबाद तुलामान प्रा. लि. , प्लाट नं. 116 , को. आपरेटिव इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, गांधी नगर एक्सटेंशन , हैद्राबाद, 500037 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ईएफएस " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " तुलामान " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एम डी/ 09 /09/328 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 10,000 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 40 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 कि.ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

420

आकृति-2 माडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण उपयोग को रोकने के लिए स्केल के इंडीकेटर की बॉटम में बनाए गए दो छेदों में से लीड वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । उपकरण को सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना नहीं खोला जा सकता । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है । उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी साम्रगी से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 5 टन से 20 टन तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10" , 2x10 या 5x10 *, के हैं , जो धनात्मक यां ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 184 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 139 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 21st January, 2011

S.O. 420.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type) with digital indication of medium Accuracy (Accuracy class -III) of Series " EFS" andwith brand name " TULAMAN " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), maunfactured by M/s HyderabadTan Private Limited, Plot No 116, Co- operetive Industrial Estate, Gandhi Nagar Extension, Hyderabad- 500037 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/328;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform Type) with amaximum capacity of 10000kg . and minimum capacity of40 kg. The verfication scale interval (e) is 2 kg. It has ataredevice with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-2

420

SEALINGAN

Figure- 2 Sealing provision of the indicator of model

Sealing is done by passing lead wire through the two holes made in the bottom of the indicator of the scale to avoid fraudulent use . The instrument can not be opened without tampering the seal. Atypical 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 ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 5 tonne up to 20 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 1x10k, 2x10k , or 5x10k, 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/ (184)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 334GI/11-6 1140

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 21 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 421.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 (1976 का 60) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप हैं और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स हैद्राबाद तुलामान प्रा. लि. , प्लाट नं. 116 , को. आपरेटिव इंडस्ट्रियल एस्टेट, गांधी नगर एक्सटेंशन , हैदराबाद. 500037 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ईपीएस " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " तुलामान " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /09/329 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 4 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 200 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

421

MAX 999999

HEALING AND

आकृति -2 माडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण उपयोग को रोकने के लिए स्केल के इंडीकेटर की बॉटम में बनाए गए दो छेदों में से लीड़ वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । उपकरण को सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना नहीं खोला जा सकता । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है । उपकरण में बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच की सुविधा है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच भी दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी साम्रगी से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 किग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10% , 2x10 * या 5x10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 184)/2009 ]

बी.एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1141 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 21st January, 2011

S.O. 421. 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 " EPS " and with brand name " TULAMAN" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , maunfactured by M/s Hyderabad Tulamaan Private Limited, Plot No 116, Co -operetive Industrial Estate, Gandhi Nagar Extension, Hyderabad- 500037 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/329;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Platform Type ) with amaximum capacity of 1000kg . and minimum capacity of4 kg. The verfication scale interval (e) is 200g . It has a tare device wits a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results . The insuurnent operates on 230 Volts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure- 1Model

121

Figure 2 Sealing provision ofthe indicator of model

Sealing is done by passing lead wire through the two holes made in the bottom of the indicator of the scale to avoid fraudulent use . The instrument can not be opened without tempering the 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 50 kg . up to 5000 kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k, 2x10k, or 5x10k, 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/( 184)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director ofLegal Metrology [PART -SBC. 3 (ii) ] 1142

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

(भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो )

नई दिल्ली, 7 दिसम्बर, 2010

का. आ. 422.- भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो नियम , 1987 के नियम 7 के उपनियम ( 1 ) के खंड ( ख ) के अनुसरण में भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो एतद्वारा अधिसूचित करता है कि जिन भारतीय मानक का संशोधन के विवरण नीचे अनुसूची में दिए गए हैं वे स्थापित हो गए हैं :---

अनुसूची

स्थापित तिथि स्थापित भारतीय मानक ( कों) की संख्या , वर्ष और शीर्षक

क्रम संख्या

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

(4)

(3)

(2)

(1)

30 नवम्बर 2010

कुछ नहीं

1. संशोधन संख्या 1--आई एस 4707 ( भाग 2 ) : 2009 सौंदर्य प्रसाधन कच्ची सामग्री और सहायक सामग्री का वर्गीकरण ( भाग 2 ) कच्ची सामग्री जो कि प्रसाधनों में उपभोग के लिए उपयुक्त नहीं है (तीसरा पुनरीक्षण)

इस भारतीय मानक का संशोधन की प्रतियाँ भारतीय मानक ब्यूरो , मानक भवन , 9 , बहादुर शाह जफर मार्ग , नई दिल्ली-110,002 , क्षेत्रीय कार्यालयों: नई दिल्ली, कोलकाता, चण्डीगढ़ , चेन्नेई, मुम्बई तथा शाखा कार्यालयों: अहमदाबाद, बंगलौर , भोपाल , भुवनेश्वर, कोयम्बतूर, गुवाहाटी, हैदराबाद , जयपुर, कानपुर, नागपुर, पटना, पूणे तथा तिरूवनन्तापुरम में उपलब्ध हैं ।

[संदर्भ: पीसीडी जी/-7 ( गजट ) ]

डॉ. ( श्रीमती ) विजय मलिक , वैज्ञानिक ' एफ' एवं प्रमुख (पीसीडी)

BUREAU OF INDIAN STANDARDS

New Delhi, the 7th December, 2010

S. O. 422. In pursuance of clause (b) of sub - rule ( 1 ) of Rules (1 ) of Rule 7 of the Bureau of Indian Standards Rules , 1987, the Bureau of Indian Standards hereby notifies that the Amendment to Indian Standard, particulars ofwhich are given in the Schedule hereto annexed have been established on the date indicated against each :-

SCHEDULE

Date of Established No. & Year and title of the Indian Standards Established

SL. No.

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

(3)

(4) (2)

(1)

None

30 November, 2010 1. Amendment No. 1 to IS 4707 (Part2): 2009 Classification of Cosmetics and Raw Materials and Adjuncts Part 2 List ofraw materials generally not recognized as safe for use in cosmetics (third revision)

Copy ofthis Standard is available with the Bureau of Indian Standards , Manak Bhavan, 9, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi - 110 002 and Regional Offices : New Delhi, Kolcatta, Chandigarh, Chennai , Mumbai and also Branch Offices : Ahmedabad, Bangalore, Bhopal , Bhubaneshwar, Coimbatore , Guwahati , Hyderabad, Jaipur, Kanpur, Nagpur, Patna, Pune, Thiruvananthapuram .

[Ref. PCD/G- 7 (Gazette)]

Drs . (Mrs. ) VIJAY MALIK, Sc . ' F ' & Head ( PCD) 1143 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

कोयला मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 423.-केन्द्रीय सरकार ने कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम , 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 7 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के कायेला मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2113 तारीख 24 अगस्त , 2010 जो भारत के राजपत्र भाग II , खण्ड 3 , उपखण्ड ( ii ) तारीख 22 अगस्त, 2010 में प्रकाशित की गई थी, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्टं 148.581 हेक्टेयर या 367.14 एकड़ की भूमि और ऐसे भू- सतह अधिकारों का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की सूचना दी थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 8 के अनुसरण में केन्द्रीय सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का पूर्वोक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और मध्य प्रदेश सरकार से परामर्श करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इससे संलग्न अनुसूची में यथा वर्णित 131.721 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 325.48 एकड़ ( लगभग ) माप वाली भूमि के भू- सतह अधिकार अर्जित किए जाने चाहिएं;

अत्तः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार कोयला धारक क्षेत्र ( अर्जन और विकास ) अधिनियम, 1957 ( 1957 का 20 ) की धारो 9 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोषणा करती है कि अनुसूची में वर्णित 131.721 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 325.48 एकड़ (लगभग) माप वाली भूमि के भू- सतह अधिकार अर्जित किए जाते हैं ।

इस अधिसूचना के अन्तर्गत आने वाले क्षेत्र के रेखांक संख्या एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी )/लैंड/ 396 , तारीख 9 अक्तूबर , 2010 का निरीक्षण कलेक्टर, उमरिया ( मध्य प्रदेश ) के कार्यालय में या कोयला नियंत्रक , 1 , काउंसिल हाउस स्ट्रीट , कोलकाता- 700001 के कार्यालय में या साउथ ईस्टर्न कोलफील्ड्स लिमिटेड ( राजस्व अनुभाग ) सीपत रोड, बिलासपुर-495 006 ( छत्तीसगढ़ ) के कार्यालय में किया जा सकता है ।

अनुसूची

पिनौरा डेपिलरिंग ब्लाक , जोहिला क्षेत्र

जिला- उमरिया ( मध्य प्रदेश )

[रेखांक संख्या:- एसईसीएल/बीएसपी/जीएम ( पीएलजी )/लैंड/396 , तारीख 9 अक्तूबर , 2010 ]

भू-सतह अधिकार:

टिप्पण

जिला

ग्राम का नाम

तहसील

पटवारी हल्का नम्बर

क्षेत्र हेक्टर में

क्रम संख्या

जनरल नम्बर

334

47.342

भाग

उमरिया

बांधौगढ़

देवरी अमहाई

उमरिया

78.414

भाग

पिनौरा

413

बांधौगढ़

उमरिया

3. पिपरारी

414

5.965

भाग

बांधौगढ़

कुल:--131,721 हेक्टर ( लगभग ) या 325,48 एकड़ ( लगभग )

1. ग्राम देवरी अमहाई ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या: -

43( भाग) , 44 ,45, 46 ( भाग ) , 47 ( भाग ) , 50 ( भाग ) , 58 ( भाग ) , 59 ( भाग ) , 59/326 ( भाग ) , 60,60/325, 61 ( भाग ) 62 (भाग ) 63 ( भाग ) , 63 ( भाग ) , 65 ( भाग ) , 66 से 68 , 69 ( भाग ) , 70 से 86 , 87 ( भाग ) , 88 ( भाग ) , 89 से 92 , 93 ( भाग ) , 94 ( भाग ) , 95, 96 ( भाग ) , 97 ( भाग ) , 98 से 103 , 104 ( भाग ) , 105 ( भाग ) , 106 ( भाग ) , 107 ( भाग ) , 108 ( भाग ) , 109( भाग ) , 110 ( भाग ) , 111 ( भाग ) , 131 (भाग ) , 132 ( भाग ) , 139 ( भाग ) , 140 ( भाग ) , 141 , 142, 143 ( भाग ) , 144, 145 ( भाग ) , 146 , 147 ( भाग ) । 2. ग्राम पिनौरा ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:-

413 (भाग ) , 481 ( भाग ) , 482 ( भाग ) , 483 से 492, 493 ( भाग ) , 494 , 495 ( भाग ) , 496 ( भाग ) , 497 से 508 , 509 ( भाग ) , 510 ( भाग ) , 511 ( भाग ) , 513 ( भाग ) , 514 से 531 , 532 ( भाग ) , 538 ( भाग ) , 540 ( भाग ) , 541 से 546, 547 ( भाग ) , 548 , 549 (भाग ) , 550 ( भाग ) , 553 ( भाग ) , 554, 555, 556 , 557 ( भाग ) , 564 ( भाग ) , 565 ( भाग ) , 566 से 570 , 571 ( भाग ) , 574 ( भाग ) , 575 , 576, 577 ( भाग ) , 609 ( भाग ) । [PART II-SEC. 3( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1144

3. ग्राम पिपरारी ( भाग ) में अर्जित किए जाने वाले प्लाट संख्या:-

81 ( भाग ) , 82 ( भाग ) , 83 से 86 , 87 ( भाग ) , 88 से 91 , 92 ( भाग ) , 93 ( भाग ) ।

सीमा वर्णन:

क-ख रेखा ग्राम देवरी अमहाई में बिन्दु " क" से आरंभ होती है और ग्राम देवरी अमहाई के प्लाट संख्या 145 , 65, 63 , 62, 61 , 59/326, 59, 57 , 55 , 53/321 , 53 , 52 से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " ख " पर मिलती है ।

ख-ग रेखा ग्राम देवरी अमहाई के प्लाट संख्या 59 के उत्तरी सीमा और 58 से होकर 60 के पश्चिमी और उत्तरी सीमा तथा 50 ,69 , 47 , 46, 43 से होती हुई प्लाट संख्या 43 के उत्तरी सीमा और 93 , 94 , 96 , 97 से होती हुई ग्राम देवरी अमहाई-पिनौरा के सम्मिलित सीमा में बिन्दु " ग " पर मिलती हैं ।

ग-घ रेखा ग्राम पिनौरा के प्लाट संख्या 547 , 540, 538 , 532 , 513 , 511 , 510 , 509 , 413 , 482 , 481 से होकर ग्राम पिपरारी में प्रवेश कर प्लाट संख्या 82 , 81 से गुजरती है फिर 92 के उत्तरी सीमा से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " घ " पर मिलती है ।

घङ रेखा ग्राम पिपरारी के प्लाट संख्या 92 , 87 , 93 से होकर 93 , 91 के पूर्वी सीमा तथा ग्राम पिपरारी - पिनौरा के भागतः सम्मिलित सीमा से होती हुई बिन्दु " ङ " पर मिलती है ।

ङ-चं- छ रेखा ग्राम पिनौरा के प्लाट संख्या 565 , बिन्दु ' च' , 576 , 571/2 , 571/4 ,

ज-झ-ज बिन्दु ' छ' , 571/5 , 571/1 , बिन्दु ' ज ' , 574 , बिन्दु ' झ ' तथा 575 के भागतः दक्षिणी सीमा और 609 से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " अ " पर मिलती है ।

अं-उ-ठ रेखा ग्राम पिनौरा के प्लाट संख्या 609 , बिन्दु ' ट ' से गुजरती हुई प्लाट संख्या 577 के पश्चिमी सीमा तथा 564 , 565 से गुजरती हुई बिन्दु " ठ " पर मिलती है ।

ठ-क देखा ग्राथ पिनौरा के प्लाट संख्या 565 , 493 , 495 , 496 से होती हुई प्लाट संख्या 497 के भागतः दक्षिणी सीमा तथा 557, 553, 550, 549 , 547 से गुजरती है फिर ग्राम देवरी अमहाई में प्रवेश कर प्लाट संख्या 111 , 110 , 109 , 108 , 107, 104, 106 , 105, 88 , 131 , 132 , 87 , 140 , 143 , 139 , 147 , 145 से होती हुई आरंभिक बिन्दु " क " पर मिलती है ।

[फा. सं. 43015/31/2008- पीआरआईडब्ल्यू-1 ] एस.सी. भाटिया , निदेशक

MINISTRY OF COAL

New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S. O. 423. Whereas by the notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Coal number S.O. 2113 dated the 24th August , 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 28th August, 2010, the Central Government gave notice of its intention to acquire 148.581 hectares or 367.14 acres land as surface rights in or over such lands 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 ofMadhya Pradesh, is satisfied that the lands measuring 131.721 hectares (approximately) or 325.48 acres (approximately) as surface rights in or over such lands 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 131.721 hectares (approximately) or 325.48 acres ( approximately ) as surface rights in or over such lands as described in Schedule are hereby acquired.

The Plan bearing number SECL/BSP/GM/(PLG )/LAND /396, dated the 9th October, 2010 of the area covered by this notification may be inspected at the Office of the Collector , Umaria ( Madhya Pradesh) or at the Office of the Coal Controller, 1, Council House Street , Kolkata -700 001 or at the Office of the South Eastern Coalfield Limited (Revenue Section), Seepat Road, Bilaspur - 495 006 (Chhattisgarh ) .

1145 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

SCHEDULE

Pinoura Depillaring Block, Johilla Area District- Umaria (Madhya Pradesh) (Planbearing number SECL/BSP/GM (PLG)/LAND / 396, dated the 9th October, 2010) SurfaceRights:

Remarks

District

Tahsil

Name ofvillage

Area in hectares

General number

Sr. No.

Patwari halka number

Part

47.342

334

Umaria

DeoriAmhai

Bandhogarh

78.414

Part 99

413

Umaria

Bandhogarh

2. Pinoura

Part

5.965

414

Umaria

Bandhogarh

3. Piprari

Total:-131.721 hectares (approximately) or 325.48 acres (approximately)

1. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Deori Amhai (Part) :

43 (P) , 44, 45 , 46(P), 47(P) , 50(P) , 58 (P) , 59(P), 59/326(P), 60, 60/325, 61 (P) , 62(P), 63 (P ) , 65 (P) , 66 to 68 , 69(P ), 70 to 86, 87(P ), 88(P) , 89 to 92, 93 (P), 94(P), 95, 96(P) , 97(P), 98 to 103, 104(P) , 105(P ), 106(P), 107(P) , 108(P), 109(P), 110(P), 111 (P), 131 (P), 132(P), 139(P) , 140(P), 141, 142, 143 (P), 144, 145 (P), 146, 147(P).

2. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Pinoura (Part) :

413(P), 481 (P), 482(P), 483 to 492, 493 (P) , 494, 495(P), 496 (P), 497 to 508, 509(P), 510(P) , 511 (P) , 513 (P), 514 to 531 , 532 (P) , 538 (P) , 540(P), 541 to 546, 547 (P) , 548, 549(P), 550(P) , 553 (P) , 554, 555 , 556 , 557 (P), 564(P), 565 (P), 566 to 570, 571 (P) , 574(P), 575 , 576, 577 (P) , 609(P) .

3. Plot numbers to be acquired in village Piprari ( Part) : 81 (P), 82 (P ) , 83 to 86, 87 (P), 88 to 91 , 92 (P ), 93 (P ). Boundary Description:

A-B Line starts from point ' A' in village Deori Amhai and passes through plot number 145, 65, 63, 62, 61, 59/326, 59, 57, 55, 53/321 , 53, 52, and meets at point 'B ' in the same village.

B-C Line passes in village Deori Amhai along northern boundary of plot number 59, through plot number 58, western and northern boundary ofplot number 60, through 50, 69, 47, 46, 43 , northern boundary of plot number 43, partly eastern boundary of plot number 45, through 93 , 94, 96, 97 and meets at point ' C' on the common boundary of villages Deori Amhai - Pinoura.

C-D Line passes in village Pinoura through plot number 547, 540, 538, 532, 513 , 511, 510,509,413,482,481 then enter in village Piprari and passes through plot number 82,81 and along northern boundary of plot number 92 and meets atpoint 'D' .

D-E Line passes in village Piprari through plot number 92, 87, 93 then along eastern boundary of plot number 93 , 91 andpartly common boundary of villages Piprari -Pinoura and meets at point 'E ' on the same common boundary.

E- F-G- Line passes in village Pinoura through plot number 565 , point ' F ' , 576, 571/2, 571/4 , point ' G' , 571/5 , 571/1 , point H-I-J 'H' , 574, point ' I ' , along partly southern boundary ofplot number 575, through 609 and meets at point ' J ' .

J-K-L Line passes in village Pinoura through plot number 609, point 'K' , along western boundary ofplot number 577, through plot number 564,565 and meets at point ' L' .

L-A Line passes in village Pinoura through plot number 565 , 493 , 495, 496, along partly southern boundary of plot number 497, through plot number 557, 553, 550, 549, 547 then enter in village Deori Amhai and passes through plot number 111 , 110, 109, 108, 107, 104, 106, 105, 88 , 131 , 132, 87, 140, 143, 139, 147, 145 and meets at starting point' A' .

[F. No. 43015/31/2008 -PRIW- I ] S. C. BHATIA , Director [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

1146

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 424.-भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जग ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 582 ( अ ) तारीख 12-03-2010 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा आन्ध्र प्रदेश राज्य में टाटीपाका लेंको टेप ऑफ से सिलिका सिरामिक पाइपलाइन के माध्यम से प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा कीथी;

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियां जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने जनता से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर विचार कर लिया है और उन्हें अनुज्ञात कर दिया गया है;

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

और भारत सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उस में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;

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

और, भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप - धारा ( 4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार , इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को , भारत सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, पाइपलाइनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार , इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनां और शतों के अधीन रहते हुए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

सर्वे नं.

गाँव

तहसील

जिला

आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल (हेक्टेयर में)

0.085

89/3 बी भाग

चेबगेलू

पश्चिमगोदावरी

उंगुटरू

0.045

108/1भाग

0,13

योग

[फा. सं. एल-14014/9/10-जी . पी. ]

के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव MINISTRY OF PETROLEUM AND NATURAL GAS

New Delhi , the 8th February, 2011

S. O. 424. Whereas by notification ofGovernment of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 582( E) dated 12th March, 2010 issued under sub -section ( 1 ) of section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the saidAct), Govt. ofIndia declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose oflaying pipeline from tap- off on Tatipaka- Lanco to Silica Ceramic pipeline for the transportation ofnatural gas in Andhra Pradesh State by GAIL (India) Limited;

Andwhereas copies of the said Gazette notifications were made available to the public;

And whereas the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

Andwhereas the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1) of section 6 of the said Act, submitted its report to Govt. of India;

1147

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

And whereas Government of India after considering the said report, and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipelines , has decided to acquire the Right of User therein;

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

And, further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act , Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the land for laying the pipelines shall, instead of vesting in the Government of India, vest, on the date of the publication ofthe declaration , in GAIL (India) Limited , free from all encumbrances .

SCHEDULE

District

Tehsil

Village

SurveyNo.

Chebrolu West Godavari

89/3 b part

Unguturu

108/1 part

Total Area to be acquired for ROU (InHectares)

0.085

0.045

0.13

[F. No. L- 14014/9/ 10-G P. ] K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 8 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 425. भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मध्य प्रदेश राज्य में दहेज- बेमार- विजयपुर पाइपलाइन (विस्तार ) परियोजना के माध्यम से प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाईन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाईन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाईन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः अब, भारत सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाईन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय कीघोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथाप्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध कर दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड , गेल कॉम्पलेक्स, मध्य प्रदेश को लिखित में आक्षेप कर सकेगाः ।

अनुसूची जिला

गाँव

तहसील

(1)

(2)

(3) राजगढ

राजगढ

सर्वे नं.

क्षेत्रफल ( हेक्टेयर में ) (4)

(5)

0.30 198

किशनपुरिया 1

राजगढ

रामपुरिया राजगढ

राजगढ

गोल्यावे राजगढ

राजगढ

बनानिया

राजगढ

कालीपीठ

राजगढ

रानीपुरा

राजगढ

तुमडियाखेडी 334GI/11-7

0.79 195

0.06 196

0.35 48

0.81 62

0.49 208/5/3

467

0.02 487

0.09

0.02 1086

0.05 1063

0.04

0.12 31 1148

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA :FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

(1)

(2)

चाचौडा गुना

गुना

चाचौडा गुना

कुम्भराज गुना

कुम्भराज

राधौगड गुना

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

(4)

(5)

17/204

0.13 जयसिंहपुरा

रमडा

1/172

0.16 उपरी

362/596

0.12

264

0.02 तुलसीखेडी

आवन

153

0.18

155

0.11 अहीरखेडी

190

0.01

119

0.03

[सं. एल-14014/15/09-जी.पी. ( भाग- III ) ]

के.के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 8th February, 2011

S.O. 425. Whereas it appears to the Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas through Dahej -Vemar- Vijaipur pipeline(Expansion) project in the State of Madhya Pradesh, a pipeline should be laid by GAIL ( India) Limited;

And, whereas it appears to the Government of India that for the purpose of laying the said pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right ofUser 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) the Government of India hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein .

Anyperson 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 pipeline under the land to Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, GAIL Complex , Madhya Pradesh.

District

Tehsil Rajgarh

Rajgarh SCHEDULE

Village

SurveyNo. Area(In Hectares)

198

0.30 Kishanpuriya 1

Rajgarh

Rajgarh Rajgarh

Rajgarh

195

0.79

196

0.06

0.35 Rampuriya

0.81

208/5/3

0.49 Golyave

467

0.02 Bananiya

487.

0.09

1086

0.02 Kalipith

1063

0.05

0.04 Ranipura

0.12 Tumdiyakhedi

Guna

Chachoda

17/204

0.13 Jaisinghpura

Guna

Chachoda Guna

Kumbharaj Guna

Raghogarh Guna

Raghogarh Ramada

1/172

0.16

362/596

0.12 Uppari

Tulsikhedi

264

0.02 Avan

153

0.18

155

0.11

190

Ahirkhedi

0.01

119

0.03

[F. No. L- 14014/ 15/09- G P. (Part - III) ]

K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नईदिल्ली, 8 फरवरी , 2011

शाजापुर

का.आ. 426.-भारत सरकार ने पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 1102 ( अ ) 14-05-2010 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा मध्य प्रदेश में दहेज- वेमार- विजयपुर पाइपलाइन (विस्तार ) परियोजना के माध्यम से प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्रित अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 24-05-2010 से 25-05-2010 तक उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

और सक्षम प्राधिकारी को पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में कोई आक्षेप निर्धारित समय सीमा में जनता से प्राप्त नहीं हुए हैं । और सक्षम प्राधिकारी ने उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत सरकार को अपनी रिपोर्ट दे दी है;

और भारत सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि में पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उस में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चय किया है;

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

और भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उपधारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, निर्देश देती है कि पाइपलाइनें बिछाने के लिए भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार, इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख को, भारत सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, पाइपलाइनें बिछाने का प्रस्ताव करने वाली गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा और तदुपरि, भूमि में ऐसे उपयोग का अधिकार, इस प्रकार अधिरोपित निबंधनों और शर्तों के अधीन रहते हुए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची

सर्वे नं.

गाँव

तहसील

जिला

क्षेत्रफल (हेक्टेयर में)

5 1

00.05

मोहनबरोदिया गोविन्दा

शाजापुर

00.19

00.12

00.01

00.42

119

00.05

00.03

1149

मोहनबरोदिया गोविन्दा

00.13

00.01

151

00.12

152

00.02

154

00.04

149

00.04

150

00.04

445

00.03

145

00.01

156

00.07

00.24

155

162

00.03

157

00.19

444

00.32

353

00.06

358

00.05

359

00.04

360

00.01

356

00.06

357

00.03

355

00.11

361

00.08

362

00.15

426

00.09

425

00.03

424

00.11

417

00.08

418

00.01

399

00.04

400P

00.08

00.04

414P

414 P

00.27

402

00.23

403

00.10

387/2 00.09

386

00.08

372

00.16

373

00.08

388

00.02

334

00.23

333

00.05

332

00.09

817

00.03

योग

04.66 [फा. सं. एल-14014/15/2009-जी. पी. (भाग- IV) ]

के. के. शर्मा, अवर सचिव 1150

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 8th February, 2011

151

00.12

Shajapur Mohanbar- Govinda

152

(Μ.Ρ.) odiya

00.02

154

00.04

149

00.04

150

00.04

445

00.03

145

00.01

156

00.07

155

00.24

162 S.O. 426. Whereas by notification ofGovernment ofIndia inMinistry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 11 02 (E) 14-05-2010 issued under sub - section ( 1) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), Govt. of India declared its intention to acquire the Right ofUser in the land specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying pipeline for the transportation ofnatural gas through Dahej -Vemar-Vijaipur pipeline (Expansion) project in the State of Madhya Pradesh by GAIL (India) Limited;

00.03

157

00.19

444

00.32 And whereas copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public from 24-05-2010 to 25-05-2010;

353

00.06

358

00.05

00.04

359 And whereas no objections were received from the public to the laying of the pipeline by the Competent Authority within the stipulated time;

360

00.01

356

00.06

357

00.03 And whereas the Competent Authority has , under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 6 of the said Act, submitted its report to Govt . of India;

355

00.11

361

00.08

362

00.15

426

00.09 And whereas Govt . of India after considering the said report, and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipelines , has decided to acquire the Right ofUser therein;

425

00.03

424

00.11

417

00.08

418

00.01 Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1) of Section 6 of the said Act, Govt. of India hereby declares that the Right of User in the land specified in the Schedule appended to this notification is hereby acquired for laying the pipelines;

399

00.04

400 P 00.08

414P 00.04

414P 00.27

402

00.23 And, further, in exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section ( 4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Govt . of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the land for laying the pipelines shall, instead of vesting in the Govt. of India, vest , on the date of the publication of the declaration, in GAIL (India) Limited, free from all encumbrances .

408

00.10 SCHEDULE

387/2 00.09 District Tehsil Village

386

00.08

Survey No.

Area (InHect.)

372

00.16 1

373

00.08

00.05

Shajapur Mohanbar- Govinda

388

00.02

00.19

(Μ.Ρ.) odiya

334

00.23

00.12

333

00.05

00.01

332

00.09

00.42

817

00.03

119

00.05

Total

04.66

00.03

[F. No. L- 14014/15/2009-GP.-(Part IV) ].

00.13

00.01

K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 8 फरवरी, 2011

भटिन्डा

का. आ. 427. भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि पंजाब राज्य में बवाना- नांगल और स्पर पाइपलाइन परियोजना से प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड द्वारा , एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में, जिसमें उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः अब, भारत सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , उस भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर , भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में सक्षम प्राधिकारी , गेल ( इण्डिया ) लिमिटेड , चंडीगढ को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तहसील गांव सर्वे नं.

जिला

आर. ओ . यू. हेतु अर्जित क्षेत्रफल ( हेक्टेयर में)

00 06 05

563

भटिन्डा

गैरी बुटर

564

00 18 94

00 01 67

565

00 25 93

582

00 09 13

584

00 01

रास्ता

00 00 44

193/585

00 04 70

574

575

00 03

581

00 21

593

578

00 21 07

579

580

00 06.

1765/530

603

00 14

604

00 01 09

706

1151

5 6

00 14 09

708

गैरी बुटर

भटिन्डा

710

00 20 43

714

00 09

715

00 00 15

720

00 28 06

719

00 00 98

796

00 07 50

798

00 13

799

00 07

801

00 25

804

805

00 27

812

00 01

813

00 27 12

811

00 23

841

846

845

00 12

844

842

00 22

843

857

00 15

879

876

00 03

00 33 19

858

00 07

873

00 25

871

872

01 57

909

00 39 12

925

00 25 42

924

02 14

991

00 02 40

999

00 05 11

992

00 06 32

993

00 07

994

06 11

995.

00 19

996

06 79

997

00 00 79

रास्ता

1004

00 15

1014

1013

00 13 1152

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] 1

2 3

5 6 7

2 3

5 6

7 भटिन्डा

नहर

00 03 08

गैरी बुटर

भटिन्डा

00 13 34

भटिन्डा भटिन्डा गुरसरसैने- 443/2

1213

00 06 21

वाला

450

00 01 20 1214

00 26 06

441

00 14 87 रास्ता

440

00 01 05

00 03 1227

500/5

01 35 1228

00 03 47

500/8

00 01 48 1230

00 03 66

500/9

00 07 20 1237

00 00

507

00 12 20 1238

00 08

506

17 77 1239

00 27

505

00 16 88 1241

00 18

504

16 1245

00 09 45

508

00 01 47 1244

00 12

510

00 15 05 1250

00 09 62

488

00 98 रास्ता

गुरसरसैने-

537/2

00 49

10 78 वाला

265

00 13

535/2

00 04 50 268/1

00 10 55

535/1

00 06 08 269/1

00 03 72

534

00 20 78 269/2

00 16

528

00 01 43 269/3

00 06

527

00 15 96 270/3

526

00 01 32

00 05 62 रास्ता

615

00 12 60 276/1

00 12

616

00 05 53 277

नरवाना . 1375

00 01 22 276/2

1368

00 12

00 21 01 275/2

00 05 17

1367

298

00 13 36

1369

00 02 297

1366

00 25 28 299

00 02 88

1361

00 05 297/3

00 00 57

1362

00 19 89 300

00 18

1358

13 31 403

1357

00 12

00 01 18

16 384

00 18 05

1356

00 28 98 383

1351

00 08 87

382

00 10 87

1439

00 01 22 387

00 18 66

1392

00 08 14 360/1

1415/1

00 06 08

00 30 24 261

00 01 92

1415/2 00 08 12 397

00 02

1437

00 02 06 400

00 11

1414

00 00 41

1416

00 04 13

00 रेलवे लाइन

28 98 448/2

00 10 42

1413

00 12 91 447

00 07

1422

00 17 65 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6 7 1

भटिन्डा

37 नरवाना

1407

00 16

भटिन्डा

00 12

1423

105

00 01

104

00 27

00 02

103

00 00 37

00 29 04

00 13

114

00 15

113

116

00 27

00 01

188

177

00 12 01

00 09 80

178

664

00 04

00 01 93

661

663

00 27 73

00 01 69

662

640

00 29 48

641

643

00 20

644

630

629

00 12

00 25 55

619

00 01 36

621

605

03 94

604

00 25 00

603

00 55

597

00 19 56

598

601

600

00 11

00 01 66

रास्ता

797

00 29

00 07 51

798

रास्ता

00 03

00 20

795

00 15

816

00 20

818

00 04 00

517

511

00 12 78

00 17

513

1153

2 3

00 01 37 भटिन्डा बीडतलाब 9 सड़क

00 02

10 69

09 71

00 10 82 193

00 08 44

00 02 48

14/1

00 03 52

00 02

13/2

13/3

रास्ता

14/2

00 03 45

14/3

00 00 15

18/1

00 07

17/2

17/1

00 02

रास्ता

24/2

09 98

00 08 324/2

00 48

रास्ता

00 06

00 10

17/1

00 B 15

17/2

00 07 32

00 10 35

24/2.

00 08 92 434

00 08 52

00 09

6/1

00 02 86

6/2

00 01 34.

15/2

00 00 48

10/2

00 11 16

00 00 44

20/1

20/2

00 09 97

00 10 29

00.08 55 1/1

00 02 89

सड़क

00 06 62

696

भटिन्हा

1040

00 31 66

00 01 96

1041

00 10 04

1047

00 16 07

1032

1031

00 22 37 1154

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

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

2 3

6 7

'7 1049

भरिन्डा भटिन्डा भटिन्डा

00 14 13 भटिन्डा भटिन्डा

00 01 17

भटिन्डा सड़क

1055

00 01 48

4548

00 20 9:3 1090

00 26

4552

00 14 48

27 16

1086

4538

00 17 60 1084

00 25 46

भटिन्डा भाटेन्डा

714/2

बहम्ण

01 38

1083

15 23

दिवाना 714/1

01 71

1082

28 45

692/1

00 13 86 1116

00 20 05

00 00 86 1117

00 06

694/1/2 00 26 02 1118

00 23 50

694/1/1 00 01 41

00 35

1119

695/1

00 10 17 1122

00 01

696/1

00 01

00 32

1131

695/2/1 00 01 09

1133

00 02

695/2/2 00 18 79 1241

697

00 01 66 1240

00 16 81

698/1

00 11 38 1138

00 09

698/2

00 18 1141

00 08

700

00 06 33 1139

699/2

00 09 85 1140

00 15 02

701.

00 02 80 1142/2 00 15 31

792/1

00 12 65 1145

00 09

794

15 1147

00 01 11

793/2

00 15 00 1169

00 11 09

795

00 24 33 1170

00 05 22

796/1

00 06 67 1171

00 05

693

00 04 26 1172

0008

797/2

00 31 57 1173

00 18 43

798/1

30 01 64 1178

799/2

00 15 15 1180

00 09 30

799/1/2 00 14 86 1179

00 01

808

00 06 05 1181

00 05 47

800/1

00 14 07

1182

00 09

637/5

00 08 99 1190

00 07

00 21 70

804/1

1188

00 01 05

804/3

00 06 52 1189

00 14 31

805/2

00 06 94

00 04

रास्ता

828

00 95

नहर

00 07

841

00 13 42

00 0B 96

840

00 04 13 रास्ता

4843

00.08

848

00 00 75 4844

00 14 25

849

00 28 35 4833

850/2

00 13 19 4834

00 53 98

850/1

00 15 65 1155

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6 7

00 15 बहम्ण

863/3

भटिन्डा

862/2

00 00 99 दिवाना

862/1/2

863/1 10.00

863/4 00 01

867

00 18 03

880/1

00 01 25

880/2

00 04 21

881/2

881/3

00 10

00 13 68

881/4

882/3

00 04

890

00 24

883

00 27 81

888

887

00 08

906/1

905/2

00 02 63

905/1

00 22 23

906/2

907

00 05 18 सिबिया 588

भरिन्डा भदिन्डा

591

00 14

00 14 19

592

00 09

598

597

00. 04 82

596

00 07 25

00 06 61

599

00 13 74

601

602

00 15 10

605

00 10

604

00 00 65

606

00 16 93

00 15

608

00 10 81

609

00 01 90

610

616

00 01 88

617

00 06

00 01 08

618

00 06

619

620

00 15 52

00 18

629

630

00 01 334Gl /11-8

7 2

भरिन्डा भटिन्डा सिनिया 631

00 09

00 13 54

633

00 01 42

634/1

632

00 13

00 01 08

636

651

00 04

00 12 28

650

16 17

649

00 01 58

648

00 17

647

653

00 16

654

00 15

655

00 02 07

657

00 17 35

658

00 21 63

96 तलवन्डी रामां 98 7/2

00 08

भटिन्डा

83 साबो

14/1

00 07

14/2

00 01 06

00 03 02

00 12 18

17.

00 10 65

00 00 84 97 21/1

340

00 01 96

00 0071 102 5

00 08 42 103 1

00 12 38

00 05

00 07 15

00 12 31

06 11

00 04 03,

02 02

343

341

00 01 21

00 10 84 139 3

00 06 08

00 06 27

00 11 75

00 08 25

00 03 57

00 12 24

146 5 000909 1156

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ] 1

5 6 7

2 3

7 6

भटिन्डा तलवन्डी रामां

49 भटिन्डा तलवन्डी रामां

00 08 11 सानो

147 1

00 01 82

13/1

00 02 67 10

00 11 46

13/2

00 02 05 147 11

00 11 43

14/1

00 00 05 12

00 00 05

00 03 60 20

00 08 38 19

00 08 46

24/2

05 22

00 03 46 186 2

G 00 08 20 1304

00 00 60

256 5

00 06 85

238 19/1

01 63

1291

00 00 05 18/2

00 00 07

भटिन्डा तलवन्डी रामसय

00 06 06 23

00 10 55

साबो

00 16 35 24

00 03 27

00 16 07 240 4

00 04 92

00 01 77 5

00 08 72

5/1

00 59 6

00 00 35

10/1

00 14 00 1316

00 00 75

10/2

00 00 08 241 1

00 01 38

15/1

00 03 24 10

00 05 72

15/3/2

08 05' 9

00 07 61

15/2

00 04 77 12

00 00 69

20/2

00 15 69 8

00 01 34

821

00 00.

00 06 84

16 3/2

00 01 97 14

00 07 17

00 14 17

00 01 22

16 15

00 00 86

00 13 71 16

00 07 57

00 02 00

242 20

05 94

00 15 34 21

00 02 47

47 19

00 16 91 22

00 07

115

00 02 62

24 5/2/2

00 13 99 253 2

00 00 13

246

00 14 87 3

00 05 86

00 14 11 4

00 07 27

00 15 49 7

00 01 60

00. 15 01 5

00 00 51

315

00 15 06 6/1

00 07 24

00 15 28 6/2

00:00 89

00 14 76 252 10

00 05 41

00 15 24 11

00 03 07

00 09 47 9/2

00 00 13

32 21/1

00 03 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

7 भटिन्डा तलवन्डी रामसरा

00 01 57

1157 2

5 6

भटिन्डा तलवन्डी

साबो

21/2

00 00 05

38 1

00 17 94

16 32

00 18

00 08 89

00 09 05

00 01 37

14/2

00. 17

15/2

00 17 89

00 17

37 11/2

20/2

00 00

12/1

00 06 35'

19/2

रास्ता

00 02 11

12/2

00 06

19/1

01 16

00 14 13

00 05 13

00 12 01

00 09 99

16/2

00 05

00 01 36

36 17/2

00 10 28

00 07 32

369

00 16 71

00 17 90

00 17 36

13/2

00 12 71

13/1

00 04 41

35 1

00 15 49

00 01 17 भटिन्डा

तलवन्डी तिरखान 7 16

00 50 साबो वाल 220

00 07 94

00 05 26

00 13 84

00 01 54

00 44

00 13 01 तिरखान-

06 59 साबो

वाला

00 07 79

00 12 79

00 01 19 8 10

00 00 64

00 13 59

12/1

00 03 09'

175

00 01 44 8 12/2

00 09

00 10. 39

176

00 02 39

रास्ता

00 01 50 8 23

00 01 02

00 13 80

04 17 5/1

00 07

00 01 62

रास्ता

18 1

00 09 18 10

00 03 77

9/1

00 06 95

9/2

00 07 56

00 02 34

00 00 15

00 12 01

14/2

00 08 56

00 05 75

00 13 02

00 00 16

174

00 01 17 19 21/1

00 06 37

21/2

00 06 50

00 10 16

00 00 05

00 03 57

00 13 48

4/1

00 02 11

रास्ता

00 02 48

22 4/2

04 37

00 04 20

00 13 16 1158

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART I-SBC. 3 ( ii) ] 1

5 6

7 भटिन्डा

तिरखान-21 10

तलकडी

09 08. भटिन्डा

तलक्डी बाघा

00 01 73 11

साबो वाला

00 04 99

साबो

00 10 77 12

00 06 99

00 10 79 भटिन्डा तलवन्डी बाधा 2 8/1

922

00 12 02 साबो

00 02 32

सड़क

00 08 65 2 8/2

00 00 45

00 03 11 13

00 10

00 18

00 10 79

92 13 .

00 12 12 23/1

00 00 60

00 11 57

00 01 44

00 रास्ता

08 93 224/1

00 02 76 23/2

00 06 56

106 3

00 00 12

00 01 66

24/2,

00 12 00 14 3

00 02 09

00 11 95 4

00 09 27

14/1

00 08 47 7

00 11 28

00 02 83

सड़क

00 11 18

14/2

75 17/2

00 10 23

17/1

00 02 22 17/1

00 01 34

16/1/1 00 05 25 24/2

00 09 61

यस्ता

25/1

168

28 5/1

रास्ता

93 4/1

00 03 99

25/1

00 11 32 नाली

00 01 05

127 5

00 01 98 6

00 11 38

भटिन्डा

रास्ता

00-01

तलक्डी सुखलधी

00 00 05

साबो

5 14

00 03 15

00 11 03

नाली

00 01 23 16/1

00 04 77 16/2

00 10 85

00 12 59 25

00 10 59

25/1

00- 00 05 29 21

25/2

39' 525/2

00 07 24

110

39 6

00 01 34

620

00 01 40 51 1

00 03 41

21/1

00 09 80 10/2

00 10 02

21/2

00 05 16

00 11

101

00 03 55 20

83'

00 10

103

00 03 10 21

00 10 68

00 07 19

00 11 09

621

00 09 25 2

00 04 84 9

00 03 51

00 13 56 10

00 07 66

00 00 35 12

00 09 91

00 01 56 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6 7

00 12 00 तलवन्डी सुखलधी 10 17

भटिन्डा

08 सानो

00 05 65

00 13 02

245

1159

6 7 3

12 48

तलक्डी सुखलभी 50 5

भटिंडा

01 10 49 1/1

साबो

00 02

10/2

नाली

00 01

00 04 49

10/1

नहर

00 15 रूघु बंगी

भटिन्डा तलवन्डी

25 1/1

104

00 08

12/1

00 05

00 09 07

19/2

19/1

00 03

526

00 01 80

00 10 93

नाली

08 85

29 3

00 04

00 13

00 01

00 12 09

00 06

00 05

2820

00 11 42

रास्ता

00 01 79

नाली

00 01 94

47 1

00 11

00 07 22

9/2

00 01 64

9/1

00 04 67

8/3

8/2

00 02 10

13/1

13/2

00 05 96

00 05 03

13/3

00 01 64

47 14

00 12

00 07 28

25.

00 05 73

00 01

नाली

00 04 14

5/2

00 11

14/2

00 04

00 19

14/1

00 04

13/1

00 01 57

नाली

17 79

00 21 84

.00 00 31

00 01 58

00 02 51

33/2

00 11 33

33/1

00 01

रास्ता

00 09

39/1

00 04 90

नहर

00 04 77

267/1

00 02 21

00 10 49

267/2

00 09 97

268

262/1

00 01

262/2

00 12 17

261

00 23 49

03-52

260

256/1

00 02 05

256/2

00 24 11

00 10 51

257/2

248/2

00 17 40

248/1

00 00 64

291/1

00. 03

280/2

00 12 70

280/1

292

00 15 59

00 17 86

291

00 11

294

295/1

00 21 97

00 43

295/3 1160

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii) ] 1

2 3

7 भटिन्डा

236/1

रूघु बंगी

तलवन्डी

78 भरिन्डा तलवन्डी मलवाला 26 16

00 04 88 साबे

236/2

00 06 79

सानो

00 11 17 319/1

00 11 82

435/2

00 11 44 319/2

00 04 15

6/2

00 11 37 318/2

00 02 40

15/2

00 04 37 320/2 00 00 10

42 10

00 00 13 321/1

00 18 14

00 06 77 321/2

00 06 50

00 10 94

322

09 95

00 10 96 सड़क

00 02 13

सड़क

01 60 335/1/2 00 11 61

49 1

00 09 22 335/1/1 00 03 33

00 06 06 325/2

00 12 26

00 05 95 334

00 17 03

12/1

00 09 56 333/2

00 06 01

12/2

00 01 24 333/1

00 08 58

00 11 30 344/2

00 15 99

00 09 93 347

00 14 86

00 01 92 346

00 13 91

63 3/1

00 04 60 भटिन्डा तलक्डी मलवाला 9 10

00 08 99

63 2/1

24 साबो

00 04 57

3/2

00 07 28 12

00 01 10

2/2

00 00 05 रास्ता

00 02

सड़क

00 01 58 नहर

00 00 93

63 8

00 07 33 9 19

00 13 33

13/1

00 05 60 9 20

00 00 07

13/2

00 05 58 22

00 11 60

00 07 Π 21 2

00 07 17

00 03 37 3/1

00 04 53

00 10 80 9/1

00 00 05

00 00 38 8

00 11 25

69 4

00 10 55 13

00 11. 32

00 10 50 रास्ता

00 02 12

00 10 52

21 18

08 64

00 00 39 23

00 06 13

00 02 57 24/1

00 01 83

16/2

00 05 48 यस्ता

00 01 19

00 02 89 नाली

00 01 12

रास्ता

00 01 25 264

00 10 37

69 25

00 10 79 3

80 5

00 10 17 7

00 11 63

00 10 24 14

00 11 20

00 04 23 17

00 03 24

नाली

00 03 31

रास्ता

00 08 79 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1161 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

2 3

5 6 7

भटिन्डा तलक्न्डी मलवाला 79 11

00 00 88 भटिन्डा तलवन्डी भगवान- 595/1

00 04 52 साबो

20/1

00 00 91

594/2/1

साबो गढ़

00 00 19 यस्ता

594/1

00 16 41 20/2

00 06

593/2/2 00 14 56 21/1

00 08 27

593/2/1 00 01 44 21/2

00 02 60

605/1

00 16 96 86 1

00 10 41

605/3

00 01 27 10

00 09 90

भटिन्डा

यस्ता

00 01 21

तलवन्डी दुनेवाला

9/2

साबो

33 19

00 07 84 12

00 07 63

42 11

00 03 25

22/1

00 01 35 19/1

00 07 48

00 11 58 86 19/2

00 03 26

35 3

00 07 90 00 00 77

रास्ता

00 01 86 22

10 59

95 2

00 10

00 02 43

00 10

35 7/1

08 85 8

7/2

00 02 01 13

00 02 87

06 12

00 02 40

नाली

00 01 53 सड़क

00 00 78

35 14/2

01 31 भटिन्डा तलवन्डी भगवान- 873

00 11 98

15/1

45 874/1

00 14 10

साबो गढ़

15/3

00 06 60 874/2

00 02 41

00 07 70 875

00 18 83

36 20 .

00 04 15 878

00 01 49

00 13 09 922

00 11 96

00 .00 29 921

00 15 64

47 2

00 09 91 907/1

00 01 00

00 01 60 920

00 01 64

00 06 58 908/3

00 02 93

00 06 09 908/2/2 00 11 98

00 11 02 909/2

00 16 65

सड़क

00 01 910/1

88 00 16 10

47 14/2

911/2

53 00 15 33

913/1

00 01 06 00 14 88

914/2

00 00 56

00 11 01 888

00 01 75

00-05 589/1

0001

00 06 58 589/2

00 09 70

525

00 10 35 597/2

00 02 55

05 590/1

00 00 63

00 03 56

53 1/1

596/2

00 15

53 10/2

00 02 33 595/2

00 11 69

नाली

86 1162

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] 1

SCHEDULE

भटिन्डा

यस्ता

दुनेवाला

तलवन्डी

Area

District Tehsil Village

साबो

53 1/2

Survey No.

Hec. Are Sq. Mtr. 10/1

00 05 84

5 6

7 8

00 05

563

00 06 05

Bhatinda Bhatinda Gairi

00 06 88

564

Butar

18 94 14.

00 11 36

565

00 01 67 15

00 09 03

582

00 25 93 16

00 05 42

584

00 09

रास्ता

00 01

Cart track 00 01 97 5420

0000 44

193/585

00 05 22

574

00 04 70 22

00 05

575

00 09 57 23

00 10 97

581

03 20

00 :21

593

61 यस्ता

5424

00 06 55

578

00 07 81 594

00 07 19

00 21 07

579

00 12 35

580

00 06 17 6

00 02

1765/530 00 06 08 58 1

00 00 15

603

00 02 78 10

00 08

604

00 14. 08

706

00 01 09 [फा. सं. एल-14014/7/11-जी. पी. ]

00 14 09

708

के. के. शर्मा , अवर सचिव

710

00 26 27 New Delhi, the 8th February, 2011

714

00 20

715

00 09 42

720

00 00 15

719

00 28 S.O. 427. Whereas , it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas through Bawana -Nangal & its spur pipelineproject in the State ofPunjab , a pipeline should be laidby GAIL (India) Limited;

796

798

00 07 50

.799

00 13 25

801

804

00 25 01 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 land underwhich the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which is described in the Schedule annexed to this notification;

805

00 04 16

812

00 27 78

813

00 01 32

00 27 12

811

Now, therefore, in exercise of powers conferred by Sub-section( 1) ofSection 3 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , Government of India hereby declares its intentionto acquire the Right of User therein;

841

00 23 57

846

845

00 03 72

844

00 12

842

00 01 70

843

00 22 78

857

00 02 25 Anyperson interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty one days from the date onwhich the copies of the notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the siad Act, as published in the Gazette of India are made available to the general public, object inwriting to the laying of pipeline under land to Competent Authority, GAIL (India) Limited, Chandigarh.

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

879

Gairi

Bhatinda Bhatinda

876

Butar

858

00 07

873

871

872

909

925

00 25

924

00 02

991

00 02

999

00 05

992

00 06

993

994

00 06

995

996

997

Cart track 00

00 15

1004

00 15

1014

00 13

1013

Canal

00 06 21

1213

00 26

1214

Carttrack 00 01

00 11

1227

00 03

1228

00 03

1230

00 00 79

1237

00 08

1238

00 27

1239

1241

00 09

1245

00 12 85

1244

00 09 62

1250

Cart track 00 00

Gursar

13 01

senewal 265

00 10

268/1

00 03

269/1

00 16 21

269/2

00 06

269/3

00 01 32

270/3

Cart track 00 00

00 12

276/1

334GI/11-9

1163

2 3

00 18

277

Bhatinda Bhatinda Gursar-

12 14

276/2 00 senewal

00 05 17 275/2

00 13 36 298

00 57

297

00 02 88

299

00 57

297/3

18 07

300

01 18

403

00 18 05

384

08 87

383

10. 87

382

00 18

387

00 06 08

360/1

00 01

261

397

400

Railway line00

00 10

448/2

00 07

447

00 13 34

443/2

01 20

450

14 87

441

00 03

440

00 01 35

500/5

00 01 48

500/8

00 07

500/9

00 12

507

00 17

506

505

504

508

510

488

00 10

537/2

04 50

535/2

00 06 08

535/1

20 78

534

01 43

528

00 15 96

527

00 05

526

00 12

615

00 05 53

616

00 01

Bhatinda Bhatinda Narwana 1375 1164

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1

56 7

5 6

1368

Bhatinda Bhatinda Narwana

21 01

621

Bhatinda Bhatinda Narwana

01 36 1367

605

00 00 80 1369

604

00 03 94 1366

00 25 28

603

00 25 00 1361

00 05 86

597

00 00 55 1362

00 19 89

598

00 19 56 1358

00 13 31

601

05 1357

00-12 16

600

00 11 06 1356

00 28 98

Cart Track 00

66 1351

797

00 29 31

00.00

1439

00 01 22

798

00 07 51 1392

00 08 14

Cart track 00 03 1415/1 00 30 24

795

00 20 07 1415/2 00 08 12

816

00 15 26

1437

02 06

818

00 20 90 1414

517

00 04 00 1416

00 28 98

511

00 12 78 1413

00 12 91

513

00 17 09 422

00 17 65

00 01

Road

Bhatinda Bhatinda Birtlab 9

37 407

00 16 37

00 02 83 1423

00 12 33

00 10 69 105

00 01 43

00 09 71 104

00 27 65

19 3

00 10 82 103

00 02 54

00 08 44 87

00 02 48 88

00 29 04

14/1

00 03 52 61

13/2

00 02 27 114

00 13 53

13/3

00 00 80 113

00 15 41

Cart track 00 00 52 116

00 : 27 76

14/2

00 00 07 188

00 01 09

14/3

00 03 45 177

00 12 01

18/1

0000 15 178

00 09 80

17/2

00 07 50 664

00 04

17/1

00 02 89 661

00 01 93

00 00 65

Cart track

663

00 27 73

24/2

00 09 98 662

00 01 69

324/2

00 03 23 640

Cart track 00 00 48 641

00 29 48

00 06 37 643

00 10 80

00 10 92 644

00 20 51

17/1

00 03 15 630

00 22 84

17/2

00 07 63 629

00 12 13

24/2

00 10 619

00 25 55 1165

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माष 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

00 03 92 Bhatinda Bhatinda Birtlab 43 4

00 09

6/1

00 02

6/2

01 34

15/2

10/2

20/1

09 97

20/2

00 10 29

55 1/1

00 02

Road

00 06

696

Bhatinda Bhatinda Bhatinda

00 31

1040

1041

00 01

00 10 04

1047

1032

00 16

1031

00 22

00 14

1049

01 48

1055

00 26 13

1090

00 27

1086

00 25

1084

00 15 23

1083

00 28 45

1082

00 05

1116

1117

00 23

1118

00 35 32

1119

00 01 66

1122

00 32 06

1131

00 02

1133

1241

1240

00 16. 81

00 09 59

1138

00 03

1141

00 00 07

1139

1140

00 15 02

1142/2 00 15 31

00 09 00

1145

1147

00 01

00 11 09

1169

00 05

1170

6 7

1171

Bhatinda Bhatinda Bhatinda

1172

00 08 19

00 18 43

1173

00 75

1178

09 30

1180

00 01. 31

1179

00 05 47

1181

09 62

1182

07 35

1190

00 01 05

1188

00 14 31

1189

04 51

Cart track 00

Canal

00 03 96

Cart track

00 08 88

4843

00 14 25

4844

4833

00 00

00 53

4834

00 01 17

Road

00 20 93

4548

00 14 48

4552

00 17

4538

00 01

714/2

Bhatinda Bhatinda Bahman

00 01

714/1

Diwana

13 86

692/1

Cart track

694/1/2 00 26 02

00 01

694/1/1

00 10

695/1

696/1

695/2/1 00 01 09

695/2/2 00 18 79

697

00 11 38

698/1

00 18 57

698/2

00 06 33

700

09 85

699/2

00 02 80

701

00 12 65

792/1

00 15 74

794

793/2

00 24 33

795

796/1

00 06 1166

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011/MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-Sac. 3 ( ii) ] 1

5 6 7 693

Bhatinda Bhatinda Bahman

04 26

592

Bhatinda Bhatinda Sibia

00 14 19

00 31

Diwana 797/2

598

00 09 12

798/1

01 64

597

00 04 82 799/2

00 15 15

596

00 07 25 799/1/2 00 14 86

599

00 06 61 808

00 06 05

601

00 13 74 800/1

00 14 07

602

00 15 10 637/5

00 08 99

605

00 10 62

00 21

804/1

604

00 00 65 804/3

00 06 52

606

00 16 93 805/2

00 06 94

608

00 15 38 828

609

00 10 81 841

00 13 42

610

00 01 90 840

00 04 13

616

00 01 88 848

00 00 75.

617

00 06 64 849

00 28 35

618

03 850/2

00 13 19

619

00 06 12 850/1

00 15 65

620

00 15 52 863/3

00 00 15

629

00 18 862/2

630

00 01 13

00 09

631

13 862/1/2 00 04 27

633

00 13 54 863/1

00 04 36

634/1

00 01 863/4

00 01 07

00 13 96

632

867

00 18 03

636

00 01 08 880/1

651

04 880/2

00 01 25

650

00 12 28 881/2

00 04 21

649

00 16 17 881/3

00 10 57

648

00 01 58 881/4

00 13 68

647

00 17 82 882/3

00 00. 10

653

16 91 890

00 04 19

654

00 15 25

883

24 02

655

00 02 07 888

00 27 81

657

00 17 35 887

658

00 21 63 906/1

00 03 15

00 08 96

98 7/2

Bhatinda Talwandi Raman

905/2

00 02 63

14/1

00 07 83

Saboo

905/1

14/2

01 906/2

00.

00 22 23

907

00 03

00 05

00 12 18 588

Bhatinda Bhatinda Sibia

591

00 14

00 00 06

03 1167 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6 7

00 01

241 1

Bhatinda Talwandi Raman

05 72

Saboo

97 21/1

Saboo

0761

00 01

340

00 00

00 71

102 5

103 1

12 38

01 22

00 86

12 31

06 11

242 20

00 02

343

00.

341

07 77

139 3

00 02 62

06 08

00 13

253 2

06 27

05 86

00 07

00 08

01 60

00 51

00 00

00 07

6/1

00 12 24

6/2

00 09

146 5

05 41

252 10

00 00

00 01

147 1

00 00

9/2

00 11

147 11

00 02 67

13/1

00 02

13/2

00 03

14/1

00 08

00 11

08 38

186 2

00 05

24/2

00 60

1304

00 01

238 19/1

18/2

256 5

00 00

1291

00 03 27

06 06

BhatindaTalwandi Ram-

04 92

240 4

16 35

Sara

Saboo

00 16 07

1316 00.00 1168

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 1

5 6 7 5/1

Bhatinda Talwandi Ram-

00 00 59 Bhatinda Talwandi Ram- 20/2

00 00 42 10/1

Saboo Sara .

14 00

Saboo Sara

12/1

00 06 35 10/2

00 00 08

19/2

00 00 59

00 03 24

15/1

Cart track 00 02 11 15/3/2 00 08 05

12/2

00 06 88 15/2

00 04 77

19/1

00 01 16

20/2

00 03 84 8 21

00 14 13 16-3/2

00 01 97

00 05 13 4

00 14 59

00 12 01 7

00 16 64

00 09 99 14

00 13 71

16/2

00 05 24 15

00 02 00

00 01 36 16

00 15 34

36 17/2

10 17

00 07 32 25

00 16 91

36 9

00 00 90 115

00 00 60

00 16 71 245/2/2

00 13 99

00 17 90 246

00 14 87

00 17 36 15

00 14 11

13/2

00 12 71 16

00 15

13/1

00 04 41 25

00 15 01

35 1

00 15 49 315

00 15

05 6

00 15 28

00 01 17 15

00 14 76 Bhatinda Talwandi Tirkhan - 7 16

50 16

00 15 24

Saboo wala 220

00 07 94 25

00 09 47

00 05 26 3221/1

00 03 31

00 13 84 97

00 01 57

00 01 54 21/2

44 38 1

00 17 94

00 13 01 10

00 16 32

00 06 59 11

00 11 77

00 07 79 12.

00 18 90

00 12 79 13

00 08 89

00 01 96

00 09 05

8 10

64 95

00 01 37

00 13 59 14/2

00. 17 10

12/1

00 03 09

15/2

17 89

37 11/2

00 17 94

175

00 01 44 1169 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

82 Bhatinda Talwandi Bagha

Bhatinda Talwandi Tirkhan - 8 12/2

Saboo

Saboo wala

23/1

00 10

Cart track 00

00 02

176

00 35

224/1

Cart track 00

06 56

23/2

00 01

8.23

00 01 66

24/2

02 09

14 3

00 04

09 27

17 5/1

00 11

Cart track 00

00 11 18

18 1

00 10 23

17/2

03 77

00.

18 10

01 34

17/1

06 95

9/1

09 61

24/2

9/2

00 00

25/1

28 5/1

00 00

00 03

4/1

Nali

14/2

00 05

00 00 59

16/1

01 17

1.74

00 10 85

16/2

00 06

19 21/1

10 59

06 50

21/2

00 05

29 21

00 10

00 07 24

525/2

00 .00

00 03

51 1

00 13

00 10

10/2

00 02

4/1

00 11

.48

Carttrack 00 02

00 10 83

22 4/2

00 10

04 20

00 11

62 1

00 05

00 03 51

21 10

07 66

09 91

00 06

01 73

Bhatinda Talwandi Bagha 2 8/1

10 77

00 02

Road

Saboo

10 79

00 00 45

28/2 1170

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ] 1

5 6 7

00 12 02

Bhatinda Talwandi Bagha 92 2

00 12 00

Bhatinda Talwandi Sukh- 10 17

Saboo

00 08 65

Saboo ladhi

00 08 63 8

00 03 11

00 05 65 12

00 00 22

245

00 13 02

92 13

12 12

00 02 54 18

00 11 57

25 1/1

00 01 28 23

00 08 93

104

00 01 76 24

00 02 76

00 08 27 106 3

00 00 12

00 08 22 4

00 12 00

12/1

00 05 83 7

00 11 95

19/2

00 09 07 14/1

00 08 47

19/1

00 03 61 Road

00 02 83

526

00 00 65 14/2

00 0075

10 17/1

00 02 22

01 80 16/1/1

00 10 93 Cart track 00 00 94

Nali

00 00 86 168

00 03 38

29 3

00 08 85 Cart track 00 00 93

00 04 84 25/1

00 13 64 127 5

00 01 98

38 Bhatinda Talwandi Sukh- Cart track 00 01 27

01 Saboo ladhi 5 14

00 03 75

15.

12 09 Nali

00 06 91 15

00 04

28 20

00 05 83 16

00 12 59

00 11 42 25/1

00 00 05

01 79

Cart track 00 25/2

39'

Nali

00 00 97 110

47 1

00 01 94 620

00 01 40

00 11 22 21/1

00 09 80

9/2

00 07 22

21/2

00 05

9/1

00 01 64 10 1

00 03 55

8/3

00 04 67 103

00 03 10

8/2

12 2

00 07 19

13/1

00 02 10 9

00 09 25

13/2

00 05 96 8

00 04 84

13/3

00 05 03 13

00 13 56

00 01 64 14

47 14

33 18

00 12 18 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

5 6 3

Bhatinda Talwandi Sukh-

07 28

Saboo ladhi 25

05 73

Nali

50 5

00 12 48

491/1

01 10

10/2

Nali

01 71

00 04 58

49 10/1

Canal

00 15 58 Bhatinda Talwandi Rughu

5/2

00 04 14 Saboo Bangi

11 77

14/2

04 05

00 19

14/1

13/1

00 04 79

Nali

00 01 57

00 17 79

-23

00 21 84

00 00 31

00 01 58

00 23 24

33/2

00 02 51

33/1

00 11 33

01 36

Cart track 00

39/1

00 09 00

00 04 90

Canal

00 04 77

267/1

00 02 21

267/2

00 10 49

268

00 09 97

262/1

00 01 63

262/2

00 12 17

261

00 23

260

00 03 52

256/1

00 02 05

256/2

00 24 11

257/2

00 10 51

248/2

00 17 40

248/1

00 00 64

291/1

00 03 17

280/2

334GI/11-10

1171

7 2.

00 12

Bhatinda Talwandi Rughu 280/1

00 15 59

292

Saboo Bangi

291

00 17 86

294

00 11 82

00 21 97

295/1

295/3

00 00 43

00 00

236/1

06 79

236/2

00 11 82

319/1

00 04 15

319/2

318/2

00 02 40

00 00

320/2

321/1

00 18 14

321/2

00 06 50

09 95

322

Road

00 02

335/1/2 00 11

335/1/1

00 03

325/2

00 12 26

334

333/2

00 06 01

00 08 58

333/1

00 15 99

344/2

00. 14

347

346

00 13

Bhatinda Talwandi Mal- 9 10

00 04 Saboo wala

00 01 10

Cart track 00 02

Canal

00 00 93

00 13 33 9 19

920

00 11 60 21 2

00 07 17

3/1

00 04 53

9/1

00 11 25

0011

Cart track 00 02 12

00 08 64 2118

00 06 13 1172

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

5 1

00 Bhatinda Talwandi Mal-. 24/1

01 83

10 52

Bhatinda Talwandi Mal-

Saboo wala Cart track 00 01 19

00 00 39、

Saboo wala

Nali

01 12

00 02 57

264

00 05

16/2

00 35

00 02 89 7

00 11

Cart track 00 01 25

00 11

6925

00 10 79

805

00 10 17 Nali

00 10 24

26 16

04 88

04 23

05 25

435/2

Cart track 00 08 79

6/2

00 11

7911

४8 15/2

00 04 37

20/1

00 00 91

4210

00 44

Cart track 00 11

00 06

00 06 24

20/2

00 10 94

21/1

00 08 27 21

00 10

00 02 60

21/2

00 01 60

Road

00 10 41

86 1

49 1

00 09 22

00. 09. 90

00 06 06

9/2

00 00 89 9

00 05 95

00 07 12/1

00 09 56

03 12/2

00 01

00 07 48

19/1

00 11 30

86 19/2

00 03 26 22

00 09 93

Cart track 00 00 77 23

00 01 92

86 22

00 10 59

00 04

63.3/1

95 2

00 10 85

00 01

00 10 39 63 2/1

3/2

00 07 28

00 00 87

2/2

00 05

00 02 87

00 01

Road

00 02 40 63 8

00 07

Road

13/1

00 05

00 11

873

Bhatinda Talwandi Bhagwan-

13/2

00 05 58

874/1

00 14 10

Saboo Garh

00 07 77

00 02 41

874/2

875

00 03 37

00 18 83

00 10 80

00 01 49

878

00 00 38

922

00 11 96

00 10 55

69 4

921

00 15 64

00 10 50

907/1 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1173

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

6 1

00 01 64 Bhatinda Talwandi Bhagwan- 920

Saboo Garh

00 02 93

908/3

908/2/2 00 11 98

909/2

00 16 65

00 16 10

910/1

911/2

00 15

00 14 88

913/1

914/2

00 56

888

00 01

589/1

00 01 19

589/2

00 09

597/2

00 02 55

590/1

596/2

00 15 59

595/2

00 11 69

595/1

00 04 52

594/2/1 00 00 19

594/1

00 16

593/2/2 00 14

593/2/1 00 01 44

605/1

00 16

00 01 27

605/3

01 21

Cart track 00

Bhatinda Talwandi Dune-

wala 33 19

00 07 84 Saboo

22/1

00 01 35

00 11 58

35 3

00 07 90

Cart track 00 01 95

00 02 43

00 08 85

35 7/1

7/2

00 02 01

Nali

00 01 53

00 01 31

35 14/2

15/1

00 04 45

15/3

00 06 60

00 07 70

3620

00 04 15

00 13 09 1 2

Bhatinda Talwandi Dune-

00 29

00 09 91 Saboo wala 47 2

00 01 60

00 06 58

00 06 09

00 11 02

Road

00 01 88

00 00 53 47 14/2

00 01 06

00 11 01

00 05 76

00 06 58 52 5

00 10 35

00 00 05 53 1/1

00 03 56

53 10/2

02 33

Nali

00 86

Cart track 00

00 05 53 1/2

10/1

00 05 84

00 11 64

00 05 07

00 06 88

00 11 36

09 03

00 05 42

Cart track 00 01 69 5420

00 12 49

00 05 22

00 05

00 10 97

Cart track 00 01 76

5424

06 55 59 4

00 07 19

00 12 35

00 02 22 58 1

00 00 15.

00 08 56

[F. No. L-14014/7/11 -GP. ] K.K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

1174

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 428.- केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 16 अक्तूबर, 2010 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का.आ. 2558 तारीख 13 अक्तूबर , 2010 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में स्थापित कोयली- दहेज पाइपलाइन की शाखा आमोद से हजीरा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 20 अक्तूबर, 2010 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार अर्जित किये जाएं;

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

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

अनुसूची

गाँव

जिला

राज्य

तालुका

सर्वेक्षण सं. खण्डसं.

5 1

386 भरुच

इटोला

आमोद

गुजरात

825

आमोद कोलवणा

1105

1000

1251

1252

1253

1282

1328

1400

682

755

185

वागरा

साचण

वागरा

पीसाद

वागरा

सारण

167

188

190

साजेखा 141

वागरा

168

भरुच

अमलेश्वर 863

नवेठा

149

भरुच

मुस्तफाबाद 277

(भाड़भुत) 186 उप-खण्ड सं.

क्षेत्रफल एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

08 96

06 30

16 23

09 00

3 3 1

14 93

50 B

98 P2

9% भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माष 23 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

180/181 भरुच

मुस्तफाबाद (भाड़भुत)

गुजरात

178

376

375

370

451

316

579

धंतुरीया

अंकलेश्वर

181

639

माटीओड

अंकलेश्वर

180

171

170

164

165

130

172

मोतवाण

अंकलेश्वर

173

मोठिया 59

हांसोट

402

दीगस

हांसोट

316

608

452

440

416 AB

416

403

354

360

338 AB

338

346

353

कलम

हांसोट

A+B

1248

ओभा

हांसोट

1175

01 32

10 44

16 20

40 00

00 00

12 54 00

[फा. सं. आर-25011/1/2008-ओ. आर -1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव 1176

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2011

S.O. 428. Whereas by a notification of the Government of India , Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Number S.O. 2558 dated 13-10-2010 under sub-section ( 1 ) ofSection 3 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser inthe land specified in the schedule annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying a branch pipeline from existing Koyali - Dahej pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Amod to Hazira in the State ofGujaratby Indian OilCorporation Limited;

Andwhereas, the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the general public on the 20th October, 2010;

Andwhereas, the Competent Authority has submitted report to the Central Government;

Andwhereas, the Central Government has after considering the report and on being satisfied that said land is required for laying pipeline has decided to acquire the right ofuser therein;

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

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

SCHEDULE

State

District Taluka Village Survey/ Block No.

5 Bharuch Amod

Intola

386 Gujarat

Amod

825

Kolwana

1105

1000

1251

1252

1253

1282

1328

1400

682

755

Sachan 185

Vagra

Pisad

Vagra

Saran

Vagra

167

188

190

Vagra Sayakha 141

168

Bharuch Amleshwar 863

Bharuch Navetha 149

Bharuch Mustfabad 277

(Bhadbhut) 186

180/181

178

Area

Sub-Division No.

Hect.

Are Sq.mtr. 6

05 40

23 3

60 1

49 50

31 B

19 98 P2

19 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Bharuch

376

Mustfabad (Bhadbhut)

Gujarat

375

370

451

316

579

Ankleshwar Dhanturia

181

639

Ankleshwar Matiad

180

171

170

164

165

130

172

Ankleshwar Motwan

173

Hansot Mothiya

402

Hansot Digas

316

608

452

440

416

403

354

360

338

346

353

Kalam

Hansot

A+B

Obha

1248

Hansot

1177

09 59

22 00

06 00

01 32

15 98

00.

02 24

13 40

[F. No. R-25011 /1 /2008 -O.R. - 1 ] B. K. DATTA, Under Secy.

1178

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)]

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 429, केन्द्रीय सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी , भारत के राजपत्र , तारीख 16 अक्तूबर, 2010 में प्रकाशित भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ. 2557 तारीख 13 अक्तूबर , 2010 द्वारा उस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची मेंविनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में गुजरात राज्य में स्थापित कोयली- दहेज पाइपलाइन की शाखा आमोद से हजीरा तक पेट्रोलियम उत्पादों के परिवहन के लिए इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी;

और उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 20 अक्तूबर , 2010 को उपलब्ध करा दी गई थी;

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

और केन्द्रीय सरकार का उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार अर्जित किए जाएं;

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

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

अनुसूची

क्षेत्रफल

उप-खण्ड सं.

गाँव

जिला

राज्य

तालुका

सर्वेक्षण सं. खण्ड सं.

हेक्टेयर एयर वर्ग मीटर

289

ओलपाड ऊमराछी

गुजरात

सूरत

10-

295

245

250

305

664

वडोली

ओलपाड

669

671

675

676

31 91

573

574

575

639

584

18 74

585

06 19

586

587

596

00 ,

595 भारत का राजपत्र : फरी 12, 2011 /माष 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

594

वडोली

ओलपाड

601

593

591

605+606

162

वीहारा

ओलपाड

151

154

238

अछारण

ओलपाड

323

सांढीयेर

ओलपाड

320

381

390

करमला

ओलपाड

222

कोसम

ओलपाड

ओलपाड सेगवाछामा 265

264

290

294

298

401

405

400

286

111

वणकला

चोर्यासी

150

ओखा

107

चोर्यासी

106

108

471

चोर्यासी भेसाण

115

मलगामा

चोर्यासी

109

221

आसरमा

चोर्यासी

334GI/11-11

$179

18 00 .

36 54

14 94

09 27

[फा सं. आर -25011/1/2008- ओ. आर-1 ]

बी. के. दत्ता , अवर सचिव 1180

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 10th February, 2011

S.O. 429. Whereas by a notification of the Government of India, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas Number S.O. 2557 dated 13-10-2010, under sub-section ( 1) ofSection 3 ofthe Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition ofRight ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government declared its intention to acquire the right ofuser inthe land specified in the schedule annexed to that notification for the purpose of laying a branch pipeline from existing Koyali - Dahej pipeline for the transportation of Petroleum Product from Amod to Hazira in the State ofGujarat by Indian Oil Corporation Limited;

And whereas , the copies of the said gazette notification were made available to the general public on the 20thOctober, 2010;

Andwhereas , the Competent Authority has submitted report to the Central Government;

Andwhereas , the Central Government has after considering the report and on being satisfied that said land is required for laying pipeline has decided to acquire the right of user there in;

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

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

SCHEDULE

State

District Taluka Village

Area

Sub -Division No.

Survey/ BlockNo.

Hect.

Are Sq.mtr. 1

9 Surat

Umrachhi

Gujarat

289

Olpad

295

245

250

305

Vadoli

664

Olpad

669

671

675

676

573

574

575

639

584

585

586

587

596

82 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Vadoli

595

Surat

Olpad

Gujarat

594

601

593

591

605+606

162

Vihara

151

154

238

Achharan

Sandhiar 323

320

381

390

Karmala 63

Kosam 222

265

Segwach-

264

hama

290

294

298

401

405

400

286

111

Vankala

Choryasi

150

107

Okha

106

108

Bheshan 471

115

Malgama

109

221

Asarma

1181

14 94

[F. No. R- 25011 /1/2008 -O.R. - 1. ] B. K. DATTA, Under Secy .

1182

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी, 2011 का.आ. 430.-केन्द्रीय सरकार को ऐसा प्रतीत होता है कि लोकहित में यह आवश्यक है कि गुजरात राज्य में सलाया से उत्तर प्रदेश राज्य में मथुरा तक पैट्रोलियम क्रूड के परिवहन के लिए "सलाया- मथुरा पाइपलाइन के अन्तर्गत डी- वॉटलनेकिंग परियोजना " के कार्यान्वयन हेतु इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड द्वारा एक पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए;

और केन्द्रीय सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उक्त भूमि में, जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में वर्णित है , उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन्स ( भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उक्त भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है ;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है , उस तारीख से, जिसको भारत के राजपत्र में यथा प्रकाशित इस अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनसाधारण को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने या भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाए जाने के संबंध में श्री भीम सिंह सक्षम प्राधिकारी , इंडियन ऑयल कॉर्पोरेशन लिमिटेड पाइपलाइन्स प्रभाग , 33 , मुक्तानंद नगर, गोपालपुरा मास, जयपुर-302018 (राजस्थान ) को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा

अनुसूची

जिला: पाली

तहसील : देसूरी

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

1 2 3

6 1. बड़ौदा

80 428(ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

380(सरकारी भूमि) 00

00 331 (ग्राम पंचायत भूमि) 00

335

80 332(ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

329

07 00 328

09 50 327

08 50

00 321(सरकारी भूमि) 00

80 284.

11 30 285

04 286

70 271

11 261

12 10 262

00. 04

10 260

20 259

00 258

00 257

70 256

80 248(सरकारी भूमि) 00

30 173(सरकारी भूमि) 00

60 170(सरकारी भूमि) 00

राज्य : राजस्थान

क्रम ग्राम का नाम खसरा संख्या

क्षेत्रफल सं

00 72(सरकारी भूमि) 00

73(सरकारी भूमि )

एयर वर्ग मीटर

हेक्टेयर

6 411

1. बड़ौदा

412

08 10 413

10 414

01 80 420

00 20 407

40 415

60 416

05 .00

40 397 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

392

0B 30 393

09 396(ग्राम पंचायत 00

20 भूमि)

76(सरकारी भूमि)

70 88 (सरकारी भूमि)

40 85

00 62(सरकारी भूमि) 00

70 28

90 356

2. उन्दरथल

90 355 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

60 354(सरकारी भूमि) 00

353

11 60

80 350 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

349

90 347

05 00 1183

फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23, 1932

भारत का राजपत्र [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

3. पदमपुरा

2. उन्दरथल 348 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

4. ढालोप

09 10

345

344 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

342

341

30 339 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

338 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

334

333

15! (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

144

139

140

136

133

131

5. कोटडी

129

126 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

14 20 124

120

115/394

.60 115

60 94

105

3. पदमपुरा

104

00 103 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

40 100

00 97

00 30 37/159

81 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

05 80

364

363

362

361(सरकारी भूमि ) 00

360/894 (सरकारी 00

भूमि)

352 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

79 6(ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

20 (सरकारी भूमि)

07 80

48 (सरकारी भूमि)

10 90

5 (सरकारी भूमि )

4(ग्राम पंचायत भूमि)

291

292

30 292/884 (सरकारी 00

भूमि)

00 80 307 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

308/910

02 308/911

314 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

316

333

332

344

70 342

60 346

159

24 114

90 115 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

08 128

10 137

06 138 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

01 139(सरकारी भूमि ) 00

.90

140

21 141

02 143

20 397 1184

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

5 5. कोटडी

396

00 13 20

4688

6. नाडोल

395

3836

03 398

3835 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

4489

6. नाडोल

3801

00 4488

3800

4494

3807

4491

3808

14 00 4492

3809

30 4496

3810

-00

60 4497

3811

3761

10 4498 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

4503

3602(सरकारी भूमि) 00

4504(सरकारी भूमि) 00

04 90

3601(सरकारी भूमि) 00 4514

02 40

3584 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00 4515

3484

07 4511

3486

09. 4510

3485

00 4519

3461

4093

3472(सरकारी भूमि ) 00

4091

3464

4520 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

3458

4589

3434(सरकारी भूमि) 00 4521

3289/5344

4522 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

(सरकारी भूमि)

4583

00-

3288

80 4579

3281

4653 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

3283/5568/1

3283

80 4656 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

3282

70 4657

3283/5568/5848 00

4655

3265 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

4661 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00'

3259

12 4667

3258.

4666

3347/5350

00 4663

(सरकारी भूमि)

4665

00-

4668

3346 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

4684

7. गुडा केसरसिंह 50

4685

50 4687 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

4683

24(ग्राम पंचायत

भूमि)

4679(सरकारी भूमि) 00 1185

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6 3

9. बोरडी 12 (ग्राम पंचायत

7. गुडा केसरसिंह

भूमि)

20 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

133 (सरकारी भूमि)

8. जीवन्द खुर्द

00 132(सरकारी भूमि ) 00

127

128/429

129

00 101 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

30 82

50 48 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

276(सरकारी भूमि )

109 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

110

111

112

20 113

100

03 50 83(सरकारी भूमि) 00

10 50

90 37

190

10. बोला कुडा

210 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

222

90 223

221

215

215/2

70 9. बोरडी

637 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

636/650

10 635

00 634 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

633 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

626

632

617

614 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

613

07 40 600 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

11. घेनडी

349 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

333

00 80 268 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

271

37 80

277

189

60 196

195

203

10 205

316/3

316/2

311/4

311/2

40 311/1

08 90 311

313

305

00 20 302

10 294

293

90 295

90 288

283

14 20

235

50 234

234/850

60 234/851

219 (सरकारी भूमि) 00 1186

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART I-SBC . 3 ( ii) ] 4

12. पिलोवनी 875/1

11. घेनडी

40 233

875/2

217

00:

875

009 02 50 00

216

877

10 30

209

210

15 00

1009 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

211

00:

00 70

1008

194

245

00: 5 13 00

13. सिवास

197

244

00: 31 80

17 80

200

243

183

42(सरकारी भूमि) 00

182/1

182

50 00

182/2

10 80

15 00

187

09 90

02 60

188 (ग्राम पंचायत 00

32 40

65 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

भूमि)

164 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

151 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

154

05 40

170

14. गुडा ढोलजी

157

00 20

00 60

149 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

106 (सा.नि.वि.)

137/1

137 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

138

141

20 50

140

142

124

121

120

119

118

822/1

12. पिलोवनी

117

823

104 (सरकारी भूमि )

856

103 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

857

102 (सरकारी भूमि) 00

858

176

15. खिवाडा

859

172

860

181

02 00

876/1

171

100

876/2

170

00 -05

876/3

184

876 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 / माथ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

6 2

00 15. खिवाडा 185 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

10 90

168

167

03 167/1397

25 166

05 165

197

05 60

198

202

06 203

06 204

205

206

207

01 208

209

60 145 (सरकारी भूमि ) 00

151

01 20 146(सरकारी भूमि) (00

108

1187 New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S.O. 430. Whereas , it appears to the Central Government, that it is necessary in the public interest that for the transportation of petroleum crude a pipeline from Salaya in 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 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 exerciseof the powers conferred by sub- section ( 1 ) of Section of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right ofUser in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , the Central Government hereby declares its intention to acquire the right of user therein;

Any person interested in the land described in the said schedule may, within twenty one days from the date on which the copies of this notification issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , as published in the Gazette of India, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the right of user therein or laying of the pipeline under the land, to Shri Bhim Singh , Competent Authority, Indian Oil Corporation Limited ( Pipelines Division ) , 33 , Muktanand Nagar, Gopalpura Byepass , Jaipur - 302018 (Rajasthan).

SCHEDULE

District : Pali State : Rajasthan

Tehsil: Desuri

*00

109

01 102(सरकारी भूमि) (0

Aroa

KhasraNo.

Sl. Nameof

No. Village

100

99/1409

Are Square Metre

Hec tare

5 3

411

1. Barod

01 77 (सरकारी भूमि) (00

11 79

10 80

15 80

01 71(सरकारी भूमि) (0

47 2(सरकारी भूमि) 00

[फा. सं. आर-25011/7/2011- ओ. आर-1]

बी. के. दत्ता, अवर सचिव 334GI /11-12

412

10 413

00 03

01 414

00 420

00 407

415

05 416

01 397(Govt. Land)

392 1188

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1992

[PART II-SBc. 3 (ii) ] 1

5 1. Barod 393

349

2. Undrathal

396(Gram

347

00 Panchayat Land)

05 90

348(Govt. Land) 00

428(Gram

10 80.

345

00 Panchayat Land)

02 60

344(Govt. Land) 00

00 80

380(Govt. Land) 00

342

331(Gram

341

03 Panchayat Land)

335

339(Govt. Land)

04 332(Gram

338(Govt. Land) 00 Panchayat Land)

334

00 07 00 329

07 00

333

00 06 00 328

01 60

151 (Govt. Land) 00 327

08 50

144

10 50

321(Govt . Land) 00

139

40 284

11 30

140

04 40 285

136

00 286

133

70 271

131

00 08 40 261

12 10

129

08 262

00 04 10

126 (Govt. Land) 00 260

124

14 20 259

120

16 00

00 258

00 06 00

115/394

06 00 257

06 20

115

13 .60 256

00 20

01 80

248(Govt. Land)

28 30

173 (Govt. Land) 00

105

3. Padampura

00 60

170(Govt. Land) 00

104

11 00

72(Govt. Land) 00

103(Govt. Land) 00

100

73(Govt. Land)

76(Govt. Land)

05 00

88(Govt. Land)

60 87

01. 40 85

37/159

62(Govt. Land) 00

81 (Govt. Land) 00 26

06 50 28

80 356

2. Undrathal

355 (Govt. Land) 00

02 20

354(Govt. Land) 00

30 353

350 (Govt. Lazad) 00

02 80 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2011/माब 23 , 1932

5 2

02 3. Padampura 68

5. Kotri

1189

398

4489

6. Nadol

07 00 364

4. Dhalop

363

10 362

08 80

15 361/894(Govt. 00

Land)

00 60 360/894(Govt. 00 Land)

70 352(Govt. Land) 00

79 6(Gram Panchayat Land)

20 20 (Govt. Land) 00

07 80 48 (Govt. Land) 00

90 5(Govt. Land)

90 4(Gram

Panchayat Land)

5. Kotri

291

40 292

18 20

30 292/884(Govt. 00

Land)

0080 307 (Govt . Land) 00

70 308/910

12 308/911

02 80

01 80 314 ( Govt. Land) 00

316

0B 333

00 02 40 332

97 344

00 342

15 346

06 60

159

00 60

114

00 90 115 (Govt. Land) 00

128

137

06 138(Govt. Land) 00

90 139 (Govt. Land) 00

140

09 90

21 141

00 143

20 397

396

00 395

4488

70 4494

00 여

4491

00 4492

4496

09 .60

4497

50 4498(Govt. Land) 00

4503

20 4504(Govt. Land) 00

4514

4515

4511

4510

4519

02 40

00 05 40 4093

4091

60 4520(Govt. Land) 00

00 4589

4521

4522(Govt. Land) 00

4583

4579

20 4653(Govt. Land) 00

4656(Govt. Land) 00

40 4657

00 4655

4661(Govt. Land) 00

40 4667

4666

00.

4663

20. 4665

10 4668

4684

4685

4687(Govt. Land) 00

4683

01 80

10 4679(Govt. Land) 00

4688

00 3836

3835(Govt. Land) 00 1190

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART I-Sac. 3(11)] 2

3801

6. Nadol

38 20

12(Gram

7. Gura Kesarsingh

Panchayat Land)

3800

80 3807

3808

01 90

20(Govt. Land) 00

3809

08 00 3810

8. Jiwand khurd 133 (Govt. Land) 00

13 30

3811

132(Govt. Land) 00

000

127

00 80

04 10

3761

128/429

06 90

3602(Govt. Land) 00

129

60 3601 (Govt. Land) 00

014

02 40

01 00 3584(Govt. Land) 00

101 (Govt. Land) 00

3484

07 90

3486

02 30 3485

05 00

20 3461

3472(Govt.

00 15 60 Land)

00 50

48(Govt . Land) 00 3464

00 02 30 3458

40 10

70 3434(Govt. Land)

15 40

210(Govt. Land) 00 3289/5344(Govt . 00 Land)

222

3288

15 80

223

90 3281

02 .00

221

13 70

3283/5568/1

00 30

215

03 80

3283

215/2

00.

3282

08 70

9. Bordi

637(Govt . Land) 00

08 10

3283/5568/5848 00

636/650

00 90

3265(Govt.

635

Land)

00 03 10 3259

12 10

01 00

634(Govt. Land) 00 3258

ΟΙ

06 20

633 (Govt. Land) 00

29 00

3347/5350 (Govt . 00

626

00 14 40 Land)

632

00 02

617

00 17 30 3346(Govt. Land)

00 60

614(Govt. Land) 00 7. Gura Kesarsingh

613

60 45

07 30

07 40

600(Govt. Land) 00 44

349 (Govt. Land) 00

20 20

24(Gram

333

50 Panchayat Land) भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माथ 23, 1932.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1191

00 10

234

11. Ghenri

00 80

268(Govt. Land)

9. Bordi

90 271

37 80

277

276(Govt. Land) 00

109(Govt. Land)

08 60

110

111

112

113

00 05

100

22 30

83(Govt . Land) 00

10 20

17 90

190

10. Bolakura

189

196

00 02

195

203

205

06 60

316/3

.00 08

316/2

311/4

311/2

08 40 311/1

311

313

00 20

305

302

234/850

102

10 60

234/851

219(Govt. Land) 00

233

90 217

00 90

216

209

210

211

194

197

200

183

182/1

08 10 182

10 80

182/2

187

00 02

188(Gram

Panchayat Land)

01 40 164(Govt. Land) 00

15 60

151 (Govt. Land)

18 154

157

0020

00 01

106(P.WD.)

08 28

00 B

09 50

01 10

822/1

12. Pilowani

294

00 293

00 90 295

00 90

288

00 10

283

235

11. Ghenri

18 823

03 856

11 50 857

858

10 90

859 1192

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] 1

5 00

12. Pilowani 860

176

15. Khiwara

876/1

172

00 09 60 876/2

181

171

876/3

00 00

170

05 00

876

184

10 875/1

185(Govt. Land) 00

875/2

168

00 10 90 875

02 50

167-

60 877

167/1397

1009(Govt. Land) 00

166

40 1008

165

05 20 245

13. Siwas

197

11 244

198

05 243

202

11 50

05 00 .

42(Govt. Land) 00

203

00 00

204

00 06 00 00

205

206

06 21

06 00 888 00

207

208

32 40

65(Govt. Land) 00

209

00 07 50 00

145(Govt. Land) 00

00 05 00

151

00 20

146(Govt. Land) 00

05 40

14. Guradolji 170

108

149(Govt. Land) 00

109

00 137/1

102(Govt. Land) 00

10 70

137(Govt. Land) 00

100

15 80 138

00 09 60

11 70 141

20 50

99/1409

10 140

20.

77 (Govt. Land) 00

10 142

00 50

10 124

06 90

01 30 121

15 80 120

07 90

00 00 40 119

71(Govt . Land) 00

118

00 117

04 20

00.

104(Govt. Land) 00

2(Govt. Land)

01 30

103(Govt. Land) 00

[F. No. R-25011/7/2011 -OR- I ]

102(Govt. Land)

B.K. DATTA, Under Secy.

II- [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माब 23 , 1932

1193

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 431.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास विजयवाडा-नैल्लोर-वैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नई-बंगलौर मंगलौर पाइपलाइन बिछाई जानी चाहिए ;

और , भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि उस भूमि में , जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपाबद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए;

अतः, अब, भारत सरकार, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम, 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उनमें उपयोग अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा करती है;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियां साधारण जनता को ष्धि करा दी जाती हैं , इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री के. मल्लीनाथ , सक्षम प्राधिकाठी, रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, 74, दूसरी मंजिल , प्रेस्टीज फेरोज, कन्निंगहाम रोड, बंगलौर 560052 , कर्नाटक राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची

तालुक: हासन

जिला: हासन गाँव कानामः

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं- 1

2 1) होम्मगोंडनहल्ली

राज्य: कर्नाटक

आर-ओ-यूं-अर्जित करने के लिए बेवफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर

00 04

सर्वे नं 35 और गावँ सीमा के बीच में भूमि

सर्वे नं 35 मे रास्ता

सर्वे नं 38 मे राहता

00 32

00 01

00 58

00 03

सर्वे नं 38 और 51 के बीच में पांड

00 16

00 10

00 01

00 40

00 01

00 21

00 11

00 51 -59

00 25

00 17

48 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23, 1932

1194

33 2 ) दुन्डेनकलती

60 3) कडगा

12 4) कोहली

15/3

14/1

19/2

19/1

34/2

34/3

46/1 4) मनी (निरंतर)

46/2

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii)】

47 00 00

00 05 03

25 89 00.

27 00° 06

2.3 00 03

00 07 19

24 00 08

00%

55 10. 13

13 26 00

26 23 00

17 00 02

सर्वे नं 48 और गार्दै सीमा के वीच में ग्रेड

सर्वे नं 22 और गायें सीमा के वीच में रोड

5 ) सिन्नेनस्ली

184 6) सालगाने

61 7 ) स्वेवरकरली

65/1

136/12 8 ) गुसैनवस्ती

136/1वी2

136/ 1 ए1

136/1वी1

91 00 50

25 67 00

00 08 39

60 60 00

81 00

02 00 39

00 15 19

69 00 09

00 01

55 00 06

51 00 ′ [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

40/2

8 ) गुलेन हस्ती (जारी...)

40/1

45/3

45/4

47/1

48/2

48/1

49/2

49/4

49/1

49/3

54/5

9) कडदरवल्ली

54/4

54/3

55 286

128

127

126

125

159

157/5

157/3

189

201/5

201/4

201/1

203

200

199

197

196

195

172

206/2

207/2

207/1

208/2

170

208/3

208/1

213

214/3

214/1

334GI/11-13

1195 3

5 00 23

22 00

32 00 13

57 00 14

84 00

00 27

07 00

00 18

95 00

00 19

30 00

26 00 07

02 00 00 04

63 00 65

84 00 21

65 00 00

54 00

68 00 00

45 00 22

58 00

00 02

99 00 06

29. 00

56 00

17 00 00

92 00

91 00 01

22 00 12

23 00 19

00 22

31 00 00

10 00

62 00

10 00 00

34 08

64 10

47 00

84 1196

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

214/2 9) कळवरवाली (निरंतर)

215/3

215/2

218

224

223

222

221

[Part II-Sec. 3(11)] 3

5 07 19 00

00 11

38 53 00

06 11 26

28 00

00- 51

43 00

00 10

सर्वे नं 220 और 221 के बीच में रास्ता

220

10) साजेन

33 सर्वे नं 32 और 33 के बीच में एस एच 57

10/1

11/2

16/2

16/1

17/2

17/1

11) सिद्दापुरा

24/3

24/4

23/2

22/1

23/1

12) हेग्गडिहल्ली

13) तिम्मनहल्ली

151

14) दोङगइवल्ली

152

155

154

15) वसूर

103

16) गुंडसेड्डिहल्ली

104

102

00 35 59 00

09 86 00

82 96 01

44 00 31

58 00 18

81 00 46

26 00 37

82 00 16

51 00

19 00

32 00 37

15 69

65 00 03

24 00 37

00 28

27 00

66 00 74

57 00 45

00 57

95 00 58

83 00 24

40 00

51 00 81

97 00

34 00

00 82

76 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का सपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23, 1932-

2. 1

100

16) कटिकली (निरंतर)

101

96/4

96/2

96/5

84/1

85/2

61/1

60/1

60/2

जिला : हासन तालुक: वेलुर

1) हालतोरे

सर्वे नं 46 और गावँ सीमा के वीच में यगचि नदिा

2) पडवललु

47/1

31/2

1197 3

77 00

10 00

37 00

47 00

12 00 00

00 41

11 00

03 00

00 14

85 00

00 29

97 00 31

38 00 08

राज्य: कर्नाटक

82 00

07 00 35

80 00 06

सर्वे नं 30 और 47 के बीच में वडि नाला

30/1

24/2

24/3

3 ) डणायिकनाहल्ली

26/1

सर्वे नं 8 और 9 के वीच में पांड

4) यडिहल्ली

194

5) मदगझ

180

198

199/3 00 29

32 00

60 00 28

80 02 64

44 00

00 00

82 00 17

36 00 09

03 00

84 00

00 54

63 00 75

09 00 07

56 00 07 1198

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

201

5) मवगत (निरंतर)

202

204

208

207/6

207/9

211

207/8

207/11

225

224/2

224/3

224/

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)]

35 00 35

06 00 15

05 00

71 00 19

00 05

01 00

06 00 00

30 00 07 65

सर्वे नं 1397 224 के बीच में रोड

159

157

160

156

153

152

161

151

149

148

147

106/1बी

145

106/1 ए

134

135

133

132

129/3

127

126.

73 00 04

63 00 01

80 00 37

67 00 25

00 09

61 00 20

17 00

00 07

83 00

00 22

73 00 79

05 00 64

69 00 24

77 00 42

65 00 21. 34 00 06

सर्वे नं 126 और गावँ सीमा के वीच में नाला

6) होन्नेमने

72 00

सर्वे नं 17 और गावँ सीमा के बीच में नाला

7) कोडिहल्ली

17 00 74

40 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माथ 23 , 1932

27 8 ) निहुमनहल्ली

26/2

33/2

32/3

32/2

32/1

138 9 ) विक्कोड

137/1

137/2

125/1

125/3

126/2

127

128

129

130

124

91/5

91/2

114

115

सर्वे नं 115 और 179 के बीच में रोड

179

183

182

181

177

175

176

174

173

172

191

171

1199

99 00 26 50 00 06 78 00 11

58 00

34 00

20 00

00 06 82

56- 00 18 67 00 19 03

51 ρα

38 00

19 00

87 00 01

91 00 06 63 00

05 00

00 31

04 00 21

16 00

00 43

96 00

14 00 12

00 19 53

41 [फा सं. एल. - 14014/106/2010- जी.पी. ]

के.के.अत्रे, अवर सचिव [Part II-Sec. 3( ii)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23, 1932

1200

NewDelhi , the 10th February,2011

S.O.431.-Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from terminal point of Vijayawada-Nellore- Chennai pipeline near Tiruttani in TamilNadu to consumers in various parts of the country , Chennai - Bangalore - Mangalore pipeline should be laid by M/sRelogistics Infrastructure Limited;

And, whereas , it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which are described in the Schedule annexed hereto;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962), 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 on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of Indiaunder sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act , are made available to the general public object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein for laying the pefine under the land to K.Mallinath, Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, #74, 2nd Floor, Prestige Feroze , Cunningham Road, Bangalore-560052, Karnataka State.

Schedule

State: Karnataka

District: Haesan

Taluk: Hassan

Area to be arquired for Roll

Survey No./Sub-Deiden No.

Village

Are

C-Are

Hec

Land between Sy.No. 35 & V.B

1) Hommagondnahalli

Carttrack in the Sy.No.35

Cart track in the Sy.No.38

Pondbetween Sy.No. 38 & 51

2) Sundenahalli

32 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माण 23, 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

3) Kadaga

4) Kakkenahalli

15/3

14/1

19/2

19/1

34/2

34/3

49 46/1

46/2

Roadbetween Sy.No. 48 & V.B

Roadbetween Sy.No. 22 & V.B

5) Timmenahalli

184 6) Salagame

7) Kalladevarahalli

65/1

136/1A2 8) Gulenahalli

136/1B2

136/ 1A1

136/1B1

40/2

40/1

45/3

45/4

47/1

1201

5 4

27 00

00 13 57

17 00

91 00

27 00

71 00

38 00

02 00

81 00

19 00

69 00

10 00

25 00

55 00

51 00

57 00

84 00

60 00 1202

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

48/2 8) Gutenahalli (ambla

48/1

49/2

49/4

49/1

49/3

54/5 9) Kadadaravali

54/4

54/3

286

ॐ

128

127

126

125

159

157/5

157/3

189

201/5

201/4

201/1

203

200

199

197

196

195

172

206/2

207/2

207/1

208/2

170

208/3

208/1

213

214/3

214/1

214/2

215/3

215/2

218

224

223

222

221

[Part 11-Sec. 3(ii) ] 3

00 02 07

30 00

26 00

00 67

16 00

56 00

10 00

13 92 00

91 00

58 00

23 00

31 00

63 00

27 00

34 00

10.

11 00

84 00

19 00

17 00

28 00

43 00

Carttrackbetween Sy.No. 220 & 221

220

33 10) Sanenahalli

94 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

1203

5, 4

S.H 57 between Sy.No.32 & 33

10) Sanenahalli (Contd)

10/1

11/2

16/2

16/1

17/2

17/1

11) Siddapura

24/3

24/4

23/2

22/1

23/1

12) Heggadihalli

13) Thimmanahalli

151 14) Doddagaddavalli

152

155

154

15) Dassur

103 16) Gundasettihalli

104

102

100

101

96/4

96/2 334GI/11-14

44 31

19 00

72 00

32 00

73 00

27 00

08 01

10 00

00 1204

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

96/5

16) Gundasettihalli ( Contd)

84/1

えぐ

85/2

115

61/1

60/1

60/2

Taluk: Belur

[ Part II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ] $4

5 3

1083

State: Karnataka

District: Hassan

1) Halathore

2) Padavalalu

Yagachi River between Sy.No 46 & V.B 00

47/1

31/2

Field Channel between Sy.No. 30 &47

30/1

24/2

24/3

3) Danaikanahalli

26/1

704

00 2860

0013

02 Monsummigo

Pond between Sy.No. 8 & 9

4) Yadihalli

194

5) Madagatta

201

180

198

199/3

201

202

دیره

204

208

207/6

84 00

56 00

05 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /भाष 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

207/9 5) Madagatta (Contd)

211

207/8

207/11

225

224/2

224/3

224/1

1205

00 00

71 00

62 00

Road between Sy.No.159 & 224

159

157

160

156

153

152

161

151

149

148

147

106/1B

145

106/1A

134

135

133

132

129/3

127

126

03.

آروم

66 ۱۳

Nala between Sy.No. 126 & V.B

Nala between Sy.No. 17 & V.B

6) Honnemane

2 7) Kodihalli

27 8) Nidumanahalli

26/2

33/2

32/3

32/2

32/1

0074.540

0067099

1002650

00 06

Continued ...... 8 1206

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

2 9) Bikkodu

138

137/1

137/2

125/1

125/3

126/2

127

128

129

130

124

91/5

91/2

114

115

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ] 3

Roadbetween Sy.No. 115 & 179

179

183

182

181

177

175

176

174

173

172

191

171

89.

[F. No. L-14014/106/2010-GP. ] K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 432.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स रिलाएन्स इंडस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड की आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा-वासुदेवपुर-हावड़ा पाइपलाइन विछाई जानी चाहिए;

और, भारत सरकार को उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि, उस भूमि में, जिसके भीतर उक्त पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने का प्रस्ताव है और जो इस अधिसूचना से उपावद्ध अनुसूची में वर्णित है, उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाए ;

अतः, अब, भारत सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) अधिनियम , 1962 (1962का 50 ) की धारा 3 की उपधारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोपणा करती है;

कोई व्यक्ति, जो उक्त अनुसूची में वर्णित भूमि में हितवद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

1207 भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपायोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री व्रज किशोर पंडा, सक्षम प्राधिकारी, रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , प्रथम मंजिल , फोर्चुन टावर, चन्द्रशेखरपुर, भुवनेश्वर - 751023, ओडिशा राज्य को लिखित रुप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा ।

अनुसूची राज्य: ओडिशा

जिला:खोरडा

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:वेगुनीया

गाँव कानाम

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

517

1) खडीपडार

518

52.7

526

525

519

520

523

524

522

530

521

534

535

541

536

540

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

550

552

551

562

563

564

574

575

577

576

593

594

605

आर.ओ.यूअर्जित करने के लिए क्षेतफल

एयर सि एयर हेक्टेयर

84 05

00 01

13 00

39 00

12 00 00

00 03

62 03

09 00 04

75 06

00 21

29 00

21 00

25 00

00 01

70 00

76 00

00 08

19 00

82 00 03

05 06

16 00

00 00

12 00

00 07

06 02

00 06

99 04

15 00 04

04 03

06 00

57 00 02

63 07

46 00

00 05

95 07

00 [Part II Sec . 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1208

608 1) खडीपडार (निरंतर)

606

609

607

616

1245 000813 0000110

63 00 05

25 0005

669176

633

634

668

652

653

666

٢٥٠

.654

665

679

680

678

682

754

677

48 0005

00-

28-8

54 00 16

67 00 03

46 00 03

92 00

41 00

78 00

677/1226

676

765

764

766

767

769

770

775

777

778

780

774

822

781

821

820

787

926

51 00 20

53 00 02

34 00

80 00 04

0.0

10 00

79 00 06

8-9 00 09

29 00

56 00 02

73 00 02 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23, 1932

819

1) खडीपडार (निरंतर)

927

816

934

935

936

1023

1024

1025

995

996

997

998

994

2) सीको

438

437

431

430

428

413

412

414

416

407

399

392

196

178

133

151

130

129

127

128

126

125

123

100

101

1209 3

00 16

47 00 15

40 00

86 00

92 00 01 66 00

76 00

06 00

00 00

42 00 19

65 00

00 05

66 00 0.0

00 12

00 03

00 02

00 06

00 08

00 11

00 19

00 02

00 06

00 05

38. 00 34

00 00

00 09

00 02

00 18

00 04

26 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1210

2 1

2) सीको (निरंतर)

102

110

112

111

109

108

1879

1880

1886

106

105

103

1887

1895

1896

1897

1898

1899

1905

1904

1907

1908

1210 3) छीमा

1219

1220

1217

1164

1222

1221

1225

1163

1162

1227

1161

1160

1228

1229

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

91 04

58 12

39 01

00 00

63 13

89 00

95 01

00.

62 05

65 09

10 00

59 00 00

62 02

85 00

07 00 05

89 00

31 00 08

12 00 01

93 00

04 00 18 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माष 23 , 1932

1157 3) छीमा (निरंतर)

1156

196 4) नखापारा

197

198

385

386

381

199

200

380

379

378

371

370

369

365

346

347

359

364

358

348

349

350-

352

351

339

336

485

335

334

333

495

320

321

322

323

311

324 334GI /11-15

1211 4

00 21

95 00

30 00

00 00

58 00 00

00 03

00 00

00 06

00 00

00 03

00 02

00 03

35 00 05

00 00

00 02

00 00

00 02

00 03

00 00

00 04

00 00

00 01

87 1212

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

308

4) नखापारा (निरंतर)

1100

30.9

310

295

307

296

297

298

302

009

303

030

300

301

260

488

360

494

206

255

256

520

5) गौडियापाडा

521

320 00

522

519

вес

515

514

513

510

225

509

00 00

508

330

506

417

415

201

280

264

234

414

413

412

233

EXE

232

203

202

25 03

00 03

18 00 0166

86 0005

95 00 08

00 06

84 00

51 00

00 02

40 00 02

96 00

36 03

10 00

00 03

04 00 08 48 00 12

59 01

02 00

00 02

60 00 06

74 00 00

85 00 00

26 00 04

28 00 01

34 00 04

00 07

61 00

23 02

00 02

56 00

58 00 03

93 00 12

66 07

67 00 02

65 00

20 00

40 00 00

38 00 03

86 07

40 00

62 00

98 03 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

200

5) गौडियापाडा (निरंतर)

382

381

192

189

188

187

186

753

175

174

173.

172

171

170

336

335

334

313

312

314

309

282

281

348

6) ईन्डीपुर

350

351

353

354

358

355

356

357

608

284

611

279

281

283

282

1213

00 1040

00 07

63 00 00

00 05

93 00 03

07 00

00 02

10- 00

00 05

24 00

00 01

57 100

27 00 06

76 00

97 00 15

62 00 13

65 00 00

12 00年 20

65 00

01 00 02

01 00

81 00 06

01 00 00

49 00

07 00 01

73 00 00

40 00

80 00 00

13 00 02

46 00

28 00

00 1214

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

2 1

187

6) ईन्डीपुर (निरंतर)

188

203

202

189

190

201

191

192

200

199

194

193

195

173

198

197

196

170

169

168

[Part II-Sec , 3 (ii ) ]

32 00

00 06

75 : 00

50 00

54 00

70 00

36 00

25 00

76 00

20 00

60 00

जिला:नयागढ

मंडल/ तेहंसिल/ तालुक: रनपुर

1031

1 ) गौरचन्द्रपुर

1032

1035

1036

1024

1026

1025

304

303

301

300

280

281

282

285

283

284

274

267

राज्य:ओडिशा

76 00 08

25 00

00 00

10 00

34 00 04

62 00

25 00 06

98 00

11 00 12

85 00

00 25

87 00 05

32 00 08

74 00

00 15

07 00

00 53

26 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माब 23 , 1932

269 1 ) गौरचन्द्रपुर (निरंतर)

249

248

247

244

246

1942

230

231

245

229

176

179

180

182

183

189

190

1956

1969

958

1968

253 2) रानीगरीया

254

255

256

257

259

258

1237 3) रायपारा

735

737

1404

1215 3

65 00 00

02 00

00 02

81 00

87 00 04

48 00

10 00

97 00

24 00 00

10- 00

12 00

28 00

36 23

85 20

05 00 16

55 11

99 00

57 00 01

65 14

97 00

29 00

12 00

71 00 10

05 00 00

14 07

86 00

10 00

93 00

53 09

00 00

78 00 00

11 00 07

64 00

37 19

42 01

31 00 22

66 01

15 00 08

58 00 01

61 [Part II Sec. 3 ( u) ] 1216

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

00 (02 ) 87

736

3) रायपारा (निरंतर)

00 0.1

591

590

TAC

589

584

00 00

585

00 11

583

581.

582

579

est

86 00

575

578

576

574

573

572

00 08

571

570

564

569

00 02

25 00

568

565

00 00

1304

00 01

539

1303

540

541

530

00 00

532

533

12 1569

534

538

535

502

504

198

00 02

505

506

00 26

475

472

471 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

473

3) रायपारा (निरंतर)

405

406

407

410

411

954

4) नकीथाना

950

955

956

960

948

947

946

2001

1074

945

944

943

942

937

936

975

932

1144

931

1081

965

966

1013

1017

1011

1010

1008

1002

1001

1000

990

999

991

992

1217 4

000670 00 03

24 00

35 00 06

07 22

01 00

23 00

08 00

10 06

55 05

28 00

81 00 00

33 00

55 00

65 12

38 00

97 00 08

83 00

15 00

84 00

42 00

77 00 00

21 00

25 00

16 00 04

00 05

74 00

48 00

03 13

47 00 04

00 23

89 00 06

90 00 05

68 00

90 00

55 05

00 0362 00 00

68 01

00 06

59 1218

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

995

4) नकीथाना (निरंतर)

994

993

984

983

971

972

855

854

973

834-

833

721

722

1058

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

1125

702

701

700

699

698

1139

685

686

687

688

689

679

669

1158

5) बरंग गडीया

1157

1087

1107

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ] 3

14 08

80 00 03 35 00 05

73 00

11 01

53 00 03

54 00

58 13

10 00 00

00 51

21 01

67 00

42 54

07 45

00 00

20 00

12 03

92 00 07

87 00

54 00

81 09

89 00 04

58 00

10 .00

00 02

82 00 00

51 00

96 04

84 09

00 06

08 00 00

10 00 02

54 00 00

52 04

66 00

15 04

72 09

53 00 00

42 00

49 00

53 01

91 92

87 00

07 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/मार्च 23, 1932

1135

5) बरंग गडीया (निरंतर)

1136

1134

1133

1217

1112

1130

1113

545

544

539

1216.

1736

6) झरापारा

1741

1740

1739

1737

1738

1766

1765

1764

1767

1768

1771

1770

1774

1775

1776

1779

1778

1783

1785

1786

1794

1787

1788

1806

1801

1796

1797

334Gl/11-16

1219 3

00 13

15 00

47 01

35 00 07

35 00 12

16 00 12

93 00 00

42 00. 04

60 23

02 10

62 07

03 13

86 13

39 00

63 00 12

73 00 36

73 00

42 04

00 00

79 00

00 05

54 00 03

52 00 03

28 00 07

09 00 01

98 00

00 06

00 14

00 00

00 15

00 1220

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1795

6) झरापारा (निरंतर)

1041

1040

1043

1039

1038

1036

1035

1037

1033

1032

1031

1009

1011

1010

942

941

940

642

641

640

594

597

612

622

613

611

610

609

593

614

599

607

606

603

602

432

359

393

430

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii)] 3

41 19

00 03-

59 07

32 00

58 11

00 00

82 00 01

70 03

58 00 02

59 00 02

40 00 07

54 13

63 00

06 02

86 02

66 00

10 00

10 00 00

00 05

80 00

35 00

09 01

59 03

87 00 02

00 00

89 00

75 00 03

12 01

88 00 09

65 00 00

14 01

79 00

00 01

03 00

96 15

50 09

13 00

64 00

17 00 08

99 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

431 6) झरापारा (निरंतर)

429

428

408

407

409

406

410

405

411-

412

414

413

404

401

125

400

415

398

652 7) बोकाखाई

651

7 8 ) जोकागरीया

1221 3

00 04

78 00

36 00 08

89 00

76 00. 00

80 00

35 02

57 03

34 00 04

05 00 03

05 00 02

45 00 03

08 02

59 00

35 00 03

35 03

01 00 02

60 00 00

90 00 04

98 00 16

61 00 46

68 00 01

52 00 05

86 00

50 00

41 00 00

10 00

05 00

33 00

81 00 04

83 00 04

58 00

59 00 00

73 07

23 00 06

78 00 00

83 22

23 00

07 00

67 00

19 1222

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

2 1

8) सोकमरीधी (निरंतर)

757

9) संत्रापुर

685

736

735

734

732

733

730

731

701

728

727

726

725

724

720

723

721

722

702

1703

710

709

711

713

712

708

707

534

535

532

533

531

528

527

524

523

926

10) नतीम

[Part 11-Sec. 3(U) );

66 00 03 05 09

48 12

75 00 03 50 06 15

92 00 15 00

40 00 01

04 06 00

29 08

18 00 15 58 00 00

10 00 00 48 02

24 00

00 01

53 00 01

72 00

52 GO

00 01

75 00

27 02.

00 01.

86 00 00

10 00

19 00

00 11

28 00 03

79 00 19

75 01

39 00

00 00

14 00

56 00 00

15 00 00

51 13

56 00

10 04

00 00

50 00

79 00

35 00 08

00 01

51 00

91 15 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1223

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

114 10) नसीम (निरंतर)

115

116

117

118

113

112

111

110

109.

159

43 3

00 09

34 00 02

24 00 02

61 00 05

99 00 03

49 00

00 09

54. 00

00 01

48 00

11 08 00 02

87 00 28

98 00

98 00 05

88 00 03

17 00

00 08

20 00 03

34 00

15 00

86 00 05

32 00 02

68 00 02

१०

[फा सं. एल. -14014/62/2010-जी.पी. ] के .के.शर्मा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S. O. 432.- Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/s Reliance Industries Limited to consumers in various parts of the country , Kakinada Basudebpur - Howrah pipeline should be laid by M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited;

And whereas , it appears to Government of India that for the purpose of laying such pipeline, it is necessary to acquire the Right of User in land under which the said pipeline is proposed to be laid and which are described in the Schedule annexed hereto ;

Now, therefore , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land ) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) , Government of India hereby declares its intention to acquire the Right of User therein;

1224

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty-one days from the date on which the copies of the notification as published in the Gazette of India under sub-section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the said Act, are made available to the general public, object in writing to the acquisition of the Right of User therein for laying the pipeline under the land to Shri Braja Kishore Panda, Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, 1st Floor, Fortune Tower, Chandrasekharpur, Bhubaneswar 751023 , Orissa State.

Schedule

District: Khorda Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Begunia

State: Orissa

Area tobe acquired for

SurveyNo./Sub-Division

Village

2 1

517

1) Khadipadar

518

527

526

525

519

520

523

524

522

530

521

534

535

541

536

540

542

543

544

545

546

547

548

550

552

551

562

563

564

574

575

577

576

593

594

605

C-Are Hec

Are

43 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23, 1932

2 1) Khadipadar ( Contd)

608

606

609

607

616

1245

669

633

634

668

652

653

666

654

665

679

680

678

682

754

677

677/1226

676

765

764

766

767

769

770

775

777

778

780

774

822

781

821

820

787

926

1225 3

02. 34

73 1226

[Part 11-Sec. 3 (1)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23, 1932

2 1

819

1) Khadipadar (Contd)

927

816

934

935

936

1023

1024

1025

995

996

997

998

994

438

2) Siko

437

431

430

428

413

412

414

416

407

399

392

196

178

133

130

129

127

128

126

125

123

100

101 4

16:0

00.

100

00:

00 19 年

00: 04

00.

00 06

30 35

$00

007

11.

10 00 09

60 10

00 60

14 02

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /भाष 23 , 1932

2 1

2) Siko (Contd)

102

110

112

111

109

108

1879

1880

1886

106

105

103

1887

1895

1896

1897

1898

1899

1905

1904

1907

1908

1210 3) Chhima

1219

1220

1217

1164

1222

1221

1225

1163

1162

1227

1161

1160

1228

1229 334 GI /11-17

1227 4

04 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

1228

2 1

1157 3) Chhima (Contd)

1156

196

4) Nakhapara

197

198

385

386

381

199

200

380

379

378

371

370

369

365

346

347

359

364

358

348

349

350

352

351

339

336

485

335

334

333

495

320

321

322

323

311-

324.

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii)]

: 01

00 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

308 4) Nakhapara (Contd)

309

310

295

307

296

297

298

302

303

300

301

260

488

494

255

256

520 5) Gaudiapada

521

522

519

515

514

513

510

509

508

506

417

415

280-

264

234

414

413

412

233

232.

203

202

1229

98 1230

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 / MAGHA23 , 1932

200

5) Gaudiapada(Contd)

382

381

192

189

188

187.

186

753

175

174

173

172

171

170

336

335

334

313

312

314

309

282

281

348

6) Indipur

350

351

353

354

358

355

356

357

608

284

611

279

281

283

282

[Part II-Sec. 3( ii ) ] 3

12-

07 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

2 6) Indipur (Contd)

187

188

203

202

189

190

201

191

192

200

199

194

193

195

173

198

197

196

170

169

168 Mandal/ Tehsil/ Taluk: Ranpur

District:Nayagarh

1031 1) Gaurchandrapur

1032

1035

1036

1024

1026

1025

304

303

301

300

280

281

282

285

283

284

274

267

1231 3

00.

02.

State:Orissa

26 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

1232

2 1

269

1) Gaurchandrapur (Contd)

249

248

247

244

246

1942

230

231

245

229

176

179

180

182

183

189

190

1956

1969

958

1968

253 2) Ranigaria

254

255

256

257

259

258

1237 3) Raipara

735

737

1404

[Part II-Sec. 3(il) ]

00 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माम 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

736

3) Raipara (Contd)

591

590

589

584

585

583

581

582

579

575

578

576

574

573

572

571

570

564

569

568

565

1304

539

1303

540

541

530

532

533

534

538

535

502

504

505

506

475

472.

471

1233

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

1234

2 1

473

3) Raipara (Contd)

405

406

407

410

411

954

4) Nakithana

950

955

956

960

948

947

946

1074

945

944

943

942

937

936

975

932

1144

931

1081

965

966

1013

1017

1011

1010

1008

1002

1001

1000

990

999

991

992

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) )

.00

00 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932,

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

995

4) Nakithana (Contd )

994

993

984

983

971

972

855

854

973

834

833

721

722

1058

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

1125

702

701

700

699

698

1139

685

686

687

688

689

679

669

1158 5) Barang Gadia

1157

1087

1107 334GI/11-18

1235

60 14

.00

Continued.... 1.4 1236

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

2 5) Barang Gadia(Contd)

1135

1136

1134

1133

1217

1112

1130

1113

545

544

539

1216

1736 6) Jharapara

1741

1740

1739

1737

1738

1766

1765

1764

1767

1768

1771

1770

1774

1775

1776

1779

1778

1783

1785

1786

1794

1787

1788

1806

1801

1796

1797

[Part II-Sec.3(11)] 4

00 01

00 03

91 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2011 /माथ 23, 1932

2 6) Jharapara (Contd)

1795

1041

1040

1043

1039

1038

1036

1035

1037

1033

1032

1031

1009

1011

1010

942

941

940

642

641

640

594

597

612

622

613

611

610

609

593

614

599

607

606

603

602

432

359

393

430

5 00

41 00

59 00

58 00

00 00

82 00

59 00 02

40 00

63 00

86 00

58 00

10 00

63 00

00 80

35 00

09 00

59 00

87 00

89 00

75 00

88 00

65 00

10 00

14 00

79 00

50 00 09

13 00

17 00

99 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

1238

431

6) Jharapaca (Comp

429

428

408

407

409

406

410

405

411

412

414

413

404

401

125

400

415

398

652 7) Bol

651

8) Jokia

[Part II-Sec. 3(1 )

00 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

4 8) Jokagaria (Contd)

757 9) Santarapur

685

736

735

734

732

733

730

731

701

728

727

726

725-

724

720

723

721

722

702

703

710

709

711

713

712

708

707

534

535

532

533

531

528

527

524

523

926 10) Natim

1239

91 1240

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

114

10) Natim (Contd)

115

116

117

118

113

112

111

110

109

159

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ] 3

02- 61

[F. No. L-14014/62/2010-G.P. ] K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 10 फरवरी, 2011

का. आ. 433.- भारत सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम, 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है ) की धारा 3 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का. आ . 1534, तारीख 08 जून , 2009 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में, मैसर्स रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए , मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा- वासुदेवपुर- हावडा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और , उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 16 अक्तूबर, 2010 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और , पाइपलाइन बिछाने के सम्बन्ध में, जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्नात कर दिया गया;

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

और , भारत सरकार ने, उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय विकल है ;

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माथ 23 , 1932

1241 अतः, अव, भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, यह घोषणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और, भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा ।

अनुसूची मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: पेन्दुर्ति

जिला:विशाखापट्नम

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं.

5/1

1) पिनागडी

7/1

27/2

27/3

27/4

2 ) गोरपल्लि

23/2

23/3

23/4

23/5

37/ 2एफ

32/3 ई

32/3एफ

32/3सी

32/3जी

32/3एच

32/4ए

32/5सी

32/5वी

32/6सी

32/6बी

32/6ए

32/7वी

राज्य: आन्ध्र प्रदेश

आर.ओ.यू.अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सिएयर 3

01 46

.71

00 06

00 05

00 02

00 01

00 00

सर्वेन . 32/6सी और 32/ 17ए के बीच में

सर्वे न . 32/ 6ए और 32/17वी के बीच में

32/17ए

32/17वी

32/18ए

32/18वीं 00 02

सर्वे न . 32/7बी और 32/ 12ए के बीच में

32/12जी 00

64 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1242

2 1

32/12एच 2 ) गोरपल्लि (निरंतर).

32/12एफ

32/12ई

33/19डी

33/19सी

32/12सी

32/12डी

33/19ए

33/19बी

33/19ई

33/19एफ

33/19जी

33/19एच

33/19के

33/19जे

33/19आई

33/18डी

33/18ई

33/11बी

33/11सी

33/20

29/1सी

29/1डी

29/1ड़ी

29/1एच

29/3ई

29/3डी

29/1जी

29/1एफ

29/3एफ

29/3सी

29/3बी

29/4

29/7ए

29/7बी

29/7डी

29/7ई

92/5

92/6

92/3

92/4

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

00 00

00 02

00 01

00 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /भाष 23 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

2 ) गोरपल्लि (निरंतर)

85/13

85/15

85/14

85/12

85/11

85/10

85/9

85/4

84/4ए

84/1एफ

84/1जी

84/1 ई

84/1डी

84/1सी

84/1 दी

84/1 ए

84/2ए

84/2सी

84/4ई

78/9वी

78/9सी

78/9ड़ी

78/13वी

78/13ई

78/13ए

78/13सी

78/13डी

78/12वी

78/12ए

80/6

80/5

32/1

3 ) सरिपल्लि

34/4

34/3

34/5

34/1

31/3

31/2 334GI /11-19

1243

00 03

: 10

00 04

00 1244

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

31/1

3 ) सरिपल्लि (निरंतर)

30/8

30/9

30/15

30/16

30/14

30/17

30/13

29/11

29/12

29/13

29/10

29/9

29/8

29/15

29/14

29/6

29/5

29/4

28/1

28/2

27/10

27/11

27/13

27/14

27/8

27/18

27/7

27/4

27/5

27/6

19/3ए

19/3बी

168/4

167/10

167/9

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii)] 3

00 02

00 05

00 07

00 00

00 04

00 01

00 05

00 04

00 02

00 09

00 05

00 06

00 08

02.

167/12

167/13

167/6

67 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माथ 23 , 1932

166/3 3 ) सरिपल्लि (निरंतर)

166/4

166/2

166/1

166/11

166/12

166/10

166/13

189

188/3

188/2

188/4

188/5

188/6

187/5

188/15

187/6

187/7

188/16

188/17

187/11

197/1

200/2

198/3

198/4

198/2

198/1

198/7

198/8

198/11

198/10

198/9

199/4

1:99/5

199/6

199/9

199/3

199/2

199/10

206

207/1

207/2

1245 3

00 00

00 18

00 07

00 04

00 00

63 1246

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

2 1

208/7वी 3) सरिपल्लि (निरंतर)

208/8

208/9वी

208/12

208/11

211

209/14

209/15

209/16

209/17

210

205

149/1 4) मुदपाका

149/2

148/5

150/1

147/13

150/2

147/14

147/12

138/1

147/11

138/3ए

138/3वी

138/2

138/7ए

[Part II-Sec . 3( ii) ]

00 00

00 08

00 09

08.

139/22

139/23 )

139/24

139/27

139/13

139/25

139/26

139/28

139/12

139/11

139/10

127/2

122

119/6

121

123/10

00 01

00 05

01 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माथ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

123/9 4) मुदपाका (निरंतर)

123/8

123/7

123/5

123/4

123/6

124/4

193

194/1

197/4

198/1

198/2

198/3

201

202/10 डी

202/10ए

202/10सी

202/9वी

202/9 ए

202/8सी

202/8 ए

202/8वी

202/1

209

200

210/1वी

210/1 ए

89/6

89/5

89/4

89/2

89/1

1247 4

00 27

00 08

00 05

94.

00 06

00 11

04.

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:विशाखापट्नम

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: आनंदपुरम

1 रामावरम

63 1248

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

2 1

3/1

1 ) रामावरम (निरंतर)

7/1

6/2

6/3

100/1

2 ) गोरिन्टा

39/7

39/8

39/9

39/6

39/5

39/4

39/1

39/2

39/3

37/9

37/15

37/16

37/19

48/8

37/17

37/18

48/2

48/1

49/4

49/5

58/3

58/2

58/10

58/8

58/4

58/7

58/6

58/5

61/2

60/1

61/4

71/15

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( il) ] 4

00 05

00 02

00 08

00 03

00 02

00 00

00 01

00 02

10 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माष 23, 1932

71/16 2 ) गोरिन्टा (निरंतर)

71/17

70/5

70/4

70/6

70/8

70/7

70/14

70/13

70/12

70/9

70/10

70/11

70/15

70/16

70/17

97/4

98/5

98/7

103/1

97/9

97/5

97/8

98/2

98/3

94/1

94/2

94/3

93/1

90/2

89/4

89/3

3 ) गिडिजाला

63/8

63/7

63/6

63/5

63/4

1249

00.

00 08

71 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23, 1932

1250

63/3

3 ) गिडिजाला (निरंतर )

63/2

63/1

52/4

51/11

51/10

50/7

50/6

50/5

50/4

49/9

49/8

49/2

49/1

49/3

49/4

49/5

6/21

7/22

7/17

6/13

7/16

7/18

7/19

7/20

7/21

7/13

7/12

7/11

7/10

36/3

36/2

36/9

36/13

36/10

36/11

36/12

36/16

35/4

35/5

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii)]

00 15

00 02

00 14

00 09

00 01

00 04

41.

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

35/11 3 ) गिडिजाला (निरंतर)

35/12

35/13

35/17

35/19

35/20

38/1

38/2

38/4

38/7

38/8

41/1

41/2

41/3

41/8

41/7

41/11

41/12

41/15

41/16

114/14

114/13

114/2

114/3

114/4

114/1

115/17

115/10

115/11

115/12

115/13

115/14

115/1

123/9

123/8

123/10

123/11

123/21

123/20

123/18

123/22 334GI/11-20

1251 3

00 09

00 08

00 00

00 09

20 00

00 24

00 12

00 06

00 03

00 06

00 05

00 06

00 07

00 06

00 03

00 23

00 01

00 15

00 01

00 00

00 02

00 06

00 07

54 [Part II-Sec. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1252

124/1

3 ) गिडिजाला (निरंतर)

124/11

124/12

124/13

124/15

001

124/14

00 08

124/9

128/1

00 .

128/6

127/4

12.7/5

127/14

127/15

127/6

127/9

127/8

127/7

00 08

127/10

127/11

127/12

00 02

159/1

مع 00 11

159/2

00 01

159/6

159/7

00 00

159/17

सर्वे नंबर 159/7 और 159/13 के बीच में

00 05

159/8

159/13

04.

159/9

00 06

159/11

159/10

160/2

1.26

00 09

160/1

160/5

161/4

161/5

00*

161/6

161/8

161/3

161/2

161/10

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

161/11 3 ) गिडिजाला (निरंतर)

161/12

162

171/1

171/2

171/3

171/4

171/5

171/7

171/8

171/9

171/10

171/11

171/12

171/13

175

170/1

172

173

59/14

59/2

59/1

57/2

49/5

49/4

50/1

50/2

50/3

50/4

50/5

50/9

32/2

1253 3

00 03

00 04

00.

00 30

62 1254

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii)] 1

00 05

57 ) मुच्चर्ला (निरंतर)

00 45

32 5) कनमम

[फा सं. एरुः-14014/31/2010-जी.पी. (खण्ड-1 )]

के.के .शर्मा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S. O. 433.- Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1534 dated 08th June , 2010, issued under sub-section (1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 ( 50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Kakinada Basudebpur-Howrah gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited by M/ s Relogistics Infiastructure Limited tothe consumers in various parts of the country;

And whereas, the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 16th October ,2010;

And whereas , the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

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

And whereas , Government of India, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the Right of User therein;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub -section ( 1) of Section 6 of the saidAct , Government of India hereby declares that the Right of User in the land, specified in the Schedule, appended to this notification, is hereby acquired for laying the pipeline;

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in Government of India, vest on the date ofpublication of thedeclaration, in M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, free from all encumbrances [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

1255

Schedule

Mandal/ Tehsil/Taluk: Pendurthi

District: Visakhapatnam

Village

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

5/1 1 ) Pinnagadi

7/1

27/2

27/3

27/4

28 2 ) Gorapalli

23/2

23/3

23/4

23/5

37/2F

32/3E

32/ 3F

32/3C

32/3G

32/3H

32/4A

32/5C

32/5B

32/6C

32/6B

32/6A

32/7B State: ANDHRA PRADESH Area to be acquired for RoU Hec

Are

C-Are 3

Inbet. Suy no . 32/6C & 32/ 17A

Inbet. Suy no . 32/ 6A & 32/ 17B

32/17A

32/17B

32/18A

32/18B

In bet. Suy no . 32/7B & 32/12A

32/ 12G 00

64 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

1256

2 1

32/ 12H 2) Gorapalli (Contd)

32/12F

32/ 12E

33/19D

33/19C

32/12C

32/12D

33 /19A

33/19B

33/19E

33/19F

33/19G

33/19H

33/19K

33/19J

33/191

33/18D

33/18E

33/11B

33/11C

33/20

29/1C

29/1B

29/1D

29/1H

29/3E

29/3D

29/1G

29/1F

29/3F

29/3C

29/3B

29/4

29/7A

29/7B

29/7D

29/7E

92/5

92/6

92/3

92/4

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( H)】

01.

16 00

28 01

48 03

10 00

00 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

2) Gorapelli (Contd)

85/13

85/15

85/14

85/12

85/11

85/10

85/9

85/4

84/4A

84/1F

84/1G

84/ 1E

84/1D

84/ 1C

84/1B

84/ 1A

84/2A

84/2C

84/4E

78/9B

78/9C

78/9D

78/13B

78/ 13A

78/13C

78/13D

78/12B

78/12A

80/6

80/5

32/1

3 ) Saripalli

34/4

34/3

34/5

34/1

31/3

31/2

1257 3

.00

01 1258

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

31/1

3 ) Saripalli (Contd)

30/8

30/9

30/15

30/16

30/14

30/17

30/13

29/11

29/12

29/13

29/10

29/9

29/8

29/15

29/14

29/6

29/5

29/4

28/1

28/2

27/10

27/11

27/13

27/14

27/8

27/18

27/7

27/4

27/5

27/6

19/3A

19/3B

168/4

167/10

167/9

167/12

167/13

167/6

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)]

08.

07.

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माष 23 , 1932

2 3) Saripalli ( Contd)

166/3

166/4

166/2

166/1

166/11

166/12

166/10

166/13

189

188/3

188/2

188/4

188/5

188/6

187/5

188/15

187/6

187/7

188/16

188/17

187/11

197/1

200/2

198/3

198/4

198/2

198/1

198/7

198/8

198/11

198/10

198/9

199/4

199/5

199/6

199/9

199/3

199/2

199/10

206

207/1

207/2

334GI /11-21

1259 3

00 00

00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1260

208/7B 3) Saripalli (Contd)

208/8

208/9B

208/12

208/11

211

209/14

209/15

209/16

209/17

210

205

149/1 4 ) Mudapaka

149/2

148/5

150/1

147/13

150/2

147/14

147/12

138/1

147/11

138/3A

138/3B

138/2

138/7A

139/22

139/23

139/24

139/27

139/13

139/25

139/26

139/28

139/12

139/11

139/10

127/2

122

119/6

121

123/10

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ]

35 26

72 06

25 00

27.

83 00

30 00

75 00

89 00

65 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) )

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

2 4) Mudapaka (Contd)

123/9

123/8

123/7

123/5

123/4

123/6

124/4

193

194/1

197/4

198/1

198/2

198/3

201

202/10B

202/ 10A

202/10C

202/9B

202/9A

202/8C

202/8A

202/8B

202/1

209

200

210/1B

210/1A

89/6

89/5

89/4

89/2

89/1

1 Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Anandapuram District: Visakhapatnam

38 1 ) Ramavaram

1261

5 04

State: ANDHRA PRADESH 35

63 1262

[Part II-Sec.3(10) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23, 1932

3/1

1 ) Raamavaram (Conad)

7/1

6/2

6/3

100/1

2 ) Gorinta

39/7

39/8

39/9

39/6

39/5

39/4

39/1

39/2

39/3

37/9

37/15

37/16

37/19

48/8

37/17

37/18

48/2

48/1

49/4

49/5

58/3

58/2

58/10

58/8

58/4

58/7

58/6

58/5

61/2

60/1

61/4

71/15

00 05

00 90

28.

10 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माब 23, 1932

2 2) Gorinta(Comed).

71/16

71/17

70/5

70/4

70/6

70/8

70/7

70/14

70/13

70/12

70/9

70/10

70/11

70/15

70/16

70/17

97/4

98/5

98/7

103/1

97/9

97/5

97/8

98/2

98/3

94/1

94/2

94/3

93/1

90/2

89/4

89/3 3 ) Gidijala

63/8

63/7

63/6

63/5

63/4

1263 3

5 00

71 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1264

2 1

63/3

3) Gidijala ( Contd)

63/2

63/1

52/4

51/11

51/10

50/7

50/6

50/5

50/4

49/9

49/8

49/2

49/1

49/3

49/4

49/5

6/21

7/22

7/17

6/13

7/16

7/18

7/19

7/20

7/21

7/13

7/12

7/11

7/10

36/3

36/2

36/9

36/13

36/10

36/11

36/12

36/16

35/4

35/5

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii))

01-

13 00

92 00

22 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

35/11 3) Gidijala ( Contd)

35/12

35/13

35/17

35/19

35/20

38/1

38/2.

38/4

38/7

38/8

41/1

41/2

41/3

41/8

41/7

41/11

41/12

41/15

41/16

114/14

114/13

114/2

114/3

114/4

114/1

115/17

115/10

115/11

115/12

115/13

115/14

115/1

123/9

123/8

123/10

123/11

123/21

123/20

123/18

123/22

1265 3

54 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1266

124/1 3) Gidijala (Contd)

124/11

124/12

124/13-

124/15

124/14

124/9

128/1

128/6

127/4

127/5

127/14

127/15

127/6

127/9

127/8

127/7

127/10

127/11

127/12

159/1

159/2

159/6

159/7

159/17

[Part II-Sec. 3( il)]

5 3

82 00

00 : 08

98 00

53 00

14 00

85 00

Inbet suy no. 159/7 & 159/13

159/8

159/13

159/9

159/11

159/10

160/2

126

160/1

160/5

161/4

161/5

161/6

161/8

161/3

161/2

161/10

41 00

54 00 06

36 00

28 00

52 00

88 00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

2 3) Gidijala ( Contd)

161/11

161/12

162

171/1

171/2

171/3

171/4

171/5

171/7

171/8

171/9

171/10

171/11

171/12

171/13

175

170/1

172

173 4 ) Muchcherla

59/14

59/2

59/1

57/2

49/5

49/4

50/1

50/2

50/3

50/4

50/5

50/9

32/2

19 334GI/11-22

1267 3

00.

27.

62 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

268

4) Muchcheia (Cont

२८

Kamam 20

5 )

τα

[F. No. L- 14014/31 /2010-GP. (Vol . -II )] K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी, 2011

00 28 434.0 का. आ. 434. भारत सरकार ने, पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन ) 00 01 अधिनियम, 1962 (1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा (1 ) देस के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का .आ .1533, तारीख 08 ४६ जून , 2000 द्वारा, उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मैसर्स रिलायंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए, ०६.मैसर्स रिलॉजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेवपुर-हावडा गैस पाइपलाइन बिछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए ४० उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ; 80 00

02 30 00 sladadou ( और, उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 12 अक्तूबर, 2010 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा २९दी गई थीं ६० 00

और, पाइपलाइन बिछार्म के सम्बन्ध में , जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है ** और अननुजलात कर दिया गया; 12

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

20 00 90 और , भारतु सरकार ने उक्त रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चातु और यह संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन 8बिछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

2102

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

18 00 और, भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप- धारा (4) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोषणा के प्रकाशप्त की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए, सभी विल्लंधमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii)]

भारत का प्राय : फरवरी 12 / 2011 /माम: 23× 19320 JITANADA

अनुसूची

enca

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक ४ आनंदपुरम

onsa

जिला:विशाखापट्नम

गाँव का नाम

सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं

आर.ओ.यू.अर्जित करने के लिए बेतफल

हेक्टेयर

सिएयर

एयर

56/1

1) बकुरूपालेम

47/26

Trica

00 00

47/25

00 01

47/24

47/23

87180-

00 02

47/21

00. 00

47/20

47/22

٢١٤٥

47/17

47/15

47/14

61/6

61/3

61/5

61/7

.00

(N)

61/8

00 01

61/9

00 00

61/19

00 02

61/10

61/2

61/1

61/11

61/12

61/13

00 05

62/18

62/22

62/21

62/20

62/19

62/17

62/16

62/29

188

62/15

62/14

62/13 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23, 1932

1270

2 1

62/12 1 ) वकुरूपालेम (निरंतर )

62/10

62/8

62/7

62/5

62/6

63/24

63/23

63/25

63/26

63/17

63/27

63/28

63/16

63/13

63/14

63/7

63/6.

63/5

63/4

63/15

63/3

63/2

63/1

64/1

41/36

41/35

41/34

41/14.

41/13

41/12

41/11

41/10

41/9

41/8

41/7

41/6

65/8

65/5

65/4

65/2

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii )] 4

00 06

00 01

00 05

00 02

06.

00 05

10 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

65/1 1 ) बकुरूपालेम (निरंतर)

38/7

38/6

38/3

38/4

38/1

104 2 ) कुसुलवाडा

106

140

139

138

136

133

129/7

129/8

129/9

129/10

129/11

129/12

129/13

130/1

128/10

127

125/2

125/3

125/5

125/6

125/7

125/8

156/10

156/11

156/12

156/13

156/14

156/15

156/16

156/17

156/19

156/20

1271

00.

00 01

00 00

18 1272

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA

156/21 कुसुलवाडा (निरंतर )

156/22

156/23 Vi

156/24

156/25

157/1

157/2

157/3

157/4

157/5

157/6

157/11

157/12

157/13

212

210

209

208

207

206/1

203

204

201/1.

201/2

200

189/2

189/2/1

189/3

189/4

189/5

189/6

189/7

189/8

189/9

189/12

190

00 00 185/4

185/5

185/8

188/1

188/2

185/9

FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23, 1932

[Part II Sec. 3 (ii )]

54 1188

8188

00 00

10 00

86 1188

00 02

58 00

01 ۱۳ 00 01

20..

001

00 . 90 00

139

133

elest

smesr

omast

00 15

00 18

east

00 00

thaei

sriaat

00 01

00 00

alaar

aladr

enaer 00

00 00

10 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत की राजपत्र फरवरी 12, 2011 /माथ 23 , 1932 / SAD

185/10

2 ) कुसुलवाडा (निरंतर)

186/1/ए

186/1/बी

186/4

195

3 ) बोनि

177

148

141

81867

140

B001273 AY

00 3563

00 20

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

जिला:विशाखापट्नम

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: प‌द्मानाभाम

305

पन्डरन्गी

269/2

269/1

265

264/2

elear

271/2

271/1

$ 100 !

264/1

272

hear

260/3

260/1

261/5

261/4

261/1

261/6

257/1

130/3

alear

130/7

131/12

81001

131/11

alrar

131/10

131/13

131/14

131/9

131/8

suat

131/5

131/6

...

131/4

131/18

131/3

131/1

SACH

131/2

142/2

00 69

00 03

00 00

00 01

00 03

00 00

02 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

1274

2 1

134/1

) पन्डरन्गी (निरंतर )

135

140/17

140/16

136/9

136/7

136/10

136/8

136/6

136/5

136/4

137

169/17

169/15

169/16

169/19

169/14

169/12

169/1बी

169/11

169/2ए

169/1 ए

169/3ए

169/4

168

159/3

159/4

159/5

159/9

159/8

161/6

159/7

161/5

161/4

161/1

161/2

161/3

118/3

162/1

162/2

117/1

117/12

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ]

00 02,

00 10

00 01

00 11

00 03

00 18

00 10

00 [भाग II- खण्ड3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

2 1) पन्डरन्गी (निरंतर)

117/9

117/8

117/7

117/6

117/3

117/2

117/4

117/5

112/12

112/11

112/13

112/8

112/7

112/6

112/3

111/2

114

113

99/1

100/21

101/2

101/1

101/3

101/4

101/5

101/8

102

88/4

88/5

89/2

85/1

85/4

42/1

2 ) वेन्कटापुरम

42/6

42/7

334GI/11-23

1275 3

00 00

00 01

00 00

00 02

36.

00 01

00 05

88 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1276

2 1

42/8

2) वेन्कटापुरम (निरंतर )

41/4

41/3

41/5

41/2

41/1

41/6

41/7

41/8

41/9

41/10

41/11

40/16

40/17

2/23

2/19

2/18

40/1

241

3 ) कोराडा

242

254

253/8

253/9

253/10

253/13

253/14

253/7

253/6

252/1

252/2

251

250/4

250/5

65/16

65/15

65/14

65/7

65/5

[Part II Sec. 3(il)]

00 18

00 00

00. 31

00 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932.

65/13 3 ) कोराडा (निरंतर)

65/12

65/11

65/10

65/8

65/9

64/13

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: भीमुनिपटनम

जिला:विशाखापट्नम

21/2

1 दाकामरी

22/1

22/3

सर्वेन . 22/3 और 26/1 के बीच में

26/1

27/7

27/8

27/6

27/4

35/11

35/3

35/2

35/1

35/9

32/13

32/14

27/1

33/4

33/5

33/6

33/7

33/8

33/11

14/13

14/14

87/13

87/1

88/2

88/7

88/9

88/6

1277 3

00 02

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

10.

00 13

00 20

14 [Part Il Sec. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23, 1932

1278

2 1

88/5

) वाकागरी (निरंतर)

88/4

88/10

88/11

90/8

90/9

90/15

90/14

90/17

90/16

90/18

91/12

91/13

91/16

91/14

91/8

91/7

91/6

99/1

98/17

98/16

98/14

98/7

98/13

98/12

105

106/1

106/2

106/3

107

108/1

108/2

108/3

212

201/1

201/2

201/3

201/4

199/5

199/4

199/3

00 02

00 14

00 03

00 08

00 04

00 02

00 04

00 .

00 07

00 03

00 01

00 03

00 00

00 18

00 14

00.

00 08

00 36

00 06

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

199/6 1 ) दाकामरी (निरंतर)

199/2

199/1

199/10

199/8

199/9

198/1

198/2

216

217

218

219/12

219/5

219/11

219/10

219/8

219/7

243

348

244/8

244/9

244/10

244/6

244/4

244/5

245 .

246/7

246/4

246/5

246/6

246/8

246/9

260/3

260/1

252

256/3

257

269/2

268/1

269/6

269/4

269/5

1279 3

00 00

00-

00 08

00 .

02 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1280

2 1

273

1 ) दाकामरी (निरंतर)

272/3

272/4

274

2 ) बोडामेट्टापालेम

72/10

72/11

72/12

72/14

72/13

72/9

72/8

72/7

72/6

72/4

72/3

72/1

72/2

64/7

64/6

64/2

64/3

64/1

65/16

65/17

58/5

58/4

58/3

58/2

58/1

57/4

57/3

57/6

57/2

57/5

57/11

57/9

56/10

56/17

56/18

56/19

56/20

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii)]

00 07

28-

00 04

00 00

10.

00 00

00 04

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माष 23 , 1932

56/16 2 ) वोडामेट्टापालेम (निरंतर)

56/13

56/14

56/15

55/3

55/1

50/9

50/8

50/7

50/6

50/21

50/20

50/22

50/19

50/18

50/17

50/15

54/2

54/7

54/6

1281 3

10:

00 00

47.

89 .

00.

00 38

[फा सं. एल.-14014/31/2010 जी.पी. (खण्ड-II ) ]

के.के .शर्मा , अवर सचिव

Ne. Lemi , the 10th February, 2011

S. O. 434.- Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1533 dated 08th June , 2010 , issued under sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act ), Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Kakinada -Basudebpur- Howrah gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/ s Reliance Industries Limited by M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country;

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 12th October,2010;

And whereas , the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

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

And whereas , Government of India, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the Right of User therein;

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

1282

[Part II-Sec. 3 (i)) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

And further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for layingthe pipeline shall , instead of vesting in Government of India, vest on the date of publication of the declaration, in M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, free from all encumbrances

Schedule

State: ANDHRA PRADESH

District:Visakhapatnam

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Anandapuram

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

56/1

1 ) Bakurupalem

47/26

47/25

47/24

47/23

47/21

47/20

47/22

47/17

47/15

47/14

61/6

61/3

61/5

61/7

61/8

61/9

61/19

61/10

61/2

61/1

61/11

61/12

61/13

62/18

62/22

62/21

62/20

62/19

62/17

62/16

62/29

62/15

62/14

62/13 Area to be acquired for Rou

C-Are

Are

Hec

04-

01.

57 00

43 00

89 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23, 1932

2 1) Bakurupalem (Contd)

62/12

62/10

62/8

62/7

62/5

62/6

63/24

63/23

63/25

63/26

63/17

63/27

63/28

63/16

63/13

63/14

63/7

63/6

63/5

63/4

63/15

63/3

63/2

63/1

64/1

41/36

41/35

41/34

41/14

41/13

41/12

41/11

41/10

41/9

41/8

41/7

41/6

65/8

65/5

65/4

65/2 334Gl /11-24

1283 3

78 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

1284

65/1

1 ) Bakurupalem (Contd)

38/7

38/6

38/3

38/4

38/1

104

2 ) Kusuluvada

106

140

139

138

136

133

129/7

129/8

129/9

129/10

129/11

129/12

129/13

130/1

128/10

127

125/2

125/3

125/5

125/6

125/7

125/8

156/10

156/11

156/12

156/13

156/14

156/15

156/16

156/17

156/19

156/20

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)]

10 00

32 05

18 00

11 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

2 2) Kusuluvada(Contd)

156/21

156/22

156/23

156/24

156/25

157/1

157/2

157/3

157/4

1.57/5

157/6

157/11

157/12

157/13

212

210

209

208

207

206/1

203

204

201/1

201/2

200

189/2

189/2/1

189/3

189/4

189/5

189/6

189/7

189/8

189/9

189/12

190

185/4

185/5

185/8

188/1

188/2

185/9

1285 3

5 02

*00

10 286

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

2 1

185/10 2) Kusuluvada (Contd)

186/1 /A

186/1/B

186/4

195

3 ) Boni

177

148

141

140

5 3

State: ANDHRA PRADESH

District: Visakhapatnam

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk: Padmanabham

305

1 ) Pandrangi

269/2

269/1

265

264/2

271/2

271/1

264/1

272

260/3

260/1

261/5

261/4

261/1

261/6

257/1

130/3

130/7

131/12

131/11

131/10

131/13

131/14

131/9

131/8

131/5

131/6

131/4

131/18

131/3

131/1

131/2

142/2 06

05 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

2 1) Pandrangi (Contd)

134/1

135

140/17

140/16

136/9

136/7

136/10

136/8

136/6

136/5

136/4

137

169/17

169/15

169/16

169/19

169/14

169/12

169/ 1B

169/11

169/ 2A

169/1A

169/ 3A

169/4

168

159/3

159/4

159/5

159/9

.159/8

161/6

159/7

161/5

161/4

161/1

161/2

161/3

118/3

162/1

162/2

117/1

117/12

1287 3

5 00

16.

60 [Part II-Sec. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1288

2 1

117/9 1) Pandrangi ( Contd)

117/8

117/7

117/6

117/3

117/2

117/4

117/5

112/12

112/11

112/13

112/8

112/7

112/6

112/3

111/2

114

113

99/1

100/21

101/2.

101/1

101/3

101/4

101/5

101/8

102

88/4

88/5

89/2

85/1

85/4

42/1 2 ) Venkatapuram

42/6

42/7

96 08

50 03

82 19

22 02

32 01

06 07

10 00

00 :

99 00

03 00

00.

72 00

42 00

00 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

2 2) Venkatapuram (Contd)

42/8

41/4

41/3

41/5

41/2

41/1

41/6

41/7

41/8

41/9

41/10

41/11

40/16

40/17

2/23

2/19.

2/18

40/1

3 ) Korada

241

242

254

253/8

253/9

253/10

253/13

253/14

253/7 .

253/6

252/1

252/2

251

250/4

250/5

65/16

65/15

65/14

65/7

65/5

1289 3

5 00

010

Continued ...... 10 1290

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

65/13 3) Korada (Contd)

65/12

65/11

35/10

65/8

65/9

64/13

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii ) ]

State: ANDHRA PRADESH

District :Visakhapatnam

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Bheemunipatnam

21/2 Dakamarri

22/1

22/3

In bet . Svy. No. 22/3 & 26/1

26/1

27/7

27/8

27/6

27/4

35/11

35/3

35/2

35/1

35/9

32/13

32/14

27/1

33/4

33/5

33/6

33/7

33/8

33/11

14/13

14/14

87/13

87/1

88/2

88/7

-88/9

88/6

46 00

10 00

39 00

71.

65 00

13 00

74 00

14 00

77 00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

2 1 ) Dakamarri (Contd)

88/5

88/4

88/10

88/11

90/8

90/9

90/15

90/14

90/17

90/16

90/18

91/12

91/13

.91/16

91/14

91/8

91/7

91/6

99/1

98/17

98/16

98/14

98/7.

98/13

98/12

105

106/1

106/2

106/3

107

108/1

108/2

108/3

212

201/1

201/2

201/3

201/4

199/5

199/4

199/3

334GI /11-25

1291 3

5 00

94 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

1292

199/6 1) Dakamarri (Contd)

199/2

199/1

199/10

199/8

199/9

198/1

198/2

216

217

218

219/12

219/3

219/11

219/10

219/8

219/7

243

348

244/8

244/9

244/10

244/6

244/5

245

246/7

246/4

246/5

246/6

246/8

246/9

260/3

260/1

252

256/3

257

269/2

268/1

269/6

269/4

269/5

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

00 01

88.

29 08

32 09

28 00

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माथ 23 , 1932

2 1 ) Dakamarri (Contd)

273

272/3

272/4

274

2 ) Bodamettapalem

72/10

72/11

72/12

72/14

72/13

72/9

72/8

72/7

72/6

72/4

72/3

72/1

72/2

64/7

64/6

64/2

64/3

64/1

65/16

65/17

58/5

58/4

58/3

58/2

58/1

57/4

57/3

57/6

57/2

57/5

57/11

57/9

56/10

56/17

56/18

56/19

56/20

1293 3

5 00

95 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 / MAGHA 23 , 1932

1294

2 1

56/16 2) Bodamettapalem ( Contd)

56/13

56/14

56/15

55/3

55/1

50/9

50/8

50/7

50/6

50/21

50/20

50/22

50/19

50/18

50/17

50/15

54/2

54/7 .

54/6

[Part II Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

00.

[F. No: L- 14014/31 /2010-G.P. (Vol . -II ) ] K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 435.- भारत सरकार ने , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (भूमि में उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन) अधिनियम , 1962 ( 1962 का 50 ) (जिसे इसके पश्चात् उक्त अधिनियम कहा गया है) की धारा 3 की उप-धारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी भारत सरकार के पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय की अधिसूचना संख्या का .आ . 1532 , तारीख 08 जून , 2010 द्वारा , उस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में , मैसर्स रिलाएंस इन्डस्ट्रीज लिमिटेड के आन्ध्र प्रदेश में पूर्वी तट पर ऑनशोर टरमिनल से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा काकीनाडा- बासुदेबपुर- हावडा गैस पाइपलाइन विछाने के प्रयोजन के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा की थी ;

और , उक्त राजपत्र अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ जनता को तारीख 05 अक्तूबर, 2010 को अथवा उससे पूर्व उपलब्ध करा दी गई थीं ;

और , पाइपलाइन विछाने के सम्बन्ध में, जनता की ओर से प्राप्त आक्षेपों पर सक्षम प्राधिकारी द्वारा विचार कर लिया गया है और अननुज्नात कर दिया गया;

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

और , भारत सरकार ने , उक्त रिपोट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् और यह संतुष्ट हो जाने पर कि उक्त भूमि पाइपलाइन विछाने के लिए अपेक्षित है, उसमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने का विनिश्चिय किया है ;

अतः , अव, भारत सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह घोपणा करती है कि इस अधिसूचना से संलग्न अनुसूची में विनिर्दिष्ट भूमि में पाइपलाइन बिछाने के लिए उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन किया जाता है ;

और, भारत सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 6 की उप-धारा (4 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , यह निर्देश देती है कि उक्त भूमि में उपयोग का अधिकार इस घोपणा के प्रकाशन की तारीख से भारत सरकार में निहित होने के बजाए , सभी विल्लंगमों से मुक्त, मैसर्स रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड में निहित होगा । [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

1295

अनुसूची

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: सव्वावरम

जिला:विशाखापट्नम

गाँव का नाम

राज्य:आन्ध्र प्रदेश

सर्वे सं/सब डिविजन सं

2 1

सव्वावरम

288/1 ए

288/2

289

293/1

425

426/2

426/1

426/3

422/1

422/4

426/4 2 ) अन्टाकापल्ले

655/3

655/4

655/5

646

653/20

653/21

653/22

653/23

653/24.

653/28

634/1

634/2

634/3

634/4

634/9

635/1

635/2

635/3

635/6

635/7

635/8

636/5

636/6

636/7

636/12

636/14 आर.ओ.यू. अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर 3

00 03

00.

00 03

33 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1296

636/15 2 ) अन्टाकापल्ले (निरंतर )

636/16

636/17

636/19

636/20

637/14

637/15

637/16

637/26

618/1

618/4

611/12

610/3

610/4

610/5

610/6

589

619

588/17

0/18

5801

588/19

588/20

588/21

588/27

588/29

588/30

588/31

588/32

588/33

588/36

588/37

588/38

588/39

587/1

587/2

587/3

587/4

587/5

585/7

585/18

585/19

585/20

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii )]

00 08

00 11

00 03

00 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

585/21 2 ) अन्टाकापल्ले (निरंतर)

585/22

585/23

582/1

582/2

582/3

582/4

581/4

581/5

581/6

581/7

581/8

581/9

581/10

581/11

581/12

581/13

579/4

579/5

579/11

579/13

580

578

577/13

577/17

577/30

577/31

577/32

577/33

577/34

577/35

577/36

577/42

577/43

577/44

577/45

577/46

577/47

577/48

577/49

577/50

577/51

1297 4

00 02

00 .

00 03

00 01

00 00

00 01

00 1298

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

577/52 2 ) अन्टाकापल्ले (निरंतर)

577/53

577/54

577/55

577/56

577/57

577/58

577/64

577/65

577/66

555/2

509/9

509/19

509/20

509/22

509/23

509/24

509/25

509/26

509/27

509/28

509/29

509/30

509/31

509/34

509/41

509/42

509/43

509/44

509/45

510/8

510/9

554/2

541/1

542/1

516

519/2

519/3

519/4.

519/5

520/7

520/16

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ] 3

00 00

63-

00 02

56 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

2 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

518/2

518/4 2 ) अन्टाकापल्ले (निरंतर)

518/5

518/6

518/7

518/8

517/1

517/2

522/22

522/27

522/28

522/29

522/30

522/31

522/32

522/34

533

534

535/6

535/7

535/8

535/9

535/4

535/10

535/11

535/12

535/13

535/14

168/8

168/14 3 ) गुल्लिपल्लि

168/6

168/5

171/4

171/3

171/2

170/1

170/2

171/1

220

217/16वी

217/16ए

218/1 334G1/11-26

1299

00 01

10.

07.

01.

00 1300

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

[Part II-Sec . 3( ii )]

३ ) गुल्लिपल्लि (निरंतर)

218/2

218/3

218/4

218/5

217/5

217/6

217/9

217/4

217/7

217/8

380/13

380/14

380/15

380/21 ए

380/16

380/17

380/18

380/4वी

380/4सी

379

215

192

195/1

195/2ए

195/ 2वी

377/16

377/17

377/18

377/19

377/20

377/21

377/22

377/23ए

00 00

377/12वीं

377/24

377/25ए

377/25वी

377/5

377/4सी

377/4बी

377/26

377/27

17 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /मात्र 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

377/28 वी 3 ) गुल्लिपल्लि (निरंतर)

377/28ए

194/16 वी

194/17ए

194/18

194/19

197/4

197/3

197/2

197/1

195/3ए

195/3ऐफ

366/3

366/4ए

366/4वी

366/4सी

366/9

366/10

366/8

366/7वी

193/38

193/36

194/11ए

194/11 वी

194/11 सी

194/11 डी

194/12वी

194/13

194/14ए

194/15

194/16ए

194/5

194/6ए

1.94/ 6वी

194/6 सी

194/7

194/8

194/9

84/5

84/12 ) मोगलिपुरम

84/13

84/11 ए

1301

06 01

22 01

85 09

76.

00:

00 1302

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

2 4 ) मोगलिपुरम (निरंतर)

84/11वी

84/14

84/15

85/1

85/3

85/2

90/1

90/2

90/3

92/18

92/19

90/4

90/5

92/20

92/23

92/22

92/24

93/26ए

93/26वी

93/24वी

93/22

249/1

93/21

93/23

96/9

249/2

249/3

249/4

249/5

249/15

96/8

96/7

96/6

96/5.

96/3

96/2

95/46

95/49

95/50

98/1

98/5

95/52

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)] 3

5 00

00 01

00 00

00 04

00 .

00 00

00 01

19 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

98/6

4 ) मोगलिपुरम (निरंतर)

102

105/16

105/17

105/18

105/19

105/21

105/20

105/23

105/22

105/15

105/27

105/28

105/26

105/25.

105/29

105/30

108/17

108/15

108/16

108/18

108/23

108/24

108/21

108/22

108/26

108/25

113

108/27

115/3

112/13

112/15

112/16

112/17

112/18ए

112/5

112/23

112/22

112/26

112/21

112/27

112/28ए

1303

60.

00 1304

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

2 4) मोगलिपुरम (निरंतर)

112/ 25डी

112/33

12.2/2

112/29

112/ 28वी

112/30

112/31

112/32

122/4

122/5

122/9

122/6

122/10

122/8

122/11

123

124/1

124/2

124/7

124/8

124/9

124/10

125/38वी

125/39वी

124/11

125/41

125/39ए

125/40

125/30सी

125/42

125/43

125/30वी

125/30ए

125/31

125/29वी

125/27

125/28वी

128

125/26

125/15

125/24

125/25

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( il) ] 3

00 00

00 06

00 01

00 00

00 01

00 00

52 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माथ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

125/23 4 ) मोगलिपुरम (निरंतर)

125/21एफ

125/21 ई

125/21सी

129/3

129/5

129/6

129/7

129/8

129/9

129/10

129/11

129/14

129/15

124/12ए

84/2सी 2 5 ) नारपाडु

85/1

85/2ए

89/8सी

89/8ए

89/8वी

89/14ए

89/10ए

89/10बी

89/14बी

89/9

89/13

89/12

89/11बी

89/11 ए

89/15

86/1

88/20

88/21

88/22

88/19

88/23

88/18

88/17

88/16

88/1

88/2

1305

00:

00.

00 1306

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23, 1932

2 * ) नारपाडु (निरंतर)

88/3

88/4

88/5

88/6

88/7

190

93/4

7.2/16

72/27

72/28

72/29

72/30

72/31

72/32

72/34

72/35

72/36

72/37

72/39

72/40

72/41

72/42

72/43

72/44

72/45

72/46

72/47

72/48

72/49

71/1

71/2

71/3

67/1

67/2

67/3

67/5

67/13

67/21

68/7

68/22/डी

68/8

[Part II-Sec. 3( H)] 3

00 01

00 02

00:

00 04

00 01

61 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

68/19 5 ) नारपाडु (निरंतर)

68/20

68/18

68/22ए

68/17

68/16

68/15

68/9बी

59/32

68/14

59/27

68/13

58/38ए

59/11

59/10

59/9

59/8

59/3

59/7

59/2

59/1

59/4

59/5

60/1

61/20

61/21

61/13

61/22

61/23

61/27

61/24बी

61/24ए

61/26

61/25

61/8

61/9

62/3

62/2

62/1

62/4वी

62/4ए

334GI /11-27

1307

09..

00 1308

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

2 5 ) नारपाडु (निरंतर)

43/7

43/8

43/9ए

43/13

43/14ए

43/15

43/17

43/19

43/25

43/26

43/27

43/28

43/29

44/2

44/5

44/6

44/7

49/4

49/3

49/6

49/11

49/1

49/2

49/7

49/8

49/9

49/10

49/12

49/18

49/17

49/16

49/14

49/15

49/19

48/5

48/6

48/8

48/9

48/10

48/11

48/12

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ] 3

00 02

00 00

00 01

00 02

00 05

100

16 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

48/17

5 ) नारपाडु (निरंतर)

161

206/3

162/6

162/7

162/5

162/4

162/3

162/2

162/1

168.

222/28

222/29

48/18

48/19

48/20

48/21

48/22

84/ 2ए 1

84/3ए/39

84/30/40

84/30/41

84/30/42

84/3/44

84/3/45

84/3/46

84/3/47

84/3ए/ 84

84/3ए/85

84/30/86

84/30/87

84/3/88

84/3ए12

84/3013

84/304

84/3ए5

84/3ए6

84/3ए7

84/3ए8

85/10

85/11

85/12

1309

84.

00 1310

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

2 5 ) नारपाडु (निरंतर)

85/13

85/14ए

85/14वी

85/15

85/17

85/18

85/19

85/20

85/21

85/23

85/ 2वी

85/ 2सी

85/40

85/ 6बी

85/9ए

6 ) दोंगमरि सीतारामपुरम

15/16

15/17

15/14

15/5

15/6

15/2

15/7

15/8

13/7

13/8

13/9

13/5

13/4

13/1

3/2

3/1

7 ) गालिभीमावरम

5/ 1ड़ी

5/8सी

1/2

[ Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii) ] 3

00 06

00 13

00 07

00 22

66 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii)]

2 1

7 ) गालिभीमावरम (निरंतर)

1/1

1/3ए

1/3सी

104/7 8 ) लगिशेट्टिपालेम

104/12

104/8

101/6

101/7

101/15

101/14

101/16

101/13

101/10

101/11

101/12

100/24

100/26

100/25

102

100/13

100/12

100/11

100/10

100/9

100/7

31/1

26/3

26/4

26/5

26/6

26/9

26/19

1311

00 09

00 1312

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

2 8 ) लगिशेट्टिपालेम (निरंतर)

26/20

26/27

26/22

26/23

26/24

26/25

26/21

26/26

25/2

27/1 ए

27/2

27/3

28/1

28/2

१ ) गोटिवाडा

141

153/3एफ

153/4वी

153/3ई

153/3डी

153/4ए

153/4सी

153/ 6सी

153/ 6ड़ी

153/7सी

143/1सी

143/1ए

143/1वी

153/7वी

143/2ए

153/7ई

153/7 डी

153/7एच

153/7एफ

153/7जी

153/7आई

153/8

146/6

146/7

146/8

146/9वी

146/9ए

146/10

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ] 3

00 14

89.

84 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

150/19 9 ) गोटिवाडा (निरंतर)

150/18

146/13ए

149/1

149/2

149/3

146/14वी

146/14ए

146/15ए

100/5डी

100/5ई

101/1

101/2

101/3

101/4

101/5

100/4बी

100/4सी

100/4ड़ी

100/4 ई

87/2

102/1ए

84/28

83/3

83/1

83/2

77/1

82/8

82/5

82/7

77/17

77/2

77/3

77/4

74/13बी

74/13ए

74/14

74/15

74/16

74/26

74/25

1313

12 00 02 1314

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

2 9 ) गोटिवाडा (निरंतर)

74/24

74/23ए

74/23वी

74/30

74/31

74/32

74/22

74/33

74/35डी

74/39

74/2ड़ी

74/40

74/47

74/37/ए

74/37/वी

74/36

74/34

74/35ए

74/3

74/1सी

74/2एफ

74/1 वी

74/1ए

[Part II-Sec. 3 (ii) ]

5 00

00 02

[फा सं. एल. - 14014/31 /2010- जी.पी. ( खण्ड-II ) ]

के.के .शर्मा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S. O. 435.- Whereas by notification of Government of India in Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas number S.O. 1532 dated 08th June , 2010, issued under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 3 of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land) Act, 1962 (50 of 1962 ) (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) , Government of India declared its intention to acquire the Right of User in the land, specified in the Schedule appended to that notification for the purpose of laying Kakinada- Basudebpur- Howrah gas pipeline for transportation of natural gas from onshore terminal at East coast of Andhra Pradesh of M/s Reliance Industries Limited by M/s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited to the consumers in various parts of the country;

And whereas , the copies of the said Gazette notification were made available to the public on or before 05th October,2010;

And whereas, the objections received from the public to the laying of the pipeline have been considered and disallowed by the Competent Authority;

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

And whereas , Government of India, after considering the said report and on being satisfied that the said land is required for laying the pipeline, has decided to acquire the Right of User therein;

1315

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

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

And further , in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (4) of Section 6 of the said Act, Government of India hereby directs that the Right of User in the said land for laying the pipeline shall , instead of vesting in Government of India , vest on the date of publication of the declaration , in M/ s Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, free from all encumbrances .

Schedule

State: ANDHRA PRADESH

District:Visakhapatnam

Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Sabbavaram

Survey No./Sub-Division No.

Village

2 1

288/1A 1 ) Sabbavaram

288/2

289

293/1

425

426/2

426/1

426/3

422/1

422/4

426/4

655/3 2 ) Antakapalle

655/4

655/5

646

653/20

653/21

653/22

653/23

653/24

653/28

634/1

634/2

634/3

634/4

634/9

635/1

635/2

635/3

635/6

635/7

635/8

636/5

636/6

636/7

636/12

636/14 334GI/11-28

Area to be acquired for Rou

C-Are

Are

Hec

$99

00 1316

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23, 1932

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) ]

2) Antakapalle (Contd)

636/15

636/16

636/17

636/19

636/20

637/14

637/15

637/16

637/26

618/1

618/4

611/12

610/3

"86

610/4

610/5

610/6

589

619

588/17

588/18

588/19

588/20

588/21

588/27

588/29

588/30

588/31

588/32

588/33

588/36

588/37

588/38

588/39

587/1

587/2

587/3

587/4

587/5

585/7

-585/18

585/19

585/20

67 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

2 2) Antakapalle ( Contd)

585/21

585/22

585/23

582/1

582/2

582/3

582/4

581/4

581/5

581/6

581/7

581/8

581/9

581/10

581/11

581/12

581/13

579/4

579/5

579/11

579/13

580

578

577/13

577/17

577/30

577/31

577/32

577/33

577/34

577/35

577/36

577/42

577/43

577/44

577/45

577/46

577/47

577/48

577/49

577/50

577/51

1317

5 00

19.

77 1318

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

2 2) Antakapalle (Contd)

577/52

577/53

577/54

577/55

577/56

577/57

577/58

577/64

577/65

577/66

555/2

509/9

509/19

509/20

509/22

509/23

509/24

509/25

509/26

509/27

509/28

509/29

509/30

509/31

509/34

509/41

509/42

509/43

509/44

509/45

510/8

510/9

554/2

541/1

542/1

516

519/2

519/3

519/4

519/5

520/7

520/16

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii)] 3

5 00

$21

: 01

56 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

518/2 2) Antakapalle (Contd)

518/4

518/5

518/6

518/7

518/8

517/1

517/2

522/22

522/27

522/28

522/29

522/30

522/31

522/32

522/34

533

534

535/6

535/7

535/8

535/9

535/4

535/10

535/11

535/12

535/13

535/14

168/8 3 ) Gullipalli

168/14

168/6

168/5

171/4

171/3

171/2

170/1

170/2

171/1

220

217/16B

217/ 16A

218/1

1319

01 1320

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

218/2 3 ) Gullipalli ( Contd)

218/3

218/4

218/5

217/5

217/6

217/9

217/4

217/7

217/8

380/13

380/14

380/15

380/21A

380/16

380/17

380/18

380/4B

380/4C

379

215

192

195/1

195/2A

195/2B

377/16

377/17

377/18

377/19

377/20

377/21

377/22

377/23A

377/12B

377/24

377/25A

377/25B

377/5

377/4C

377/4B

377/26

377/27

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ]

5 3

04 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

377/28B 3 ) Gullipalli (Contd)

377/28A

194/16B

194/17A

194/18

194/19

197/4

197/3

197/2

197/1

195/3A

195/3F

366/3

366/4A

366/4B

366/4C

366/9

366/10

366/8

366/ 7B

193/38

193/36

194/11A

194/11B

194/11C

194/11D

194/12B

194/13

194/ 14A

194/15

194/16A

194/5

194/6A

194/6B

194/6C

194/7

194/8

194/9

84/5

4 ) Mogalipuram

84/12

84/13

84/11A

1321 3

5 00

01 1322

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

84/11B 4) Mogalipuram ( Contd)

84/14

84/15

85/1

85/3

85/2

90/1

90/2

90/3

92/18

92/19

90/4

90/5

92/20

92/23

92/22

92/24

93/26A

93/26B

93/24B

93/22

249/1

93/21

93/23

96/9

249/2

249/3

249/4

249/5

249/15

96/8

96/7

96/6

96/5

96/3

96/2

95/46

95/49

95/50

98/1

98/5

95/52

[Part II-Sec . 3 (ii) ]

5 00

550 02

19 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

2 4) Mogatipuram (Contd)

98/6

102

105/16

105/17

105/18

105/19

105/21

105/20

105/23

105/22

105/15

105/27

105/28

105/26

105/25

105/29

105/30

108/17

108/15

108/16

108/18

108/23

108/24

108/21

108/22

108/26

108/25

113

108/27

115/3

112/13

112/15

112/16

112/17

112/ 18A

112/5

112/23

112/22

112/26

112/21

112/27

112/ 28A 334GI /11-29

1323 3

5 00

62.

00.

41 [Part II-Sec . 3 (ii)] 1324

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

112/ 25D

4) Mogalipuram ( Contd)

112/33

122/2

112/29

112/28B

112/30

112/31

112/32

122/4

122/5

122/9

122/6

122/10

122/8

122/11

00、

123

124/1

124/2

124/7

124/8

124/9

124/10

125/38B

125/39B

124/11

125/41

125/39A

125/40

125/30C

125/42

125/43

125/30B

125/ 30A

125/31

125/29B

125/27

125/28B

128

125/26

125/15

125/24

125/25 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

125/23 4) Mogalipuram (Contd)

125/21F

125/21E

125/21C

129/3

129/5

129/6

129/7

129/8

129/9

129/10

129/11

129/14

129/15

124/12A

84/2C2 5 ) Narapadu

85/1

85/2A

89/8C

89/8A

89/8B

89/14A

89/10A

89/10B

89/14B

89/9

89/13

89/12

89/11B

89/ 11A

89/15

86/1

88/20

88/21

88/22

88/19

88/23

88/18

88/17

88/16

88/1

88/2

1325

96 1326

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

88/3

5) Narapadu ( Contd)

88/4

88/5

88/6

88/7

93/4

72/16

72/27

72/28

72/29

72/30

72/31

72/32

72/34

72/35

72/36

72/37

72/39

72/40

72/41

72/42

72/43

72/44

72/45

72/46

72/47

72/48

72/49

71/1

71/2

71/3

67/1

67/2

-67/3

67/5

67/13

67/21

68/7

68/22/D

68/8

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii) ] 3

5 00

01 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

68/19 5 ) Narapadu (Contd)

68/20

68/18

68/22A

68/17

68/16

68/15

68/9B

59/32

68/14

59/27

68/13

58/38A

59/11

59/10

59/9

59/8

59/3

59/7

59/2

59/1

59/4

59/5

60/1

61/20

61/21

61/13

61/22

61/23

61/27

61/24B

61/24A

61/26

61/25

61/8

61/9

62/3

62/2

62/1

62/4B

62/4A

1327

5 3

01 1328

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 / MAGHA 23 , 1932

2 1

43/7

5) Narapadu (Contd)

43/8

43/9A

43/13

43/ 14A

43/15

43/17

43/19

43/25

43/26

43/27

43/28

43/29

44/2

44/5

44/6

44/7

49/4

49/3

49/6

49/11

49/1

49/2

49/7

49/8

49/9

49/10

49/12

49/18

49/17

49/16

49/14

49/15

49/19

48/5

48/6

48/8

48/9

48/10

48/11

48/12

[ Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ]

03 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

48/17 5) Narapadu ( Contd)

161

206/3

162/6

162/7

162/5

162/4

162/3

162/2

162/1

168

222/28

222/29

48/18

48/19

48/20

48/21

48/22

84/2A1

84/3A/39

84/3A/40

84/3A/41

84/3A/42

84/3A/44

84/3A/45

84/3A/46

84/3A/47

84/3A/84

84/3A/85

84/3A/86

84/3A/87

84/3A/88

84/3A12

84/3A13

84/3A4

84/3A5

84/3A6

84/3A7

84/3A8

85/10

85/11

85/12

1329

01 1330

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA23 , 1932

2 5) Narapadu ( Contd)

85/13

85/ 14A

85/14B

85/15

85/17

85/18

85/19

85/20

85/21

85/23

85/2B

85/2C

85/40

85/6B

85/9A

6 ) Dongamarri Sitarampuram

15/16

15/17

15/14

15/5

15/6

15/2

15/7

15/8

13/7

13/8

13/9

13/5

13/4

13/1

3/2

3/1

5/1D

7 ) Galibhimavaram

5/8C

1/2

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 3

5 00

66 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

7 ) Galibhimavaram ( Contd)

1/1

1/3A

1/3C

104/7 8 ) Lagisettipalem

104/12

104/8

101/6

101/7

101/15

101/14

101/16

101/13

101/10

101/11

101/12

100/24

100/26

100/25

102

100/13

100/12

100/11

100/10

100/9

100/7

31/1

26/3

26/4

26/5

26/6

26/9

26/19 334GI/11-30

1331

00 1332

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[Part II-Sec . 3 ( ii ) ] 1

8) Lagisettipalem (Contd)

26/20

26/27

26/22

26/23

26/24

26/25

26/21

26/26

25/2

27/ 1A

27/2

27/3

00.

28/1

28/2

10 9 ) Gotivada

141

153/3F

153/4B

153/3E

153/3D

153/4A

153/4C

153/6C

153/6D

153/7C

00 .

143/1C

143/1A

143/1B

153/7B

143 /2A

153 /7E

153/ 7D

153/ 7H

153/ 7F

153/ 7G

153/71

153/8

146/6

146/7

146/8

146/9B

146/9A

146/10

150/19

00 11

150/18

146/13A

149/1

149/2

149/3

146/14B

146/14A

146/15A

100/5D

100 /5E

101/1

101/2

39 भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

101/3 9 ) Gotivada( Contd)

101/4

101/5

100/4B

100/4C

100/4D

100/4E

87/2

102/1A

84/28

83/3

83/1

83/2

77/1

82/8

82/5

82/7

77/17

77/2

77/3

77/4

74/13B

74/ 13A-

74/14

74/15

74/16

74/26

74/25

74/24 Cotivada (Conta )

74/23A

74/23B

74/30

74/31

74/32

74/22

74/33

74/35D

74/39

74/2D

74/40

74/47

74/37/A

74/37/B

74/36

74/34

74/35A

74/3

74/1C

74/2F

74/1B

74/ 1A

1333

10.

00.

[ F. No. L- 14014/31/2010 -G.P. (Vol . -II )] K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

1334

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

श्रम और रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 13 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 436.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण भुवनेश्वर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 10/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 11-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-12012/251/2004- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

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

For the 1st Party-Management .

M/s. H.K. Mohanty, Advocate .

Forthe 2nd Party-Workman.

M/ s . Subrat Mishra & Associates , Advocate .

AWARD

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT New Delhi , the 13th January, 2011

S.O. 436. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 10/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court- 2, Bhubaneswar as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 11-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/251/2004- IR( B- 1 ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT BHUBANESWAR

Present:

Shri J. Srivastava,

Presiding Officer, C.GI.T. -cum - Labour Court, Bhubaneswar.

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE CASE NO . 10/2005

Date of Passing Award - 29th December 2010 Between:

TheManagement of the Chief Manager, State Bank of India , Main Branch , Harihar Chhak, Puri , Orissa .

... 1st Party-Management .

And

Their workman Shri Lingaraj Mohanty, S/o . Shri Gunanidhi Mohanty, At . -Mati Mandap Sahi , Ps . Town Thana , Dist. -Puri, Orissa .

...2nd Party-Workman .

The Government of India in the Ministry of Labour has referred thepresent industrial dispute existing between the employers in relation to the Management of State Bank of India and their workman 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 vide their letter No. L- 12012/251 /2004 - IR (B -I) dated03/21-3-2005 .

2. Thedispute as referred is quoted below:-

"Whether the claim of Shri Lingaraj Mohanty that he was engaged by the Management of State Bank ofIndia in relation to their Puri Main Branch during the year from 1982-2003 is correct ? If so , whether the action of the Management in terminating him from service without following Section- 25 of the Industrial DisputeAct, 1947 is legal and justified ? If not , what relief is the disputant entitled to ?"

3. In pursuance of the order of reference the 2nd Party-workman preferred his statement of claim contending that he was given appointment after being selected in an interview on the post of messenger on daily wage basis by the Chief Manager of the 1st Party- Management on 3-3-1982 . However no written order of appointment was issued to him . He resumed his duties on 3-3-1982 as a casual messenger but at a later stage he was directed to perform thejob of canteen cook by the Chief Manager . Besides the job of canteen cook, he was also assigned the work of security guard of the cycle stand of the bank . In November, 2000 he was deputed as a security guard in the ATM counter of the bank and worked there till 5-9-2003 . After that he was refused employment by the 1st Party- Management . He has performed all his assigned duties sincerely and satisfactorily. He was never issued any charge- sheet for misconduct, nor any enquiry was initiated against him by the 1st Party - Management. He was initially appointed at a daily wage of Rs . 25, but when he was deputed as watchman in cycle stand his salary was fixed at Rs . 500 per month consolidated. As his wages were very low he approached the Chief Manager for enhancement of his wages whereupon his wages were enhanced to Rs . 40 per day in the year 1999. While he was discharging his duties as a watchman at the ATM counter, his wages were again enhanced at Rs . 45 per day from 1-12-2008 and thereafter at Rs . 50 per day from 1-3-2002 till the date ofhis disengagernent . While discharging his duties in casual post he attended the interview for the post of permanent messenger in two different years , but to his misfortune he 1335 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

was not given any permanent post and was allowed to continue in the bank in temporary status till 5-9-2003 . Thus his disengagement by way of refusal of employment amounts to retrenchment for which the 1st Party- Management is under statutory obligation to comply the provisions of Section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act. He has worked for more than 240 days continuously with uninterrupted service under the 1st Party- Management . Hence non-compliance of provisions of Section 25- F renders the termination void- ab- initio . But the 1st Party- Management in flagrant violation of Section 25-G of the Industrial Disputes Act instead of adhering to the principles of "First come last go " has terminated the service ofthe 2ndParty-workman, and allowed thejuniors to continue in service and as such the disputant - workman is entitled to be reinstated in service with all consequential service benefits . His termination is not only illegal , unjustified, malafide and arbitrary, but the same is against the principles ofnatural justice. He approached the concerned authority for reinstatement in service, but to no avail. Hence his termination be declared illegal and unjustified and the 1 st Party-Management be directed to reinstate him in service with full back wages and other consequential service benefits .

watchman cannot be said as engagement by the 1st Party- Management . So the claim of the 2nd Party- workman in this regard is not maintainable as he was never employed bythe bank. The first ATM of the 1st Party-Management- Bankwas installed on 19-11-2000 and in order to facilitate smooth functioning of the ATM the authorized officer of the ATM was advised to take the service of the security agency or any local person at his risk and responsibility. Theofficer in-charge engaged the 2nd Party- workman till alternative arrangement is made by the bank. There is no such practice in the bank to engage any ATM watchman. In fact whatever amount had been paid to the 2nd Party- workman for keeping watch over the ATM counter the same had been paid to him by the officer in -charge of the ATM, though it was reimbursed by the bank to such officer. When the ATM vendor took over the maintenance of all theATM counters of the bank, the services of the 2nd Party-workman were no more required. He was never engaged by the 1 st Party- Management during the period from 1982 to 2003. Therefore the termination ofservice of the 2nd Party-workman by the 1st Party- Management in 2003 does not arise at all . Thus the present reference is not maintainable . There is also no question of violation of either ofprovisions ofSection 25- F or 25 -G No principle ofnatural justicehas been infringed. The 1st Party -Management had given him fair opportunity for his permanent absorption in the bank, but he failed to succeed in the interview. Therefore, no question of reinstatement arises and the reference is liable to be rejected .

5. Following issues were settled on the pleadings of the parties for adjudication.

ISSUES

1. Whether the workman was appointed as a casual messenger on the basis of an interview ?

2. Whether the workman was in continuous employment from 3-3-1982 to 5-9-2003?

3.Whether the Management is justified in refusing employment to the workman without due compliance of Section 25 of ID Act, 1947 ?

4. Ifnot, what relief the disputant is entitled to?

6. The 2nd Party - workman Shri Lingaraj Mohanty has examined himself as Workman Witness No.1 and has filedandproved certain documents marked as Ext . - 1 to 4/1 . The 1st Party-Management has examined Shri Ajit Kumar Parija on affidavit as M.W. - 1 and has filed and proved certain documents marked as Ext . -Ato Ext.-F.

FINDINGS

ISSUE NO.1

7. This issue is not at all at dispute as the 2nd Party- workman has alleged and proved in his statement before the Court that he was appointed as a casual messenger after facing an interview and joined in the bank on 4. The 1st Party- Management has filed written statement in which it has been stated that the 2nd Party- workman was engaged intermittently for a period of 174 days i.e. , with effect from -1-1-1982 to 31-12-1983 in temporary capacity and for 64 days on daily wage basis with effect from 15-1-1982 to 2-12-1986 in exigencies of service for cleaning ofbranch premises and shifting of records etc. To give a permanent status to the temporary/ casual /daily wage workers they were given opportunities for appearing in the interviews in pursuance of a number of settlements entered into between the State Bank of India and All India State Bank of India Staff Federation. The 2nd Party- workman was also called to appear in the interview along with other eligible candidates , but he was not selected in the said interview. Any length of temporary employment does not entitle a person to claim any statutory right for permanent appointment in the bank. The 2nd Party - workman was engaged as a canteen boy and cycle stand watchman for a few days by the Local Implementation Committee . He was being paid Rs . 500 per month by the Local Implementation Committee while working as a watchman . The Local Implementation Committee at the branch is a separate body formed by the staff for their welfare activities . The bank is . not concerned with such local implementation committee except giving certain funds to carry out such welfare activities . The canteen and the cycle stand are not run/ maintained /managed by the bank, but by the Local Implementation Committee consisting of members of the staffof thebranch concerned . Therefore the days for which the 2nd Party- workman was engaged by the Local Implementation Committee as canteen boy and cycle stand 1336

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ] 3-3-1982. The 1st Party -Management has admitted his temporary appointment in its written statement by saying that the 2nd Party - workman was engaged intermittently for a period of 174 days i.e. with effect from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1983 and for 64 days on daily wage basis from 15-1-1982 to 2-12-1986, though afterwards alleged that his engagementat canteen and cycle stand was made by Local Implementation Committee and at ATM counter by authorized officer (In -charge) ofthe ATM . This makes no difference as the wages were paid to the 2nd Party- workman from the funds of the Bank as principal employer and the term " workman" includes all such type of persons . The witness Shri Ajit Kumar Parija produced on behalf of the 1stParty- Management has no direct knowledge about the period of engagement or nature of engagement of the 2nd Party-workman as he himselfhas admitted it in his cross- examination. The Management witness has not denied the fact that the 2nd Party- workman was appointed as a casual messenger on the basis of an interview. There is also no denial of this fact in the written statement of the 1st Party -Management . As such it is held that the 2nd Party- workman was appointed as a casual messenger on the basis of an interview and accordingly this Issue is decided in favour ofthe 2nd Party-workman.

ISSUE NO . II

8. The contention of the 2nd Party- workman is that he had worked with the 1st Party- Management as a casual worker in different capacities from 3-3-1983 to 5-9-2003. The 1st Party- Management has denied his continuous employment in the aforesaid period and has stated that the 2ndParty -workman was engaged intermittently only for a period of 174days with effect from 1-1-1982 to 31-12-1983 and thereafter for 64 days on daily wage basis from 18-1-1982 to 2-12-1986 in exigencies of service . So far as the engagement of the 2nd Party- workman after the aforesaid two periods relates no statement has been made except his engagement shown as a canteen boy and a cycle stand watchman for a few days . During that period he was paid by the Local Implementation Committee. But no exact period of such engagement has been disclosed in the written statement . The pleadings in this regard are all the more inconsistent . The 1st Party -Management has admitted the engagement of the 2nd Party - workman as a watchman attheATM counter from November 2000 to 5-9-2003 , but at the sametime has alleged that for the work of watchman at ATM counter, the 2nd Party- workman was paid his wages by the officer in - charge of the ATM who was in turn reimbursed such payment by the Bank . The evidence of the M.W. - 1 Shri A.K Parija throws no light on the period of engagement of the 2nd Party- workman as a casual worker indifferent capacities in the Bank or its allied agencies . On the other hand , the 2nd Party- workman has stated categorically in his statement before the court that he had worked continuously for all the days from 3-3-1982 to 5-9-2003 including the holidays . He joined in the bank on

3-3-1982 as a casual messenger . At times he was asked to work in the canteen as a cook and the other time he was asked to watch the cycle stand. On 19-11-2000 the Bank opened anATM counter at Puri and he was engaged there as a watchman from the very day where he worked till 5-9-2003 . There - after he was refused employment saying that the ATM counter was privatized and given to C.M.C. company. He has stated that while working as a casual messenger he was getting his wages through bankers cheque at the end of each month and while working in the cycle stand and in the canteen he was getting his wages dailyfrom out of the contingency fund/petty cash. He has filed Ext. - 1 , 1/1 /, 1/2 and 1/3 as xerox copies of the vouchers through which he was paid from out of the contingency fund. These exhibits relate to the year 1996. He has also filed Ext. - 3 , 3/1 to 3/40 as xerox copies of the vouchers through which he was paid for his service rendered at the ATM counter. These payments were made to him by the Branch Manager He has further stated in his cross- examination that while working in the cycle stand he was also being engaged temporarily in some petty office work and for that he was being paid separately in addition to a fixed amount of Rs . 500 which he was getting towards watching the cycle stand. The above testimony of the 2nd Party-workman stands un-controverted and thus reveals that he had worked under the 1st Party- Management as a casual worker in different capacities from 3-3-1982 to 5-9-2003 either at the Bank or its allied agencies such as canteen, cycle stand, ATM counter etc. Although no full time documentary evidence has been produced by the 2nd Party-workman regarding his continuous and uninterrupted engagement in the Bank or its allied agencies for the period from 3-3-1982 to 5-9-2003 yet the 2nd Party- workman has produced all possible documentary evidence as was available with him . He has also produced xerox copies of two letters dated 19-01-1990 and 14-12-1993 marked as Ext.- 2 and 2/1 respectively which show that the 2nd Party- workman was called for interview by the 1st Party- Management for permanent appointment as "Messenger " inthe subordinate cadre of the bank . These letters testify his version that he was in temporary employ of the Ist Party -Management earlier to the dates given in the call letters for interview. It cannot be expected from a manwho was casually employed without any written order of appointment by the bank to preserve all the letters and correspondence made regarding his employment . Therefore heavy burden lies on the 1st Party- Management to show the actual period of engagement of the 2nd Party- workman in the Bank or its ancilliary agencies when the latter has discharged the initial burden. But the 1st Party-Management has miserably failed to disprove the continuous employment of the 2nd Party- workman in the bank or its ancilliary agencies from 3-3-1982 to 5-9-2003 . The witness produced on behalf of the 1st Party - Management Shri A.K. Parija is not in the know of the period of engagement or the nature ofengagement of the 2nd Party- workman. He joined 1337 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

the Puri Branch of the 1st Party - Management on 14-5-2007 when all the happenings of the case came to a close. Therefore it is held that the 2nd Party - workman was in continuous employment of the 1st Party - Management from 3-3-1982 to 5-9-2003 . This issue is accordingly decided infavour of the 2nd Party- workman.

ISSUE NO . III & IV

2nd Party -workman be given re- employment if there exists or arises any casual or temporary vacancy under the 1st Party-Management . A number of decisions of various High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court have been cited in this regard . In the case of "Gopal- versus- MCD & another" reported in 2004 - IV- LLJ (Suppl) -NOC -40 , the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held that even those workmen who had put in less than 240 days have industrial rights under the Industrial Disputes Act such as those pertaining to Section 25 - G and 25- H. The same view was reiterated in the case of "Government of NCT of Delhi - Versus- Hospital Employees Union, Delhi " reported in 1997 (II) -LLJ - 516 . The Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan in the case of "Oriental Bank of Commerce versus- P.O. , CGIT & another" reported in 1994 (II ) -LLJ - 770 has held that Section 25 -G and 25 - H are attracted even in cases where workman had worked for less than 240days . The Hon'ble High Court of Orissa in the case of "Union of India&Others - Versus- Sudarsan Barik & Others " reported in 2006 ( Suppl - 1 ) OLR 619 has ruled that where any workmen are retrenched and the employer proposes to take into his employ any person, he shall, in such manner as may be prescribed give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen and such workmenwho offer themselves for re- employment shall have preference over other persons

11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "Central Bank of India -versus- S. Satyam & Others" reported in 1996- II - LLJ- 820 has held that the benefit of applicability of Section 25- F can be claimed by a workman only ifhe has been in continuous service for not less than one year as defmed in section 25 - B . Any other retrenched workman who does not satisfy this requirement of continuous service for not less than one year cannot avail the benefit of such Section 25 -F which prescribes the conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman ofthis category. Section 25 -G prescribes the procedure for retrenchment and ordinarily applies the principle of " last come firstgo" .

12. Section 25 - H then provides for re - employment of retrenched workman. It says that when the employer proposes to take into his employ any persons , he shall , in such a manner as may be prescribed, give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen who are citizens of India to offer themselves for re- employment and such retrenched workmen who offer themselves for re- employment shall have preference over other persons .

9. Since both the issues are inter -connected they are taken together for convenience sake. It has been held under the findings of the foregoing issues that the 2nd Party - workman was appointed by the 1st Party- Management as a casual messenger and he continued to work under the 1st Party - Management from 3-3-1982 to 5-9-2003 . The 2nd Party- workman was lastly engaged as an ATM counter watchman from 19th or 21st November, 2000 to 5-9-2003 and he was paid for that job allegedly by the Branch Manager who was reimbursed for such payment by the bank itself. There is no explanation as to whether the engagement of the 2nd Party -workman by the bank at ATM counter relates to any welfare measure of the staff? Therefore it cannot be denied that the 2nd Party -workman was engaged by the 1st Party - Management in connection with the affairs of the bank . After rendering service for nearly three years short of two or three months the ist Party-Management cannot justify its action to disengage him from service without compliance of provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Actas the 2nd Party -workman has rendered more than 240 days continuous service within a period of 12 calendar months preceding the date of his termination of service which amounts to retrenchment and where the workman is proposed to be retrenched after rendering continuous service of one year (at least 240 days ) under an employer he shall be given one month's notice in writing indicating the reasons for retrenchment or paid wages for the period ofnotice in lieu of notice . In addition to it he shall also be paid retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service orany part thereof in excess ofsix months . These mandatory provisions have not been complied with by the 1st Party- Management while terminating the services of the 2nd Party-workman. Prior to 19-11-2000 or 21-11-2000 period of rendition of continuous service at the bank has also to be taken into account as the 1st Party - Management has failed to show that the 2nd Party - workman was not engaged by it and paid by the funds of the bank. Therefore the 2nd Party- workman is also entitled to receive the benefits under section 25- F of the Industrial Disputes Act for the said period.

13. The Hon'ble Court has also referred to Rules 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules , 1957 which prescribe the maintenance of seniority list of all workmen in a particular category from which retrenchment is contemplated and the mode of re- employment of retrenched workmen.

14. It is presumed that the 1st Party- Management has been maintaining such a seniority list as required by 10. It has also been urged on behalf ofthe 2nd Party- workman that the provisions of Section 25 -G and 25 -Hhave not been followed by the 1st Party - Management while ceasing the employment of the 2nd Party- workman . The principle of" first come last go " must be adhered to and the 1338

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

a period ofthree months from the date ofpublication ofthe award.

17. Issues No. III and IV are decided accordingly.

18. Award is passed with the above directions to the 1st Party -Management .

Dictated and Corrected by me.

J. SRIVASTAVA, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011 Rule 77. There is a specific allegation by the 2nd Party- Workman in his statement of claim that the 1st Party- Management instead of adhering to the principle of " first come last go" as envisaged in Section 25 - G ofthe Industrial Disputes Act has terminated his services allowing the juniors to continue. This fact though pleaded has not been proved in evidence . But , nevertheless if the procedure for retrenchment as envisaged in Section 25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act has not been followed by the 1st Party- Management, the 2nd Party- Workman is entitled to its benefit and he shall be given reemployment forthwith provided there is any vacancy already existing under the 1st Party-Management or arises in future.

का.आ. 437.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर/ 190/92 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/121/ 92- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 437.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT/ LC/R/ 190/92 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal / Labour Court Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 121 /92- IR (B- II) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

NO . CGIT/LC/R/ 190/92

15. In view of the above discussions , it undoubtedly comes out that the 1st Party - Management was notjustified in refusing employment to the 2nd Party- Workman without making due compliance of the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. When certain facts are alleged by one party, the other party has to put his case with regard to those allegations . The 1st Party -Management in reply to Para- 9 of the statement of claim has submitted that since there is no violation of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, the question of violation of 25 -G does not arise . But , as has been held in a catena of judgments ofthe various Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court the application of Section 25 - H cannot be restricted to the categories of retrenched workmen covered under Section 25 - F alone. It means that Section 25 -H is capable of application to all retrenched workman not merely those covered under Section 25 - F. Therefore the contention ofthe 1st Party -Management does not hold good and it by implication suggests that the provisions of Section 25 - G were not complied with by the 1st Party- Management . Therefore the 2nd Party-Workman is entitled to be reinstated in a casual or temporary vacancy existing or likely to arise in near future . The 2nd Party- Workman has also prayed for back wages and consequential service benefits but to a casual or temporary employee reinstatement with back wages cannot be allowed as he does not hold any vested right in the post from where he was disengaged . He is , of course , entitled to some compensation on this count .

Presiding Officer: SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

Shri Deviram Batham,

S/O Shri Rajaram Batham,

C/oPresident, Central Bank Employees Union,. 362, C.O.Colony, Morar, Gwalior

Workman/Union

Versus

16. In the sum and substance, the 2nd Party- Workman is entitled to be reinstated in some casual or temporary vacancy now existing or likely to arise in near future . He shall also be entitled to receive a sum of Rs . 30,000 as compensation for arbitrary and illegal termination of service and for violation of provisions of Section 25 -G of the Industrial Disputes Act by the 1st Party- Management . The 1st Party- Management is also directed to pay wages in lieu of one month's prior notice of retrenchment and retrenchment compensation equivalent to 15 days average pay for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof in excess of six months .All these directions are to be complied with within

The Regional Manager, CentralBank ofIndia, Birma Bhawan, Near A. G Office, Jhansi Road , Gwalior

...Management 1339 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

AWARD

Passed on this 22nd day of December 2010

1. The Government of India in the Ministry ofLabour. vide its Notification No L - 12012/ 121 / 92 - IR( B - II ) dated 31-8-92 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :---

against vacancy. He has further stated that he has never worked 240 days in 12 calendar months . His evidence is unrebutted . There is no other evidence to establish the case ofthe workman . I do find any reason to disbelieve the evidence ofthe management . It is clear that the action of the management is justified. This issue is decided in favour ofthe management .

7. Issue No. 2

Onthebasis of the discussion made above , it is clear that the workman is not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered.

" Whether the action of the Management of Central Bank of India, Gwalior, in terminating the services of Shri DeviramBatham S/o Shri Rajaram Batham, Peon w.e.f. 12-9-87 is justified ? Ifnot, to what relief is the workman entitled?"

8. In the result, the award is passed without any costs .

9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government ofIndia, Ministry ofLabour and Employment as per rules .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

2. The case of the workman in short is that the workman was appointed orally against permanent vacancy as peon by the management bank at Thatipur Branch on 15-6-87 .He worked continuously till 12-9-87 when he was terminated from service without any notice and another person was appointed immediately . On continuous approach , he was again appointed on the same vacancy w.e.f. 1-1-1988 and worked till June , 1988. Thereafter again hewas terminated without any notice . He raised industrial dispute before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner, Bhopal but on failure this is the reference . It is submitted that the termination be declared illegal and the workman be reinstated with all benefits .

का.आ. 438.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय-1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 22/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-1-2011 कोप्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/ 96/2009- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement to contest the reference . The case of the management , inter alia, is that the workman was engaged as a casual labour on daily wages from July, 1987 to September , 1987 for only 60 days . Thereafter he was again engaged from January, 1988 to May, 1988 for 66 days on exigency ofwork. He was never appointed on any permanent post nor he has worked 240 days or more in any twelve calendar months as has been required under Section 25B of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. His service was automatically terminated on expiry of the exigency of work and therefore no notice was required to be given to him . On these grounds , it is submitted that the reference be answered in favour of the management .

S.O. 438. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No 22/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court- 1 , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab and Sind Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2011 .

4. On the pleadings of both the parties , the following issues are framed for adjudication.

1. Whether the action of the management in terminating the service ofthe workman is justified ?

[No. L- 12012/96/2009 -IR (B - II) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

II . To what relief, the workman is entitled?

5. After filing statement of claim , the workman absented and therefore the then Tribunal proceeded the reference exparte against the workman on 3-4-2008 .

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

6. Issue No. I

I.D. NO . 22/2010

... Workman

Rattan Pal S/o Shri Dharam Pal , R/o H. No. 344, Block A, Sector - 11 , NewVijay Nagar, Ghaziabad (U.P. ) .

To substantiate the case of the management, the management has adduced one witness . The management witness Shri A.K.Shrivastava is Senior Manager of the management Bank . He has stated that he was engaged on daily wages as casual labour and was never appointed

334G1/11-31 1340

[PART I-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

Versus

The ChiefManager,

Punjab & Sind Bank ,

H.O. Foreign Exchange Department , 24, RajindraPlace, NewDelhi .

Management

AWARD

kept on exploiting him on assurances that his services would be regularized. Though an office note dated 22-4-98 was submitted, yet his services were not regularized at all . He rendered 240 days service in every calendar year from 1995 till February, 2007, when he was orally told not to report for duties . He projects that the bank has been recruiting sweepers without any selection process . Branches at Mayur Vihar , Preet Vihar , Mukherjee Nagar, Dwarka Sector VI , Vikas Puri , Delhi, Indra Puram, Gaziabad and Rewari as well as Gurgaon were opened by the bank but his services were not regularized . Persons much junior tohimwere regularized at Chawri Bazar and Mayur Vihar branch of the bank. Various persons were recruited and juniors to himwere regularized, which acts amount to unfair labourpractice. He claims reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages . Cost of litigation has also been sought by him.

Part-time sweepers , engaged by Punjab & Sind Bank (hereinafter referred to as the bank) at its foreign exchange department, located at H - 11 , Connaught Place, New Delhi , absented themselves from their duties , in spite of various reminders sent to them. The bank informed authorities in that regard and contemplated domestic action against them. In their absence temporary services of two sweepers , namely, Shish Pal and Rattan Pal were taken by the bank for clearing and sweeping its premises , which consisted of four floors of the building . Services of Shish Pal were dispens with in December, 2003. He raised an industrial dispute, which came to be adjudicated vide award dated 19-7-07by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.2, Rajinder Place , New Delhi . Services of Rattan Pal were also done away by the bank . He raised a demand for reinstatement of his services , which demand was brushed aside by the bank . He was constrained to raise an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . The bank took a stand that since services of Rattan Pal were engaged on casual basis occasionally, without following recruitment policy, hence he cannot be reinstated . On account of aforesaid contention of the bank , the conciliation proceedings failed . On consideration of failure report, submitted by the Conciliation Officer, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this tribunal for adjudication, vide order No.L- 12012/96-2009-IR(B- II) New Delhi dated 8-2-2010, with following terms ofreference:

"Whether the action ofthe management of Punjab & Sind Bank, New Delhi in terminating the services of workman Rattan Pal w.e.f. February, 2007 is just, fair and legal ? To what relief the workman is entitled ? "

3. Contest was given to his claim by the bank pleading that the claimant was never recruited in accordance with recruitment policy, which includes reservation to SC/ST categories , besides calling candidates for recruitment through medium of employment exchange . Since he was not recruited through employment exchange, he cannot claim any right for appointment in services of the bank . The bank pleads that claimant was engaged on casual basis occasionally for filling water in coolers and sometimes engaged for odd casual jobs . He was paid for the days he worked . The bank disputes that the claimant was engaged inJune, 95 , as regular sweepers were not doing their duties . It has been claimed that Vijender Singh and Rameshwar Singh were doing cleaning and sweeping job . It was not disputed that head office of foreign exchange department was reshifted to Scindia House, New Delhi, in August, 98 . It was located only in two floors of the building, having approximate area of 37.00 sq.ft. and Vijender Singh and Rameshwar Singh continued to perform their duties there . In February, 2007, Foreign Exchange Department of the bank was reshifted to third floor at head office of the bank at Rajinder Place , New Delhi . It has been disputed that there were two vacancies of sweepers with the bank . It has beendenied that the claimant performedjob ofa peon and worked from 8.30 AM till 7 PM . He used to do casualjobs offilling coolers with water which was done within one or at the best two hours . Since he was engaged for casual jobs there was no question ofweekly off, holidays , overtime orgrant of leaves to the claimant . It has been denied that he worked on Saturdays , Sundays and holidays . Bank agitates that at no point of time claimant rendered continuous service of 240 days in a calendar year. There were two permanent part - time sweepers and two peons engaged by the bank . There was no question of any assurances given to the claimant for being made regular . It has been disputed that any recommendation for regularization of service of the claimant, was done by the bank . In the alternative bank pleads that the 2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Rattan Pal pleading that he was engaged by the bank for sweeping a four storey building , located at H- 11 , Connaught Place, New Delhi , where its foreign exchange department was functioning . He was engaged in June, 95, since regular sweepers of the bank were not attending to their duties . Approximate area of the building was around 5500 sq.ft and as per norms there were vacancy oftwo sweepers with the bank . Besides sweeping job , he was also performing duties of a peon . He performed his duties without any break, leaves , overtime, benefit of holidays etc. A meager sumwas paid to him, which was much below the minimum wages . He used to work from 8.30 AM till 7 PM,even on Saturdays and Sundays .After August , 98 , the bank shifted to Scindia House, Connaught Place , New Delhi . The bank 1341 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23, 1932

be satisfactory. The award nowhere provides as to how a part- time employee would be recruited.

recommendation, if any, cannot be a part of recruitment process . He was paid for the casual jobs . It has been disputed that on opening of new branches , appointment was to be given to the claimant . It has been denied that juniors to the claimant were regularized at Mayur Vihar and Chawri Bazar branch of the bank . Bank projects that the claim, being devoid of merits , is liable to be dismissed.

8. Desai Award directs that a minimum of 1 /3rd ofthe appropriate rate of pay and allowances should be given to part -time employees , if such part - time employee work for not less than 7 hours per week . Minima of wages have beenprescribed for them , as detailed above . Desai Award is also silent as to under what manner a part - time employee wouldbe recruited by the bank(s ).

4. Claimant has examined himself in support ofhis Paim. Rajinder Singh , Senior Manager, was examined by the bank to substantiate its stand. No other witness was examined by either ofthe parties .

9.FirstBipartite Settlement lays down in detail as to how a part- time employee would be paid . In clause 4.5 it has been provided that in supersession of paragraph 5.191 ofthe DesaiAward , part -time workman shall be entitled to graduated incremental pay scales relating to their working hours , as follows :

5. Arguments were heard at the bar.、 Shri G. S. Chaturvedi , authorised representative , had advanced arguments on behalf of the clainlant . Shri J.Buther, authorised representative, raised his submissions behalfof the bank . I have given my careful consideration the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

(a) Part - time workman other than those belonging to subordinate staff shall be paid 1/3rd of the basic pay, special allowance , house rent allowance and other allowance, if any and D.A. and shall also be entitled to 1/3rd of the annual increments , payable under this settlement to full time workman provided that the total working hours of such part time workmen shall not exceed 12perweek.

(b) Part- time workmen who are members of subordinate staff shall ( subject to clause 20,5 ) be paid - if their normal working hours per week are :

at banks discretion .

(1) upto 3 hours

(2)

More than three hours

but less than six hours

at banks discretion but minimum Rs.15/-PM.

(3) 6 hours to 13 hours

1/3rd of the scale wages withproportionate annual increment .

(4) More than 13 to 19 hours

½ of the scale wages with proportionate annual increment.

(5) More than 19 hours to

29 hours

3/4th of the scale wages with proportionate annual increment .

(6) Beyond 29 hours -

Full scalewages .

6. It has been claimed by the bank that the claimant was not recruited in accordance with recruitment policy, hence no right accrued in his favour for continuance in service. On the other hand , the claimant urges that on completion of 240 days continuous service , he became an ndustrial employee, to whom protection is available under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (in short theAct) . To adjudicate the controversy it would be expedient to know whether there is any recruitment policy of the bank for recruitment of sweepers , It is not a matter of dispute that service conditions of award staff of the bank are governed by Sastry Award , Desai Award and Bipartite Settlements, Therefore , an exercise is under taken to ascertain as to whether the aforesaid awards and Satinents provide any provisions for appointment ofpart time employees . Para 508 of the Sastry Award commands that employees shall be classified as: ( a) permanent employees , (b ) probationers , ( c) temporary employees , ( d ) part - time employees . "Part time empioyee " has been defined to mean " an employee who does not or is not required to work for the full period for which an employee is ordinarily required to work and who is paid on the basis that he is or may be engaged in doing work elsewhere".

10. Second Bipartite Settlement also speaks about the wages of part time workman . Clause 9 of the said settlement projects that in supersession of clauses 4.5 and 20.5 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19th October, 1966, part time workman shall be entitled to graduated incremental pay scales related to their work hours , as follows: -

(a) Part - time workman other than those belonging to the subordinate staff shall be paid 1 /3rd of the scale wages and shall be entitled to 1/3rd ofthe annual increment, payable under the settlement to full time workman provided that the total working hours of such part time work shall not exceed 12 per week.

7. Paragraph 493 of Sastry Award projects that bank ( s) in their own interest and , in case of a reasonable number of posts , advertise them and then make appointments after passing the candidates through such tests as they may consider necessary. The bank ( s) should also maintain registers of candidates in which their names , ages , qualifications , previous experience , if any, special ments and recommendations should be entered and such registers should be revised periodically and kept upto date. Such registers should also have the names of retrenched and temporary employees whose work has been found to THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1342

(b) Part - time workmen who are members of subordinate staff shall be paid if their normal total working hours per week are:

atbank's discretion .

(1) Up to three hours

at banks discretion but witha minimum Rs . 25 PM.

(2) More than three hours but less than six hours

(3) 6 hours to 13 hours 1/3rd of the scale wages with proportionate annual increment .

(4) More than 13 to 19 hours

1/2of the scale wages with proportionate annual increment .

(5) More than 19 to 29 hours

3/4th of the scale wages withproportionate annual increment .

Full scale wages .

(6) Beyond 29 hours -

11. In third Bipartite Settlement agreement was reached to the effect that permanent part - time employees who are required to work for more than six hours a week will be eligible for provident fund and gratuity. Part - time employee, who is required to work over 3 hours but below six hours a week, shall be paid Rs . 60 PM w.e.f. 1st of September, 98. It was further agreed that subject to banks recruitment rules , if any, part - time employees in the subordinate cadre will be given a preference for filling full time vacancies in the same cadre, other things being equal .

12. Clause 18.1 of the Fifth Bipartite Settlement projects that codified service conditions of part -time employees with such modifications , as are considered necessary, as follows: -

Subordinate Staff

Iftheir normal total working hours per week are:

Upto 3 hours

atbank's discretion with aminimum ofRs . 60p.m..

More than 3 hours

at bank's discretion but with a minimum of Rs .

175p.m.

6 to 13 hours

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] 'Scale wages ' are defined to mean basic pay , city compensatory allowance (as per Clause 6) , if any, special/ house rent/other allowance , if any, and dearness allowance payable under this Settlement to full- time workmen.

Part- time employees not drawing scale wages shall be eligible for only fixed monthly payment made to them by the bank . Other part - time employees drawing scale wages shall get only such benefits as are specifically provided hereunder: -

(a) Permanent part-time employees drawing scale wages are eligible for leave , medical aid and uniforms .

(b) Permanent part-time employees drawing scale wages are eligible for Provident Fund with effect from 1-9-1978 .

(c) Permanent part- time employees drawing scale wages in banks other than in State Bank of India will be eligible for Gratuity. Those in State Bank of India, will however be eligible for Gratuity or Pension as per rules .

(d) Permanent part- time employees drawing scale wages shall be eligible for leave fare concession and leave encashment on pro - rata basis with effect from 1-4-89 .

13. In Supplementary Settlement dated 28th Nov. , 1997 , it was agreed that part - time employees who are members of the subordinate staff and whose normal total working hours per week are as given below shall be paid consolidated wages:

1.Part -time Employees

In partial modification of Clause 18 ( 1 ) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April , 1989, part- time employees who are members of the subordinate staff, whose normal total working hours per week are as given below shall be paid consolidated wages:

(a) From1-11-1992 to 31-10-1994

= Rs . 130 p . m. Upto 3 hours More than 3 hours but less than 6 hours

= Rs . 375 p.m.

= Rs . 150 p. m .

One third of the scale

wages with propor-

tionate annual

increment.

More than 13 hours to 19 hours

One half of the scale wages with propor- tionate annual increment .

More than 19 hours to 29 hours

Three fourth of the scalewages with proportionate annual increment .

Full scale wages Beyond 29 hours

(b) From 1-11-1994 Up to 3 hours More than 3 hours but less than 6 hours = Rs . 440 p.m. 14. In Seventh Bipartite Settlement it has been projected that part- time employees shall be paid consolidated wages , in accordance with their working hours . Those agreed aspects are as follows:

"20. Part -Time Employees

(i) In partial modification of Clause 1 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 28th November, 1997, with effect from 1st November , 1997 , part- time employees whose 1343 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

नाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

dormal working hours per week are as given below shall be paid consolidated wages as under :

(a) Upto 3 hours

at bank's discretion with a minimum of Rs .450 p . m .

(b) More than 3 hours but less than 6 hours

atbank's discretion with a minimum of Rs . 740 p . m.

Notification of Vacancies ) Act , 1959. (in short the Employment Exchange Act ) . Clause ( i) of Section 2 of the Employment Exchange Act defines " unskilled office work " . It provides that " unskilled office work " means work done in establishment by any of the following categories of employees , namely, ( i) daftry, ( ii ) jamadar, orderly and peon, ( iii ) dusting man and farash , ( iv) bundle or record lifter, (v) process server, (vi) watchman, (vii ) sweeper, (viii) any other employees doing any routine or unskilled work/ the Central Government mayby notification in the Official Gazette declare to be unskilled office work .

(ii) In partial modification of Clause 18.2 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10th April, 1989, with effect from 1st November , 1999 , part - time employees drawing scale wages shall also be eligible for reimbursement of Hospitalisation expenses on pro - rata basis .

15. Except the amount of wages payable to a part- time employee, in none of the awards and settlements , referred above, mode or method ofrecruitment of part-time cmployee( s ) was ever provided for. There is a candid admission by the bank that no recruitment rules are there en awards and settlements , referred above, for recruitment of part -time sweeper ( s ) . Guidelines formulated by Department of Economic Affairs ( Banking Division) , Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India , New Delhi , has been proved by the bank as Ex . MW1 / 2 . Those guidelines lay norms for recruitment of subordinate staff, which consists of part -time sweepers too . Relevant extract of those guidelines provides as follows :

Subordinate Staff

(i) Recruitment to subordinate staff should be on local basis .

(ii) The maximum age for sub - staff is to be fixed at 25 with suitable relaxation for SC/ST candidates .

(iii) Candidates having middle school as the minimum educational qualification should be considered for appointment as sub - staff.

(iv) Applications sponsored by the Employment Exchanges and such other applications that the bank may receive directly could form the basis for selection as sub- staff.

(v) While no written test is normally necessary for selection of sub - staff, the bank may devise a procedure to ascertain the candidate's ability to read and write . Interview should be the main process for selection.

17. Section 3 ofthe Employment ExchangeAct makes it clear that the said Act , does not apply in relation to vacancies - (a) in any employment in agricultural including horticulture in any establishment in private sector other than employment as agricultural or farm machinery operatives , (b) under any employment in domestic service, (c) under any employment the total duration of which is less than three months , ( d) in any employment to do unskilled office work, (e) in another employment connected with the staff of parliament . Therefore, it is evident that for recruitment of a sweeper, not to talk of a part - time sweeper , provisions of the Employment Exchange Act are not applicable . The bank may recruit a part- time sweeper locally, without advertising vacancy in a newspapers or otherwise . Guidelines referred above, leaves a room for the bank to receive an application directly from a candidate for recruitment as sub- staff. No obligation is cast on the bank to insist for names of the candidates being sponsored by the employment exchange. For a work, duration ofwhich is less than 3 hours a week, a candidate would not get his name registered with an employment exchange . It is not expected of the bank to make advertisement of such vacancies for public at large , since such work would be performed by persons , who can pull on with meager income . Therefore , it is evident that for recruitment of part-time sweeper discretion vests with the bank to engage such persons from near vicinity, where the branch is located where work exists . Therefore, it is emerging over the record that part - time sweeper( s ) can be engaged by the bank in its respective branches , as per exigencies . When the bank makes engagement of part- time sweeper(s ) , as per exigency, without getting names of the candidates sponsored by an employment -exchange , which mode of recruitment is recognized by the guidelines referred above , it does not lie in its mouth to assert that the claimant was engaged dehors the rules . In such a situation contention of Shri Buther,10 the effect that the claimant was engaged in violation of rules and not entitled for continuance of his service, is unfounded .

(vi ) As the procedure for selection of sub- staff through Employment Exchange is relatively simple , long waiting lists should not be prepared.

18. Shri Buther argued that instructions issuel byGovernment of India, under the Employment Exchange Act are to be followed by the bank . On the other hand Shri Chaturvedi presents that those instructions are not relevant for the bank, in the matter of employment ofpart- 16. Except the guidelines detailed above , no recruitment procedure in respect of part- time employee( s ) could reach my hands . Question for consideration comes as to whether recruitment of a part- time employee would be subjected to the Employment Exchange ( Compulsory 1344

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii ) ]

Transfer ofUndertakings ) Act, 1980 ( hereinafter referred to as the Banking Companies Act) . The bank is a body corporate with perpetual succession and a common seal with power to acquire , hold and dispose of property and to contract and be sued in its name, enacts sub - section (4) of Section 3 of the Banking Companies Act . The general superintendence, direction and management of affairs and business of the bank vests in a board of directors , which is entitled to exercise all such powers and do all such acts and things as the bank is authorised to exercise and do , commands sub - section (2) of section 7 of the Banking Companies Act. Thus it is evident that the bank is a body corporate and not a department or establishment of Government of India . The employees of the bank not civil servants . The bank , being creature of the Banking Companies Act, is empowered to adopt its own policy of recruitment and the instructions referred above are not binding on it . Consequently it is concluded that the instructions, referred above , are not relevant for formulation of recruitment policy by the bank in respect of part - time sweepers .

time sweepers . Though there is a dispute as to the relevancy of the instructions issued by Government of India , yet it would be expedient to know contents of those instructions . OfficeMemorandum No. 114/ 11 /64- Estt. (D) dated 21-3-64 was issued by Ministry of Home Affairs , Government of India, emphasizing that all vacancies in Central Government establishments , other than those filled through the Union Public Service Commission should be notified to the nearest employment exchange and no department or office should fill any vacancy by direct recruitment unless the employment exchange certified that they were unable to supply suitable candidates . Office memorandum No. 14024/ 2/77 -Estt . (D) dated 12-4-77 was issued by Department of Personnel and Training laying stress on proposition that all vacancies arising in Central Government offices/ establishments ( including quasi government institutions and statutory organizations ) irrespective ofthe nature and duration other than filled from the U.P.S.C. are not only to be notified , but also to be filled through the employment exchange alone and other permissible source ofrecruitment can be taped only if employment exchange concerned issued a non availability certificate . There can be no deviation from this recruitment procedure unless a different arrangement in this regard has been previously agreed to in consultation with the department of Personnel and Training and Ministry of Labour .

21. As per information provided by the bank to the claimant under Right to Information Act, the bank had not engaged any part- time sweeper through the medium of employment exchange . Ex . MW1 /2 makes it apparent that bank has adopted a policy to recruit part - time sweepers locally, permitting applicants to submit their application for recruitment directly, without being sponsored through an employment exchange . These facts make it clear that at no point of time the bank resorted to appoint part time sweeper through medium of employment exchange. Recruitment of sweeper were done locally by receiving applications directly from them . Hence contention of Shri Buther that the bank engages part - time sweepers through employment exchange is factually incorrect . Claimant was engaged locally, by permitting him to movehis application directly to the bank . His engagement was in consonance with recruitment policy adopted by the bank .

19. A gloss was put on these instructions by the Apex Court in N. Hargopal [ 1987 (3 ) SCC 308 ] wherein it was ruled that the Government is at perfect liberty to issue instructions to its own departments and organizations provided the instructions do not contravene any constitutional provision or any statute, these instructions cannot bind other bodies which are created by statute and which functions under the authority of statute . In the absence of any statutory prescription the statutory authority may , however, adopt and follow such instructions if it thinks fit . The court concluded that in case of public appointment it is necessary to eliminate arbitrariness , favourtism and introduce uniformity of standards and orderliness in the matter of employment . There has to be an element of procedural fairness in recruitment . If a public employer chooses to receive applications for employment where and when he pleases , and chooses to make appointment as he likes a grave element of arbitrariness is certainly introduced . The court went on to say that in the absence of a better method of. recruitment any restriction that employment in Government departments should be through the medium of employment exchanges does not offend Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Hence it emerges that above instructions were affirmed by the Apex Court

20. Whether above instructions are applicable to the bank, is a proposition which has to be considered. The bank was constituted in view of the provisions made in section 3 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and

22.Now I would turn to factual matrix of the present controversy. Claimant unfolds in his affidavit Ex . MWI /A that he was engaged by the bank in June, 95 for sweeping four storey buildings , located at H - 11 , Connaught Place, New Delhi . He worked with the bank from 8.30 AM till 7 PM . His engagement was necessitated since sweepers on the roll ofthe bank were not doing their duties . He worked continuouslywith the bank from June, 95 to February, 2007. Hehad relied documents which are Ex . WW1/ 1 to Ex . WW1/ 240 to prove continuity of his service. Shri Rajinder Singh projects in his affidavit Ex. MW1 /A that the claimant was engaged on temporary basis as a daily wager as and when there was some casual work . He was also engaged for filling water in desert coolers . He was paid for actual days of work . However, he concedes that vouchers Ex. MW1 /W1 to Ex . MW1 /W80 relate to the claimant . He further concedes thatdocuments Ex . WW1 / 1 to Ex . WW1 / 85 arephoto copies 1345 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

of peon book and Ex . WW1 /89 to Ex.WW1 /231 are the vouchers issued by the bank . Ex.WW1 / 234, 235 , 238 to Ex.WW1 /240 are admitted to be the documents issued by the bank.

25. Bank had produced vouchers for the month of January and February, 2001 , that too for 27 days only on which the claimant allegedly worked . As projected through cheques , a sum of Rs.575 was paid to the claimant on 29-1-2001 , another sum of Rs.575 was paid to him on 2-2-2001 . A sum of Rs.500 was paid on 9-2-2001 , a sum of Rs.575 was paid on 16-2-2001 , Rs . 500 was paid to him on 11-5-2001 and a sum of Rs . 575 each were paid to him on 18-5-001 and 22-6-2001 and a sum of Rs.500 was paidto him on 25-10-2001 . Therefore, it is . absolutely clear that for the year 2001 also the bank had not produced various vouchers , for reasons best known to it .

23. To appreciate rival submissions , it is expedient to have a glance on documents referred above, to ascertain period of service rendered by the claimant . Vouchers , which are not disputed by the bank project that the claimant worked only for 21 days. in 1998. It emerges through the vouchers that in all claimant worked for 139 days in 1999, 90 days in 2000, 27 days in 2001 , 14 days in 2002, 118 days in 2003,14 days in 2004 and 45 days in 2006. When these vouchers were scanned it emerged that the claimant worked for 9 days from 24-2-98 to 3rd of March , 98 , 6 days from 9-12-98 to 15-12-98 and six days from 16-12-98 to 22-12-98 . When cheques proved by the claimant were taken into account it came to light that the bank has withheld various vouchers for the year 1998. The claimant was paid a sum of Rs.350 on 16-1-98 , a sum of Rs.200 on 22-1-98 , a sum of Rs.350 on 13-2-98 , a sum of Rs.200 on 3-3-98 , a sum of Rs.360 on 8-10-98 , a sum of Rs.240 on 13-10-98 , a sum of Rs.420 on 27-10-98 , a sum of Rs.420 on 16-11-98 , a sum of Rs.300 on 20-11-98, a sum of Rs.360 on 12-12-98 , and a sum of Rs.360 on 23-12-98 . In these cheques period for which the claimant had worked have not been unfolded . Therefore, this Tribunal cannot undertake an exercise to ascertain the actual period, for which the aforesaid cheques were paid by the bank to the claimant . However, it has emerged that the bank had withheld various vouchers for the year 1998 , for reasons best known to it .

26. When vouchers for the year 2003 were considered it came to light that the bank had produced documents for the month of January, April , May, July, August, September , October, November and December, 2003 only. When cheques , proved by the claimant, were taken into account , it came to light that a sum of Rs.575 each was paid to the claimant on 7-2-2003 , 14-2-2003 and 28-2-2003 . In the same manner a sum of Rs . 500 was paid to him on 13-3-03 and a sum of Rs . 575 was paid to him on 13-6-2003 . Thus it is evident that for the year 2003 also the bank had withheld various vouchers for reasons best known to it . As per vouchers produced by the bank claimant worked with it from 17-1-2004 to 23-1-2004 and 31-1-2004 to 6-2-2004. However , cheques present different picture, since a sum of Rs . 475 was released in favour of the claimant on 9-1-2004 and a sum of Rs . 400 each was released in his favour on 6-2-2004 and 13-2-2004 . As per vouchers proved by the bank the claimant had worked in the month of June , July, September and August, 2006. However , cheques project a different picture . A sum ofRs . 600 was released in favour ofthe claimant on 17-1-2006 and a sum of Rs.900 was released in his favour on 20-1-2006 . It has also been shown that a sum of Rs.600/- was released in favour ofthe claimant on 19-2-2006, besides payments released in July and August , 2006. Thus it is emerging over the record that the bank had withheld vouchers which were in its possession, despite demand raised by the claimant in that regard.

27. A burden is there on the claimant to prove that he rendered continuous services of 240 days , preceding the date on which his services were dispensed with . To discharge that burden the claimant entered the witness box and unfolds that his services were engaged by the bank in June, 95, since part time sweepers were not performing their duties . To prove that proposition he had proved documents Ex. WW1 /91 and Ex. WW1 /92. Ex. WW1 / 91 was written by the Chief Manager (Personnel ) to Assistant General Manager, Foreign Exchange Department of the bank . In that letter receipt of communication dated 5-7-95 , intimating that Vijender Singh and Rajinder Singh were absent from their duties since August, 95 and 4th of March, 96 respectively, was acknowledged and authorities were requested to take suitable action against them , besides 24. As per vouchers produced by the bank , the claimant had not worked with the bank in the month of April andMay, 1999. However, that proposition was found to be factually incorrect , since as per cheques proved by the claimant a sum of Rs.260 was paid to him on 17-5-99, and another a sum of Rs.500 was paid to him on 18-5-99 . Therefore, it is evident that for the year 1999 the bank had also withheld relevant vouchers . As per vouchers proved by the bank, the claimant had not at all worked in April , June and November, 2000. When cheques proved by the claimant were scanned it came to light that a sum ofRs . 500 was paid to him on 7-4-2000 and another sum of Rs.500 was paid to him on 24-5-2000 . For the month of June a sum of Rs.500 was paid to him on 7-6-2000. A sum of Rs.500 was paid to him on 2-11-2000 . Therefore , those facts postulate that relevant vouchers were withheld by the bank for the month of April , June and November, 2000 also . As per voucher produced by the bank the claimant had worked from 2-12-2000 to 8-12-2000 with the bank. However, when cheques were perused it came to light that a sum ofRs . 575 was paid to the claimant on 8-12-2000 and another sum of Rs . 575 was paid to him for 29-12-2000. Therefore, for the month of December, 2000 too , relevant voucher were withheld by the bank.

1346

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

29. When retrenchment of the claimant was violative ofthe provisions of section 25 - F of the Act, as a normal rule, he is entitled for reinstatement in service with continuity. Retrenchment of Rattan Pal is held to be wrongful. Claimant asserts that he is unemployed since thatdate ofhis termination . This self serving bald statement would not espouse his cause , without any cogent evidence . Hence it is to be considered as to what quantum of wages is to be awarded to him for the intervening period . No definite yardstick for measuring the quantum of wages for intervening period is available. Certain precedents are there wherein question of award of compensation in lieu of reinstatement was considered, which may be of somehelp in the matter . In S.S.Shetty [ 1957 ( 11 ) LLJ 696] theApex Court indicated some relevant factors which an adjudicator has to take into account in computing compensation in lieu of reinstatement, in the following words:

making temporary arrangement for sweeping the premises attheir end. Therefore, out of this document facts deposed by the claimant , to the effect that his services were engaged by the bank , when their part- time sweepers were not performing their duties , get support . Ex . WW1 /92 gives confirmation to the aforesaid propositions and highlights that claimant and Shishpal were engaged by the bank to clean its office premises . Ex.WW1/92 was written on 22-4-98 , which projects engagement of the claimant as part time sweeper since long . The claimant asserts that he has been working continuously from June 95 till February, 2007. He requested the bank for production of the vouchers , for the period he worked with it. The bank produced a few ofthe vouchers , referred above. It withheld vouchers for a major period . Undoubtedly the claimant ought to have proved continuity of his service by cogent evidence. However , when documents were in possession of the bank, it was incumbent upon the employer. to produce the record . No justification could be established for non - production of the record . Thus it is evident that it is a fit case where an adverse inference may be drawn against the bank to the effect that in case it would have produced entire vouchers , the claim that the claimant rendered continuous service for more than 240 days in every calendar year would have been established . The Tribunal is fortified by the precedent in R.M.Yaliati [ 2006 ( 1 ) LLJ 442 ] in that regard . Reference can also be made to Bhiku Bhai Megha Ji Bhai Chavda [2009 ( 15) (Addl . ) S.C.R.761 ] . Consequently it is concluded that the claimant has been able to establish a case of adverse inference against the bank and drawing that adverse inference it is concluded that the claimant had worked continuously with the bank for a period of 240 days , preceding the date of his disengagement.

"The industrial Tribunal would have to take into account the terms and conditions of employment, the tenure ofservice , the possibility of termination ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofthis benefit ofreinstatement awarded to the appellant with mathematical exactitude and the best that any tribunal or court woulddo 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" .

30. A Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court in B. Choudhary Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court , Jamshedpur ( 1983 ) Lab. 1. 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 ofthejob 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 (viii ) circumstances leading to the disengagement and the past conduct . These factors are only illustrative and not 28. Claimant asserts that his services were disengaged in February,2007 , when he was advised not to attend his duties . Contra to it Shri Ravinder Singh presents that claimant was engaged occasionally and was paid for actual days of his work . No inference emerge out that notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to the claimant, besides payment of retrenchment compensation . Therefore, it is emerging that when services ofthe claimant were dispensed with neither notice nor pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was paid . The management was under an obligation to pay him compensation for retrenchment at the time of retrenchment . Payment of retrenchment compensation is a condition precedent to a valid order of retrenchment. Precedents in Bombay Union of Journalists case [ 1964 ( 1 ) LLJ 351 ] , Adaishwar Laal [ 1970 Lab.I.C.936] and B.M.Gupta [ 1979 ( 1 ) LLJ 168 ] announce that subsequent payment of compensation can not validate an invalid order of retrenchment . As retrenchment compensation was not paid to the claimant, consequently action ofthe management falls within the mischief of section 25 - F oftheAct .

1347 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

the date ofhis reinstatement in service . Hence it is ordered that bank shall reinstate the service of the claimant and for the interregnum it shall pay 25 % back wages .

haustive . In addition to the amount of compensation , it aiso within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to award nterest 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) .

33. Rattan Pal asserts that his juniors have been regularized in service . To project his point of view he has relied the information furnished by the bank under R.T.I. Act. When the information, so furnished, is scanned it came to light that Ravinder Kumar was appointed in Chawri Bazar, Delhi , branch of the bank as part time sweeper on 6-9-05 and regularized as such on 6-3-2005 . In the same manner Sudhir Kumar, appointed at Paschim Vihar on 27-9-2003 , was regularized in service on 26-10-2005 . Smt . Dharamwati was appointed at Hem Kunt Colony, New Delhi , branch on 1-9-2004 and regularized on 1-3-2005 . Therefore, it is emerging over the record that the persons , who were engaged after the claimant , were regularized in service.

34. Equality before law and equal protection of laws are fundamental rights of every person, ordordains Article 14 of the Constitution. The guiding principles laid in Article 14 are that persons , who are similarly situated , shall be treated alike both in privileges conferred and liability imposed, which means that amongst equals the law should be equal and should be equally administered and that like should be treated a like . Article 16 of the Constitution guarantees equality of opportunities for all citizens in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State . What is guaranteed is the equality of opportunity. Like all other employers , government is also entitled to pick and choose from amongst a large number ofcandidates offering themselves for employment . But the Motion process must not be arbitrary. The guarantee Selecion given by clause (a) ofofArticleA 16 of the Constitution will cover ( a) initial appointments (b ) promotions (c)termination ofemployment (d) and matters relating to salary, periodical increments , leaves , gratuity, pension , age of superannuation etc : Matters relating to employment or appointments include all matter in relations to employment both prior and subsequent to the employment which are incidental to the employment and form part of the terms and conditions of such employment .

31. In Assam Oil Co. Ltd. [ 1960 ( 1 ) LLJ 587 ) the Apex Court took into account countervailing facts that the umployer 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 as held to be fair and proper to meet the ends ofjustice . In Anil Kumar Chakaraborty [ 1962 ( 11 ) LLJ 483 ] the Count 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 rvice. In O.P.Bhandari [ 1986 (11)1 ) LLJ 509] . The Apex Court observed that it was a fit case for grant of compensation in view of reinstatement. The Court arded compensation equivalent to 3.33 years salary as Besonable . 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 ( 1993 Lab.I.C.44) the court directed payment of Rs . 75000 in ew of reinstatement with back wages . In Naval Kishor 1984 ( 11 ) LLJ 473 ] the Apex Court observed that in. view the special circumstances of the case adequate mpensation would be in the interest of the appellant .A Sum of Rs. 2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of widtem statement . In Sant Raj [ 1985 ( 11 ) LLJ 19 ] a sum of Rs . 2lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of instatement . In Chandu Lal ( 1985 Lab.1.C.12225 ) a sampensation of Rs . 21ac by way of back wages in lieu of mem was awarded. in Ras Bihari ( 1988 2.1.C.107) a compensation of Rs.65000 was granted in neu 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 .

35. Fundamental rights guaranteed by Article 14 forbids class legislation, but does not forbid classification or differentiation which rests upon reasonable ground of discretion . Classification is the recognition of the relations , and in making it the government ntust be allowed a wide latitude of discretion and judgment . In a way, the consequences of such classification would undoubtedly beto differentiate persons belonging to that class froin others . The classification must be founded on an intelligibie differentia which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together from others left out of the group and the differentia must have a rational relation to the object sought to be achieved . Classification may be made according to 32. Applying principles of law referred above and on consideration of facts and circumstances surrounding the controversy, I am of the view that the claimant is entitled 10 25 % of back wages from the date of his termination till

334GI/11-32 1348

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART 11-SEC . 3(ii)] the nature of persons , nature of business , and may be based with reference to time .

36. Concept of equality guaranteed by Article 16 of the constitution is something more than formal equality and enables the underprivileged groups to have a fair share by having more than equal chance and enables the state to give favoured treatment to those groups by achieving real equality with reference to social needs . ' Protection discrimination' enabled the state to adopt new strategy to bring underprivileged at par with the rest of the society, by providing all possible opportunities and incentives to them. Therefore a class may be allowed to have preferential treatment in the matter relating to employment or appointment . There cannot be rule of equality between members of separate and independent group of persons. Persons can be classified in different groups , based on in terms of nature of persons , nature of business and with reference to time ..

paderstral ? Such a proposition was considered by the ApexCourt 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 ruletl 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 Articlele 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 ofthe U.P.State Electricity Board and (ii ) the employees ofthe society, who subsequently became employees of theElectricity 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 before4th ofMay, 1990, they cannot be denied benefit of the decision of the Electricity Board dafed 28th ofNovember, 1996, permitting regularization ofthe employees oftheElectricity 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 ofArticle 14 of the Constitution precedent laid down in Uma Devi will not come in between .

37.As projected above claimant was engaged as a part-time sweeper in June, 95. He served the bank till February, 2007. His engagement was in consonance with the recruitment policy of the bank , as contained in EX.MW1 /2 . In the same manner Ravinder Kumar, Sudhir Kumar and Smt . Dharamwati were recruited as part - time sweeper in Chawri Bazar, Paschim Vihar and Hemkunt Colony, New Delhi , branch of the bank . No material has beenbrought over the record to project that Ravinder Kumar, Sudhir Kumar and Smt . Dharamwati were placed on different pedestal than the claimant They fell in the same bracket in which the claimant was placed . Hence the claimant has a right to be treated at par with the aforesaid persons . Differenttreatment would frustrate fumental fight of equality available to the cleant .

38. Can management be permitted to treat equals differently? Answer lies in negative. In Bal Kishan (1990 (1) LLJ 61 ) the Apex Court announeed that nojunior shall be confirmed or promoted without considering the case ofhis senior. The observations made by the Apex Court are reproduced thus:

40. Relying law laid in Pooran Chandra Pandey (supra) , it is announced that it does not lie in the mouth of the bank 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, would be regularized in the serviceby the bank on the same standards on which services ofRavinder Kumar, Sudhir Kumar and Smt.Dharamwati were regularized. Hewould be regularized from the date whenever vacancy was available for him and in any eventualities not later from the date when services of Sudhir Kumar were regularized.

" In service , there could be only one norm for confirment orpromotion ofpersons 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" .

41. In view of above reasons , it is held that the claimant shall be reinstated in service by the bank as part- time sweeper and would be paid 25 % hack wages from the date ofhis termination till the date ofhis reinstatement. His services would be regularized by the bank as part -time (permanent) sweeper from the date when vacancy was available for him and in any eventuality not later the date when services of Shri Sudhir Kumar were regularized. An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dated: 23-11-2010

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer 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 theApex 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 Murari Lal , who was junior to them and placed on similar [ भाम II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1349 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

"Whether Shri Tilak Ram Yadav, S/o Late Bonduram Yadavhad worked as a messenger in the section- 1 / CivilCentreBranch, Bhilai ofUCO Bank ? "

" Whether the termination of service of Shri Tilak Ram Yadav, S/o Late Bonduram Yaday w.e.f. March 1992 isjustified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled ?"

का.आ. 439.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार युनाइटेड कमर्शियल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुरके पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/आर 45/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-01-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/227/1998- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

2. The case of the workman in short is that he was apointed as a messenger on 5-11-1990 and worked till March 1992 with the UCO Bank. It is stated that in the year 1990 and 1991 , he worked 276 days and in the year 1992 for 208 days against vacant post as such be acquired the status of permanent employee . The UCO Bank had issued a circular dated 19-10-89 where by a casual worker who had worked 240 days more with or without interruption during the period of three years was to be observed in the service of the Bank . It is stated that the post of messenger is vacant in Sector I and Civic Centre Branch of the Bank . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with back wages .

S.O. 439. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.CGIT/ LC/R/45/99) 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 United Commercial Bank and their workinen, which was received by the Central Government on 13/01/2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 227/98 - IR (B- II) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

3. The management appeared and filed written statement to contest the reference . There is no clear cut averment of the management . However the management case, interalia, appears to be that the workman was engaged on daily wages as a casual labour on exigency of work . He was never appointed on the vacant post of messenger nor engaged as amessenger. The circular as has been referred, is not applicable to the workman . There was no relationship of employer and employee between the management and the alleged workman . It is submitted that the he is not entitled to any relief.

No. CGIT/LC/R/45/99

PresidingOfficer : Shri Mohd . Shakir Hasan

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues for adjudication

The Tilak Ram Yadav,

I.Whether the workvaan had as a messenger in Sector- I, Civic Centre Brarich , Bhilai of UCO Bank ?

II . Whether the terrnination of service ofthe workman w.e.f. March 1992. is justified ?

....Workman/Union

S/ o Late Bondhuram Yadav, C/o Shatrughan Lal Yadav, VillChandkhuri, Near Simplex FarmHouse, PO Pisergaon, Durg (MP)

III . To what relief the workman is entitled ?

Versus

5. Issue No. I

The Regional Manager , United Commercial Bank, Regional Office, Telebanda, Distt. Raipur (MP)

.....Management

AWARD

Passed on this 10th day of January, 2011

The Workman Shri Tilak Ram Yadav is examined in the case. He has siated that he was not referred by the Employment Exchange for apointment , nor any test was conducted .His appointment was illegal . The workman has not filed any document to show that he was appointed as a messenger and had worked as a messenger. The management has also not examined any evidence in the case . Thus it is clear from the evidence of the workman that he was illegally engaged by the Bank . This issue is , therefore, decided against the workman.

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide its Notification No. L - 12012/227/98 - IR ( B- II ) dated 30-12-1998 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

1350

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

ANNEXURE 6. Issue No. II

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT

INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

No. CGIT/LC/R/205/96

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan

....Workman/Union

Shri Dwarka Prasad Sharma, Son of Shri Ram Narayan Sharma , BadaBazar, Chhote GovindKi Gali , Datia (MP)

Versus

The workman has statedi in his evidence that he worked from 1990 to March 1992 for a total period of484 days . The workman has himself :filed a chart which is Paper No. 2/10 ( Annexure A/4) . The said chart shows that he worked only 1915 days for a period of one year during a period of twelv e calendar months preceding the date with reference. If holidays will be including then the days will come to 231 days only. This shows that he had not worked 240 days during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date of referenc e as has been provided in section 25 -B of the Act . Thus Ihe is not entitled to get any relief in accordance with Section 25 -F of theAct . It shows that the ma nagement appears to be justified. This issue is also decided against the workr nan.

7. I ssue No. III

TheRegional Manager, Punjab National Bank , RegionalOffice, Jawahar Bhawan, NewMarket, NewDelhi

......Management

AWARD

On the basis of the discussion made above , the workman is not entitled to any relief. Acordingly the reference is answered .

Passed on this 6th day of January, 2011 costs. 8. In the result, the aw ard is passed without any

10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment as per rules .

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour, vide its Notification No. L - 12012/225/ 90 - IR (B - II) dated 20-10-1995 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal :-

MOHD. SHAKIR, HASAN, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 14 जनवरी , 2011

" Whether the action of the management of the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited (sincemerged with Punjab National Bank) , Kanpur interminating the services of Shri Dwarika Prasad Sharma, Peon w.e.f. April 1986 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief is the said workman is entitled ?" .की. आं 440.- औद्योगिक ठि वाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) कीधाषण के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल * बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एलसी/ आर 205/96 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआं. था ।

[सं. एल-12:012/22'5/90- आईआर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 1.4th January, 2011

2. The case of the workman in short is that the workman was selected in the interview taken by erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited which was subsequently merged with Punjab National Bank and his name was included in the panel of appointment. The panel dated 10-5-82 was cominunicated to the workman. It is stated that the applicant was appointed on 27-1-83 and worked till 20-10-83 for 91 days with some break .Again on 1-1-84 till December 1984 with breaks for 89 days , again from April 1985 for 12 days and lastly fiom November 1985 to April 1986 for 90 days . He was in employment with erstwhile Bank for total 282 days . Thereafter the Bank merged with Punjab National Bank who did not employee him ever .The service of the workman was terminated by the erstwhile Bank against the settlement . The workman filed application on 22-3-91 but he was not considered in view of settlement . It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with back wages .

S.O. 440. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No CGIT/ LC/R/205/96) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court , Jabalpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-1-2011 . !

3. The management Bank apeared and filed Written Statement . The case of the management in short is that the alleged workman was never appointed by erstwhile [No. L- 1201.2/225 /90 - IR (B- II ) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

Hindustan Commercial Bank as peon. Even if he was engaged then he had not worked 240 days or more in twelve calendar months preceding the date of refference. He is not to be termed as retrenched employee under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) . It is submitted that the alleged workman is not entitled to any relief.

4.The alleged workman during the course ofproceeding died but his legal heirs did not appear in the case. Hence the case is proceeded exparte against the legal heirs .

5. On the basis of the pleacings the following issues are settled

I. Whether the termination of the workman by the erstwhile Hindustan Commercial Bank w.e.f. April 1986 isjustified ?

II . To what relief the workrnan is entitled ?

6. Issue No. I

There is no evidence on behalf of the workman who is now dead. The legai heirs also did not appear to contest the reference . The pleadings of the workman clearly shows that the workman had not worked 240 days in twelve months preceding the date with reference. This shows that the workman was not deemed to be in continuous service under the provision of Section 25B of the Act and therefore the provision of 25 -F of the Act is not applicable .

7. The management witness Shri J. Simhachalam is Officer (HRD) , Punjab National Bank. He has supported the case of the management. He has stated that he was never appointed by the erstwhile Bank as peon. He has stated that the pleading of the workman itself shows that he was engaged for specific period and his service came to an end automatically. He is covered under Section 2(00) (bb) of the Act . His evidence shows that the workman was engaged for specific period . His termination appears to be justified.Accordingly the issue is decided.

8. Issue No. II

On the basis of the discussion made above, the workman or his legal heirs are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered.

9. In the result, the award is passed without any order to costs .

10. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry of Labour and Employment as per rules .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 14 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 441.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार शिपिंग कॉरपोरेशन आफ इंडिया लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और

1351

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार , औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी -1/03/ 2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-31011/16/2007- आईआर( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 441. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT- 1 /03 of 2008 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court - 1, Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-1-2011 .

[No. L- 31011/ 16/2007- IR (B- II)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1, MUMBAI PRESENT : Justice G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 1/ 3 of 2008

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Shipping Corporation of India Limited.

And

Their Workmen ( Shri . D'Costa Antonio J. B. )

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Management : Shri Jaidev B. Punjabi Management Representative .

For the Workman :

Mrs. Anjali P. Purav, Adv. and Ms. Deepa V. Gurav, Ady

Maharashtra

State:

Mumbai , dated the 4th day of January, 2011

AWARD

1. In exercise of powers conferred by clause (d) of Sub- section ( 1 ) and Sub - Section (2 -A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 the Central Government has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal . :-

"Whether the action of the management of M/ s Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. , Mumbai in discontinuing/ relieving Mr. D'Costa Antonio , J. B. Catering Officer from the services w.e.f. 6-2-2007 vide 1352

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

Order No. FPM/ CTO/ AJBD/ 551752 dated 27-02-2007 is legal , proper and justified ? If not,to what relief Mr. D'Costa Antonio J.B. is entitled to and from which date ?"

2. An application has been filed by the workman stating therein that the dispute has been resolved between the parties and hence he does not wish to pursue the resent reference. He has , therefore, prayed that the present ference may be disposed of as withdrawn.

3. The Management representative for the First rty has no objection,

4. In view of the prayer of the workman the ference stands disposed of as withdrawn. JUSTICE GS . SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 442.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 32/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-01-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/81 /2005 - आईआर( बी+ II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 442. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 32/ 2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal Labour Court, Jaipur now as shown in the Annexure in the dustrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-01-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/81/2005 -IR(B - II) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR PRESENT : Shri N. K. PUROHITt, Presiding Officer

I. D. No. 32/06

Reference No. L -12012/81/2005- IR(B- II) dated: 24-2-2006

Shri Mohan Singh Through R. C. Jain

80, Bajrang Vihar , Near Gopalpura Bridge Jaipur(Raj .)

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

V/s

The Regional Manager Punjab National Bank Regional Office, Z-5 , Transport Nagar, Jaipur

AWARD

Dated 31-12-2010

1. The Central Government in exercise ofthe powers confered under clause (d) of Sub - section ( 1 ) and 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication which runs as under :-

"Whether claimant Shri Mohan Singh S/o Shri Chhote was the employee of Punjab National Bank by doing the duty of Chowkidar for looking after the property of one of the bank debtor's company lying at its godown from 1982 to 23-11-96 ? Ifyes , his termination ofservices from 23-11-1996 is legal andjustified and for what reliefhe is entitled from the bank in case his termination was illegal ? "

2. Pursuant to the receipt of reference order, the registered notices were issued to both the parties . The representative on behalf of the non - applicant appeared on 12-06-06. On perusal of the record it apears that registered notice sent to the workman has been served upon him . The acknowledgement receipt is on the record but despite service of registered notices none appeared on behalf of theworkman on 12-7-10 .On30-8-10 Shri R. C. Jain appeared and sought time for filing claim statement as well as his authority letter . On next date again ' e sought time for the same on 13-10-10 . Therefore one more opportunity was giventohim to file claim statement and his authority letter to represent the workman but on 2-12-10 neither the workman appeared nor any claim statement was filed by him . Shri R.C. Jain appeared on his behalfbut he did not file any authority letter of the workman . Under these circumstances ex -party proceedings were drawn against the workman and the case was posted for hearing ex -party arguments on 23-12-10 .

3.Heard the arguments on behalf ofthe non - applicant and perused the record.

4. The representative on behalf of the management submitted that since the workman has not filed any claim statement therefore, ' No Claim Award' may be passed in this matter.

5. The workman has not appeared to file his claim statement despite service of registered notice upon him . Shri R.C. Jain who appeared on behalf of him could not produce any authority letter in spite of several opportunities provided to him for the same . It appears that 1353 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

Vs.

TheGeneral Manager (HRDM) ,

IndianBank Head Office,

No. 66, Rajaji Salai Chennai - 600001

....2nd Party/Respondent the workman is not willing to contest the case further. Under these circumstances , there is no material on record on the basis of which the reference under adjudication can be decided on merits . Therefore, " No Claim Award " is passed inthis matter . The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

APPEARANCE :

6. Award as above .

Forthe 1st Party/Petitioner Union : (Sri K.M. Ramesh N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

नईदिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

Forthe 2nd Party/Management : M/s . T. S. Gopalan & Co.

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its Order No. L- 12011/ 83/2007 - IR(B - II ) dated 16-01-2008 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

का.आ. 443. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधि करण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चैन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-01-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/83/2007- आईआर( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 14th January, 2011

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Bank in imposing the punishment of "Removal from the Service " under clause 19.6 (b) of the Bi -partite Settlement 1966 and consequent denial ofpensione benefits to Smt . Mahalakshmi Sridhar is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman entitled? "

2. After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as 83/2007 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsel and filed their Claim and Counter Statement as the case may be .

S.O. 443. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 83/2007) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure- in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 05-01-2011 .

3.The Claim Statement averments bereft of unnecessary details are as follows:

[No. L- 12011/83/2007- IR (B- II)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

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

Friday, the 31st December , 2010

Present:

A.N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Industrial Dispute No. 83/2007

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

BETWEEN

The General Secretary,

Federation of Indian Bank Employees Union , 25, Second Line Beach, Chennai - 600001

Mahalakshmi Sridhar employed in Clerical Cadre under the Respondent w.e.f. 23-01-1978 had applied for 91 days Privilege Leave from 06-12-1999 to 6-3-2000 for going to USA in connection with her son's treatment . Respondent had sanctioned only 27 days leave from 6-12-1999 to 01-01-2000 with due intimation that she had no leave to her credit from 2-1-2000. An undertaking not to extend leave beyond 90 days had also been obtained from her. The undertaking also was made to envisage a right to the Management to treat her to have abandoned services and for removal of her name from the rolls on the ground of desertionwithin 15 days of the expiry ofthe leave granted. There is no provision to collect such undertaking by coercion under any award or Bipartite Settlement applicable to the Clerical Cadres . The employee had submitted leave applications several times without pay for the continued medical attention to her son which was refused to be considered and were rejected mercilessly. Her absence was treated as unauthorized with instructions to report for duty at Sadashiv Peth Branch, Pune on or before 31-10-2000 . Respondent failed to follow the procedures before disciplinary action was initiated flouting all the rules . No ...1 sl Party/Petitioner 1354

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART I-SEC. 3( ii) ]

between the Central and State Legislations and Central Legislation only always prevails over the State Legislations . Here again it is the BipartiteAgreement only which covers and bind the service conditions of the Award Staff and prevail on the other internal regulations of the Bank and not otherwise . The employee had not abandoned the job and there was no intention to do so . After 21 years of service if she abandons her job she would be deprived of her livelihood and also other legal dues . The letter extracted from her was compelled to be parted with to the 2nd Respondent in 'view of the grave situation prevailing then. The authoriti es failed to apply their mind to the nature of the punishment . The punishment is shockingly excessive and harsh . She is legally victimized . The Management is to be directed to sanction the pensionery benefits by modifying the punishment imposed by the Respondent .

4. The counter statement contentions bereft of unnecessary details are as follows:

Show Cause Notice was issued . The Management.was partisan and hasty in removing her from service . Bank preferred to victimize her by an improper enquiry. Meanwhile on 9-11-2000 VRS 2000 was declared inviting applications from employees with minimum 15 years of service or 40 years of age as on 26-12-2000 . The employee also applied for the scheme, which was rejected on 2-03-2001 for alleged reason that the application did not conform to the eligibility criteria. On 1-3-2001 Charge Sheet was framed against her . She fulfilled the eligibility criteria for VRS . The disciplinary action had not been contemplated or pending . She was not under suspension to become ineligible to the scheme as per Circular dated 2-11-2000. TheManagement want only created a situation to harass the employee and rejected the VRS application and initiated enquiry after her having served for more than 21 years . The enquiry was conducted in absentia ofher. With a notice of enquiry dated 3-3-2001 enquiry was held ex -parte on 18-7-2001 . Afinding was drawn on 24-8-2001 and the removal from service was imposed. The proceedings were reportedly communicated to the employee at her USA address on different occasions . Employee's letter dated 8-7-2001 was returned back to her instead of referring to the Disciplinary Authority violating principles of natural justice. On 22-8-2001 she submitted resignation from service through e- mail which the Bank suggested her to fax them the resignation inthe format annexed for further processing. Shewas finally removed from service on 4-12-2001 under Clause- 19.6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement amended up to dateby 4-12-2001 . The time- frame for filing appeal had not been stipulated in the appeal provisions communicated to her. However she filed appeal praying to convert the punishment to compulsory retirement . Since pension regulations do not permit removal from the service under gross misconduct to the pension's eligibility, which was turned down on the ground of appeal being barred by limitation. The punishment confirmed in appeal is illegal and unjust . The employee was only on leave and not on unauthorized absence which is not a gross misconduct. The employee had obtained "No Objection" for going to USA for treatment ofher Son. Her absence was not properly regularized by the Bank denying basic human rights/ considerations . VRS opportunity was denied to her even before the departmental enquiry which is arbitrary, unjust and discriminatory. She has not caused any damage or loss to the Bank . The doctrine of repugnancy has to be applied while considering the punishment under Clause- 19.6(b ) of the Bipartite Agreement which reads "Be Compulsorily Retired/Removed from Service/Discharged with superannuation benefits as would be due otherwise at that stage and without disqualification from future employment " . It is similar to the doctrine of repugnance as enshrined under Article - 246 and 7th Schedule of the Constitution of India with regard to conflict arising

The amended reference covering both termination of employment and denial of pensionery benefits is to be oneunder Section- 2(K) and not under Section - 2(A) of I.D. Act. Cause of action has not arisen within the jurisdiction ofTamil Nadu or this Tribunal. Reference is not valid. In her-application for no objection certificate for her passport she undertook not to extend leave, etc. She applied for extension of leave for 8 months from 1-1-2000 to 1-9-2000 . Her periodical leave applications were refused for want of leave at credlit . Her desire to go on VRS expressed on 28--11-2000 or her resignation were not accepted. Show CauseNotice and Charge Sheet were issued to her which she did not attend . Enquiry Report was furnished to her on 30-8-2001 . Notice proposing punishment and requiring her to appear for personal hearing was issued which she did not comply with. On 9-10-2001 she submitted resignation which was not accepted . She stayed away from duty for nearly 2 years and the punishment is valid and justified . She received her Gratuity and PF. The claim is to be rejected on the ground of delay, latches and inaction . Pursuant to a settlement dated 29-11-1993 Indian Bank (Employees ) Pension Regulations , 1995 were framed. Under Regulation- 22(1) (a) removal entails forfeiture of past service thus not qualifying for pension . Thus the employee is ineligible for pension. The industrial dispute raised was only about denial of pension and not regarding the removal from service. While so , the corrigendum dated 16-01-2008 ofthe. Government of India was issued modifying the reference. The corrigendum enlarging the scope of the reference is not valid . The absence of the employee beyond the sanctioned leave for 27 days , irrespective of the reasons whichprompted her not to return to work was unauthorized and she is liable for disciplinary action. It is not stated in what manner the Respondent flouted the rules and procedures in the matter ofdisciplinary action . Bank cannot 1355 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

toher. The punishment of removal from service is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. She is removed from service after only ex- parte enquiry. The punishment is to be interfered with invoking Section - 11A ofthe IDAct .

be said to have acted unfairly. Bank cannot carry on its business to suit the convenience of every employee in turning upon employment . VRS cannot be claimed as a matter of right or course. Bank has discretion to accept or reject it. Even ifthe resignation is accepted it would result in forfeiture of past service . If leave applied for is not sanctioned it is unauthorized absence . There is no repugnancy between Pension Regulations and Bipartite Settlement . It is not the case of the Bank that the employee abandoned her employment . The claim is notjustified.

5. The evidence consists of the oral evidence of WW1 and Ex.W1 to Ex.W10 on the side of the petitioner and the oral evidence of MW1 and Ex.M1 to Ex.M 28 on the side of the Respondent.

6. Points for consideration are :

(i) Whether the removal from service of the employee under Clause - 19.6(b) of the Bipartite Settlement 1966 is legal and justified?

( ii) Whether the denial of pensionery benefits to Mahalakshmi Sridhar is legal andjustified ?

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

8. The contra arguments on behalf of the Respondent advanced by its learned counsel Sri T. S. Gopalan are that there is no cause of action arisen in Tamilnadu for conferment of jurisdiction to this Tribunal . He also challenged the competency of the Petitioner Union to espouse the cause. He continued to argue that there is no case for the petitioner that her removal from service is unjust. In a case of removal from service the employee is not eligible for pension. Hence she is not entitled to pension. In the absence of entitlement under the statute no question ofdenial arises and actually there is no denial ofpension to her by the act or conduct of the Management . The claim for pension by the employee has to be as per pension regulations introduced w.e.f. September, 1995. The relevant Bipartite Settlement is w.e.f 14-02-1995 . Pension Regulations superceding Bipartite Settlement, the former is to prevail over the latter. The removal of the employee from the service is not specifying that she is entitled to superannuation benefits as evidenced by. Ex. W4 , punishment order.

Points ( i ), ( ii) & ( iii)

9. In spite of the couching terminology of the reference by way of corrigendum as distinct from the original reference appearing to be a bit discrepant , inter se, the true purport of the reference has to be discerned from the pleadings raised in the respective claim and counter statement . Going by the respective pleadings , the real purport is a challenge against the punishment as excessive and harsh meted out to the employee in legal victimization, according to the petitioner , but which according to the Respondent the dispute was only about denial of pension and not regarding removal from service. The corrigendum to the reference could be seen to belie that contention, which does not enlarge the scope of the reference as contended on behalf of the Respondent . But such a contention is not sustainable in that the amended reference also takes within it the question as to the validity ofthe removal from service aswell.

10. Invoking Section - 11A of the ID Act though the enquiry was ex- parte in which a finding of guilt was rendered against the employee the enquiry is only to be kept intact in as much as the petitioner had been given duè notices thereofbut reason for her omission to participate in it was entirely attributable to her, alone . She proceeded on leave with no objection from the Management and thereafter overstayed the leave . She proceeded to USA to get better treatment for her Son who has been suffering from disease joining with her Husband employed there . Her case is that she has not been able to return to her job since she was very much wanted there for the recovery of her son. She has produced records showing that her son 7.Heard both sides and perused the documents . The learned counsel for the petitioner Sri K.M. Ramesh argued that the locus- standi of the petitioner association is not assailable for the reason that there is no bar under ID Act precluding an unregistered union from espousing disputes . In the case of removal from service as on hand when an individual workman himself can raise the dispute there is no reason why the petitioner association cannot espouse the cause ofthe workman . In view of Ex . W7 letter from the Ist party to the General Manager ( IAE) , Appellate Authority of the Respondent, the Federation of Indian Bank Employees Union has right to espouse the cause of its member . Therefore, the plea against maintainability and the lack ofjurisdiction to this Tribunal is only to be rejected. I find force in the above contentions . Another point canvassed by the learned counsel is that after issuing Charge Sheet on 1-3-2001 the workman's application for VRS is seen rejected on 2-3-2001 vaguely stating that she does not answer the eligibility criteria of the scheme..The totality of the effect of Clause- 19.6 ( iv )(b) ofthe Bipartite Settlement has to be rational basis for the punishment.of the employee . The punishment is against the real intention behind the object of the clause . The pension is denied to her in terms of the Pension Regulations . The applications for leave of the employee are not denied for genuine cause . The Management should have bestowed humanitarian consideration in dealing with the employee . The disciplinary action is one initiated only after 6 months . Only on a technical interpretation inter se the Bipartite Settlement clause and Pension Regulation that the pension is denied

334GI/11-33 1356

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 MAGHA 23 , 1932

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

12.The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 31st December, 2010)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

Forthe 1 sl Party/Petitioner : WW1 , Sri E. Arunachalam

Forthe 2nd Party/ Management : MW1 , Sri R. Someswaran

Documents Marked: On the Petitioner's side

Ex.No. Date Description

ExWi 7-08-2001 Letter from concerned employee to the Enquiry Officer

Ex.W2 29-09-2001 Letter from Second Party to the concerned employee

Ex.W3 04-10-2001 Second Show Cause Notice issued bythe Second Party to coricerfied employee

Ex.W4 04-12-2001 Order ofpunishment issuedbythe Second Party to concerned employee

Ex.W5 07-04-2003 Appeal preferred by concerned employee to AppellateAuthority ofthe SecondParty

Ex.W6 01-07-2003 Letter from DP Cell ofthe Second party communicating the decision of the Appellate Authority

Ex.W7 16-12-2003 Letter from the 1st Party to the General Manager (IAE ), Appellate Authority of the 2nd Party

Ex.W8 03-03-2004 Letter from the 1st party to the General Manager (IAE), Appellate Authority of the 2nd Party

Ex.W9 09-05-2004 Letter from the 1st party to the General Manager ( IAE) , Appellate Authority of the 2nd Party

Ex.W10

04-08-2005 industrial Dispute raised by the 1stPartyUnion

On the Management's side

Date

Ex.No.

Description

Ex.M1 08-06-1999

was suffering from disease and that her presence was inevitably necessary there . Though she has not produced any certificates or testimonials attested or certified through the concerned embassy the same are not to be looked with suspicion in as much as no parent would be out to depict its son as a mentally retarded person which is a disgraceful or grave handicap not good to be disclosed if it is really not true. In order to obtain leave of absence one cannot normally be expected to put forth such reasons before any authority. Therefore, according to me the genuineness of the certificates produced by her indicating her son to have been suffering from such and such diseases and has been undergoing treatment is not to be doubted. Therefore , the absence of the petitioner though with unauthorized leave is notto be reckoned as so serious a charge against her to impose upon her a grave punishment ofremoval , which as per the Pension Regulations introduced in the Bank by then does not permit to take with it the superannuation benefits . The said punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the offence . In fact the employee had applied for availing VRS which had in the meantime been floated by the Management . The same was rejected by the Management alleging her not to fallwithin the eligibility criteria, of which the reason has not been specifically disclosed. The Management is seen to explain it onlyby saying that it has the discretion to do so . But it is to be noted that when an action or a conduct rests on discretion the authority has to ensure that the said discretion is exercised in a judicious way. It is thereafter that the employee is seen to have sent resignation through e-mail which was rejected with a direction that she may fax it. It is after all these that the petitioner had raised the Industrial Dispute which was later amended so as to comprise the real bone ofcontention as to the legality and justifiability ofher removal from service. Discemibly, the real axe to grind is the denial of her pensioner benefits . When with that in mind the dispute was raised and the reference occasioned later was enlarged in scope by challenging the very removal from service since it was realized that the Pension Regulations on coming into force, the claim of denial of pensionery benefits itself cannot be said to have any legs to stand. Even with the enlargement ofthe scope of the reference by the amended reference the dispute could be seen to be substantially the same . The initial and the amended references could be seen to be not mutually exclusive but are consistent going together. Though the ex- parte enquiry and the finding th only to be upheld , the punishment is shockingly disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct and the same is liable to be modified and reduced to compulsory retirement . mereon are

Internal Memo from Zonal Office,Mumbai transferring the petitioner from Nanapeth Branch, Pune to Sadashiv Peth Branch, Pune

Ex.M2 09-10-1999

11. Resultantly the removal from service of the employee is set aside. The Management is directed to impose Compulsory Retirement to her with superannuation benefits in lieu of removal from service.

Letter from Chief Manager, Nanapeth Branch, Pune to Sadashiv Peth Branch, Pune [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माष 23, 1932

Ex.M3 11-10-1999 Memo from Sadashiv Peth Branchto Zonal of Indian Bank 15-11-1999

Ex.M4 and Ex.M5

1357 by IndianBank, Sadashiv Peth Branch requesting extension of leave from01-09-2000 to 01-12-2000

Ex.M17 03-10-2000

Memo from Senior Manager, Sadashiv Peth Branch to Regional Office forwarding application ofMahalakshmi seeking permission to go abroad

InterOffice memo from Sadashiv Peth Branch to Regional Office

ExM18 15-10-2000

Ex.M6 17-11-1999

Letter fromMahalakshmi Sridhar to AGM, Regional Office, IndianBank

Ex.M19 16-10-2000

Leave application submitted byMahalakshmi Sridhar for the period06-12-1999 to 06-03-2000 Ex.M7 08-03-2000

Letter from Indian Bank, Pune to Mahalakshmi . Sridhar informing to initiate action if not report for duty

Ex. M20 01-11-3000

Memo from Sadashiv Peth Branch to Indian Bank, Regional office

11-05-2000

Inter Office Memo from Sadashiv Peth Branch to Regional Office

EX.M21 01-11-2000

Ex.M8 And Ex.M9

Letter from Respondent to Mahalakshmi Sridhar

Ex.M22 02-03-2001

Letter fromMahalakshmi Sridhar to Manager and Zonal Manager, Indian Bank requesting extension of leave (JunetoAugust 2000 for 3 months)

Ex.M10 17-05-2000

Letter from Respondent to Mahalakshmi Sridhar intimating non- acceptance of VRS application submitted by her

Ex, 423 27-08-2001

Memo from SeniorManager, Sadashiv Peth Branch to Regional Office, Indian Bank forwarding letter dated 11-05-2000 ofMahalakshmi Sridhar

Letter from Respondent to Mahalakshmi Sridhar

Ex. M24 09-10-2001

Ex.M11 26-06-2000

Letter ofresignation submitted by Mahalakshmi Sridhar

Ex. M25 05-12-2001

Inter Office Memo

EX.M26 08-12-2001

Ex.M27

Inter Office Memo forwarding leave application of Mahalakshmi Sridhar seeking leave for 01-01-2000 to 01.09.2000 vide application dated 06-06-2000

Ex.M12 1-08-2000

Letter from Zonal Office, Mumbai to AGM, Regional Office,Pune

Inter Office Memo

Extract of Indian Bank (employees) Pension Regulations , 1995 Clause :22- Forfeiture of Service

EX.M28 01-02-2008

18-01-2010

Ex.M13 7-08-2000

Inter Office Memo from Regional Office, Pune to Sadashiv Peth Branch Ex.M14 11-08-2000

Letter from Sadashiv Peth Branch to Mahalakshmi Sridhar declining sanction for leave and directing her to report for duty

Ex.M15 26-09-2000

Reminder letter from Respondent Bank to Mahalakshmi Sridhar to report forduty

Ex.M16 30-08-2000

Letter fromMahalakshmi Sridhar received on 30.09 Statement ofAccount of Mahalakshmi Sridhar, Indian Bank , Sadashiv Peth Branch--- NREA/ C

PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 444. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मुम्बई पोर्ट ट्रस्ट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28-2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-31011/7/2005- आईआर( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1358

New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 444. In pursuance of Section 17of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. CGIT-1 /28 of 2007) of theCentral Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court - 1 , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Mumbai Port Trust and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2011 .

[No. L- 31011/7/2005 - IR (B- II) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

service ofthe management wie.f. 6-9-1994 and his services were terminated by the management w.e.f. 8-6-2003 . The services ofthese two workmen were terminated by a letter dtd. 19-6-2003 issuedby Chief Timekeeper, Port Department . The two workmen are well trained. They completed FOSMA training. Theywere appointed on the post of Flotilla Lascar by Competent Authority by following the procedure and they worked satisfactorily. They were paid wages in the pay scale attached to the post of Flotilla Lascar. The termination of the two workmen from service amounts to their retrenchment. The management has not complied with the conditions precedent to such retrenchment prescribed under section 25 -F of the Act and, therefore, the termination ofthe two workmen is ab initio void . The two workmen are entitled to reinstatement in service with full back wages and consequential benefits as also the permanency in the employment .

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1, MUMBAI

Justice G. S. Sarraf, Presiding Officer

Reference No. CGIT-1/ 28 of2005

Parties : Employers in relation to the Management of Mumbai Port Trust And

Their Workmen

Appearances:

3.The First Party submitted written statement and stated therein that the workmen are seeking regularization oftheir services whereas they did not work with the First Party on regular basis and they were intermittently engaged on leave vacancies as a gesture of compassion . According to the written statement the relief sought regarding permanency in the employment is beyond the scope of terms of reference . It has been stated that in the circumstances of this case the workmen are not entitled to any relief as the workmen were engaged as substitute Flotilla Lascars on leave vacancies as per the work requirement.

FortheManagement : Shri Umesh Nabar, Adv.

Forthe Workman:

Shri Jai Prakash Sawant, Adv.

4. The workmen filed rejoinder wherein they reiterated their stand taken in their statement ofclaim.

Maharashtra

State:

Mumbai , dated the 30th day of December, 2010

AWARD

5. The workmen filed their affidavits and thereafter theywere cross examined by learned counsel for the First Party whereas the First Party filed affidavits of Ramakant Dukhande and N. J. Raví Nair who were cross examined by . learned counsel for the workmen .

6. Heard learned counsel for the First Party and learned counsel for the workmen.

1. 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 ( hereinafter referred to as the Act) the Central Government has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management ofMumbai Port Trust by terminating the services of S/Shri . A. C. Gulwadi and P. A. Shirsat ,, Flotilla Lascars w.e.f. 20-6-2003 and 8-6-2003 respectively is justified ? If not, what relief these employees are entitled to ?"

7. Learned counsel for the First Party has argued that the protection of the Act is available only to regularly appointed employees and since the workmen in this case were deployed on temporary basis intermittently on leave vacancies , therefore, they are not entitled to any relief and at the most they may be awarded some compensation . He has cited (2007) 1 SCC 257 and 408, (2006) 7 SCC 483 , 684, (2006) 4 SCC 1 , (2006) 1 SCC 667 and (2006) 1 SCC 479.

8. Learned counsel for the workmen has submitted that the workmen were not afforded any opportunity of explanation before the issue of the impugned order and consequently the order is null and void being inconsistent with the principles of natural justice . He has submitted that discharge of the workmen from service amounted to 2. As per the Statement of claim submitted on behalfofthe workmen A. C. Gulwadi and P.S. Shirsat, Flotilla Lascars , the facts in brief are that the workman A.C. Gulwadi , Flotilla Lascar was in continuous service of the management from 17-7-1993 and his services were terminated by the management w.e.f. 20-6-2003 whereas theworkmanP. A. Shirsat , Flotilla Lascar was in continuous भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

their retrenchment under section 2( oo) ofthe Act and since the conditions precedent to such retrenchment as contained in Section 25 - F of the Act have not been complied with the discharge of the workmen from service is liable to be set aside . He has placed reliance on ( 2010) Ι CLR (SC) 884, (2009) III CLR (SC) 934, (2006) 7 SCC 800, (1993) II LLJ (SC) 696, ( 1986) II LLJ (SC) 351 , 20061 CLR931 , 2005 III CLR323 , 1997 II CLR 1099 and 1996 I CLR 1128 .

9. Let us first look at the discharge order dated 19-6-2003 . It is as under :

"You are discharged from 20-6-2003 as per DC's order.

Prathmesh Shirsat remained absent from 9-6-2003 so he is discharged from 8-6-2003 and Gulwadi is discharged from 20-6-2003 ."

Apparently the above order has been passed on the basis of an order of Deputy Conservator . There is no order of Deputy Conservator on record whereby the workmen were directed to be discharged from service . There is , however, one letter dtd. 23rd October 2002 sent by Deputy Conservator to Manager ( SOM) Mumbai Port Trust wherein a request has been made to take up the matter for the permanent absorption of the two workmen. It is thus clear that the impugned order of discharge dtd . 19-6-2003 passed by Chief Timekeeper is without authority and is , therefore, not sustainable .

10. Moreover, the workmen have not been afforded any opportunity of explanation before issue of the impugned order and, therefore, the order is rendered null and void being inconsistent with the principles of natural justice.

11. A.C. Gulwadi and P. A. Shirsat are workmen as defined in Section 2( s ) of the Act . Their discharge from service clearly amounts to their retrenchment as defined in Section 2( oo) of theAct .

12. Section 25 -B of the Act defined continuous service . Under section 25- B (2) where a workman is not in continuous service within the meaning of clause (1 ) he shall be deemed to be in continuous service under an employer for a period of one year if the workman during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made, has actually worked under the employer for not less than 240 days . Evenif it is accepted as claimed by the First Party that the workmen were deployed against leave vacancies intermittently, still it is not at all disputed by the First Party thatthe workmen worked for not less than 240 days during the period oftwelve calendar months preceding the date of their termination or discharge . It is thus clear that the workmen were in continuous service under Section 25 - B of theAct.

1359 13. Section 25 - F of the Act deals with conditions precedent to retrenchment of workman . Section 25 - F runs as under:

25-F. Conditions precedent to retrenchment of workmen. No workman employed in any industry who has been in continuous service for not less than one year under an employer shall be retrenched by that employer until -

(a) the workman has been given one month's notice inwriting indicating the reasons for retrenchment and the period ofnotice has expired, or the workman has been paid in lieu of such notice, wages for the period ofthe notice:

(b) the workman has been paid, at the time of retrenchment, compensation which shall be equivalent to fifteen days average pay [for every completed year of continuous service or any part thereof] in excess for six months ; and

(c) notice in the prescribed manner is served on the appropriate Government [ or such authority as maybe specifiedby the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette. ]

It is not at all the case of the First Party that the provisions of Section 25 -F of the Act have been complied with. Non-compliance of conditions of Section 25 - F of theAct renders retrenchment as invalid and inoperative.

14. The above discussion makes it clear that there is no force in the argument of learned counsel for the first Party and the retrenchment brought about without compliance ofthe mandatory provisions of Section 25 - F oftheAct is no retrenchment in the eye of law.

15. This conclusion leads us to the question as to what relief the workmen are entitled to.

16. The workmen are obviously entitled to reinstatement. As regards the back wages in the facts and circumstances of this case 50 per cent of the back wages will meet the ends ofjustice .

17. The issue relating to permanency of the workmen is beyond the scope of this reference and therefore, it deserves no consideration at all.

18. Consequently, the First Party is directed to reinstate the two workmen A. C. Gulwadi and P. A. Shirsat within a period of two months from today with 50 per cent ofthe back wages .

19. AnAward is made accordingly.

JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer 1360

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 445.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सिंडिकेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरप्प/ श्रम न्यायालय, बंगलौर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/184/2004- आईआर( बी- II ) ]

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii)] (2A)of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of1947) has referred this dispute vide order No.L- 12012/ 184/2004- IR(B - II) dated 4th February, 2005 for adjudication onthe following Schedule:

SCHEDULE

"Whether the management of Syndicate Bank is justified in compulsory retiring Shri Ajith Tilagal from the services of the Bank ? If not to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011 S.O. 445. In pursuance of Section 17 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Bangalore now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Syndicate Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 184/2004- IR (B- II) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, BANGALORE Dated: 9thDecember, 2010 Present: Shri S. N. Navalgund , Presiding Officer

C. R. No. 14/2005

1stParty

Shri Ajith H Tilagal ,

K.C.T. Mill Chawl , KarwarRoad, Hubli , Karnataka

IIParty

The Chief Manager, Syndicate Bank, Industrial relations Division, HeadOffice, Manipal Karnataka - 576119

AWARD

1. The Central Government by exercising the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2. After the receipt ofthe reference the notices were issued toboth parties and the first party appearing through Shri M. Rama Rao, General Secretary Dharwad District Bank Employees Association filed his claim statement whereas the Second Party appearing through its counsel Shri Ramesh Upadhyaya filed counter statement .

3. After receipt of the claim statement and counter statement my learned predecessor formulated a Preliminary Issue regarding fairness of the Domestic Enquiry and after receiving the evidence of enquiry officer forthe management as MW1 and exhibiting 11 documents as Ex.M. EX- 1 to 11 , after hearing the representative of the first party and the second party counsel by order dated 14-02-2006 hold the DE as fair and proper. After the order on the Preliminary Issue I heard the arguments addressed by the representative of the first party and the second party counsel on merits and posted the case for award.

4. The brief facts leading to this reference may be summed up as under:-

The Management issued charge sheet dated 12-03-1999 to first party as under : -

" It is reported against you as under :

You areworking at our Super Market Branch, Hubli as Attender since 29-03-1993 . While working at Super Market Branch, Hubli as Attender , you were issued with a charge sheet No.CGS (W)/ ZOM /DGM/ 97 / 21 dated 1-09-1997 for committing gross misconduct of "habitual doing of any act which amounts to minor misconduct" under cl . no.19.5(f) of the Bipartite Settlement for the reason that you were earlier issued with charge sheets for the minor misconducts of " Absence without leave " and punishments were awarded on three occasions . Later on, you were awarded the punishment of " reduction of basics pay by one stage in the time scale of Pay with immediate effect" vide proceedings No. PRS ( W) /ZOM /DGM/ 98 / 13 dated 30-04-1998 .

Despite the above, it is reported that you continue to abstain from duty without proper leave application/ without prior sanction of leave/without any leave to your credit, that you have absented yourselffrom duties during the period from 28-08-1997 to 30-11-1998 for 229 days as detailed below:-

1361

फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

भारत का राजपत्र

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

From

S.No.

Ref. No. of RO, Hubli letter No. treating the absence as UAA .

No. of days

2910/ STF/DOH/ 1567/29/11/97

15.11.97

28.08.97

3234/ STF /DOH/ 1567/ 13/5 /98

05.05.98

02.03.1998

2613 / STF/DOHA 567/5/5/12/98

18.8.98

17.08.98

-do-

26.09.98

-do-

17.09.98

14.09.1998

-do-

05.09.98

26.08.98

2724/ roh/ 1228/STF/ 1569/ 16.12.98

20.11.98

06.10.1998

2813/ 1228 /STF/1567/8/2/ 1999

29.12.98

12.12.98

229Days

Total

Your above absence for a period of 229 days has been treated as unauthorized by DO/RO, Hubli and communicated to you vide their letters referred to above . You have absented yourself unauthorisedly for a total period of2074 days as on 30-11-1998.

playing cricket for the bank's Hubli zone having sustained injury to his trunk he is getting severe pain , as such he is compelled to take leave often and accordingly he has taken the leave on the dates mentioned in the charge sheet and on some occasions he had sent the leave application under certificate of posting and some times by appearing in person,

From the above, it is evident that you have not followed the leave rules of the Bank. Your acts ofabstaining from duty without proper leave application/without prior sanction of leave/without any leave to your credit constitute minor misconducts in terms of provisions ofthe Bipartite Settlement . Although the acts committed by you constitute minor misconducts , it has been decided to treat the same as gross- misconduct in view of the fact that your such misconduct has already been treated as gross misconduct and charge sheet under cl.no.19.5 (f) of the Bipartite Settlement has been issued to you as stated above.

Therefore, you are again charged with the gross misconduct of " habitually during of an act which amounts to minor misconduct " in terms ofclause No.19.5 (f) ofthe Bipartite Settlement.

The documents based on which the charge has been framed against you are detailed in Annexure and copies of the said documents are enclosed.

You are hereby called upon to submit your written statement ofdefence, if any, within 15 days from the date ofreceipt ofthis chargesheet failing with the matter will be preceded further.

Sd/- K.N. Ramaswamy,

Dy. General Manager

6.The Second Party management being not satisfied withthe reply initiated the disciplinary enquiry appointing Shri Subraya Pandit, Dy. Chief Officer, IR Cell, Zonal Office, Udupi as Enquiry Officer and Shri C.K. Pai, Dy. ChiefOfficer , Zonal Office, Udupi as Presenting Officer . The enquiry officer through his notice dated 22-07-1999 informed the first party to appear before him on 09-08-1999 and sent notice through the Super Market Branch as well as by registered AD to his residential address and received the confirmation from the branch office that first party having received the notice and through telegram dated 07-8-1999 he requested the enquiry officer for adjournment saying that he is not feeling well but on 09-08-1999 since the management representative opposed for adjournment saying that though well in advance the first party was served with notice to appear on 09-08-1999 till 07-08-1999 he kept quite as such he has brought the management witness from Hubli and he may be allowed to examine him and a date may be given for the cross- examination by the first party. Accordingly the enquiry officer recorded the deposition of management witness and advised the first party to inform him within a week of receipt of the proceedings whether he intend to cross - examine the management witness and also to produce the evidence in the matter and in the event of his failure to make any communication, the enquiry will be treated as concluded and forwarded the said proceedings to first party's 5. To that charge sheet the first party submitted his reply dated 16-04-1999 contending that when he was 1362

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)]

without application . of mind in a prejudiced manner without taking into consideration his past 26 years unblemished service and that by the impugned punishment of compulsory retirement he and his family have been thrown to street, as such , declaring the impugned punishment order ofthe second party as biased, I against the principles of naturaljustice, unfair, illegal, null and void direct the second party to reinstate him with full back wages , continuity of service, ancillary benefits attendant to service etc.

8. In the counter statement filed on behalf of the Second Party justifying the enquiry proceedings as fair and proper, it is contended since the first party left the oral and docurnentary evidence placed on record by the management unchallenged and by his letter to the enquiry officer simply stated that he had sent leave letters through his colleagues without specifying the name of his colleagues , praying for leniency contending that in the futurehe would adhere to the leave rules , the enquiry officer had no other go except to give his finding in the affirmative on the charge and the first party also failed to explain the Disciplinary Authority by putting his personal appearance having regard to the gravity of the misconduct on the part of the first party a right decision is taken to impose the compulsory retirement punishment and the same also has been approved by the Appellate Authority on the appeal preferred by the first party by passing considered orders . Thus the impugned action taken against the first party is supported as just and proper .

9. During the course of arguments on merits the learned representative for the first party drawing my attention to Clause 13.13 , 13.14, 13.34 and 13.36 of Bipartite Settlement urged that none of these provisions being complied with by the management, the impugned order cannot be upheld . He also taking me through clause 19.5F, 19.9 and 19.16 of the Bipartite Settlement urged that the facts of the case do not constitute habitual absenteeism to invoke Clause 19.5 F ofthe Bipartite Settlement in punishing the first party hence also the impugned action of the management requires to be set aside . He also urged that for his earlier punishment he having been proportionately punished, this impugned punishment amounts to punishing him for the same offence for which he had already punished amounting to double jeopardy. Thus he urged to set aside the impugned punishment and to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits .

residential address by RPAD which came to be receivedby him on 19-8-1999. Thereafter the first party by his letter dated 29-8-1999 which is in Ex.M6 informed the enquiry officer that he is not interested to cross examine the management witness further stating that he availed leave ofabsence mainly due to his ill health and he has informed the same to the branch through his colleagues (without specifying the name of the colleague) and the same has not been recorded properly and since last two to three years he is suffering from back ache due to twist in backbone to which he was taking treatment, with a further request to view the matter leniently and in future he would strictly adhere to the leave rules and would not give any scope for such type of mistake in future. Thereafer the enquiry officer having regard to the oral and documentary evidence ofmanagement witness receiving the written brief of the management representative by his report dated 9-9-1999 submitted the findings of enquiry in the affirmative. Thereafter the Disciplinary Authority along with the copy ofthe enquiry report dated 9-9-1999 issued notice to the first party for his submission within 7 days ofreceipt ofthe letter and as no response was received from him the Disciplinary Authority vide letter dated 12-10-1999 proposed thepunishment of Compulsory Retirement from the services of the bank advising the first party to appear beforehim for over personal hearing on 20-10-1999 at Udupi and as there was no response from the first party he passed the impugned order of Compulsory Retirement dated 26-11-1999 and forwarded the copy ofthe same to the first party informing that if he desires he may prefer an appeal against the said order to the Appellate Authority within 45 days of its receipt through registered post as well as ordinary post and through local delivery which came tobe served on him on 3-12-1999. Thereafter the first party preferred an appeal which was received in the head office ofSecond Party's office on 19-1-2000 and the Appellate Authority issued a notice to appear before him for personal hearing on 12-4-2000 to make his submission and as he did not appear , Appellate Authority under his proceedings dated 11-5-2000 confirmed the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority and the same was served on the first party on 27-5-2000. Thereafter the first party keeping mum over a period around four years by his application dated 8-6-2004 moved the ALC , Hubli for conciliation and the Conciliation Officer after hearing both the sides submitted the failure report dated 24-9-2004. Thereafter the central government made this reference.

7. In the claim statement the first party while contending that no proper opportunity was given to him to defend in the enquiry (which fact has been decided against him on preliminary issue) also contended that the DisciplinaryAuthority simply accepted the enquiry findings

10. Interalia the learned counsel appearing for the second party urged that after the impugned order of the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority the first party having slept over for a period of more than 4 years without initiating any action, this latches on the part of the first party itself disentitles him for any relief. He also 1363 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

granted to him to report for duty he failed to report for duty. In addition though he was served with order of Appellate Authority confirming order of Disciplinary Authority on 11th May 2000, he keeping quite for a period of more than four years in approaching ALC Hubli for. conciliation indicates that he had no intention to continue his service . Therefore, the impugned punishment of compulsory retirement in my considered view is justified and I find nothing to interfere in the same. Hence I pass the following award:

submitted that since the oral and documentary evidence of the second party management before the enquiry officer has not at all been challenged and on the other hand it has been admitted stating that he would in future strictly adhere to the leave rules and as even during the course of enquiry and subsequently he went on expressing his inability to work due to his ill health and also failed to appear before the medical board , the bank has taken a right decision in compulsorily retiring him from service . Thus he supported the impugned action against the first party.

AWARD

The reference is rejected holding the action of the management/second party in compulsorily retiring the first party from its services is justified and that he is not entitle foranyrelief.

(Dictated to PA transcribed by her corrected and signed by me on 9th December , 2010)

S. N. NAVALGUND , Presiding Officer

Annexure

List of witnesses examined by the management before the Enquiry Officer

1. Srinivas Upadhya , Sr. Branch Manager MW1

Documents exhibited for the the Management before the Enquiry Officer

MEX- 1-

1. Letter of Dy. General Manager

dated 30-4-1998

MEX-2

2. Letter ofDivisional Manager

dt. 29-11-1997

MEX-3

3. letter of DM dated 13-5-1998

MEX-4

4. Letter ofAsstt. General Manager

dated 9-5-99

MEX-5

5. Letter ofAGM dated 11-12-98

MEX-6

6. Letter ofAGM dt 8-2-1999

MEX-7

7. Staff card

MEX-8

8. Letter of Sr. Managerdt.10-5-99

MEX - 9

9. Post card dated 9-5-99

MEX- 10

10. Letter of Sr. Branch Manager

dt.11-6-99

MEX- 11

11. Post card dated 21-6-1999

List of witnesses examined by the first party/CSE before the Enquiry Officer.

Nil

List ofDocuments of 1st party marked in the Enquiry 11. As rightly urged or bei alf of the Second party the first party inspite of being served with the copy of the evidence of the management witness as well as the documents relied on for the management giving him sufficient time to challenge the same by cross examination he not only failed but intimated that he is not interested to cross- examine the management witness and thus having left the oral and documentary evidence placed on record for the management unchallenged, there was no material before the enquiry officer to reject the evidence for the management . Threfore, I find no reason to say that his finding in the , affirmative on the charges is either arbitrary orperverse. Since the very charge indicates which is also not denied that on earlier three occasions for remaining absent without leave he was punished and invoking clause 19.5 F of the Bipartite Settlement he was charge sheeted and ultimately punishment of reduction of basic pay by one stage in the time scale of pay with immediate effectby order No.PRS ( W) /ZOM/DGM/98 /13 dated 30-4-1998 was imposed. Despite the same he remained absent to duty without proper leave application for a period of 229 days as detailed in the charge sheet during the period from 28-08-1997 to 30-11-1998 . The orders have been made on all the applications given by him while reporting to duty and the same have been communicated but inspite of it he did not improve his conduct in regularly attending to his duties as such the bank did not commit any error in invoking clause 19.5F of the first Bipartite Settlement. It is borne out from the enquiry records that even after initiating the enquiry, in view of consistent submission of the first party that he has been suffering from back ache due to the injury sustained in the Cricket match played for the management party, he was asked to appear before the panel doctor for medical checkup on 13-5-99 but he did not avail that opportunity also . If this opportunity was availed by him and the panel doctor were to opine that he has sustained a back injury while playing cricket match for the management the bank would have considered that aspect . But his failure to appear before the medical board indicate that he must not have been suffering from the ailment he is putting forward and he is putting forward such excuse for his consistent absenteeism from the duty. The evidence on record do suggest that despite of sufficient opportunities

334GI/11-34 1364

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SEC .3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली , 14 जनवरी , 2011

under Section 10 Sub section (1 ) Clause (d) and Sub section 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

का.आ. 446. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -2, चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1057/05 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab and Sind Bank in terminating the services of Shri Gurnam Singh S/o Late Sh. Shainu Ram, Ex- Peon (DailyWageBasis) w.e.f. 1-3-2002 without any notice and without any payment of retrenchment compensation is legal and just? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to and fromwhich date?"

[सं. एल-12012/41/2003- आई आर( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 446. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 1057/ 2k5) of the Central Government Industrial Tribuna/Labour Court, No.II , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure inthe industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 5-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/41/2003 -IR(B- II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

As per claim statement the workman was engaged as aPeonondailywages in Punjab and Sind Bank, Sector- 11, Chandigarh w.e.f. 1-7-1999 to 11-6-2000 thereafter, he worked at Punbaj and Sind Bank, Phase V. Mohali w.e.f 12-6-2000 to 28-2-2002 and his services were terminated w.e.f. 1-3-2002 illegally and arbitrarily. It has been alleged thathe worked in both the branches under the controlling authority of Zonal Office, Chandigarh and though he had completed more than 240 days in twelve calendar months prior to his termination but no notice or compensationas per provisions of Section 25 of the Act was given to him. After the termination of his services the management appointed a fresh Peon in March 2002 in violation of Section 25-Hof the Act. He has prayed for the reinstatement with full back wages and continuity ofservice.

ANNEXURE

NTHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SHRI A. K. RASTOGI, PresidingOfficer

Case ID No. 1057/2K5

Registered on 22-7-2003

Shri Gurnam Singh S/o Late Shri Shainu Ram H. No. 2915/ 2, Sector 47-D, Chandigarh

...Applicant

Versus

The claim was contested by the management and it was alleged that the workman was employed on purely temporary basis on daily wages and was not recruited in accordance with the recruitment procedure of the bank and not by the competent authority, who is Zonal head. There is no permanent vacancy in existence for the post of Peon and the management does not require employees in this category, hence the workman is not entitled to reinstatement. It was also submited that the engagement in different branches of the bank cannot be clubbed together to determine the length of service of the workman and he has not put in continuous service to become entitle to the protectionof Section 25F and 25G/Hof the Act. His claim is liable to be rejected.

The Zonel Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Zonal Office Sector 17 -B, Chandigarh- 160017

...Respondent

APPEARANCES :

Forthe workman Mr.Arun Batra, Advocate

For the management : Mr. J. S. Sathi , Advocate

AWARD

Passed on 24th December 2010

Insupport of his claim the workman has filed his affidavit and photo copies ofVouchers numbering 61 , which are cumulatively marked as WW- 1/ 1 . The management on theother handhas filed the affidavit ofUjjal Singh, Senior Manager, Punjab and Sind Bank, Branch Office Phase V. SAS Nagar ( Mohali) . On the application of the workman the management also produced Photo Copies of General Charges Register showing the payment made to the workmanfrom 17-6-2000 to 8-3-2002 and also 25 Payment Vouchers of the payment made to the workman fromAugust 2001 toApril 2002.

Central Government vide notification No. L- 12012/ 41/2003 - IR (B- II) dated 13-6-2003 by exercising its powers

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the evidence on record.

1365 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

From the above going discussions , it is clear thatthe action of the management of Punjab and Sind Bank in terminating the services of the workman without any notice and without any payment of compensation is legal and just and the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him . Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMARRASTOGI, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

Admittedly the service of the workman was terminated on1-3-2002 without complying with the provisions ofSection 25 , 25F of theAct . From 12-6-2000to 28-2-2002 he was working at the Branch Office of the Management in Phase V, Mohali . For the protection of Section 25 of the Act it is to be seen whether he was in continuous service for not less than one year within the meaning of Section 25B of the Act i.e. whether he worked for 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding his date of termination . The service of 12 calendar months before the date of termination of the workman on 1-3-2002 was in the Branch Office of Phase V, Mohali. Therefore the service period of the workman in the branch office of Sector 11 , Chandigarh is not relevant . During the preceding 12 calendar months ofthe termination of his services , he did not work inthe branch office in Sector 11 Chandigarh .

का.आ. 447. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 13/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The workman in his cross - examination has admitted that his wages were being paid after a period of4-5 days or less and not on monthly basis and wages were paid to him as Water - boy or for the supply of water.

[सं. एल-12012/35/2010- आई आर( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 447. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the CentralGovernment hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 13/2010) 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 Central Bank of India and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/35/2010- IR (B- II)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

PRESENT : N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

From the amount paid to him and from the mode of payment it appears that up to December 2001 he was paid @Rs.60 per day and thereafter @ Rs . 65 per day. From the details given in Sundry Dr./Cr./Margin Ledger filed by the management on the application of the workman it appears that during the relevant period he was generally paid wages for six days at a time . Sometimes he was paid for lesser and more days also . But total days for which he was paid wages during the relevant period i.e. from 1-3-2001 to 28-2-2002 i.e. preceding 12 calendar months prior to his termination on 1-3-2002 comes to 216 days only. It means that he worked for less than 240 days in the preceding 12 calendar months before his termination . He therefore, did not complete the qualifying service of 240 days to make him entitle to the protection of Section 25F of the Act. I therefore agree with the learned counsel for the management that the compliance of Section 25F of theAct was not necessary in the case of the workman and his termination cannot be assailed on the ground of violation of the said provisions .

I.D. 13/2010

Reference No. L-12012/35/2010- IR (B- II) dated: 15-7-2010

Shri Sunil Kumar, S/o Shri Ramesh Chand, 37/79, Rajat Path , Mansarovar, Jaipur.

V/ s

The workman has alleged in his claim statement that after his termination , fresh Peon was appointed by the management in violation of Section 25H of the Act . The workman , however, not named the person so employed . The management witness in his cross - examination has stated that there were only two Peons including the workman in the branch; and the other person doing the job was a regular employee and after the disengagement ofthe workman no one else has been engaged in the branch .

1, Dy. General Manager, CentralBank of India,

Zonal Office, Link House,

3, Bahadurshah Jafur Marg,

NewDelhi

The workman has thus failed in proving the engagement of any person as Peon subsequent to his termination . The violation of provisions of Section 25H of the Act is , therefore, not proved .

1366

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011 2.Asstt. General Manager, Central Bank of India, Regional Office, S. C. Road, Jaipur

AWARD

16-12-2010

S.O. 448. 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/ 32/ 2009 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur now as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of UCO Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-1-2011 .

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:-

[No. L- 12012/43 /2009- IR(B - II) ] RAMESH SINGH, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

"Whether the action of the management of Central Bank of India, Jaipur to dismiss Shri Sunil Kumar , Cash Peon from service w.e.f. 25-3-2008 is legal and justified ? If not, he is entitled to what relief ?"

BEFORE SHRI J. P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM-LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGT /NGP/32/ 2009

Dat -1-2011

Petitioner/ Party No. 1

ShriManohar Ramlujee Edlawar, Plot No. 28 , Lata Kunj , R/ o Sarkar Nagar, Mul Road, Dist.Chandrapur, Chandrapur.

Versus

2. Pursuant to the receipt of reference order, the registered notices were issued to both the parties at the address mentioned therein. On perusal of the record, it reveals that Shri B. L. Kulshrestha, Advocate appeared on behalf of the non- applicant on 8-10-10 & filed authority letter. Fromtheproceedings dated 13-9-10 it further reveals that the registered notice issued to the workman was returned unserved with the remark " मकान खाली पड़ा है "। In the interest ofjustice again registered notice was issued to the workman, but the same was again returned unserved with the remark " left without address " . Under such. circumstances the case was reserved for passing award after hearing the learned representative on behalf of the management .

Respondent/ PartyNo. 2

3. Since, the registered notices issued to the workman for appearing to file his claim statement could not be served uponhim for want of proper address , there is no material on record on the basis of which the reference under adjudication can be decided on merits . Therefore "No Claim Award" is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

The Assistant General Manager, UCO Bank, Regional Office, 101 , Bhagwaghar Layout, Dharampeth , Nagpur-440010

4.Award as above .

AWARD

(Dated: 5th January, 2011 ) N. K. PUROHIT, PresidingOfficer नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 448. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूको बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या सीजीआईटी/एनजीपी/32/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub - 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 UCO Bank, and their workmen for adjudication , as per letter No. L- 12012/ 43/2009 - IR (B - II) dated 18-9-2009 , with the following schedule :-

[सं. एल-12012/43/2009- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management of UCO Bank in dismissing the services of Sh . Manohar 1367 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

Ramlujee Edlawar Ex . Asstt. Cashier/Clerk is legal and justified ? What relief the workmen concerned is entitled to ?"

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- II, CHANDIGARH

PRESENT: SHRIA . K. RASTOGI, Presiding Officer

Case No. ID 948/2K5

Registered on 4-2-1998

Shri Rakesh Kumar , C/o PNB Staff Union, Punjab National Bank, Kotwali Bazar, Dharamshala, (HP)-176215

...Applicant 2. Though, in this case, the reference had been recieved by the Tribunal on 9-10-2009 and the workmen had been directed to file the statement of claim, till 7-10-2010 , the statement of claim had not been filed by the workman. However, in the interest ofjustice, on 7-10-2010 , a last chance was given to the workman to file the statement of claim on 28-12-2010 . On 28-12- 2010 , neither the workman nor his advocate appeared . The statement of claim was also not filed. Hence the case was closed for passing award.

Versus

The Regional Manager , PNB Regional Office, Dharamsala (HP)-176215

..Respondent 3. As no statement of claim has been filed by the workmanfrom 15-12-2009 , it is found that the parties are not intersted to proceed with the case . Hence , it is necessary to pass a no dispute award. Hence, it is ordered:

APPEARANCES :

ORDER

Forthe workman : Workman in person

For the management : Authorized Representative

The case be treated as " no dispute award" , due to the default of the parties .

AWARD

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

Passed on 23th December , 2010

नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

Central Government vide notification No. L- 12012/ 399/96 - IR ( B - II ) dated 13-1-1998 by exercising its powers under Section 10 Sub- section ( 1 ) Clause (d ) and Sub -section 2 (A) of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act ) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal:-

का. आ. 449.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब नेशनल बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 948/05 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/399/1996- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab National Bank , Dharmsala ( HP) in imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, non -payment ofwages during the period of suspension and extension of suspension period even after imposing penalty for all the charges vide order dt . 18-3-91 in respect of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Clerk/Cashier is just and legal ? Ifnot, what relief the workman is entitled and from which date?"

The facts relevant for the purpose ofthe matter under reference are that the workman at the relevant time was working as Clerk/Cashier In- charge at Branch Office Dhameta ofthe bank. Vide order dated 30-7-89 he was placed under suspension . He was charge-sheeted on 17-7-89 on the allegations that:

S.O. 449. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 948/05 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum -Labour Court No.1 , Chandigarh now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab National Bank and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/399/ 1996- IR (B - II) ]

1. On 14-6-89 he deliberately removed the daily arrangement register from the premises of the bank to destroy the banks ' permanent record containing RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer 1368

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] the evidence ofhis coming late, absence and going outof officewithout proper office order;

2. He unauthorizedly marked his attendance on 6-6-89 forhis absence on 3-6-89 in the Attendance Register and moved leave application on 17-6-89 for his leave on 5-6-89 on repeated reference of stafftoManager;

except subsistence allowance. After considering the reply ofthe workman, the disciplinary authority vide order dated 18-3-1991 confirmed the proposed punishment and advised theworkman to report to Branch Office of Rajhoon where he was posted permanently and his suspension was ordered to be revoked on the date of his joining in the said office. The workman filed an appeal against the punishment order, but that failed. So was the fate ofa review application movedbyhim.

3. On 13-6-89 in connivance with Smt . Swarna Devi wife of late Sh . Ram Swarup he unauthorizedly and fraudulently prepared the claim papers to settle thedeposit claim in her favour in respect of S/AFAccount No. 786 and F.D.R. No.148 of85 for Rs . 932.71 and Rs.3,000 + interest respectively outstanding in the deceased account of late Shri Biru Ram son of Kiru RamVillage Dehri Sakhon. Hepreparedthe relevant documents and Transfer Vouchers without any written authority orB.M's sanction/certificate. Since he was working on loan seat and cash book and above job was not assigned to him and also did not pertain to his seat, he prepared the papers to defraud thebank inconnivance with Smt . Swarna Devi in view of the fact that application of Smt . Giano Devi wife of Jaishi Ram as claimant was on record . When the irregularity was pointed out to him, he destroyed the relevant transfer vouchers , which werealreadyjournalized by him and he returned the relative documents to Smt. Swarana Devi which should have been kept in banks ' record for further enquiry in the matter;

4. Hewas indulged in taking bribe and undue favour from theborrowers and was instrumental in getting fraudulently advances made by Manager R. K. Rehan.

The workman has raised an industrial dispute by stating that charge-sheet dated 17-7-1989 was not according to law as it did not contain the list of documents and witnesses on which the charges are based. It resulted in miscarriage ofjustice. Enquiry Report was submitted after the prescribed period of one year. The disciplinary authority while fixing the date for his personal hearing refused to supply the documents required by him in his letter dated 27-2-1991 and thereby infringed his right of defence as well as the principle of natural justice. The disciplinary authority after the personal hearing in the case rejected all the submission of the workman arbitrarily and without considering the report of the Enquiry Officer and the evidence on record and confirmed the proposed punishment. His allegation is that the disciplinary authority deputed his henchman Jai Ram Gupta, Senior Manager and Som Nath Wassan, Manager to establish the charges against him and both ofthem along with Ajay Kumar Banta, Assistant Manager, pressurized, threatened the borrowers Sh . Bhag Singh and Sh. Hardev Singh to obtain their statements . Shri Wassan was the Enquiry Officer in another matter against the workman earlier also . His contention is that the suspension, framing/issuing of charge - sheet and awarding punishment was done by a single person as disciplinary authority which is illegal , unjust, improper, arbitrary, instrumental , null and void and are the result ofill will , mala fide and bias of the management and are liable to be quashed and so are the entire enquiry proceedings . The holding of the workman guilty for taking bribes from local cloth merchant is not based on evidence on record but is based on surmises and conjectures .

Many other facts mentioned in the Claim Statement are not relevant for the purpose ofreference. He has prayed for the regularization of his suspension period and consequential benefits with a direction to the management to release his all dues consequent upon setting aside the impugned action and also to promote him to the next higher post of SpecialAssistant andAccountant J.M.G. Scale 1 in accordance with the original seniority.

The bank contested the claim and filed written statement . Preliminary objections were raised about the referred dispute not being an industrial dispute under the Act and about being it highly belated as it has been raised after more than 5 years . On merits it was contended that In enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found that the charge fordemanding Rs . 1,000 as bribe from a local cloth merchant ofDhameta was established, while against other charges finding of 'not found guilty' was given. The disciplinary authority agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer regarding proof of the charge of demanding bribe from a local cloth merchant; and regarding exoneration of the workman for the charges oftaking undue favour from the borrowers .But he differed from the Enquiry Officer onhis finding regarding the charge of removal of the daily Attendance Register, unauthorized leave , marking attendance and moving leave application after availing the leave and also for preparing claim papers without any order either on the application or the B.M.'s sanction on PNB-46-47 and found the workman guilty for the related charges also . He issued a Show Cause Notice to the workman proposing the punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect . Workman was also held not entitled to any wages for the period of suspension 1369 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

3. Whether the suspension, issuing charge-sheet and awarding punishment by single person as disciplinary authority is illegal and is the result of ill-will, mala fide and bias of the management and ifso, its effect ?

4. Whether the action of the bank in imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect, non payment ofwages during the period of suspension and extension of suspensionperiod is just and legal ?

5. To what relief, if any, is the workman entitled ?

In support ofhis case, the workman filed and tendered his own affidavit and also several documents . While on behalfof the management bank, affidavits ofAshok Goel, Senior Inspector, PNB , K.C. Sharma, Senior Manager and S. K. Nigam, A.G.M. Headquarters , New Delhi were tendered in evidence . The bank produced the enquiry report also.

Workman has filed his written arguments in the case. I considered the material available on record and also written arguments of the workman and heard the AR of the bank also . My findings on the various issues are as follows:-

Issue No. 1

the departmental action has been taken against the workman in accordance with the provisions ofthe Bipartite Settlement and the orders passed by the disciplinary authority as well as by the appellate authority are perfectly legal and valid. The allegations made against the Enquiry Officer and the disciplinary authorities are totally wrong, baseless and have been made with ulterior objective. During the enquiry, workman had been allowed to be represented by the representative and had been provided the list of documents and witnesses to enable him to lead the defence and all reasonable opportunity was given to him to defend himself. After the report of the Enquiry Officer, a Show CauseNotice along with copy of enquiry report was sent to the workman and after giving him personal hearing the punishment order was passed . There is no requirement for providing the list of documents and witnesses in the charge-sheet itself. The disciplinary authority while differing with the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer in respect ofsome ofthe charges has given due and valid reasons and it is denied that the findings of the Enquiry Officer in respect of demand ofbribery is not based on evidence on record. The allegation of threat has been denied . It was also denied that the workman is entitled to full salary for the period of suspension. It was submitted by the bank that in case the Tribunal finds that the enquiry conducted by the bank is bad for any reason in that eventuality, the bank be allowed to lead evidence to prove the allegations .

Management has taken a preliminary objection that whathas been referred to this Tribunal by the appropriate Government cannot be termed as industrial dispute as envisaged under the provisions of the Act as the so called dispute has not been duly and validly espoused as required under the Act.

Ithas not been elaborated as to how the dispute can be said not duly and validly espoused. It being a dispute between a employee and a workman is an industrial dispute within the meaning ofSection 2 (k) oftheAct. IssueNo.1 is decided against the management accordingly.

IssueNo. 2

Thesecondpreliminary objection of the management is that the dispute has been raised by the workman after the lapse of over 5 years and it is highly belated .

Workman filed a rejoinder to say that the allegations contained in the charge-sheet were not of grave nature and does not constitute misconduct under the provisions of the Bipartite Settlement. The senior employees who were responsible and liable for suspension and charge- sheet were instrumental in producing the witnesses against him during the enquiry. B. K. Rehan, the In - charge ofthe Branch Office. Dhameta during the relevant period was a material witness, but was not included in the list of witnesses ofthe management . The disciplinary authority has in fact prejudged the guilt of the workman as he had mentioned in the notice of the proposed punishment that no wages will be paid to the workman for the suspension period . The disciplinary authority while differing from the findings of the Enquiry Officer has relied on the statement of MW- 5 in that enquiry but has not considered the probative value of his statement. He has also alleged that annual grade increment which was due during the suspension period w.e.f. 1-12-1990 has not been released till date .

On the pleadings of the parties following issues arise for decision in this case:-

1. Whether the dispute raised by the workman is not an industrial dispute under theAct, ifnot, its effect ?

The answer to this objection may be found in the claim statement itself. It has been stated in the claim statement that after the order ofthe appellate authority the claimant had filed a civil suit but the Civil Court returned theplaint for want ofjurisdiction on 25-9-1995 . The claimant approached this Tribunal after the return of the plaint from the Civil Court and there appears no undue delay on the part of the workman in raising the dispute before this Tribunal. Otherwise also in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in Karan Singh Vs M/s . Executive Engineer, Haryana State Marketing Board 2007 (4) RSJ 675 the 2. Whether the dispute has been raised belatedly, if so, its effect ?

1370

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Industrial Tribunal cannot invalidate the reference on the ground of delay. Issue No.2 is decided against the management .

the workman and to pass the punishment order. The plea ofthe workman in this regard therefore, is not sustainable and is rejected.

Issue No. 3 & 4.

IssueNo.4 is regarding the legality and justification ofthe punishment imposed by the management . Workman had been found guilty by the Enquiry Officer for demanding bribe from a local cloth merchant but the disciplinary authority found him guilty for three other charges also regarding removal of daily arrangement register, unauthorized marking his attendance and moving leave application after availing the leave and also for unauthorizedly preparing claim papers.

The workman has taken a plea that the suspension, issuing of charge sheet and awarding punishment , all acts have been done by a single person as disciplinary authority, which is illegal. But no service rule or provision of Bi- partite Settlement has been cited by the workman in support ofhis plea. In the absence of any provision I am ofthe view that no fault can be found with the suspension, isuing charge- sheet and awarding punishment by disciplinary authority.

I have perused the order dated 20-2-1991 Ex . W- 7 of the disciplinary authority. Disciplinary authority has given valid reasons for his findings . Considering the gravity of the misconduct the punishment imposed by the management of stopping two increments with cumulative effect is appropriate and is rather on lenient side .

Inhis written arguments , the workman has taken a plea that the suspension order may be passed only by the appointing authority, who in his case is Chairman- cum-Managing Director and the disciplinary authority is not the appointing authority of the workman, hence he was not authorized to pass the suspension order. The plea though was not taken in the claim statement andwas raised by the workman for the first time in his written arguments , yet being a legal plea it requires consideration.

The workman has alleged that the non -payment of wages during the period of suspension is unjust and illegal . However, he has not made it clear that on what ground he is claiming the wages for suspension period . The suspension order dated 3-7-1989 is annexure- A, Ex. W- 2 . By this order his leaving ofstation without prior permission f Manager, D.O. Dhameta and his entry in the premises of the bank without the prior permission of the said Manager had been banned . It is clear that no work was taken by management from the workman during the suspension period . He was therefore, not entitled to any. wages for that period excepting subsistence allowance, which was admissible to him .

The workman has alleged that his suspension was not revoked even after hejoined on 19-2-1991 the Rajhoom Branch of Punjab National Bank but the management in its reply has said that the suspension of the workman was revoked when he reported at Rajhoom branch on 23-3-1991 . It cannot be believed that even after his joining the Branch Office as per orders of the management his suspension continued . It has not been made clear by the workman as to from which date he started getting his regular salary after the punishment order and on what basis he has alleged the extension of his suspension period.

From the record of enquiry it is clear that Regional Manager, Dharamsala has acted as disciplinary authority in the matter. He has issued the suspension order, Charge- sheet and passed the punishment order. The question is whether the Regional Manager, Dharmsala is the appointing authority and if he is not , can he act as disciplinary authority? In this regard the Circle Office, Chandigarh of Punjab National Bank, on the asking of the Tribunal, has made available Circular letter No.27 of 1988 dated 4-5-1988 and Circular No.1012 of 13-4-1987 issued from the Head Office, New Delhi of Punjab National Bank . Circular letter No. 27/88 provides that the appointing authority for clerical and subordinate cadre in a state shall be the Chief Manager /Assistant General Manager . Circular letter No. 1012however, makes a Regional Manager, the disciplinary authority . According to this circular the incumbent Incharge of each office is empowered to issue and serve charge- sheets on the defaulting workman and to suspend him, if considered necessary, after obtaining prior approval from disciplinary authority designated under para ( ii ) and in para (ii) , the Regional Manager has been empowered to hold enquiry, to take disciplinary action and pass the original order with regard to all offices in the region including Regional Office and other administrative offices underthe Regional Office.

From the above discussion it is clear that there was no extension of suspension period and the action of the bank in imposing the penalty of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect , non - payment of wages during the period of suspension is just and legal. Issue. nos . 3 and 4 are therefore , decided against the workman. Issue No. 5

Theabove circulars are made part ofthe record. from the aforesaid circular letters it is clear that the Regional Manager, Dharmsala is not the appointing authority of the workman but he as disciplinary authority was quite competent to issue suspension order and charge- sheet to

From the findings returned on various issues it is clear that workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is answered against him. Let two copies of award 1371 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

AWARD

after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action .

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 450.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनयम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इलाहाबाद बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. I , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/29/2005- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

Various acts of misconduct were committed by Shri B. S. Verma, Head Cashier Category E, while posted at Rajokari and Mangolpur Kalan Branch of the Allahabad Bank ( hereinafter referred to as the bank ) Since his misconducts amounted to wilful in -subordination or disobedience to lawful authority and reasonable orders ofhis superiors a charge sheet was served upon him on 3- 8-98. Reply of Shri Verma to the said charge sheet was found to be unsatisfactory. Enquiry was initiated which lasted for about 5 years . The Enquiry Officer gave his findings .The Disciplinary Authority imposed punishment of withdrawal of special allowance of Shri Verma . He approached All India Allahabad Bank Employees Association , who raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since conciliation proceedings failed the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L- 12011/29/2005 - IR (B - II) , New Delhi dated 5th July, 2005, with following terms: -

"Whether the action of the management of Allahabad Bank in imposing punishment of withdrawal of special allowance of Shri B. S. Verma. Head Cashier -'E' is legal and justified ? Ifnot to what relief is the disputant entitled to ? "

S.O. 450.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 20/2005 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court -No . I, New Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Allahabad Bank and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 5-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12011/29/2005 - IR (B- II) ] 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. 20/2005

Shri B. S. Verma,

Through the General Secretary, All India Allahabad Bank Employees ' Association, C/o Allahabad Bank, Baroda

New Delhi -110001 .

...Workman

Versus

The General Manager,

Allahabad Bank, ZonalOffice, 17 , Parliament Street, NewDelhi .

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Verma pleading therein that the management started harassing him since the very date when he joined Mangolpur Kalan Branch of the bank, as a Head Cashier category ' E' . Duties were assigned to him against the guidelines of the Head Office . He was supposed to work in excess to his defined duties . He requested the authorities to adhere to the Head Office's guidelines /circulars . This made him to invite displeasure of his superiors . With a view to interrupt him the bank started issuing manipulated, intentional , deliberate and malafide office orders / letters , which were contraryto the Head Office Guidelines . He projects that the bank manipulated charge sheet dated 3-8-98 due to sheer vengience, with a view to victimize him for his trade union activities as well as protest raised by him against illegal office orders /letters . Letters dated 28-3-98, 30-3-98 and 31.3.98 , as mentioned in head three of the charge sheet, were not supplied to him . Without supply of those letters charges were not made specific and clear to him . The Enquiry Officer had not given reasonable opportunity to defend himself. Charges were not proved against him. However, the Enquiry Officer submitted a report, which was perverse . The Disciplinary Authority awarded punishment ofwithdrawal ofhis special allowance , without application of his mind . The Appellate Authority also dismissed his appeal in a mechanical manner and confirmed the punishment awarded to him .. He claims that the order ofpunishment dated 13-12-03 may be set aside and he may be exonerated from all charges restoring his special allowance.

...Management

334GI/11-35 1372

[PART II- SBC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1. Whether the enquiry conducted by the management was just and fair ?

2. Whether the punishment of withdrawal of special allowance was commensurative to the misconduct ?

3. As in terms ofreference .

4. Relief.

5. Issue No.1 was treated as preliminary issue . Shri B.S.Verma has examined himself in support ofhis claim. Shri Amar Singh , Chief Manager , was examined by the bank to discharge onus . After hearing the parties and on appreciation of evidence , the preliminary issue was answered in favour of the claimant and against the bank vide order dated 15-2-2010.

6. Vijay Kumar Vij was examined by the bank to prove misconduct of the claimant . Shri Verma entered the witness box again to rebut evidence , so adduced by the bank. No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

7.Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri B.S. Verma raised his submissions in person. Shri Rajat Arora, authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf of the bank . Subsequently written submissions were filed by Shri Verma . 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:

Issue no . 2 and 3

3. Contest was given to the claim statement by the bank pleading that the reference made by the appropriate Government is without application of mind, hence it is liable to be rejected. It has been pleaded that while posted at Rajokri and Mangolpur Kalan branch of the bank , the claimant failed to carry out duties assigned to him . Vide order dated 7-3-98 Senior Manager assigned duties of application of interest, balancing of saving bank ledgers Nos . 2, 4, 6, 8 , 10 , 12 , and 14, preparation of H.O. 41 weekly and application of H.O. interest and work, which duties were not performed by the workman . Keeping in view urgency of closing work , two officers , namely, Pramod Kumar and Ramesh Jain were deputed at Rajokri Branch for completion of the closing work . Application of interest indifferent saving bank ledgers was done by Pramod Kumar, Ramesh Jain and R. P.Tanwar . Conclusion ofH.O. interest was done by Shri Pramod Kumar. Work ofbalancing of S. B.Ledger Nos . 2, 4, 6, 8 , 10 , 12 and 14. wasdone in April , 1998. Since the workman opted not to perform those duties , letters dated 28-3-98, 30-3-98 and 31-3-98 were written, which were acknowledged by Shri Verma , but he disobeyed instructions contained therein. Therefore , contention of Shri Verma that these documents were not supplied to him is misconceived. Circular dated 19-6-98 makes it clear that the instruments (cheques) were to be accepted by the authorised person or the person to whom duty was specifically assigned in that regard . Contention of the workman that office order, commanding him to receive cheques from public , was contrary to office guidelines , is misconceived . The workman admits that he refused to accept cheques from public in pursuance of the office order, which was contrary to office guidelines . However his assertion that the officer orders were contrary to office guidelines , is wrong and misconceived . It has been denied that the bank started harassing the workman from the date ofhis joiningMangolpur Kalan branch . It has been denied that the workman was forced to work in excess of his defined duties . It has also been denied that charge sheet was manipulated . It has been pleaded that the enquiry was initiated on 21-10-98 and it was completed on 16-4-2003 , in 29 hearings . Contention of the workman that reasonable opportunity was not given to defend himself is unfounded, in view of various hearings of the enquiry. Ithas been claimed that the findings ofthe Enquiry Officer werebased on evidence produced before him. He rightly concluded that charges stood proved against Shri Verma. The Disciplinary Authority gave personal hearing to Shri Verma and then awarded punishment of withdrawal ofhis special allowance . Appellate Authority also passed its order in consonance with facts . The bank claims that case projected by the workman is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed .

8. Shri Vijay Kumar Vij unfolds that from July, 1997 till May, 1998 he was posted as Branch Manager , Mangolpur Kalan branch of the bank. On 27-3-98 the workman came tojoin as a Head Cashier category 'E' in his branch, on being transferred from Rajokri branch of the bank . He reached at about 4.30 PM to take over charge of cash department . He detailed duties , when Shri Verma reported on 28th of March, 98. He was made aware that his duties includes cash receipt, cash payments , tallying of cash at the end of the day, to hand over cash to the branch incharge to be kept in safe and duel custody. He was advised to collect cheques for clearing purposes from customers . He was also made aware that vouchers upto an amount of Rs.3000 would be released by him for posting purposes by cash clerks and vouchers of higher amount would be counter- signed by him . During his duty hours on 28th of March, 98 Shri Verma refused to accept cheques from customers for clearing purposes . Customers approached officer concerned as well as him (witness ) in that regard. Hetold Shri Verma that it was part of his duty to accept cheques from public for clearing purposes . When Shri Verma refused to comply those instructions , he had to issue an office order in that regard, which is Ex.MW2/ 1 .

4.Onpleadings ofthe parties , following issues were settled:

1373 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Shri Verma accepted the order under protest. He refused to accept cheques from customers for clearing purposes , despite issuance of the order referred above . He issued another office order which is Ex.MW2/ 2. Despite issuance of second office order . Shri Verma refused to receive cheques from customers for clearing purposes . Therefore, he issued letter Ex.MW2/ 3 to Shri Verma in evening hours . All these efforts failed since Shri Verma opted not to comply and went away.

examination, he announces that Shri Verma was bound to perform his duties in pursuance to circular Ex.MW2/W1. Complaint like Ex. MW2/W2, Ex. MW2/W3 , Ex.MW2/W4 and Ex.MW2/W5 were received by him on 28-3-98 . He does not dispute the documents Ex.MW2 / W6 to Ex. MW2/20 . He announces that circular Ex.MW1 / 7 was issued by the bank on 19-6-98 . He details that letter Ex.MW2/W3 might have been received by Shri Verma either in evening of29-3-98 or in morning of30-3-98 . On 30-3-98 Shri Verma released vouchers for posting by cash clerk at about 4 or 4.15 PM. On 31-3-98 his officers told that Shri Verma has released vouchers for being posted bycash clerks belatedly. Shri Mange Ram Sharma told him that Shri Verma was not receiving cheques from public for clearing purposes . In Ex.MW2/5 he made reference of go slow tactics adopted by Shri Verma.

9. Shri Vij erects edifice brick by brick detailing that on 30-3-98 also he told Shri Verma that it was part ofhis duty to accept cheques from customers for clearing purposes . He again refused to comply oral instructions, so given. He had to issue office order Ex.MW2/4 on that day, which was accepted by him under protest . Thereafter he asked Shri Mange Ram, Officer, to accept cheques from customers for clearing purposes . Letter Ex. MW2/ 5 was issued to Shri Verma on 30-3-98 . Shri Verma come in hall many a times for making telephone calls and told him thathe cannot perform that job . Public approached him time and again, when Shri Verma refused to accept cheques and a scene was created . Some customers gave complaints inwriting, which complaints were sent to Regional Office. Shri Verma was speaking to him in indecent manner. He uttered, " who is that bastered who can harm me " . Lady staff felt inconvenient on hearing such indecent remarks . Shri Verma did not complete his job that day and left home.

10. Shri Vij detailed that on 31-3-98 he again directed Shri Verma to receive cheques from customers for clearing purposes . Office order Ex.MW2/ 6 was issued which was accepted by Shri Verma under protest. Aletter was issued to him that day which is Ex. MW2/ 7 . He reported the incident to Regional Office vide letters Ex.MW2 / 8 and Ex.MW2 /9 respectively. Shri Verma had adopted a go slow tactics . He used to release receipt vouchers in evening for posting by cash clerk. He had to request his officers to post those vouchers and complete ledgers .He issued office order in that regard which is Ex.MW2/ 10 . He had to issue directions to the entire staff to complete the work since 31-3-98 was closing day ofthe year, which directions are Ex.MW2/ 11 . On 31-3-98 Shri Verma created a scene in hall and gave a feeling that he was a leader. He left vouchers for posting in the evening . Shri Verma did not complete his job on 31-3-98 .

12. Shri B.S Verma unfolds that on 28-3-98 cashier sent certain vouchers to him which were not in consonance with the circular issued by the bank . He instructed him to send vouchers to him in accordance with the circulars . Raj Singh , Receipt Cashier , went to the cabin of the Branch Manager: Thereafter he came to his seat and informed that he was told by the Branch Manager to work in accordance withthe practice prevalent and not in accordance with the circulars . Branch Manager handed over office order Ex.MW2/ 1 . He told the Branch Manager that cheques sent to him for clearing purposes were not containing signature ofthe ledger keeper . He told him to check those cheques and to do the needful . A cheque was to be deposited in the account of one Jeet Singh Yadav, which account was not properly introduced . On account of that irregularity, the cheque in question could not be encashed in that account . He requested Mangat Ram Sharma, Operation Manager, to instruct Receipt Cashier to send cheques to him in accordance with the circular . Shri Sharma went to cabin of the Branch Manager and on return told that Shri Vij had instructed him to and work as per practice . Second Office order was issued by the Branch Manager on that very day. Since it was practice prevalent in those days to drop cheques in clearing box , there was no occasion for the public to reach his seat and to hand over cheques for clearing purposes . On 28-3-98 Branch Manager come to his seat alongwith cash receipt vouchers . He requested him to certify the same as per practice . Vouchers were without counter - foils and transit register. Since the staff had refused to post vouchers he has to authenticate the same.

13. Shri Verma declares that on 30-3-98 Receipt Cashier had sent certain vouchers without counter- foils and transit register . He had handed over counter foil to respective customers . An office order was issued by the Branch Manager instructing him to receive cheques from public for clearing purposes . None from public came to 11. To project that acceptance of cheques from customers for clearing purposes was duty ofHead Cashier category 'E' , Shri Vij unfolds that prior to Shri Verma, Shri V.K.Jain, Head Cashier Category 'E', used to perform those duties . He never received any complaint in respect ofworking of Shri V.K.Jain . Shri Verma used to address and advise other employees not todo their job. He used to utter that he will see as to how work is taken from him by the branch manager. He testified facts in that regard before the Enquiry Officer. During the course ofhis cross 1374

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ]

proved by the claimant as Ex.WW1 /4 , enlists duties carrying special allowance in clerical and subordinate cadres . Ithas been mentioned in the circular that workman entrusted with duties attracting special allowance canbe requiredto perform routine duties of his cadre. Routine duties of clerical cadre, for which no special allowance was to be paid, has also been detailed as follows:

1. Acknowledgement ofinward mail received, him to handover cheques for clearing purposes .At about 11.30 AM Shri Vij approached him and uttered that he (witness) was trying to disrupt working of the receipt counter. He threatened him saying that he would implicate him in one or other charges as he was new to the branch. At about 12noon Shri Vij again approached him with cash receipt vouchers above Rs.3000 and advised him to authenticate those vouchers , since staff has refused to pass the same. He issued letter Ex.MW1 /3 in morning hours and letter Ex.MW2/5 around 4.50 PM .

2. Receipt of cheques , drafts , dividend, warrants , pay orders and other like instruments other than bills and giving acknowledgements in the counterfoil.

3. Delivery of cheque books , subject to authorization by competent authority,

4. Issue of cash receipts upto Rs . 1000/- .

5. Issue of ESI Stamps whenever applicable or may becomeapplicable.

6.Recounting ofcurrency notes by case department staff.

7. Ensuring proper contents in covers and envelopes including registered one before tendering.

14. Shri Verma concedes that on 31-3-93 Shri Vij had issued office order, which is Ex. MW2 /6 . None from public came to him to handover cheques for clearing purposes . He received office orders under protest . He gave a telephone call to Shri R.S.Saini General Secretary of the Union and narrated facts . As per instructions of Shri Saini he requested Shri Vij to have a talk with Shri Saini . Shri Vij started abusing and uttered that he does not know any bastered with the name of Shri Saini he had to authenticate cash receipt vouchers without counter- foils and transit register . During the course of his cross examination, he concedes that Shri Vij asked him to receive cheques from customers for clearing purposes . He presents that he could not receive a cheque without ascertaining the fact as to whether it could be cleared for encashment . According to him, it was his duly to know whether account in which a cheque was to be encashed , was properly introduced and opened . Saving bank vouchers and ledgers were not in his cabin . He had to go out to check these vouchers and ledgers . He tenders circular and enquiry proceedings , which are Ex . WW1 / 1 to Ex. WW1/7.

16.Besides above duties , Annexure A to the circular enlists special allowance duties of Head Cashier CategoryA, Head Cashier Category C and Head Cashier Category E and of other posts . Duties of Head Cashier Category A takes within its sweep functions of holding bank's cash , keys and/or other valuables in safe custody (jointly with an officer ) and being accountable for them and being responsible for running cash department . It has beenprojected therein that in banks where such practice is in existence, the opinion compilation with verification of vernacular signatures /endorsements may, if the bank so desires , continued to be done by employees under that category without disturbance . Duties of head cashier category C shall involve holding bank's cash, keys , and / or other valuables in safe custody (jointly with an officer) and being accountable for them and being responsible for running cash department , and counter signing cheques and or drafts (on selves or correspondents ), pay orders , deposit receipts etc. It has been pointed out that in banks where such practice is in existence, the opinion compilation with verification of vernacular signatures /endorsements will continue to be done by employees of that category without disturbance , besides where practice of discharging bills/hundies for payment received is in existence it may be continued to be done by the officials of that category.

15.When facts testified by Shri Vijay Kumar Vij and Shri B.S. Verma were appreciated, it came to light that Shri Vermajoined Mangolpur Kalan Branch of the bank as a Head Cashier Category ' E' on 27th of March, 98 , on being transferred to that branch from Rajokri branch . He took over charge of the post at 4.30 PM that day . On 28-3-98 Shri Vij detailed duties of that post to Shri Verma . He was made aware that his duties includes cash receipt, cash payments , felling books of cash at the end of the day, to handover cash to the branch incharge to be kept in safe custody. He was also advised to collect cheques for clearing purposes from customers , besides releasing vouchers upto an amount of Rs.3000 for posting purposes by cash clerks and to counter- sign vouchers of amount higher than Rs.3000 . A hue and cry was raised by Shri Verma, that it was not his duty to collect cheques from public for clearing purposes . Contra to his assertions Shri Vij has unfolded that he was made clear that it was part of his duties to collect cheques from customers for clearing purposes . Therefore, it is expedient to ascertain as to whether assertion of Shri Vij is correct . Consequently efforts would be made to know as to what were duties of Head Cashier Category 'E' , in those days . Circular No.4208,

17. Duties ofHead Cashier Category 'E' shall be the same as provided for Head Cashier Category ( A) or (B ) or (C) or (D) besides all or any of the following duties :

1375 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1. Discharging/ endorsing bills/cheques etc.

2. Opinion compilation work and verification of vernacular signatures (to there it is not already covered under Categories A, B, C, or D) .

are self explanatory. Shri Vij unfolds that Shri Verma came inhall for making telephone calls and told him that he can not perform his duties in that manner . Complaints were made by the customers to him, asserts Shri Vij . As projected by Shri Vij , Shri Verma talked in an indecent manner and left home without completing job for the day.

3. Being incharge of clearing and godown department etc.

4. Guaranteeing the cash staff under them.

5. Passing independently clearing and transfer cheques , vouchers etc. (credits or debits ) upto and including Rs.35000. Passing cash vouchers upto Rs.35000 jointly with an authorised person .

20. On 3rd consecutive day, that is 31st of March, 98 Shri Vij again directed Shri Verma to receive cheques from customers for clearing purposes . He issued office order Ex.MW2/ 6, which was received by him under protest. When Shri Verma failed to carry out instructions , letter Ex. MW2/7 was issued which portraits roudy behaviour of Shri Verma. These documents makes it clear that Shri Verma created scene of indiscipline and refused to perform duties assigned to him . Shri Vij was constrained to report the matter to higher authorities vide communications Ex.MW2/8 and Ex . MW2/9 , Since it was closing day ofthe year, Shri Vij has to issue directions to the entire staff to complete their work, which directions are contained in Ex. MW2/ 11 . Shri Verma left voucher for posting in the evening hours with a view to create problems for the Branch Manager.

18. As projected above a Head Cashier Category "E' shall perform all duties of Head Cashier Category A, B C or D, plus duties detailed above . Besides those duties he is under an obligation to perform routine duties , which duties are ofreceipt of cheques , drafts , dividend , warrants , pay orders and other like instructions other than bills and giving acknowledgements in counter-foil . Consequently it is evident that receipt of cheques from public for clearing purposes was part of routine duties to be performed by Head Cashier Category ' E ' which position Shri B.S.Verma was holding at the relevant time.

21. Facts detailed above make it clear that Shri Verma opted to disobey instructions issued by Branch Manager on various dates . He not only defied legal orders ofhis superior but created scene in the branch, which was subversive of discipline . He uttered indecent words which smacks of insubordination too . From even its detailed above, it is crystal clear that the bank has been able to prové misconduct of Shri Verma relating to defying legal orders of his superior, creation of indecent behaviour in the branch, disrupting smooth functioning of the bank and showing insubordination and dis - obedience to lawful authorities of his superior. Consequently it is clear that thebank has been able to prove misconduct of Shri Verma, as detailed above .

22. On quantum of punishment to be awarded, the bank projects that Shri Verma may be punished suitably. On the other hand Shri Verma claimed exoneration of his punishment . An employee who disobeys instructions of his superior, disrupts the working of the branch, uses indecent words in presence of public and shows insubordination and disobedience to lawful authority of his superior runs a risk of incurring penalty. He cannot be exonerated of such misconducts . Considering all facts , penalty of withdrawal of special allowance of Shri B.S Verma , Head Cashier Category ' E ' is imposed upon him . The punishment order shall operate from the day on which the punishment was awarded to Shri Verma by the bank. An award is , accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for Publication.

Dated: 29-11-2010

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer 19. Ex.MW2/ 1 was served on Shri Verma by Shri Vij on 28-3-98 , which document makes it clear that Shri Verma was advised to receive local clearing cheques and after noting it in register to hand over collected cheques to the Special Assistant for compiling the same . This office order was received by Shri Verma under protest. Another office order Ex.MW2/2 was issued by Shri Vij wherein he mentioned that Shri Verma had not received cheques from public . He was advised to receive cheques from public for smooth functioning of the branch and to submit his protest after public working hours . That office order was again received by Shri Verma under protest. Despite office orders Shri Verma refused to accept cheque for clearing purposes at the payment counter . It constrained Shri Vij to issue letter Ex.MW2/3 wherein he unfolds that non- compliance of the aforesaid office orders is violative of its contents . He emphasised on Shri Verma that the latter had failed to justify his salary for the day. On 30th of March, 98 he was again advised by Shri Vij to accept cheques from customers for clearing purposes , as it was part ofhis duty. Shri Verma again refused to follow instructions of his superior , who was constrained to issue office order Ex.MW2/4 . Shri Verma opted to accept the order under protest. When Shri Verma failed to carry out his duties , Shri Mange Ram was advised by the Branch Manager to accept cheques from customers for clearing purposes . An order Ex.MW2/ 10 was issued by Shri Vij in that regard and Shri Mange Ram Sharma carried out instructions issued to him . Letter Ex.MW2 / 5 was issued to Shri Verma, contents of which 1376

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 14 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 451. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टैण्डर्ड चार्टरड बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -1 , मुंबई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 70/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 12-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/52/2003- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

AWARD

1.This is a reference made by the Central Government inexercise of its powers under clause (d) of sub - section 1 of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 vide Government of India, Ministry ofLabour, New Delhi Order No. L- 12011 /52/2003 - IR (B -1) dt . 27-11-2003 . The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows :

"Whether the action of the Management of Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai in terminating the services of $/ Shri Shekar Poojary and 9 others w.e.f 1-8-2002 is justified ? If not, what relief, S/Shri Shekar Poojary and 9 others are entitled to ?"

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 451. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 70/2003) 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 Standard Chartered Bank and their workman, received by the Central Government on 12-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12011/52/2003 - IR(B-I)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1, MUMBAI JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer REFERENCE No. CGIT- 1/70 of 2003.

PARTIES:

Employers in relation to the management of Standard CharteredBank

And

TheirWorkmen

APPEARANCES :

FortheManagement : Shri Ashok D. Shetty, Adv.

FortheUnion

Shri Dinesh Tawade Secretary, Mumbai Labour Union

State : Maharashtra

Mumbai, datedthe 5th day of January 2011

2. Secretary, Mumbai Labour Union and learned counsel for the First Party Bank have submitted an application today that in terms of the Memorandum of Settlementdt.3-1-2011 the dispute has been amicably settled between them and the workmen do not desire to prosecute or press their claims or contentions .

3.According to the terms of settlement each of the ten workmen shall be paid the amount shown against his name as per Annexure 'A' and upon receipt of the said amount by the individual workman the same shall be in full satisfaction of all his legal dues/claims against the employer and that they shall have no further claim or dispute of any nature whatsoever monetary or otherwise.

4. Shri Dinesh Tawade, Secretary, Mumbai Labour Union and all workmen except the workman Shri Alkesh Barot are present in the Court and they submit that they have received the Pay Orders of the amount as mentioned in Annexure 'A' in full and final satisfaction oftheir claims and they now have no grievance against theFirst Party.

5. One workam Alkesh Barot is absent . Shri Dinesh Tawade, Secretary, Mumbai Labour Union states that his whereabouts are not known . There is no material on record except the Memorandum of Settlement according to which he is entitled to receive Rs.1,42,350 . It is , therefore , declared that the workman Shri Alkesh Barot is entitled to receive Rs.1 , 42, 350 from Dr. Mukund Aparajit, Proprietor, Rosemary & Thyme International , Gala No.2 Gandhi Nagar, Bharat Bazar, D. C. Road , Behind Lady Ratan Tata Tower, Worli , Mumbai -400018 .

6.Accordingly the reference stands disposed of in terms ofMemorandum of Settlement dt. 3-1-2011 .

JUSTICE G. S. SARRAP, Presiding Officer 1377

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 452. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बडौदा के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 55/07 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/110/2006- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 452. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.55 /2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- II , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workmen, whichwas received by the Central Government on 13-1-2011.

[No. L- 12012/ 110/2006- IR (B- II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT- IL, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI

ID No. 55/2007

Dated: 22-11-2010 Inthe matter of dispute between :

Shri Anil Kumar, son of late Sh. Jai Prakash,

HouseNo. 349, Purani Aabadi ,

... Workman Hanuman Chowk, Muzaffarnagar (UP)

Versus

TheAssistant General Manager ,

..Management Bank ofBaroda, Regional Office, 1 , Sanaklan Road, Bhotia Padav, Nainital Road, Haldwani .

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour, vide Order No. L- 12012/ 110/2006- IR(B- II) dated 30-8-2007 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

"Whether the action ofthe management ofBank of Baroda, Muzaffarnagar to terminate the service of Shri Anil Kumar, part time sweeper w.e.f. whether 1-10-2003 is fair , legal and justified ? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ? "

The workman has not been attending this case for the last so many dates ofhearing. In fact, since 28-7-2008 he has not been attending this court . Evidently, he is not interested in the outcome of this reference . In this situation, there is no way out except to pass a no dispute award in this case which is passed accordingly. The reference sent by the Central Government stands disposed of accordingly.

Dated: 22-11-2010

SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 453. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-2 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 61/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/14/2000- आई आर (बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 453. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.61/2000) ofthe CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- II, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofBank ofIndia and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-1-2011.

[No. L- 12012/14/2000-IR (B - II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL -CUM - LABOUR COURT- II, KARKARDOOMA, DELHI - 110032

ID No. 61/2000

Dated:25-11-2010 Inthe matter of dispute between:

Shri S.K. Pasricha, Flat No. 150 Plot No. 13/1 , Bhagirathi Apptts .

... Workman New Delhi - 110085

Versus [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1378

ANNEXURE

Bank of India,

The Zonal Manager, BOI ,

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING

OFFICER,

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

..Management

Jeevan BhartiBuilding , Level-5, Tower- 1 , 124 Indira Chowk, New Delhi - 110001

TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT, AWARD

KANPUR.

Industrial Dispute No. 12 of2008

BETWEEN

The CentralGovernment, Ministry of Labour, vide Order No. L- 12012/ 14/2000 - IR(B - II ) dated 5-6-2000 has referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal foradjudication:

Sri Tarun Bharti, S/o Sri Rajesh Bharti, Moh. Antpada, Arya Samaj Road, Mathura .

And

" Whether the action of the Dy. Chief Manager (Admn) . Bank of India, New Delhi Service Branch, Zonal Office, Jewan Bharti Building, Level 5, Tower- 1, Indira Chowk, New Delhi in imposing punishment ofremoval from service to Shri S.K. Pasricha Ex- Staff Clerk w.e.f. 24-2-99 is justified , reasonable and valid ? If not, what relief and benefits he is entitled to ?"

The General Manager, Union Bank of India, 3rd Floor Sharda Tower, Kapoorthala Complex, Aliganj , Lucknow.

AWARD

The workman has not been attending this case for the last so manydate ofhearing . In fact, since 3-9-2008 he has not been attending the court . Evidently, he is not interested in the outcome of this reference . In this situation, there is no way out except to pass a no dispute award in this case which is passed accordingly. The reference sent bythe CentralGovernment stands disposed ofaccordingly.

Dated: 25-11-2010

1. Central Government, MoL , New Delhi , vide notification no . L- 12012/98/2007 (IR (B- II) dated 10-12-2007 has refered the following dispute for adjunction to this tribunal.

SATNAM SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 14 जनवरी , 2011

2. Whether the action of the management of Union Bank of India , Mathura Cantt . Branch in terminating Sri Tarun Bharti alias Chhotu, son of Sri Rajesh Bharti from the service w.e.f. 01-01-05 is just fair and legal ? If not to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?

का.आ. 454.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार यूनियन बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 12/2008 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को13-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/98/2007- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

3. In the above case after the receipt ofthe reference order by the appropriate government registered notices were issued to the contesting parties from the tribunal for filing their respective claims by the contesting parties .The instant case was taken up for hearing on and on 10-04-08 , 09-05-08, 29-05-08, 07-07-08, 4-08-08, 09-09-08 , 16-10-08, 28-11-08 , 19-02-09, 25-03-09, 01-05-09, 27-07-09, 24-09-09, 20-10-09, 02-12-09, 29-12-09, 16-02-2010, 15-03-2010, 29-04-2010, 31-05-2010, 27-07-2010, 13-08-10, 31-08-2010, 04-10-10, 18-11-2010 and 21-12-10 respectively, but neither the workman nor any one on his behalf appeared in the case to contest the case nor was any statement of claim filed on his behalf.

S.O. 454. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 12/2008) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kanpur now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Union Bank of India and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 13-01-2011.

[No. L- 12012/98/ 2007- IR (B- II) ]

4. It is the workman who is claimant in the instant case is heavily burdened to contest his case before the tribunal and ifhe fails to file his complaint or statement of claim before the tribunal he is solely responsible for the same and he cannot be allowed to get any relief for his own deliberate lapses as has been found in the instant case .

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer 1379 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

Management

B-38 , Naraina IndustrialArea, Naraina, New Delhi - 110028.

AWARD

5. Since the claimant has not availed the opportunity granted by the tribunal and also since he deliberately failed to file his claim before the tribunal, the tribunal is inclined to believe that the claimant is not interested to prosecute his case before the tribunal and the reference is bound to be answered against the claimant for want of pleadings andproof.

6.Accordingly reference is answered in affirmative in favour of the opposite party management and against theworkman.

Dated : 6-1-11

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 455. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पंजाब एंड सिंध बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 24/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-01-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/02/2010- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 455. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 24/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Punjab & Sind Bank and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 05-01-2011.

Amolak Singh, who Was employed with Punjab & Sind Bank (in short the bank) , died in harness . His son, namely, Tirath Singh , applied for compassionate appointment . His request was granted and he was appointed as Typist, vide appointment letter dated 11th of November, 94. He was constrained to give an authority letter to the bank to deduct a sum equivalent to 25 % of his monthly gross emoluments , to deposit it in the account of Smt. Rajinder Kaur, his mother . He joined services of the bank and kept onprobation for a period of six months . His services were confirmed w.e.f. 11th ofMay, 95. He applied for leave to go abroad. The bank gave him no objection certificate and sanctioned 48 days leave w.e.f. 3-11-2005 to 20-12-2005 . It was made clear to him that no further request with regard to extension of leave of any kind will be entertained . Shri Tirath Singh went abroad and did not join his duties on 21-12-2005 or thereafter . Various letters were written by the bank but to no avail. Notices dated 2-1-2007 and 2-2-2007 were served, calling upon him to join his duties . Ultimately notice dated 6-3-2007was sent calling upon him to join his duties within 30 days , failing which he would be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment . Shri Tirath Singh failed to report for his duty. On 16-4-2007 bank issued a letter to him, declaring therein that he was deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment and his name stood struck off from muster roll of the bank . Against the said order, Shri Tirath Singh raised an industrial dispute . Since Conciliation proceedings failed , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No.L- 12012/02/2010- IR (B - II) New Delhi dated 10-3-2010, with following terms:

[No. L- 12012/02/2010- IR (B- II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

"Whether the action of the management of Punjab & SindBank, New Delhi , in terminating the services ofShri Tirath Singh, ex- Typist, is just , fair and legal ? To what relief the workman is entitled ?"

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV : PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHL

I.D.No.24/2010 .

Street No.5, Varinder Nagar,

..Workman

Tirath Singh S /o Late Sh . Amolak Singh, R/o WZ - 169 , Second Floor, New Delhi .

Versus

The Zonal Manager,

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Tirath Singh and his mother Rajinder Kaur, pleading therein that Shri Tirath Singh was employed as a typist by the bank vide appointment letter dated 11-11-94 , in the pay scale for Rs . 900-2860 . He was appointed on compassionate grounds , with a condition to pay 25 % of his gross emolument to his mother every month as maintenance . He authorized the bank to deduct 25% of his monthly gross emoluments , to deposit it in the account ofhis mother . His services were confirmed on 11-5-95 . He was posted at extension counter of the bank at Dev Nagar. New Delhi , as Head Cashier somewhere in June/July, 2005. He applied for 48 days leave and N.O.C. from the bank for visiting Punjab & Sind Bank, Zonal Office- II ,

334GI/11-36 1380

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 ( ii) ] U.S.A. , where his uncle resides . His leaves were sanctioned, besides granting N.O.C. , vide letter dated 2-11-2005 . He went to U.S.A. , to stay with his uncle. His aunt had fallen seriously ill, hence he requested the bank authorities , vide letter dated 1-3-2006 , for extension ofhis leaves . Though his letter was received by the bank, yet it was not responded to . He thought that his leave have been extended . He got a seat booked for flight to India for 8th ofAugust, 2006. Unfortunately on 1st ofAugust, 2006, he slipped in bath room and sustained serious injuries in his backbone. He was advised by leading consultant not to travel till his complete recovery. Constrained by the circumstances , he got his ticket cancelled. He wrote to the Manager, Dev Nagar branch ofthe bank, on 12-8-2006 and requested him for grant of medical leave till medical attendant advises him to travel to India . He annexed medical certificate alongwith that application. The bank opted not torespond to that communication. On 2-2-2007 he received a letter from Chief Manager, directing him tojoin his duties within 30 days of that letter. He had not replied it. On 28-3-2007 he received another notice dated 6-3-2007 calling upon him to join duties within 30 days failing which he would be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on expiry of notice period . On 5-4-2007, he wrote a letter to the Chief Manager and faxed it on 6-4-2007, wherein he had clarified this position . Surprisingly he received letter dated 16-4-07 wherein it was observed that he has been deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment and his name stood struck off muster roll of thebank.

bank to deduct 25% of gross monthly emoluments ofhis wages , to deposit the same in the account ofhis mother. It is also not a matter of dispute that his services were confirmed and he was posted at extension counter of the bank at Dev Nagar to work as Head Cashier somewhere in June/July, 2005. It is also not a matter ofdispute that Shri Tirath Singh applied leaves for 48 days besides N.O.C. for visiting U.S.A. The bank claims that his leaves were sanctioned, making it clear that no further request with regard to extension of leave of any kind will be entertained. Hewas required to report for duty on 21-12-05 , on expiry of leaves . Since he did not report for duty, he was askedto joinhis duties immediately, vide letter dated 25-1-06.He was instructed, vide letters dated 10-3-2006 and 16-5-2006 to report for duty. He was further advised to report for duty, vide letters dated 2-1-2007 and 2-2-2007, but he opted not to respond. The aforesaid letters were in the form of notice calling him tojoin duties within 30 days otherwise he would be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment. On 7-4-07 a fax message dated 5-4-07 was received, major portion of which was not legible. Letters dated 5-3-06 and 13-8-06, as mentioned in the said fax message, were not received by the bank. The bank had sent notice dated 6-3-07 and 13-3-07 . The claimant neither joined duties nor gave any satisfactory explanation for hisunauthorized absence. Ultimately order dated 16-4-07 was passed detailing therein that the claimant had voluntarily vacated his employment and his name has been struck off rolls of the bank. In his claim statement, stories ofillness ofhis aunt and of self were coined by the claimant. Ashehas not filed any medical bills with the claim, medical certificate submitted by him is fabricated. Claim statement, beinguntenable, is liable to be dismissed.

5.Claimant has examined himself in support ofhis claim. Shri Karamjit Singh has been examined by the bank to prove its defence. No other witness was examinedby either ofthe parties .

6.Arguments were heard at the bar. SriAjay Kumar, authorized representative, advanced arguments on behalf ofthe claimant . He has also submitted written submissions . Shri Lajwinder Singh and Pranav Jha , authorized representatives , advanced arguments on behalf of the bank . 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:

3. Shri Tirath Singh explains that hehad no intention whatsoever to vacate his employment with the bank. He wrote to the authorities and explained his inability to join hisduties , vide letters dated 1-3-06, 12-8-2006 and 5-4-07 . He projects that in catena of decisions the Apex Court and High Court of Delhi had ruled that in case an employee applies for leave and leaves his office on his leaves having been sanctioned, his remaining absent for some period would not constitute abandonment (voluntarily vacating employment) in law. He urges that letter dated 16-4-07 is arbitrary, unjustified, illegal and as such cannot be upheld by law. The said order was passed without giving an opportunity to present his defence . He cannot be removed from services of the bank, in an arbitrary manner. After issuance of that order , he approached the bank number of times, but was not allowed to resume duties . He claims that the bank be directed to allow him to resume duties and pay him full wages , besides consequential benefits .

7. In affidavit Ex. WWI/A claimant presents that he applied for 48 days leave and N.O.C. from the bank and after approval of leave from 3-11-05 to 20-12-05, he went to U.S.A. to meet his uncle . Letter dated 2-11-05 , vide which bank aproved his leave and frowarded N.O.C. to him, is Ex . WW1/ 3 . He details that at U.S.A. his aunt had 4. Claim was demurred pleading that Smt. Rajinder Kaur is not a workman since she was never employed with the bank . Employment of Shri Tirath Singh as typist on compassionate grounds has not been disputed. It is also not a matter of dispute that he gave an authority to the 1381 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/ माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

calling upon him to join his duties . Notices were sent to the claimant mentioning therein that he should join his duties within 30 days failing which it would be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment. The bank projects that claimant had abandoned his employment, when he opted not to join duties despite service ofnotices dated 2-1-07, 2-2-07 and 6-3-07 . Therefore , it would be expedient to know what words " abandon " and "abandonment" mean. Ordinarily, word " abandon" does. not mean merely "leaving " but "leaving completely and finally" . Word " abandonment " would indicate that it has aconnotation of finality, which would mean relinquishment or extinguishment of a right, giving up of something absolutely, giving up with an intent of never claiming a right or interest, to renounce or forsake utterly. In order to constitute on "abandonment " there must be a total or complete giving up of duties , so an to indicate an intention not to resume the same . Abandonment must be total and under circumstances which clearly indicate an absolute relinquishment . A failure to perform duties pertaining to an office must be with an actual or imputed intention on the part of the officer to abandon and relinquish the office.

fallen seriously ill, hence he requested the bank, vide letter dated 1-3-06 for extension ofhis leave . Copy ofletter dated 1-3-2006 and its postal receipt are Ex . WW1 / 4 and Ex . WW1 / 5 respectively. He got his seat booked for 8-8-2006 but unfortunately he slipped in bathroom on 1st ofAugust, 2006 and sustained serious injuries in his back-bone . He was advised by his medical consultant to take complete bed rest and not to travel until recovered. Hewrote letter dated 18-8-2006, explaining all facts , copy of which letter is Ex. WW1/7. Since no response was received, he believed that his request for extension of leave has been accepted . He received letters dated 2-2-2007 and6-3-2007, directing him to join his duties within 30 days, failing which he would be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on expiry ofthe notice. Those notices are Ex . WW1/ 9 and Ex . WW1 / 10 respectively. He wrote letter dated 5-4-2007 and faxed it on 6-4-07, narrating entire facts . Letter dated 16-4-07 was received wherein it was observed that since he had failed tojoin his duties in spite of service of notice dated 2-1-07, 2-2-07 and 6-3-07, he is deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment, copy ofwhich order is Ex . WW1 / 13 . He went on to narrate that order dated 16-4-07 was passed, without giving an opportunity to present his defence, hence violative ofprinciples of natural justice and cannot beupheld.

10. Abandonment is a voluntary positive act. Aman must expressly say that he gives up his right . Ifhe remains quite, it cannot be said that he is forsaking his title to propertyor his interest therein . An office is abandoned by ceasing to perform its duties . A temporary absence is not , ordinarily sufficient to constitute an abandonment of an office . Amere absence of a workman from duty can not be treated as an abandonment of service . Abandonment or relinquishment of service is always a question of intention and normally, such an intention can not be attributed to an employee without adequate evidence is that behalf. However, the " intention" may be inferred from the acts and conduct of the party. The question as to whether the job, infact has been abandoned or not, is a question of factwhich is to be determined in the light of the surrounding circumstances of each case .

8. Shri Karamjit Singh confirms factum ofgranting leave from 3-11-05 to 20-12-05 and no objection certificate to the claimant, in his affidavit Ex.MW1 /A . He narrates that it was made clear to the claimant that his request for extension of leave of any kind would not be entertained. His leave expired on 20-12-05, but he did not report for duty on 21-12-05 . Letter dated 25-1-2006 was sent. Letters dated 10-3-06 and 16-5-06 were sent to the claimant calling uponhim to report for duty. He was advised vide letters dated 2-1-07 and 2-2-07 to report for his duty . A fax dated 5-4-07, was received, major portion of it was not legible . The bank did not receive letters dated 5-3-06 and 12-8-06, as mentioned in the fax massage notice dated 6-3-07 was sent calling the claimant to join duties within 30 days , failing which he would be deemed to have voluntarily. vacated employment on expiry of notice period . He did not report for duty, hence order dated 16-4-07 was passed detailing therein that the claimant had voluntarily vacated his employment and his name was struck off rolls of the bank . The claimant had no intention to return to India and joinduties . He overstayed leaves for his personal reasons as he was working in U.S.A. , where he tried to settle . Now the claimant had returned and making efforts to claim employment, which he has already abandoned .

11. In banking industry, provisions laying down conditions where inference of abandonment of service canbedrawn was for the first time introduced by clause 2 ofBipartite Settlement dated 8-9-83. The said clause was replaced by clause 14 of 4th Bipartite Settlement dated 7-9-84, which was substituted by clause 17 of 5th Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-89 . Prior to Bipartite Settlement dated 8-9-83, cases of abandonment of service by employees were governed by doctrine of common law. Now such cases are governed in accordance with the agreed circumstances /conditions in the Bipartite Settlements entered into between the bank and the union of the employees . Clause 17 of 5th Bipartite Settlement, which governs the present controversy, is extracted thus:-

9. As emerging out of facts detailed by the claimant and reaffirmed by Shri Karamjit Singh, the claimant overstayed his leaves . Bank wrote letters to the claimant 1382

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii)] " 17. Voluntary Cession of Employment by the Employees . The earlier provisions relating to the voluntary cessation of employment by the employee in the earlier settlements shall stand substituted by thefollowing:

intention of not joining duties , the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the said notice. In the event ofthe employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of the expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to the bank's right to take any action under the law or rules of service.

(c) If an employee again absents himself within a period of30 days without submitting any application after reporting for duty in response to the notice givenafter 90 days or 150 days absence, as the case may be, the second notice shall be given after 30 days of such absence giving him 30 days time to report . Ifhe reports in response to the second notice, but absents himself a third time from duty within a period of 30 days with ut application, his name shall be struck off trom the stablishment after 30 days of such absence under mation to him by registered post deeming that ne nas voluntarily vacated his appointment" .

12. Clause 17 of Fitth Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-89 was deleted by clause 33 of the 7th Bipartite Settlement dated 27-3-2000 . Clause 33 of 8th Bipartite Settlement dated 2nd June, 2005 again reintroduced provisions relating to voluntary cessation of employment . For sake of convenience provisions of clause 33 of 8th Bipartite Settlement are reproduced thus:

"Voluntary Cessation of Employment .

(a) When an employee absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days , without submitting any application for leave or for its extension or without any leave to his credit or beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally/ subsequently or when there is a satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in India orwhen the management is reasonably satisfied that he has no intention of joining duties , the management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee at his last known address calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days of the date of the notice, stating interalia the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention ofjoining duties and furnishing necessary evidence, where available . Unless the employee reports for duty within 30 days of the notice or given an explanation for his absence within the said period of 30 days satisfying the management that he has not taken up another employment or avocation and that he has no intention of not joining duties , the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily retired from the bank's service on the expiry of the said notice. In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for duty thereafter within 30 days from the date of the expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to thebank's right to take any action under the law or rules of service" .

(b) Where an employee goes abroad and absents himself for a period of 150 or more consecutive days without submitting any application for leave or for its extension or without any leave to his credit or beyond period of leave sanctioned originally/ subsequently or when there is a satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment outside India or when the management is reasonably satisfied that he has no intention ofjoining duties , the management may at any time thereafter give a notice to the employee at his last known address calling upon him to report for duty within 30 days of the date of notice, stating inter alia the grounds for coming to the conclusion that the employee has no intention of joining duties and furnishing necessary evidence , where available . Unless the employee reports for duty within 30 days of the notice or gives an explanation for his absence within the said period of 30 days satisfying the management that he has not taken up another employment or avocation and that he has no

(i)When an employee absents himself from work for a period of 90 or more consecutive days without prior sanction from the Competent Authority or beyond the period of leave sanctioned originally including any extension thereof or when there is satisfactory evidence that he has taken up employment in India or outside, the management at any time thereafter may give a notice to the employee athis last known. address as recorded with the bank calling upon him to report for work within 30 days of the date ofnotice . Unless the employee reports , for work within 30 days of the notice or gives an explanation for his absence within the period of 30 days satisfying the management inter alia that he -has not taken up another employment or avocation , the employee shall be given a further notice to report for work within 30 days of the notice failing which the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of the said notice and advised accordingly by registered post.

1383 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

In the event of the employee submitting a satisfactory reply, he shall be permitted to report for work thereafter within 30 days from the date of expiry of the aforesaid notice without prejudice to the bank's right to take any action under the law or rules/ conditions of service .

itselfunderjustice system, which supplements the existing one. Power of administrative adjudication has been reorganized by the Apex Court in catena of decisions . Precedents in Barreli Electricity Supply Company [ 1971 (2) SCC617), Rattan Singh [ 1977 (2) SCC 491 ] , Tara Chand [1977 ( 1 ) SCC 472 ] , Nand Kishore Prasad [ 1978 (3 ) SCC, 366] and S.N.Mukherjee, [ 1990 (4) S.C. 594] are a few which canbe quoted in that regard.

Ifthe employee fails to report for work within this 30 days period, then he shall be given a final notice to report for work within 30 days of this notice failing which the employee will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of the said notice and advised accordingly by registered post.

(ii ) If an employee again absents himself for the second time within a period of 30 days without submitting any application and obtaining sanction thereof, after reporting for duty in response to the first notice given after 90 days ' of absence or within the 30 days ' period granted to him for reporting to work on his submitting a satisfactory reply to the first notice, a further notice shall be given after 30 days of such absence giving him 30 days ' time to report . If he fails to report for work or reports for work in response to the notice but absents himself a third time from work within a period of 30 days without prior sanction, his name shall be struck off from the rolls of the establishment after 30 days of such absence under intimation to him by registered post deeming that he has voluntarily vacated his appointment .

(iii) Any notice under this clause shall be in a language understood by the employee concerned . The notice shall be sent to him by registered post with acknowledgement due . Where the notice under this clause is sent to the employee by registered post acknowledgement due at the last recorded address communicated in writing by the employee and acknowledged by the bank, the same shall be deemed as good and proper service.

14. Whether the Bank, which is an instrumentality of the State, is required to initiate enquiry against the claimant, before exercising the powers ofAdministrative adjudication, available to it under clause 33 of the 8th Bipartite Settlement . In Suresh Chand (2007 LLR 344) contention of the workman that no domestic enquiry was conducted and termination ofhis services was illegal, was brushed aside and it was ruled that when a workman absents from duty without any intimation or prior permission , termination of his services without holding an enquiry will be justified. In Vijay Pal (2007 L.L.R.7) and G.T. Lal (1979 Lab.I.C. 2910) same proposition of law was laid. However in GT. Lal (supra ) it was ruled by the Apex Court that absence of an employee because of strike for enforcement of their demands does not amount to abandonment of their services . In Syndicate Bank (AIR 2000 S.C. 2198) the Apex Court was confronted with such a proposition , as exists in the present controversy. Workman was absent from his work place for a period of 90 or more consecutive days . A notice was served upon him to report for duty within 30 days of notice alongwith the grounds on which bank came to the conclusion that the workman had no intention to join his duties . The workman did not respond to that notice at all . Bank passed orders tothe effect that the workman had voluntarily retired from the service ofthe bank . Apex Court laid that as far as principles of natural justice are concerned the court was to consider ( 1 ) whether show cause notice detailing the contents of the complaint or accusation was served (2) whether an opportunity was there for the workman to state his case, and (3 ) whether the management acted in good faith, and has been fair, reasonable and just . It was ruled therein that on the facts and circumstances ofthe case the principles of natural justice were inbuilt in the clause relating to voluntary cessation of employment and when workman had not opted to join his duties on service of notice, principles ofnatural justice were complied with .

15. Whether the Bank had complied with the provisions of section 33 of 8th Bipartite Settlement in the present controversy ? As projected by the claimant and reaffirmed by Karamjit Singh leaves were sanctioned in favour ofthe former from 3-11-2005 to 20-12-2005 . It was made clear in Ex . WW 1/3 that no further request with regard to extension of leave of any kind will be entertained by the bank. Therefore, the claimant was under an obligation to 13. Provisions of clause 33 of 8th Bipartite Settlement project powers of administrative adjudication available to the bank . Administrative decision making is a biproduct of an intensive form of government and consequently socialisation of law. Vast expansion of state activity has taken place and government has to embark on ambitious , massive plans ofpublic health, education, planning , social security, transport , agriculture, industrialisation and national assistance. It is impossible to carry out such programmes and determine legal questions involved therein. Therefore, if social control over this area of action is desirable , administrative decision making process has to develop , viz . instrumentalities of the State developing 1384

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] report for duty on 21st of December, 2005. The claiment didnotjoinhisduties till order dated 16-4-2007 was passed bythe bank. Consequently it has emerged over the record thatthe claimant absented himself from duties for aperiod of 90 or more consecutive days , beyond the period of leave sanctioned .

ofthese two letters indicate that letter dated 2nd of January, 2007 was not at all dispatched in response to that proposition the bank had placed peon books before the Tribunal. It came to light that two separate peon books were maintained and these two letters were entered in different peon books , benefits of which fact the claimant is trying to avail . Peon books make it clear that these two letters were dispatched and there is no discrepancy in dispatch numbers as well as the dates on which these letters were dispatched .At this belated stage the claimant wants to raise an issue regarding service of notice dated 2nd of January, 2007, while he had not tried to comment about it when he wrote letter dated 5-4-07 and faxed it to the bank. Consequently it stood established that notice dated 2nd of January, 2007 was served on the claimant and thereafter two notices dated 2nd of Februry,2007 and 6-3-2007 were served upon him.

16. Shri Karamjit Singh unfolds that the claimant was advised to report for duty vide letters dated 2-1-2007 and 2-2-2007. It is not a matter of dispute that letter dated 25-1-2006, sent by the bank, was received by the claimant wherein hewas informed that he has over stayed his leave and should join his duties at the earliest . Response to that letter was made by the claimant on 1-3-2006, wherein he projected a story that his aunt was serious and he cannot joinhis duties . Consequently there is an admission on the part of the claimant that at the earliest possible opportunity the bank informed him about his overstay of leave and called him tojoin duties .

19. Clause 33 of 8th Bipartite settlement provides for service of a notice calling upon an employee to join his duties withinperiod of30 days , when he overstayed period ofleave sanctioned for 90 or more consecutive days . Said notice was served on the claimant on 2nd of January, 2007. He absented tojoin his duties nor offered an explanation to the said notice. Second notice was served upon him on 2nd ofFebruary, 2007 requiring him to join his duties within a period of 30 days . Another notice was served on the claimant on 6-3-07 calling upon him tojoin his duties within a period of 30 days failing which he shall be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment on the expiry of the notice period. Explanation offered by him through fax massage dated 5-4-07 is not satisfactory at all . He failedto joinhis duties on expiry of 30 days notice so served upon him, with a caution that he will be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment. Therefore, it is evident that even on service of a final notice the claimant had not opted to join his duties . The bank had complied provisions of clause 33 of 8th Bipartite Settlement in its letterand spirit.

17. Service of notice dated 2-2-2007 which is Ex.WW1 /9 is an admitted fact . When perused Ex. WW1/9 enlists various notices , served on the claimant, vide letters dated 25-1-2006, 10-3-2006 and 16-5-06. He was called upon to report for his duties within 30 days from the receipt of the said notice . Notice dated 6-3-2007 was also admittedly served on the claimant which has been proved by him as Ex .WW1/ 10. In that notice the bank details that letterdated 25-1-06, 10-3-06, 16-5-06 were sent to him but he carednot to narrate valid reasons of his absence . Notice went on to portrait that letters dated 2-1-2007 and 2-2-2007 were sent, advising him to report for duty within 30 days of the notice failing which action would be taken under the rules . He was advised to report for duty within 30 days of the date ofsaid notice failing which he would be deemed to have voluntarily vacated his employment . In response to that notice the claimant wrote letter dated 5-4-07 and faxed it to the bank on 6-4-07 . Receipt of the fax massage is not in dispute . However the bank projects that it was not completely legible. The bank disputes that letter dated 5-3-06 and 12-8-06, as mentioned in the fax massage, were received. Perusal of Ex . WW1 / 11 makes it clear that in that reply the claimant nowhere asserts that notice dated 2-1-2007 was not received by him. In that letter he simply responds that he was called upon to join his duties within a period of 30 days from that notice . He details that since his old ticket has expired he will get a new ticket and then report for his duties . Therefore, Ex.WW1 / 11 gives an inference that claimant could not dispel the fact that notice dated 2-1-07 was served upon him, Service ofnotice dated 2-2-2007 and 6-3-07 is not a matter ofdispute.

18.An issue was raised by the claimant that notice dated 2nd ofJanuary, 2007 bears No. Staff/DACoffn/4676/ 07, while letter dated 2-2-07 bears number as Staff/ DACoffin/4664/06-07 . According to him, dispatch numbers

20. In Ex.WW1/ 11 , claimant presents that his old ticket had expired andhe will get a confirmed ticket for his return to India. Final notice was sent to him on 6-3-2007. For confirmation of a ticket one weeks time may prove to be sufficient and reasonable . He neither got his ticket confirmed nor made any efforts to report for duty till order dated 16-4-07 was passed. He overstayed for 16 months , without any valid reason. Explanations , relatingto ill health ofhis aunt and receipt ofback -bone injury by the claimant, were coined by him. Reasons for such conclusion are traced out of medical certificate dated 8th of February, 2006, placed over the record by the claimant . The said certificate neither bear signature of the claimant nor supported by medical prescription or fee of the doctor. Registration number of the doctor or his rubber stamp are conspicuously missing from the certificate. No veracity [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

can be attached to it. All these aspects are sufficient to conclude that the claimant could offer no explanation for his long overstay than the leave sanctioned by the bank in his favour. Administrative adjudication by the bank, in pursuance of powers available under clause 33 of 8th Bipartite settlement, is in consonance with law. Claimant overstayed the period ofhis leave, without any explanation. He opted not to join his duties , when called for by the bank through various letters and notices sent to him. His period of overstay is not of days but of long 16 months . Therefore, it is evident that the claimant exhibited his intention of not serving the bank . He went abroad and overstayed his leaves , for which he projects vague excuses . It is evident that he voluntarily vacated his employment . No arbitrariness in the action of the bank is traceable out of facts and surrounding circumstances . Therefore, action of the bank in declaring that the claimant had voluntarily vacated his employment is found to be just and fair. No illegality can be attributed to the order. Precedent in Vivekanand Sethi (IV 2005 S.L.T. 238) is not applicable to the present controversy, since facts are distinct and different.

1385

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/ माघ 23 , 1932

which was received by the Central Government on 05-01-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/305/1998-IR(B- II)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL (No. 2) AT DHANBAD Present : Shri Kishori Ram, Presiding Officer Inthe matter of an Industrial Dispute under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) ofthe I.D.Act, 1947

ReferenceNo. 192 of 1999

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workman .

APPEARANCES :

Onbehalf ofthe workman : Mr. K. Chakravorty, Advocate and the concerned workman KishanYadav.

Onbehalf of the employers : Mr. D. K.Verma, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand

21. When action of the bank could withstand standards ofjudicial review, no relief can be granted to the claimant . His claim statement is , accordingly, discarded. An award is passed in favour of the bank and against the claimant . It be sent to the appropriate government for publication.

Dated: 25-10-2010

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 14 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 456.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ इंडिया के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-2, धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 192/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 05-01-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/305/1998- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 456. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 192/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court - 2 , Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of India and their workmen,

Industry:Banking 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 followingdispute to this Tribunal for adjudication vide their OrderNo. L- 12012/305/98- IR(B- II), dated, the 12th May, 1999.

SCHEDULE

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of India, Hazaribagh Region in stoppage of duty of Sh. Kishun Yadav, Badlee Seopy and not regularising his service as Badlee Sepoy is legal andjustified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?" 2. The case of the workman Shri Kishun Yadav is that he had been working as a permanent Badlee Seopy/ Sub- Staff against permanent vacancy in different branches continuously till 31-8-96 since 10-4-95 under the direct control and supervision of the Bank of India Hazaribagh such as Markachho , Inderwa, Jhumri Telaiya and Masmohana etc. yet the management was not paying the regular wages and other benefits of the said post on the ground that he is a daily rated worker . The petitioner had put inmore than 240 days attendance in each calendar year by rendering service for the interest of the management, but the management had been paying him lesser wages 1386

[PART II -SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12 , 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

the name of the concerned workman by the Employment Exchange, his case was also considered along with several others by the selection committee , but the concerned workmanbeing not selected as Badlee Sepoy was not kept inthe panel of Badlee Sepoy for engagement as Class IV employee .Badlee Sepoys after working for several years are made permanent on the basis of their meritorious performance oftheir duties . But the workman concerned did not set out any ground against the selection committee for his non - selection and non- inclusion of his name in the panel nor he alleged any illegality or irregularity in finalising of the panel of Badlee Sepoy by the Selection Committee.

thanprescribed for the Badlee Sepoy/ Sub-staff. His name was also sponsored by the Employment Exchange and interview for his permanent absorption was conducted by the management but without any effect . Buthis repeated representations for paying him proper wages and other benefits , the management annoyedly stopped him from rendering service without any rhyme or reason and mandatory provision of law under Section 25F of the I.D. Act and also contrary to the principle of naturaljustice and settled law of the land. For the illegal and arbitrary termination order of the management against him, he raised an Industrial dispute before the ALC (C) Hazaribagh , but the same failed owing to the harsh attitude of the management . Hence the case was referred by the Labour Ministry to this Tribunal for adjudication, becasue the action of the management for stopping his duty was illegal, arbitrary and unjustified vindictive, discriminatory as well as contrary to the principle ofnaturaljustice.

4.Further it is alleged that the workman had worked atdifferent branches of the Bank in Hazaribagh Region as a casual worker according to the requirement to the different Managers of the different branches . In absence of specific particulars of his engagement during different branches , his temporary engagement is vague . Moreover, his enrolment was no longer required and he was stopped automatically from his duty. On his approach to another Manager ofdifferent branch, he might have got some casual employment temporarily. As such his service was never continuous rather intermittent. In this way his claim for regularisation as Badlee Sepoy is meritiless.

FINDING WITH REASONS

5. Inthe instant case, I find lawful situation of gross inconsistencies between the pleadings and evidence as adduced on behalf of the workman Shri Kishun Yadav as Badlee Sepoy. It is settled law as held by the Hon'bleApex Court in the case of Manager , RBI versus S. Mani and others reported in 2005 ( 105) FLR- 1067 ( CB) that pleadings are not ' substitute' for proof. In this case, WW- 1 Kishun Yadav(theworkman) on his behalf and MW- 1 Kundan Lal Bisharia, the then Branch Manager at Inderwa onbehalfof the management have been examined respectively. The perusal ofthe evidence as adduced on behalf of both the parties as contrasted with their respective pleadings manifests the following facts as indisputable ;

(1) Workman Kishun Yadav served as a Badlee Sepoy casualy firstly at the branch of Markachho, then at the Inderwa, Jhumritelaiya andMasmohana branches ofBank of India, all underHazaribagh Region .

(2) The status of the workman was out and out temporary to serve as Badlee Sepoy/Sub - staff against the occasional vacancy occurred due togoing ofthe staff concerned on leave etc. at all the aforesaid Branches of Bank of India Hazaribagh Region as per requirement ofhis service temporarily.

3. Whereas specificaly denying the allegation as stated in the Written Statement of the workman, the case of themanagement is that the case not failling under Section 2A ofthe I.D. Act, as an Industrial dispute for regularisation ofservices as Badlee Sepoy is not tenable, because ofthe fact a casual worker does not have any right to demand for regular employment on all days , as his engagement is casual in nature for requirement of jobs . The management may stop duties to such casual worker in case ofnon - availabillity ofanywork for him. Further pleading of the management is that two issues, one related to the stoppage of duty in absence of its specific date and nature being wages lies beyond the purview of the aforesaid Act for adjudication. Each branches of the Hazaribagh region functions independently under the charge of Manager of the Bank subject to the control of the Regional Manager under the control oftheGeneral Manager concerned. The reference without specific name of the branch being defective is unsustainable. The casual workers are engaged by different Managers of different branches according to the timely requirement . Acasual worker may work in one branch for some period, and may also get engagement in another branch for different periods . So the engagement of casual labour is not done on regualr basis nor any continuity of hisservice exists . Moreover, the Bank of India adopts the Governmental procedure for selection and recruitment of workman as Badlee Sepoy at the initial stage by calling the names from the Employment Exchange concerned and the selection of such persons is processed by the selection committee, and accordingly a panel of Badlee Sepoy is prepared in respect of the different region and Badlee Sepoys are deputed according to the requirement at different branches to work against temporary and casual vacancies ofpermanent workers deployed in different branches owing to their leave or sick or any extra work . After sponsoring 1387 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

in service for the minimum period of 240 days does not legally stand as claimed. In the instant case, I find there was no specific stoppage of work, ifthere was , it was casual concerning the workman in view of the nature ofhis work asBadlee Sepoy intermittently.

9. On the consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case as brought to the notice of this Tribunal, I find and hold that the action of the management ofBank of India, Hazaribagh Region in stoppage ofduty of theworkman Shri Kishun Yadav, Badlee Sepoy was casual inview ofthe nature of his service ; and accordingly it is held unregularising his service as Badlee Sepoy is neither illegal not unjustified in the eye of law.

KISHORI RAM, Presiding Offieer नई दिल्ली , 14 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 457.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का.14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार महाराष्ट्र बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय-1, मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 1/28/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 5-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12011/149/2006- आई आर ( बी- II ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी 6.According to WW- 1 Kishun Yadav, the workman in consonance of his pleadings he has stated that each year from 1989 to 1996, he used to put his attendance for more than 240 days by performing the duties as Sub- staff for 8 hours per day during the said period. But unfortunately his documentary proofs i.e. the original certificate (Ext. W-1 series as well as his photo copies of letters as Exts . W-2 series) prove his intermittent service as Badlee Sepoy/ Messengar at the aforsaid branches during the period of 4th April, 1985 to 31-1-95 . But none of the aforesaid documentary proof establishes his continuous service for the 240 days in any preceding calendar year . So far as the suddeen stoppage of his duty is concerned , his plea in his evidence that after his 52 days - work at Markachho Branch at the Bank of India, Hazaribagh, following his appointment in the year 1985, he was stopped from working there is not tenable in the eye of law. According to him , he neither got any notice nor any compensation prior to his stoppage from work; and that upon raising it as an industrial dispute before the ALC (C) Hazaribagh, for conciliation which ultimately resulted in the reference for adjudication, the management again deployed him in the work in the year 1998. But there is no proof of it . It is pertinent to mention that neither the pleading nor evidence of the workman specifies the period of his stoppage of work by the management, though he has alleged against the management to have stopped him from work, when he claimed for regularisation.

New Delhi, the 14th January, 2011

S.O. 457. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. CGIT- 1/28 of2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/ Labour Court - I , Mumbai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation = to the management of Bank of Maharashtra and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government ơn 5-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12011/149/2006-IR (B - II)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No.1 MUMBAI

JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer Reference No. CGIT- 1/ 28 of 2007

7. The reference involves the second point as to the regularisation ofthe workman as a Badlee Sepoy. According to the averment of the workman Kishun Yadav, he was appointed as Badlee Sepoy on recommendation of the Employment Exchange followed by his interview. It is an acknowledged fact that on requisition of the Branch Manager of different Branches of the management of Hazaribagh Region, the Badlee Sepoy is posted in the said Region and the Branch Manager stops the services of Badlee Sepoy after meeting his requirement in his branch concernedand the name ofthe workman was also including inthe panel for Badlee Sepoy. MW- 1 Kundan Lal Bisharia, the then Branch Manager of Inderwa Branch, Bank of India, has asserted very positively that during his tenure 1985 to 1998, the concerned workman was engaged to perform duty as casual worker /sub- staff for a period of 8 or 10 days . The workman has himself admitted in his cross - examination that tillto- day he has been working as Badlee Sepoy under the said management, though he expressed his ignorance of the fact whether the management taken interview of the Badlee Sepoy for their regularisation as Sub - staff time to time.

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of Bank of Maharashtra AND Their Workmen

8. From the preceding discussed facts , it stands crystal clear thatthe claim ofthe workman for regularisation his service as Badlee Sepoy in lack ofproof ofhis continuity

334 GI/11-37 1388

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

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

ANNEXURE

For theManagement : Shri M.B. Anchan,Adv.

For the union

: Absent

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1 DHANBAD

State

: Maharashtra

Mumbai, dated the 16th day ofNovember, 2010.

Inthematter ofa reference U/s . 10( 1) (d) (2A) of I. D. Act,

AWARD

Reference No. 83 of2005

Parties:Employers in relation to the management of StateBank of India..

AND

Their Workman

Thisis a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of its powers under clasue ( d) of sub section 1 ofSection 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (TheAct for short ) vide Government of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhi Order No. L- 12011/ 149/2006- (IR)(B -II) dt. 05-6- 2007. The terms of reference given in the schedule are as follows:

Present: Shri H.M. Prasad, Presiding Officer.

APPEARANCES :

FortheEmployers : Shri R. N. Ganguly, Advocate.

Forthe Workmen

Shri S.C. Gour,Advocate. :

"Whether the action of the management ofBank of Maharashtra, Pune in awarding punishment to Shri R.D. Thorat, Substaff of Somwar Peth branch is legal andjustified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled to?

State : Bihar

Industry:Bank

Dated, the 28-2-2010

AWARD

2. Mr. M. B. Anchan, learned Advocate for the Management is present . Nobody is present on behalf of the Union inspite of service of Notice. No statement of claim has been filed on behalf of the Union .

3. In view ofthe above the matter stands disposed of for want of prosecution.

ByOrderNo. L-12012/19/2005 -IR(B- 1) dated5-10-2005 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:

4.AnAward is made accordingly. JUSTICE G S. SARRAF, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 17 जनवरी , 2011

"Whether the action ofmanagement ofStateBank of India, Patna in terminating the services of Sh.Ram Pravesh Patel, S/o Jai Narayan Singh,Vill- Modha Chatur, P.O. Madah Dih, Dist, Vaishali (Bihar) instead ofregularising without complying Section 25F of I.D. Act is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief above workman is entitiled to?" का.आ. 458. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 83/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 13-01-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/19/2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 17th January, 2011

S.O. 458. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 83/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 13-01-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 19/2005 - IR(B -I) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

2. The case ofthe concerned workman is that he was engaged by the management of Sumerganj Branch S.B.I. as a casual worker in the year 1991 for jobs of Peon, Canteen boy etc. on a monthly consolidated salary ofRs . 500. One Harendra Singh, permanent messenger of the S.B.I. was placed under suspension in July, 1998 and the Manager of the S.B.I. Branch engaged the concerned workman as Messenger which I continued till August, 2000. The management from time to time assured the concerned workmanto regularise his services as a Messanger in the said Branch of S.B.I. He worked in the S.B.I. from 1991 to 2003 continuously and completed more than 240 days attendance in a year . The management stopped the concerned workman from service in April, 2003 without any notice etc. and without complying Sec. 25 -F of the I.D. Act, 1947.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

1389 It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass award holding that the termination of service ofthe concerned workman is notjustified and he is entitled to be regularised on reinstatement.

August, 2000. He has worked more than 240 days, so he is entitled for regularisation. But the management did not regularised and not treated him as an employee of the management and removed him without complying ofSec. 25-F of the I.D. Act . It has also argued that one Harendra Singh, Permanent Messenger of the S.B.I. was placedunder suspension in July, 1998 and the Manager engaged the service ofthe concerned workman as Messenger from July, 1998 till August 2000. He was stopped from service from April, 2003. The concerned workman worked from 1991 to 2003 continuously and as per policy of the Bank he is entitled for regularisation.

In this respect the management's counsel argued that there is no relationship of employer - employee between the employers and the concerned person. The persent dispute is not an industrial dispute under Sec. 2(k) of the I.D. Act because he is not a workman within the meaning of Sec. 2(s) ofthe I.D. Act. No industrial dispute can be raised by the concerned workman under Sec . 2 -A of I.D. Act. There is no vacancy for the post to be filled by absorbing the concerned person because he is a workman of the canteenwhich is run by Local Implementation Committee which is fully responsible for the said canteen , look after allaffairs ofsuch canteen including appointment of Canteen Boys and payment of wages to them, supervise the work, so he is the employee of the Local Implementation Committee andnot the employee oftheBank.

In this respect the representative of the concerned workman argued that he was paid wages by the Bank a monthly consolidated amount ofRs . 500 per month . But no document has been filed by him.

3. The case ofthe management is that the concerned person was never appointed by the employers at any point oftime in any post whatsoever . It has been stated that in case ofvacancy in any post under the employers , the same is filled up after adopting and observing the procedure and rulesfor recruitment of State Bank of India and nobody is empowered to appoint any person directly without following the aforesaid rules and procedures without proper sanction from the competent authority. It has also been stated that one of the measures of welfare activity, employer subsidies the cost of running Canteen at most of its branches of S.B.I. through the employers are not statutorily required to keep a Canteen in most of their branches including the Sumerganj Branch. According to the scheme of welfare activities these canteens are run by the Local implementation Committee consisting ofmembers of the staff at the branches concerned and not by the employers directly or departmentally. The aforesaid Local Implementation Committee is fully responsible for the said Canteen, look after all affairs of such canteen including appointment of Canteen Boys, and payment of wages to them, supervise the work and deployment of a Canteen Boy and such Canteen Boys are the employees of Local Implementation Committee and not ofa State Bank of India by any stretch of imagination. The person concerned was employed/ engaged by the Local Implementation Committee at the Surmerganj Branch ofState Bank of India and hewas not an employee of the Bank, besides , there is no sanctioned post ofa Canteen Boy in the said branch. It has also been submitted that Section 25 - F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is not attracted in the instant case. Under the circumstances , the constitutional Bench Judgement of Supreme Court in Uma Devi's case, the concerned person is not entitled to get any relief.

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble tribunal be pleased to pass an award in favour of the management holding that the concerned person is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders denying and admitting the contents of some of the paragraph of each other's written statement .

7. The concerned workman (WW- 1 ) has stated in cross-examination at page- 3 that I was not appointed by the State Bank of India. I was appointed on daily rated basis . I never appeared before the Selection Committee. I havenot filed the application which I submitted before the Branch Manager of the Bank for my engagement on daily wages basis . Local Implementation Committee used to rum the canteen in the Branch Bank . I do not know if the Local Implementation Committee used to engaged persons required for the canteen . I cannot say if the Local Implementation Committee of the Branch Bank engaged me. I cannot say Local Implementation Committee worked from which date to which date . I have worked from 1991 to 1993. It shows that he is an employee of Local Implementation Committee. He has not been stopped or appointed by the State Bank of India .

5. The management has produced MW- 1 , Ramesh Chandra. The concerned workman has produced himself asWW-1 .

6.Main argument/argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that he was working with the management for more than 240 days from July, 1998 till

Inthis respect the concerned workman referred AIR 2001 Supreme Court 5 26 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid Administrative Tribunals Act ( 13 of 1985 ) S . 14- Government employees - Defence Services -Employees in [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932.

1390

management of Northern Railway and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17-1-2011 .

[No. L-41012/ 184/2003 -IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer Unit-Run Canteens- Are Govt. employees - CAT retains Jurisdiction to entertain their applications treating them as Govt. employees , by itself ipso facto entitled them to get all service benefits as is available to regular Govt . servants or even their counter part .

ANNEXURE

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

Industrial Dispute No. 41 of2003

In the matter ofdispute between-

Sri Vinod Kumar Bajpai, Son of Sri M. P. Bajpai , 20LIC Colony, Barra 2 Kanpur Nagar, Kanpur.

8. The management has referred (2000 ) 5 Supreme Court Cases 531 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down- Labour Law- Canteens- Canteens run by Local Implementation Committee at branches of State Bank of India (the Bank) as per the welfare scheme of the Bank- Employees of such canteens , held, are not employees of the Bank as there is no statutory or contractual obligation or obligations under Sastry Award on the Bank to run such canteens . They cannot contend that they were being discriminated - To promote canteen facilities by providing subsidy or other facilities is altogether different from running the canteen.

And

TheDivision Railway Manager , Northern Railway, Allahabad.

AWARD

9. Considering the above facts and law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2000 ) 5 Supreme Court Cases 531, the concerned workman is not an employee ofthe Bank as there is no statutory of contractual obligation or obligation under Sastry Award on the Bank to run the canteen.

1. Central Government , MoL , New Delhi vide notification No. L-41012/ 184/2003 ( IR(B- 1 ) dated 28-11-03 , has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

10. In the result, I hold that the action of the management of State Bank of India, Patna in terminating the services of Sh . Ram Pravesh Patel , instead of regularisingwithout complying Section 25 - F of I.D. Act is legal andjustified and accordingly the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

2. Whether the action of Assistant Operating Manager (M) Northern Railway Allahabad in denying the promotionto Sri V. K. Bajpai at the post of switchman and terminating his service vide order dated 18-7-2000, is justified? Ifnot to what relief the workman is entitled to .

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2011

3. Brieffacts are -

का.आ. 459. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) कीं धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 41/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल.-41012/184/2003- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 18th January, 2011

4.That it is an admitted fact that the claimant was employed by the opposite party and he was posted at Kanpur on 8-6-84 at the post of Porter. It is also admitted fact that he was promoted for the post ofSwitchman in the year 1986 in a higher grade 1200-2040 and posted at Bhaupur Railway Station under Allahabad, Zone. It is stated that during his duty hours Hawarah down express was derailed due to loose nut bolt whereas there was no fault of this claimant, but opposite party department , punished him and reverted him again to the post ofPorter for three years . During reversion he was posted under CYM GMC Juhi Kanpur. This order was effective from 25-2-88 to 25-2-91 , thereafter he should have been promoted to the post of Switchman. During this period after taking permission from the department he appeared in the written exam of Ticket Collector which he has passed. He also completed training and after. completion of training all other colleagues of his were posted at the post of Ticket S.O. 459. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 41/2003) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1391 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

Collector but he was denied this opportunity. The opposite party informed him that the scale of the Ticket Collector is Rs . 950-1500 whereas the scale of Switchman is Rs . 1200-2040 but he stated that he was neither given the post of Ticket Collector nor he was promoted to the post of Switchman . It is further alleged that he was again sent for refresher course of Porter by opposite party department . He was relieved on 6-8-99 and deposited the concerned certificate and performed the duty on 7-8-99 to 9-9-99 . Thereafter due to the illness of his wife he went on 12 days leave on 10-8-99 after giving application for leave to the dealing clerk Jaisingh and went to his home. He continued sending leave application to the opposite party on account of illness of his wife . After improvement in her health he came to the office on 11-1-2000, along with PMC and submitted an application for taking him on duty but instead of, opposite party issued SF 5, which was replied by him and he denied the allegations . Being an employee opposite party was having the address of his house but opposite party did not sent any information or warning letter at his address , nor published any news , whereas after ignoring his three days presence and marking him absent served on him charge sheet . Opp . party appointed inquiry officer, no preliminary inquiry was conducted , and inquiry was completed within three days from 2-2-2000 to 4-2-2000.. His statement was record and for the first time, he demanded the concerned documents but he was not provided with the documents , he was not permitted to seek the help of his defence helper . During the inquiry proceeding only one clerk Jai Singh appeared on behalf of the prosecution side , he did not reply the questions which were asked by the workman . He was asked to sit outside the room and later on forced to sign the proceedings . He also alleges that after reversion for specific period ofthree years , he should have been posted as switchman in higher grade 1200-2040. Therefore, the disciplinary authority/appointing authority of switchman which is grade III post is different from the disciplinary authority of the post of Porter. Therefore, removal order passed by the disciplinary authority ofthe post ofporter is illegal . Therefore, he has prayed that the order of removal dated 18-2-2000 be declared as illegal and he should be promoted to the post of switchman with effect from 25-2-91 in the grade of Rs . 1200-2040.

is stated that after expiry of punishment period of three years, the claimant submitted refusal for the post of switchman grade 1200-2040 and the same was accepted. On expiry offurther one year refusal period, his posting order for the post of switchman grade 1200-2040 were issued vide notice dated 3-4-92 . It is stated that the claimant had come to deposit the refresher course certificate of Subedarganj in the office of CYM/ GMC on 6-8-99 and he was informed on the said date to go to Allahabad for store work, but he refused to go to Allahabad for the said purpose and remained unauthorized absence from 7-8-99 without sanction of any kind of leave by a competent authority, further more during the said absenting period the claimant failed to inform about any kind of leave in the office and he remained absent till 10-1-2000 . He came on 11-1-2000 along with duty application accompanied with PMCwith regard to the illness ofhis wife . On account of his unauthorized absence the claimant was served with SF - 5by the office dated 1-12-99 and the said was acknowledged to the DRM, but the claimant failed to reply SF- 5 . It is stated that the information ofunauthorized leave was made available to the Divisional Competent Authority by the office on 18-11-99 . The said SF- 5 was also sent to the duty place of the claimant so that same tay be delivered to the claimant, but then the claimant himself appeared on 11-1-2000 for his duty. It is stated that the SF - 5 could not be sent to the claimant at his home due to administrative reasons . SF - 5 was served on 1-12-99, enquiry officer was appointed on 31-12-99 , claimant appeared before the enquiry officer and submitted an application to the effect that he has no need of any assistance for his defense and he willdo the same for himself. Claimant never demanded any document. Claimant cross examined the p.w. himself. It is denied that he was allowed to sit outside and he always remained during the inquiry proceedings , the enquiry proceedings were continued from 2-2-2000 to 4-2-2000 . Thereafter inquiry was concluded as there was no need for further inquiry. It is stated that while working as porter under GYM/GMC the claimant remained unauthorized absence and as a result of DAR, the workman was removed from service vide punishment notice dated 18-7-2000 and the appeal preferred by the workman has also been regretted on10-9-2000 which have been acknowledge by the workman . It is stated that it is wrong to say that the inquiry was conducted ex -parte claimant was given full opportunity of his defense to produce evidence, there was no bias against the inquiry officer , therefore, the claim of the claimant is not legally maintainable and is liable to be dismissed .

6. There was an application of the workman for summoning certain documents . He has summoned the 5. Opposite party has filed written statement . They have admitted that the claimant was reverted to the post ofporter for a period of three years on 25-2-88 .It is also admitted that he has applied for the post of ticket collector but while considering his actual promotion as ticket collector it came to the knowledge that he was already higher on post of switch man grade 1200-2040 and as a result ofpunishment working as porter grade 750-940. It THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

1392

attendance register of August 1999 and ORS pass book. Opposite party has filed photocopy of attendance register alongwith letter dated 23-7-05 stating that no such ORS was issued.

7. Claimant has also filed carbon copy of inquiry report . Opposite party has filed in original as well as photocopy of inquiry proceedings .

8. Claimant has adduced himself in oral evidence as W.W.1 Sri Vinod KumarBajpai .

9. No oral evidence has been adduced by the opposite party.

10. Heard the arguments and perused the record carefully.

11. This reference is in two parts . First part is whether the action ofthe management in not promoting the workman for the post of switchman by the management is justified. Second is whether the termination of service vide order dated 18-7-2000 by the management isjustified.

12. Considering the facts I have to deal with the first part firstly. This is an admitted fact that the workman Sri Vinod Kumar Bajpai was reverted from the post of switchman awarding him a punishment of three years and he was to be promoted again on 25-2-91 . Opposite party has clearly stated in their pleadings that after the expiry of three years the workman has submitted his refusal for the post of switchman and after expiry of further one year refusal period of his posting orders for the post of switchman grade 1200-2040 (RPS) were issued vide notice dated 3-4-92. Here lies the cause of action. When once the notice for the promotion was issued then it was the duty ofthe management to see that the notice has been served upon the workman claimant and he should have been promoted. It is a fact that promotion is substantive right ofthe workman and it is the duty of the management to promotetheworkers at the proper tinie so that the harmony may bemaintained in the industrial relations and workers should not be frustrated. From the facts it appears that the management has not followed the provisions in not promoting the workman at the proper time vide notice dated 3-4-92. Claimant has specifically stated on oath in his statement as W. W.1 that even after expiry ofthe period hewas not promoted. He also stated that he has sent the refusal considering the fact that he has qualified for the postofTicket Collector Post and he will be promoted for that post. But this was also not done by the management. Management has not adduced any evidence in- support ofhis pleadings . Even if on the face of, pleadings are considered even then the management has not shown why the claimant was not promoted vide their notice

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] dated 3-4-92, when no other punishment was awarded to him. Therefore, the management has failed in their action in not promoting the workman at the proper time in the year 1992.

13. This part ofthe reference is decided in favour of the claimant.

14. Now this is the contention ofthe claimant that if hehad been promoted and would have been at the post of switchman then his termination could not have been passed by Assistant Operating Manager. I am also ofthe view that if the first part of the reference is in favour ofthe claimant then subsequent reference cannot be decided against the claimant because if foundation is not proper then subsequent structure cannot stand. It is not possible to say like this that the workman should have been promoted in the year 1992 and consequently to say that the inquiry proceedings are bona - fide. Both the things will amount to contradiction. Once a right has accrued to the workman and that too long before then he should have been deemed to be promoted in the year 1992 .

15. Therefore, considering all these things it has to be answered that the inquiry proceedings were not held fairly and properly and termination order too was not passed by a competent person . Management has not adduced any oral evidence in support of their pleadings though they have filed the inquiry proceedings . It was for the management to prove why the management did not promote the workman in the year 1992 at the post of switchman. I feel they have failed to prove this fact . Accordingly it is held that the workman stands to be deemed to be promoted at the post of Switchman in the year 1992, therefore , charge sheet if any at subsequent. dategiven to the workman at the post ofporter in the year 1999 cannot be allowed to stand in the eye of law.

16. Therefore, from this point ofview the entire action oftheopposite party right from the stage ofissuing charge sheet SF- 5 till the stage of passing final order including appellate order is set aside.

17. Therefore , second part ofthe reference order is also decided in favour of the workman . Accordingly it is held that the whole action of the management as referred to in the schedule of reference order , is held to be illegal and abinitio void and the workman is held to be entitled to.. be reinstated in the service ofthe railway management. He is also held to be entitled to entire back wages , seniority and all consequential benefits attached with the post on the premises as if he had never been removed from the service of the management .

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 460. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सरस्वत् को- ओपरेटीव बैंक लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण न. 1. , पुणे के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 168/1998 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 4-5-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12011/08/97- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011

S.O. 460. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.168/ 1998) oftheCentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court - I, Pune as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Saraswat Co - Op . Bank Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 4-5-2010.

[No. L- 12011/08/97- IR(B-I)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI N.B. YENURKAR, PRESIDING OFFICER FIRST LABOUR COURTAT PUNE

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

1393

No. L- 12011/08-/97- IR (B-I) dt. 24-2-1998 and Corrigendum No. L- 12011/08/97- IR (B - I) dt. July, 1998 under Clause (d) of sub -sec. ( 1 ) & sub- sec.2 (A) of Sec. 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for adjudication over the following demand:

"Whether the action of the management ofSaraswat Co-op . Bank Ltd. in relation to its Zonal Office, Pune in not regularizing the services and thereafter terminating the services of Shri Rajendra Kondiba Darekar and Shri Raju Dhondiram Gawade w.e.f. June, 1991 and Sept. 1991 respectively, of Shri Kishor Yellappa Injal from Sept. 1994 & of S/Shri Anant Omkar Mankar and Vilas Sitaram Pawar w.e.f. February, 1992 is legal and justified? If not, to what reliefthe workman are entitled ?"

2. The second party appeared and filed its statement ofclaim at Exh . 11 and Exh. 14. Case ofthe second party union is that the following persons were appointed in the concerned branch of the respondent bank on the dates mentioned against their names and their services have been terminated orally by the first party on the dates mentioned against their names as mentioned below:-

St. Nemes No.

Date of termination

Date of appointment

02-05-82 May1991

1. Rajendra Kondiba Darekar

1984

August 1991

2. Raju Dhondiram

Gawade

REF. IDA . 168 OF 1998

BETWEEN

16-8-1988

3. Kishor Yallappa

September1994 April1982 February 1992

4. Anant Omkar

Mankar

5. Vilas Sitaram Pawar

The General Manager (Personnel ) , The SaraswatCo -op . Bank Ltd. IInd Floor, Laxman Zula, Ranade Road , Dadar, Mumbai - 400 028

FirstParty AND

The General Secretary, Saraswat Co -op. Bank Employees ' Union, The Saraswat Co -op . Bank Ltd. , IInd Floor, Laxman Zula, Ranade Road , Dadar, Mumbai - 400 028

Second Party Coram: Shri N.B. Yenurkar .

APPEARANCES : Smt . Rao Advocate for Ist Party.Mr. N.A. Kulkarni Advocate for IInd Party

AWARD

(Dated: 22-02-2010)

1. This reference is made to this Court by the Desk Officer, Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide order May 1983 February 1992 3. The first party has contended that the aforesaid employees rendered continuous service for more than 240 days . In view ofthe provisions of Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Act 1946 as well as the Model Standing Orders framed under the said Act, those employees are deemed to be permanent in services of the first party. At the time of termination of their services the provisions of Sec. 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the Rule 81 ofthe Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules 1957 or even the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules have not been followed as relates to the seniority. The termination of their services is also in contravention of the provisions of Sec . 25-G of the I.D. Act. No ' last come, first go ' rule was observed by the first party prior to the termination of services of the above said employees . The oral termination of the above employees is retrenchment u/ s 2(oo) of the I.D.Act.

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

1394

was no compulsory attendance . The first party also submitted that whenever those persons used to work for the period less than one hour, the remaining period ofthe day theyused to work at various places as per their sweet willand theywere not subjected any control or supervision by the bank nor any compulsory duty or fixed working hours were allotted to them. None of them were available forwork for more than hour on any day. For such uncertain work for a fraction of an hour cannot be treated as a regular employment and thus the entire matter falls out of the purview of the Act.

4.Second partyalso contended that the employees of the first party bank are governed bipartite settlement entered into the bank and the union as well as the Model Standing Orders . The Chief Manager, Personnel and Administrative vide his letter dtd. 16-3-91 addressed to the ChiefManager, Zone No. 4, Pune Region instructedto stop these employees from working and in view ofthe said circular the Pune region office terminated the services of members ofthe union. The termination ofthe above workmen is illegal, void and ab initio and it is totally unjustified and for malafide reasons . In fact the above said workmen have beencontinued for years together as casuals , badalies and temporaries withthe sole object ofdepriving them from the status and privileges ofpermanent employees . They made an application to the management for makaing them permanent and for giving them the permanency benefits . Because ofthe said fact, their services have been terminated byindulging into an unfair labour practices . Their services have been terminated in an arbitrary manner and without followingthe principles of natural justice. It is illegal and in contravention ofthe Standing Orders .

5.After the termination oftheir services the aforesaid workmen tried to seek alternate job but they could not succeed in the matter. For all these reasons second party has sought the relief of the reinstatement of the aforesaid five employees in continuity of service with full backwages .

8. The first party denied that the persons named in the reference were appointed by the bank and that they rendered continuous service of more than 240 days or that they were in service for number of years as alleged by them. Theydenied that their services have been terminated by the bank as alleged. It has submitted that since these persons were not employed by the bank and since there was no employer - employee relationship there was no question of termination of their services . Those persons were not regular workmen and thereby they stood excluded fromthe provisions of settlement as well as the provisions ofModel Standing Orders . It has also denied that thay were deemed tobe permanent in the services or was orally terminated. It has further submitted that provisions of Sec. 25-G of the I.D. Act and the Rule 81 of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay ) Rules , 1957 are not attracted . The contentions raised by the second party are baseless , misconceived and untenable . It has further submitted that the question of termination also further not arise as they left the work oftheir own . It has also denied that they were working as casuals , badalis or temporaries for years together ortheywere asking for permanency or benefit thereof.

9.The first party has submitted that the said persons stopped coming for work for cleaning as they were in gainful employment elsewhere . For all these reasons the first party has urged to reject the reference with costs .

6.First party appeared and filed its written statement atExh. 13 and Exh . 19 and resisted the claim under reference. It has submitted that the persons named in the reference were never employed or engaged by the bank. Concerned persons therefore are not the workman as defined u/s 2(s) ofthe I.D. Act and thus the alleged dispute does not amount an Industrial Dispute u/s 2(k) of the I.D. Act. Thus this court has no jurisdiction to entertain the reference. In absence of employer- employee relationship between the bank and them they connot be a member of the union. Thus union has no locus standi to espouse any cause of the concerned persons . It has thus contended that the reference is invalid ab initio and is liable to be dismissed on this count alone .

10. Onthesepleadings following issues are framed atExh. 25. I record my findings on them and the reasons therefore are as under .

FINDINGS

ISSUES

Negative

1. Does the first party prove that there is no employer- employee relationship between the first party and the concerned persons mentioned in the Schedule of the reference and hence this Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the Reference ?

2. Whether the action of the management ...Negative ofSaraswat Co.op. Bank Ltd. in relation to its Zonal Office, Pune in not regularising the services and thereafter terminating the services ofShri Rajendra Kondiba 7.The first party has submitted that persons named inthe reference were the outsiders and free lancers , who sometimes used to come to bank seeking work ofcleaning inthe morningprior to the commencement of the working hours of the bank alongwith some other outsiders . The bankused to give them work in the remote past depending upon availability ofwork on first comes first serve basis at various branches . The availability of such work was always less than one hour on any day. Those persons were never constant or static for the work nor the said work was available for them only. Normally, they were migrant and moving from place to place .Various persons used to come for such work on various days . There was total lack of regularity and punctuality. They were free to come for work at any day or not to come as per their sweet will and there 1395 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

Darekar and Shri Raju Dhondiram Gawade

w.e.f. June, 1991 and Sept. 1991

respectively, of Shri Kishore Yellappa Injal from Sept.

1994 and of S/Shri Anant Omkar Mankar & Vilas Sitaram Pawar

w.e.f. February, 1992 is legal andjustified?

the first party vide its reply at Exh . 16 on the ground that the second party failed to prove the relevancy of the documents called for. It was also objected by them on the ground that it has denied the employer - employee relationship between them. In that reply it was also contended that the claim of union relates to remote past and there is no possibility ofpreservation of such records . The said application for direction of production of the documents has been rejected by my Ld. Predecessor on 15-7-2000 .

...As per final order

3. To what relief the concerned persons mentioned in the Schedule are entitled to ?

4. What order ?

...As per final order

REASONS

11. Issue No. 1: This reference is made at the instance

of the second party union Saraswat Co- operative Bank Employees Union through its General Secretary in respect ofthe five persons named in the schedule of the reference. Amongst those persons four persons viz . S/Shri Rajendra Darekar, Kishor Injal, Anant Mankar and Vilas Pawar examined themselves . The Ld. Advocate for the second party submitted that Raju Dhondiram Gawade is now expired. That however , Smt . Pramila Raju Gawade legal representative (Widow ) of deceased Raju Dhondiram Gawade appeared to continue the claim of deceased Raju Gawade.Her application at Exh. 18 for bringing her name on record has been allowed and vide orders passed thereon on 25-1-2001 her name is brought on record . Hence the claim ofdeceased Raju Dhondiram Gawade in this reference also needs to be considered alongwith the claim of other four persons . The first party however did not examine any witness.

13. It is also required to be considered that second party had also moved another application at Exh. 33 for production of certain more documents in respect of Shri Rajendra Kondiba Darekari.e. the cash payment register, PeonBook (Delivery Register ) and profit and loss account bifurcation register during the alleged period of his employment with the first party. That application was opposed by the first party on the same ground that no relevancy is shown in the application and documents are too old. My Ld. Predecessor vide orders dtd . 29-10-2004has rejected the said application. It is also required to be considered that thereafter second party has moved an application at Exh. 45 for permission to allow it to lead secondary evidence on the basis of the xerox copies filed by it on record vide list Exh.24. This application was also opposed by the first party vide its reply at Exh . 48. My Ld . Predecessor has rejected the said application on 3-9-2005 on the ground that the second party has not made out circumstances to lead secondary evidence and directed the second party to prove his documents as per the provisions ofEvidenceAct. It is pertinent to note that the second party by filing the application at Exh . 18 & Exh.33 has tried to bring the relevant documents on record from the first party. Naturally the custody of the alleged documents called for is with the first party. However, those applications have been rejected . In view of these facts attempt of the second party to lead secondary evidence on the basis of the xerox copies ofthe documents available with him is in accordance with the provisions of the Evidence Act . As such, though his application for permission to lead the evidence on the basis of the xerox copies filed on record has been rejected the second party can very well rely on those documents and lead evidence upon it.

14. Second party has referred those copies of documents in the evidence of S/Shri Rajendra Darekar, Kishor Injal , Anant Mankar and Vilas Pawar considering the nature of defence of the first party that the alleged persons used to work for a period of less than one year and were not in its regular employment and considering the case of second party, the xerox copies of the documents filed on record vide list Exh . 24 relating to the period of their work with the first party is relevant and under the facts and circumstances and the attempt of second party in directing the first party to produce them on record, they are required to be read in evidence .

12. The second party union has pleaded that the aforesaid four persons were appointed by the first party and they were continuously working with it . They rendered more than 6 to 9 years continuous service . On the other hand, it is the contention of first party that those persons were never employed by the bank and there is no employer- employee relationship between them. However, it is its case that these persons some times used to come to bank seeking work ofcleaning in the morning before working hours . The availability of that work was always less than one hour on any day. They never worked full time . The work allotted to them was just for one hour. They were not subjected to any control or supervision by the bank . In view of this disputed fact it is required to be considered that the second party had moved the application for production of documents at Exh . 15 wherein directions to the first party were sought for production of vouchers of the bank whereby monthly payment was made to these persons . In the said application it was submitted by the second party that the said vouchers during the period they worked is required in order to prove the number of days completed by them continuously . The said application is objected by

334GI/11-38 1396

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

Branch Manager and the Sr. Manager Personnel and Administration offirst party. From these correspondence, it appears that the Asstt . General Manager Audit and Inspection Department had called the information in respect ofsaid five persons named in reference about the nature of their working in the branches at Pune or in the Regional Office. From the letter dtd . 16-3-1991 , it appears that these five persons had made representation about their absorption in regular employment of the first party bank. The letter dtd. 14-3-1988 is about furnishing the information by the Manager to the Sr. Manager Personnel and Administration Department (Bombay). By this letter, the information about working of Shri Vilas Pawar and Shri Raju Gawade was submitted wherein it is mentioned that Shri Pawar was working as a Sweeper since 1983 and Shri Raju Gawade was working as a Sweeper since 1985 for four hours . In the said letter it is also mentioned that in addition to their sweeping work they have performed the work ofOffice Boy from 10.00 am to 5.00 pm without any additional charges . All these facts support the contention of the second party that these persons were working continuouslywith the first party as a Sweeper as well as Peon.

15. In respect of Shri Kishor Yallappa Injal , there is no dispute that he was appointed by the first party as a Peon for aperiod of one year from 16-8-1988 . Thereafter he was again appointed temporary for one month from 16-9-1988, 16-10-1988, 16-11-1988, 16-12-1988 and from 16-1-1989. Those appointment letters are at Exh . 75 to 79. By these letters his appointment was made for one month each time and thereby as a temporary Peon he worked with the first partyfrom 16-8-1988 to 16-2-1989 i.e. for six months. It is his case that even thereafter he continued to work with the first party till September 1994. His wages were being paid on vouchers . On perusal of the copies of vouchers filed onrecordvide list Exh . 24 it appears that the amount ofRs . 500 were paid by the first party to Shri Injal number oftimes in the year 1991. These are the copies of some of the vouchers filed by second party which were available to him. Amongst these vouchers one of the voucher dtd. 4-11-1991 is about the payment of diwali bakshis to Shri Injal for the year 1990. The voucher dtd . 3-3-1992 is about sweeping charges of Rs . 500 paid to him for the month of January - 1992 . These facts suggest that he was working with the first party as a Sweeper . It is also his evidence that he used to work in the first party bank as a sweeper in the morning time from 7.30 am to 10.00 am and thereafter from 10.00 am, he used to work as a peon till the closing hours of the bank.

16. So far as Shri Raju Gawade and Shri Vilas Pawar are concerned , it is also their case that they were continuously working with the first party respectively from 1984 to September 1991 and May 1983 to February 1992. It isalso their casethat in the morning time from 7.30 to 10.00 am theywere working as a sweepers and from 10.00 am till the closeof working hours of the bank they used to work as Peon. On perusal of the copies of payment number of vouchers filed on record by the second party in respect of Shri Gawade vide list Exh . 24 for the years 1988, 1989 & 1990, it appears that first party paid him the rickshaw charges orbringing the office record from zonal office i.e. for doing the office work of the first party. There are also certain challans on record, which shows that Shri Gawade attended the work of bringing the adhesive stamps from theTreasury for the first party. All these facts suggest that Shri Raju Gawade was working with the first party during these years and was doing the work of office boy or peon.

18. So far as case of Shri Anant Mankaris concerned the second party has filed on record the xerox copy ofthe statement of saving bank account of Shir Anant Mankar maintained by the first party bank vide list Exh. 24 . Alongwith the copy of statement the office copy of the application submitted by Shri Mankar to the Branch Manager of the first party is filed on record. It bears the acknowledgment of the said branch as to receipt of the said application which is for supplying the copy of statement of his bank account since 1986. From this statement of account, it appears that the branch of the first party bank deposited the amount ofRs . 275 by transfer to the account of Shri Mankar on 26-10-1989 . On 1-11-1989 certain sweeping charges are also credited to his account . Italso appears that on 1-11-1991 and 2-12-1991 and also on 28-12-1991 Rs . 500 on each occasion has been credited to his account towards salary by transfer. Thereafter there are also number of entries from February 1992 to August , 1992 as to credit of certain amount as sundry payment and also as salary has been credited in his account . These facts suggest that the concerned branch of the first party was directly crediting the payment to the bank account of Shri Mankar towards salary as well as towards sundry payments.

17. Similar is the case of Shri Pawar. The copies of vouchers filed on record vide list Exh . 24 for the years 1988 to 1990 as to payment of the rickshaw charges for attending the officework ofthe bank as a Peon or Office Boy. Number of vouchers also pertains to for payment of sweeping charges .All these facts suggest that during this period Shri Pawarwas working with the first party and doing the work of sweeping as well as the work of Office Boy or Peon. Secondparty has also filed on record the copies of correspondencedtd . 14-9-1988 , 21-3-1991, 16-3-1991 , and 31-1-1994. These are the correspondence between the

19. So far as the case of Shri Rajendra Darekar is concerned he has filed on record experience certificate dtd.31-8-1988 at Exh. 65, wherein it is mentioned that Shri Darekar was doing attendance duties with the Somwar PethBranch of first party since 1984. Another certificate dtd. 21-4-1988 at Exh . 66 is the experience certificate wherein it is stated that Shri Darekar has worked as sweeper from May 1982 in Somwar Peth Branch of the first party. Ld. Advocate for the first party has argued that these certificates 1397 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

reference schedule were working with the first party continuously as alleged by the second party till the date of her alleged termination . The second party has pleaded and averred that the workman Shri Rajendra Darekar was terminated from service orally in May, 1991 , Raju Gawade terminated from service in August 1991 , Kishor Injal terminated in September 1994, Anant Mankar terminated in February 1992 and Vilas Pawar terminated from service in February 1992. It has been established by the second party that those five workmen have been continuously working with the first party viz. Rajendra Darekar since 2-5-1982, Raju Gawade since 1984, Kishor Gujar since 16-8-88 , Anant Mankar since April 1982 and Shri Vilas Pawar since May 1983. The evidence ofsecond party as to the date of alleged termination of the said five employees as mentioned above is cogent , convincing and reliable. There is no evidence in rebuttal to it from the first party. Hence I hold that services of the said five employees have been terminated by the first party on the dates as mentioned above as alleged by the second party. As such, termination of the services of the above said five employees is the retrenchment within the meaning of Sec . 2(oo) ofthe I.D. Act .

though of different dates bears the same Reference No. SCB/ SP/38/ AVD and thereby they cannot be relied upon . That however, these arguments do not appear to be convincing Shri Darekar in his examination in chief has specifically stated that both the certificates bear the signature of the Branch Manager - Shri A. V. Deshpande. The first party in cross examination of Shri Darekar has tried to suggest that those signatures are not of Shir A.V. Deshpande, which fact has been denied by Shri Darekar. It is not the suggestion of first party in cross examination of Shir Darekar that Shri A.V. Deshpande was not working as aBranch Manager in the said branch on relevant dates i.e. on 21-4-1988 and 31-8-1988 . In the said certificate, the letters 'AVD' in reference number certainly denotes the name of Branch Manager Shri A.V. Deshpande . There is no reason to disbelive these certificates . It is the evidence of Shri Darekar that he was working as a Sweeper in the first party in the moming from 7.30 to 10.00 am and thereafter from 10.00 am till the closing of bank as a Peon. The certificate at Exh . 66 is the experience certificate as to working as a sweeper and the certificate at Exh. 65 about his duties as attendant. Both these certificate corroborates the evidence of Shri Darekar about his working in the bank as averred by him. Morevoer, the copy of certificate dtd. 19-12-1989 filed on record vide list Exh . 24 is about the residential address of Shri Darekar issued by the Branch Manager , Somwar Peth of the first party bank . There is no reason for issuing such certificates by the Branch Manager, ifreally Shri Darekar was not working in the said bank. The copy of letter dtd. 31-1-1994 filed on record by the second party vide list Exh . 24 is the letter issued by the Assistant General Manager Audit & Inspection department to the Chief Manager. Pune Regional office of the first party bank. By this letter, the information was called for from the ChiefManager, Pune Regional Office about Shri Darekar and others named in this reference who were temporary working at the branches at Pune or Pune Regional Office .

22. It is the specific case of the second party that the said five employees were working with the first party and the provisions ofthe Model Standing Orders are applicable to them. It is not the case of first party that the provisions of the Model Standing Orders are not applicable to it or that there are any Certified Standing Orders framed by it and applicable to it. Hence I hold that the Model Standing Orders are applicable for the workman doing casual work prescribed in Schedule I in pursuance of the Bombay Industrial Employment (Standing Orders ) Rules , 1959. I have already held above that all the said five employees were working as a temporary with the first party years together . From the very fact of the nature of work of sweeper as well as Office Boy or Peon with the first party the work was of regular or seasonal in nature . In number of years and that too during the period of 12 calendar months preceding the date ofthat termination they worked for 240 days and more and worked with uninterrupted service . Hence in view of Clause 4- C of the Model Standing Orders they were entitled to be made permanent in employment of the first party. However, they were not made permanent . Their services have been terminated by floating the provisions of the Model Standing Orders .

20.All these facts suggests that Shri Darekar was also working with the first party as averred by him . The evidence adduced by the second party by examining the fourpersons named in the reference is cogent, convincing and reliable . From all these facts and the evidence ledby second party I hold that all the five persons named in the reference were working with first party continuously as alleged by the second party till the date of their alleged termination. The first party has not adduced any evidence in rebuttal . For all these reasons I hold that the second party has proved all the persons named in the schedule of the reference are the workmen within the meaning ofSec. 2 (s) of the I.D. Act and there is employer- employee relationship between first party and these five workmen. Hence this Court hasjurisdiction to entertain the reference in respect of the five workmen named in schedule of the reference . Hence I answer this Issue No. 1 in the negative.

23. Moreover, the said five workmen were continuously working with the first party for a long period for about 6 to 10 years without any interrruption. These five workmen were in service for long period continuously without interruption. Thus in view of the provisions of Sec.25 B( 1 ) ofthe I.D. Act they were in continuous service for number of years . As such the compliance of the provisions ofSec . 25F of the I.D. Act was necessary while terminating services of these five employees . However, neither the notice was issued nor the wages in lieu of such 21. Issue No. 2: While answering the Issue No.1 I have already held that all the five persons named in the 1398

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] notice was paid to these workmen. No retrenchiment compensationwas paid to them. Hence the termination of services of the said five employees without compliance of the provisions of Sec . 25F ofthe I.D. Act is illegal . Hence I hold that the termination of services ofthose five employees named in the reference schedule on the dates as allegedby the second party is illegal . First party has failed to justify its action in terminating their services . Hence I answer this Issue No. 2 in the negative.

from 11-8-1998 till he attained the age of60 years . So far as the workman Shri Raju Dhondiram Gawade is concerned, hedied on 19-1-2000 during the pendency ofthis reference. His widow Smt . Pamila Raju Gawade had moved an application before this court at Exh . 18 which was allowed vide orders passed on 25-1-2001 and thereby her name is taken on record in place of her deceased husband Raju Gawade. As such, she is entitled to the backwages from 11-3-1998 till the death of deceased Raju Gawade i.e. till 19-1-2000. Hence this Issue No. 3 is answered accordingly.

26. Issue No.4: Under the facts and circumstances of this case, I find it proper that both the parties should bear their own costs . In view of my all these findings I proceed to pass following order.

ORDER

Reference is allowed .

Thefirst party is directed to reinstate S/Shri Rajendra Kondiba Darekar, Kishor Ellappa Injal and Vilas Sitaram Pawar to their original post in continuity of service .

The first party is directed to pay full back wages to S/Shri Rajendra Kondiba Darekar, Kishor Ellappa Injal from the date ofreference i.e. from 11-3-1998 and to pay fullback wages toVilas Sitaram Pawar from the date ofreference i.e. from 11-8-1998 .

The first party shall also pay full back wages to Smt . Pramila Raju Gawade, widow ( legal representative) of deceased Raju Dhondiram Gawade from the date of reference i.e. from 11-3-1998 till the death ofdeceased Raju Dhondiram Gawade i.e. still 19-1-2000.

24. Issue No. 3. In view of my aforesaid findings all the five employees named in the reference schedule would havebeen normally entitled to the relief of reinstatement in continuity of service. That however, the workman Raju Dhondiram Gawade during the pendency of this reference in this court expired and Shri Anant Omkar Mankar has already attained 60 years agei.e. age ofhis superannuation during the pendency of this reference. Hence there is no question of their reinstatement in service. That however, certainly they both are entitled for continuity of service. Shri Anant Omkar Mankar is entitled to continuity of service from February 1992 till the attained the age of 60 years . Similarly, deceased Raju Gawade is entitled to continuity of servicetill his death i.e. till 19-1-2000 . I also hold that Shri Anant Mankar is entitled to backwages till the date of his attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60years . Although deceased Raju Gawade died on 19-1-2000 during the pendency ofthis reference his legal heir i.e. his widow Smt . Pramila Raju Gawade is entitledto the backwages till his death i.e. 19-1-2000. I hold that S/Shri Rajendra Darekar, Kishor Injal andVilas Pawar are entitled to the relief of their reinstatement in continuity of service and also entitled to back wages .

Since Shri Anant Omakar Mankar has attained 60 years age of his superannuation during pendency of this proceeding , the first party is directed to treat the intervening period i.e. from February 1992 till he attained his 60 years age as continuous service for all the purpose . Thefirst party is directed to pay Shri Anant Omkar Mankar full back wages from the date of reference i.e. from 11-8-1998 till he attained age of 60 years .

Parties to bear their own costs .

Pune

N. B. YENURKAR, Presiding Officer

Dt. 22-2-2010

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 461. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार सुपरिन्टेन्डेट ऑफ पोस्ट ऑफिस के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार. औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

25. It is required to be considered since when the backwages are required to be paid to those five workmen. Shri Rajendra Darekar is terminated from service in May- June- 1991 , Raju Gawade was terminated in August - September- 1991 , Kishor Injal was terminated in September 1994, Anant Mankar and Vilas Pawar were terminated from service in February 1992. That however, the reference in respect of Shri Rajendra Darekar , Raju Gawade and Kishor Injal is made to this court on 11-3-1998 . Similarly, the reference in respect of Shri Anant Mankar, Vilas Pawar is madeto this court by way of corrigendum of 11-8-1998 . It is thus evident that second party approached the Government and raised dispute about four to seven years after the termination of those five workmen . For such delay on the part of second party or on the part of those workmen , the first party should not be burdened with the backwages for the period fromthe date oftermination till the date ofwhich reference is received in this court . Hence, I hold that the said five workmen are entitled to full back wages only from the date on which the reference is received in court . Hence I hold that S/Shri Rajendra Darekar and Kishor Injal are entitled to full backwages from 11-3-1998 and Shri Vilas Pawaris entitled to full backwages from 11-8-1998 . I also hold that Shri Anant Mankar is entitled to full backwages

[सं. एल-40012/10/2001-आई आर (डीयू) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1399

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011

24-4-94 isjustified ? Ifnot, to what reliefthe workman is entitled and from which date" ?

S.O. 461. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/2001 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Supdt . of post Office and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-1-2011 .

[No. L-40012/10/2001 - IR (DU]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

I.D. 28/2001

2. In brief the workman's case is that he was appointed as messenger on 19-3-1981 by the non- applicant management who worked up to 19-3-1990 at Talchera, Post Office& thereafter he was transferred to Dhera, Post Office where he continued to work up to 15-10-1992. But on 24-4-1994his service was terminated. Hehas further pleaded that on account of his illness he could not attend the office from 31-7-92 to 15-10-92 and when he appeared for report for duty he was declined to join the office by the authorities . According to his averments he was not served with a copy of charge sheet nor the relevant documents were made available to him and no opportunity to cross examine the witness was given to him . He challenged the fairness ofenquiry on the aforementioned grounds and prayed for reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits .

Reference No. L-40012/10/2001- IR (DU) dated:12-4-2001

Moti Ram Sharma (since deceased)

Through his legal representatives :-

1/1 . Smt . Lachho Devi wife of Late Shri Moti Ram Sharma

2/2. Raju Sharma, son of Late Shri Moti Ram Sharma

3/3 . Ved Prakash, son of Late Shri Moti Ram Sharma

3. Denying the facts as alleged by the workman the non-applicant contended that the workman had remained onunauthorized leave for a period 180 days from 1-8-92 for which he was charge sheeted under the relevant rules and was given an opportunity to appoint his defence nominee. Theworkman and defence nominee have fully participated in the proceedings of the domestic enquiry and after finding the charges prove against the workman his service was terminated w.e.f. 24-4-94,

4/4. Yogesh son of Late Shri Moti Ram Sharma through his natural guardian mother Smt . Lachho Devi .

....Petitioner

V/s

4.After hearing both the parties on the issue of the fairness ofthe domestic enquiry this Tribunal vide its order dated 15-10-03 held the enquiry conducted against the workman as unfair and improper .

1. The Supdt . of Post Offices , BharatpurDivision , Bharatpur

2. Inspector, Post Office Nadbai , Bharatpur.

Respondents

PRESENT:

: Sh. N. K. Purohit

Presiding Officer

5. On. 19-11-03 the non - applicant moved an application stating therein that since this Tribunal vide its order dated 11-10-03 has found the domestic enquiry to be unfair and improper, the non- applicants may be allowed to lead the evidence to prove the charges levelled against the workman .After hearing both the sides , the said application dated 19-11-03 was allowed and non- applicants were permitted to lead the evidence to prove the charges levellved against the workman vide Tribunal's order dated 194-04.

FortheApplicant : Sh . Nagendra Singh

Forthe non -applicant : Ex-party

AWARD

31-12-2010

6. It is pertinent to mention that at the stage of non- applicant's evidence to prove the charges against the workman, none appeared on behalf of the parties on 28-6-04, therefore, "No Dispute Award" was passed on the said date.

1. The Central Government in exercise ofthe powers conferred under clause ( d) of sub- section 1 and 2(A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication which runs as under :-

7. The workman filed an application to set aside the said award on 9-7-04 but the same was rejected vide tribunal's order dated 11-10-04. Agrieved by the said award and order the workman challenged them in civil writ petition No. 8306/05. While setting aside the said award dated 28-6-04 and order dated 11-10-04 following directions were givenby Hon'ble High Court :

Whether the action of the management of Supdt . ofPost Offices , Bharatpur in terminating the services of Shri Motiram S/o Shri Mangal Ram, EDA w.e.f.

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] 1400

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

12. It is not disputed that the workman had died on 11-12-06 and the non - applicants have yet not adduced any evidenceto prove the charges levelled against the workman. Thus the question crops up for consideration is as to whether charge can be proved on the basis of evidence to be tendered after the death ofthe charge sheeted workman.

" अतः आक्षेपित आदेश दिनांक 11-10-2004 अनेक्चर-6 एवं आक्षेपित अवार्ड दिनांक 28-06-2004अनेक्चर-3 को अपास्त करते हुए प्रकरण को सेन्ट्रल गवर्मेन्ट इण्डस्ट्रियल ट्रिब्युनल कम लेबर कोर्ट, जयपुर को इस निर्देश के साथ वापिस भेजा जाता हैं कि वे इस प्रकरण में पुनः नियमानुसार सुनवाई कर उचित आदेश पारित करें । पक्षकारान न्यायाधिकरण के समक्ष दिनांक 28 मार्च , 2008 को उपस्थित हों । "

13. In 1995(70) FLR 244 Smt . Prem Kumar & others v/s Central Industrial Tribunal and others , the workman concerned died during the pendency of the reference . His survived wife and six sons were made parties . The enquiry held against the concerned workman by the LIC had been heldto be unfair by an earlier order dated 16-9-1987 passed during the life time of the concerned workman and permission was granted to the corporation to lead evidence to prove the misconduct before the Central Industrial Tribunal concerned and thereafter it was held that the charges were proved but relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Deshraj Gupta v/s Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow directed that the workman was entitled to wages up to December, 1987 and such wages is to be paid to his widow and six sons . The Tribunal held that termination of service of the workman was not proper and valid and therefore, his widow & sons entitled to the wages and other financial benefits which the concerned employee could receive up to the date of his death . The said award was challenged by the LIC in S.B. civil writ petition which was dismissed. In D.B. civil special appeal against the decision ofthe S.B. Hon'ble Rajashan High Court has observed as under:-

8. It is also pertinent to mention that as per directions the parties were required to appear before this Tribunal on 28-3-08 . On perusal of the proceedings , it appears that the post of the Presiding Officer was lying vacant and none appeared on behalf of parties on the said date. Therefore, after posting ofthe Presiding Officer, directions were given on 14-10-09 to issue fresh notices . It also appears from the proceedings that Shri Brahmanand Sandhu appeared on behalfof thenon-applicant on 26-5-10 but registered notice to the workman returned unserved with the report " addressee Motiram had died" . On 1-9-10 the deceased workman's son submitted an application along with copy ofthe death certificate of the workman and prayed to take legal representatives ofthe deceased workman on record. Another application was submitted for seeking time to file authority letter to represent the legal representative of the deceased workman . From the proceedings dated 7-10-10, it also reveals that an authority letter to represent the legal representative of the deceased workman was filed by Shri Nagendra Singh , Advocate . During hearing on the application for taking legal representative of the workman on record, it was pointed out that in writ petition8306/04 the legal representative of the deceased workman were on the record . The learned representative on behalf of the non-applicant did not oppose the application, therefore , the said application was allowed & the legal representative ofthe deceased workman were taken on record & the case was posted for non - applicant's evidence on 15-11-10.

"We are of the considered opinion that since the workman had died on December 7, 1987 and it had already been held earlier by the Tribunal that the enquiry held by the employer was unfair, the appellant could not seek to prove the charge after the death of the concerned workman. Nor charge can be proved on the basis of the evidence tendered after the death ofthe charge- sheeted workman . "

14. It was submitted before Hon'ble Court on behalf ofthe Corporation tha that charge could be proved even after the death of the concerned workman by tendering evidence with reference to the contemporaneous record but Hon'ble Court did not agree with the arguments and further observed that :-

9. In above factual backdrop an application was moved on behalf ofthe legal representative ofthe deceased workman that charges leveled against the workman cannot be proved on the basis of evidence . The case was posted for reply of the non - applicant and arguments on the said application on 25-11-10. But none appeared on behalf of the non - applicant on the said date , therefore, ex- party order was drawn against the non - applicant. On next date i.e. 16-12-10 , after hearing the learned representative on behalf ofthe applicants , the case was reserved for award .

10. The learned representative on behalf of the applicants has argued that the workman had died on 11-12-06, therefore, charges against a dead person cannot be proved . In support of his contention he has relied on 1995 (70) FLR 244.

"We do not agree with this arguments for the simple reason that only the deceased workman could confront the employer with the circumstances in which the prescribed standard of work could not be given and no effective cross - examination on this aspect of the matter could be done by the legal representatives , i.e. the widow of the deceased workman and his sons . Only the deceased workman could confront the witnessess of the employer with such circumstances in which it may not have been possible for him to give the prescribed standard of 11. I have given my thoughtfull consideration on the contention canvassd by the learned representative for the applicants and perused the record .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

1401

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011

S.O. 462. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.2/2010) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court No.1 New Delhi as shown in the Annexure, in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 18-1-2011 .

work. Therefore, to say that the work put in by the concerned employee workman was on record and the requisite standard of work had been prescribed and therefore, the charge could be proved even against a dead person without causing any prejudice to him, is wholly misconceived, rather ill- conceived . In such circumstances , we do not find that the Tribunal committed any illegality in granting the relief ofwages and other consequential financial benefits to the legal representatives ofthe deceased workman on thebasis ofthe Supreme Court decision inDeshraj Gupta v/s Industrial Tribunal, Lucknow for the period from the date of the termination to the date of the death ofthe workman . "

[No. L-42012/98/2010- IR (DU] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer . ANNEXURE

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

15. In present case the facts are almost similar & this case is squarely covered by the legal proposition laid down in the above referred decision. The non- applicant's evidence is yet to be adduced & the workman had died on 11-12-06, therefore, the charges leveled against him cannot be proved on the basis of the evidence to be tendered after the death ofthe charge sheeted workman . The termination of the workman w.e.f. 24-4-94 was based on the domestic enquiry held against him but the domestic enquiry conducted against the workman has already been held as unfair & improper .

I.D. No. 2/2010 Shri PremSingh , S/o late Shri Chab Singh , R/ o WZ - 35 , VillageTodapur, PostOffice- Pusa, New Delhi - 110012

...Workman

Versus

The Company Secretary, National Seeds Corporation Ltd. , (CS& SD), Beej Bhawan , STO Building, Pusa Complex, Delhi - 110012. AWARD ....Management 16 In view of above discussion, it is held that the action of the management of Supdt . of Post Offices , Bharatpur in terminating the services of deceased Shri Motiram EDA w.e.f. 24-4-94 is unjustified . The workman had died on 11-12-06. In the light of decision rendered in 1995(70) FLR 244, the deceased workman was entitled to wages which were payable to him at the time of his termination of servics on 24-4-94. The workman is survived by the wife & four sons . Therefore , his widow & four sons are entitled to the wages & other financial benefits which the concerned workman could receive up to the date ofhis death December 11, 2006. An award is passed in these terms accordingly.

17. Let a copy of the award be sent to the Central Government for publication under 17 ( 1 ) oftheAct .

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 462. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार नेशनल सीडस् कॉरपोरेशन लिमिडेट के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण न.1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 2/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

Acomplaint was made by Shri Prem Singh to Regional Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Curzon Road, New Delhi on 24th of September, 2004, detailing therein that he was serving National Seeds Corporation Ltd. (CS & SD) , (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) from last many years. When he raised a demand for regularization of his services and payment of minumum wages , his services weredispensed with an 23-9-04, while his junior was working with the Corporation. He requested that he may be got reinstated in services of the Corporation, with further direction to payhim full wages . Fate of the said complaint is not known. However, on 4-8-2008 , he raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer . The Corporation filed its reply, wherein it denied existence ofrelationship of employer and employee between the parties . When conciliationproceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. L-42012/98 /2010- IR (DU) , New Delhi dated 8-1-2010 with following terms:

[सं. एल -42012/98/2010- आई आर ( डीयू) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्कं अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. , in terminating the services [PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1402

My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows :

of Shri Prem Singh w.e.f. 23-9-2004 is legal and justified? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

IssueNo. 1.

2. Claim statement was filed pleading therein that Prem Singh joined services with the Corporation in June, 1997. He was posted in packing department of the Corporation, where he served uninterruptedly till 23-9-04. He became a member of the National Seeds Corporation Workers Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) , which is recognized union ofthe establishment of the Corporation. Awritten request was made to the Corporation on 22-9-05 for payment ofminimum wages to him. On receipt ofthat demand,his services were terminated on 23-9-04 under the garb of no work for him . His junior was working with the Corporation on that date. Action of the Corporation, in terminating his services , is illegal, malatide and vindictive in nature . He made a complaint to Regional Labour Commissioner on 24-9-04 but no action was taken on it. Termination of his services is against the provision of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short Act), hence it is void ab initio . He claims reinstatement in services with continuity and full back wages .

7. Claimant deposed that the joined services with the Corporation on 19th of May, 97. He was appointed as daily wager. No appointment letter was issued to him. He was paid his wages @ Rs . 110 per day. He worked with the Corporationcontinuously till 24-9-04 . He made a demand to Shri Dharam Pal, Area Manager , for regularization of services or enhancement of his wages . He felt annoyed andtold himthat he should go to court for regularization of his services . His services were terminated. No notice or pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was given. Shri Baljit Singh Vice President of the Union, had sent an application to Conciliation Officer on 16-9-2004, copy ofwhichapplication is Ex . WW1/ 1 . During the course of his cross examination he proves photo copy of attendance register as Ex . WW1/M1 to Ex . WW1 /M7 . He asserts that Ex. WW1/M1 to Ex . WW1 /M17 bear counter signature of Shri Dharampal, Area Manager. He had also proved original attendance register as Ex . WW1 /M19 to establised that he worked with the Corporation.

3. Contest was given to the claim statement pleading that the claimant was never employed by the Corporation. There existed no relationship of employer and employee between the parties . Since the claimant had not worked with the Corporation in any capacity, hence there was no question ofremoving or terminating his services on23-9- 04. The claimant has abused process of law. He never completed 240 days continuous service, as claimant by him. It has beenprojected that the Corporation is not aware ofany complaint made by the claimant on 24-9-04 to the ConciliationOfficer . He is not entitled to any reliefmuchless the relief of reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages . It is asserted that the claim statement, being devoid of merits , is liable to be dismissed.

4.Onpleadings ofthe parties following issues were settled.

8. Shri Zile Singhdeposed that in May, 97, Prem Singh joined services with the Corporation. Heused to attend his office at Pusa. He was working there as Store Keeper. He used to get Rs . 110 per day as his wages . He worked upto September, 04, until his services were terminated bythe Corporation. No notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to the claimant .No retrenchment compensation was paid to him.Hewas serving the Corporation as a Lab Assistant in those days . He superannuated on 31-7-09 . During the course of his cross examination he presents that he was working under quality control lab of the Corporation . He had seen name of the claimant on the chart of Store keeper , maintained by the Corporation. Claimant used to come to the laboratory alongwith samples . He used to receive those samples from the claimant, hence he can say that the claimant was an employee ofthe Corporation.

1. Whether there was no relationship ofemployer and employee between the parties .

2. As in terms of the reference .

3. Relief.

5. Claimanthas examined himself (WW1 ), Shri Zile Singh (WW2) and Shri K.K. Sharma (WW3 ) in support of his claim. The Corporation has examined Shri Ajit Kumar Samal (MW1 ) and Parma Nand (MW2 ) in support of its defence. No other witness was examined by either ofthe parties.

9. Shri K.K. Sharma presents that hejoined services ofthe Corporation in 1969 and superannuated on 31st of August, 2005. He was working as Senior Technical Assistant (Quality Control Laboratory ) with the Corporation. Claimant was known to him, who used to remain present at sale counter of the Corporation. Probably claimant joined services of the Corporation in 1997 and served upto 2004. He was serving as daily wager . During the course ofhis cross examination, he projects that as and when villagers made quarries from him regarding rate of seeds he used to consult Prem Singh in that regard. Prem Singh used to tell him whether seeds were available and on what rate(s ) .Claimant used to visit quality control laboratory for handling samples ..

10. ShriAjit Kumar Samal presents that the claimant was not an employee of the Corporation . He became acquainted with the claimant during adjudication 6.Arguments were heard at the bar . Shri B.S. Rana, authorised representative, advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant . Ms. Sushma Singh authorised representative, raised her submissions on behalf of the Corporation.Written submissions were filed by the parties . I have given my careful considerations to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1403 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

proceeding. During course of his cross examination he projects that in 1986 Managing Director ofthe Corporation issued a circular prohibiting engagament of casual employees . It further provides that in case ofurgency casual employees would he engaged for a very short duration. The said circular was never approved by the Board of Director, since no such approval was required. He admits that oneAssistant Manager with the name of Shri Dharam Pal Singh is working with the Corporation . However, he could not affirm or deny that in 1997, Shri Dharam Pal Singh was working as Area Manager .

11. Shri Parma Nand swears in his affidavit Ex. MW2/ A that seed packing at sale counter is not done by an employee of the Corporation. Such work is being taken from contractor, depending upon requirement of seed packing receipt of seed and its dispatch . No regular daily wager was recruited by the Corporation with the name of Prem Singh . Shri Prem Singh was never recruited by the Corporation. During the course of his cross examination heprojects that employees of the contractor never worked on sale counter of the Corporation . Employees of the contractor performed duties of unloading goods and to place it in store. One employee of contractor is working on computer, admits the witness . No daily wager employee works on sale counter.

on 10-1-97 and 13-1-97 . There were seven labours , who worked with the Corporation on 14-1-97 , 15-1-97 and 16-1-97. Eight labours were engaged on 17-1-97. Two labours were engaged on 20-1-97. Three labours were engaged on21-1-97, 22-1-97 and 24-1-97, while two labours were engaged on 27-1-97 and 28-1-97. In the same manner two labours were engaged on 3-2-97, 4-2-97, 5-2-97 and 6-2-97 , while one labour was engaged on 7-2-97. Two labours were again engaged on 10-2-97, 11-2-97, 13-2-97, 14-2-97, while one labour was engaged on 12-2-97 and 19-2-97. Two labour were again engaged on 20-2-97 and 21-2-97, 24-2-97 while one labour was engaged on 22-2-97 . Three labours were employed on 24-2-97, 25-2-97, 26-2-97, 27-2-97, while six labours were engaged on 27-2-97. On 1st March, 97 one labour was engaged and two labours were engaged on 3-3-97. There were three labours on 4-3-97 and 13th of March, 97. Two labours were engaged on 5-3-97, 6-3-97, 7-3-97 and 12-3-97 . One labour was engaged on 10-3-97 and 11-3-97 . Engagement of these labours are verified by an officer, who signs as D.P. Singh . According to the claimant, verification of engagement of labours referred above , was done by Shri Dharam Pal Singh, who was working asArea Manager with the Corpoartion in those days . The Corporation could not dispel facts unfolded by the claimant and those depicted in register Ex . WW1 /19. Therefore, it is crystal clear that the Corporation used to engage daily wagers and the claimant rendered his services to the Corporation in that capacity.

12. When facts unfolded by rival parties are appreciated, it came to light that depositions of Zile Singh and K.K. Sharma remained above-board. Corporation could not sake credit of their depositions , when facts unfolded by them were purified by an ordeal of cross examination . Sequence of events unfolded by Shri Zile Singh and K.K. Sharma, remained intact and worth reliable. Being employees of the Corporation , they assert that claimant joined services ofthe Corporation in 1997 and worked there upto 2004. Facts unfolded by these witnesses are reaffirmed by the claimant . When he deposed that he joined services ofthe Corporation on 19-5-97 as daily wager . He worked with the Corporation till 24-9-04 . He made a request to Shri Dharam Pal, Area Manager to enhance his wages , which request annoyed him . Shri Dharam Pal terminated his services .

14. Relationship of employer and employee is constituted by a contract, express or implied . between employer and employee . A contract of service is one in which a person undertakes to serve another and obey his reasonable orders within the scope of the duty undertaken. Acontract 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 ofhis employer , there must have been some act or contract by which the parties recognized one another as master or servant .

15. The claimant could show that he was engaged by the Corporation as a daily wager. He served the Corporation in that capacity. It has been brought over the record that the Corporation engaged him as a daily wager . Hence it does not lie in the mouth of the Corporation to assert that relationship of employer and employee never existed between the parties . When claimant was engaged as daily wager, who worked with the Corporation for considerable period , he could discharge onus and establish that 13. To substantiate facts , the claimant had placed reliance on register Ex. WW1 /M19 . When contents ofthe register are scanned, it came to light that two labours were employed on 4-12-96 , 5-12-96, 6-12-96 while one labour was employed on 7-12-96. Three labours were emoloyed on 9-12-96. Again two labours were employed on 10-12-96, 11-12-96, 12-12-96 13-12-96 and 16-12-96 . Three labours were employed on 17-12-96, 18-12-96, 9-12-96, 20-12-96. 21-12-96,23-12-96, 24-12-96, 26-12-96, 27-12-96. One labour was employed on 31-12-96. Two labours were employed on 1-1-97, while one labour was employed on 2-1-97 and 3-1-97 respectively. Three laboures were engaged on 6-1-97 and 7-1-97 . Two labours were engaged on 8-1-97, while one labour was engaged on 9-1-97. Three labours were engaged

334GI/11-39 [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1404

relationship ofemployer and employee were there between the parties . Issue is , therefore, answered in favour of the claimant and against the management.

IssueNo. 2.

16. Shri Prem Singh unfolds that he joined services ofthe Corporation on 19-4-97 as daily wager. He worked continuously till 24-9-04 . He made a request for regularization of his services or enhancement of wages , which annoyed Shri Dharampal, Area Manager, who terminated his services . Facts detailed by the claimant are reaffirmet by Zile Singh, who deposed that Shri Prem Singh joined services of the Corporation in May, 1997 and worked till September , 2004. Shri K.K.Sharma corroborates facts unfolded by Shri Zile Singh and the claimant.He presents that probably claimant had joined services of the Corporation in 1997. He served as a daily wager upto 2004. TheCorporation could not dispel their depositions . Their testimonies remained above-board and consistent when they were grilled. No inherent infirmity crept out of their depositions , suggesting that facts unfolded by them were farther from truth. Therefore , events detailed by these witnesses highlight that claimant served the Corporation since 19-5-97 till September, 2004.

examination of the claimant , opted not to challenge the latter on facts , datailed in the register referred above. Since Dharam Pal Singh was not brought in the witness box to raise his eye brows on authentication of daily wagers employed by the Corporation on various dates detailed in the register, it emerges over the record that the Corporation opted not to produce the best evidence . The Corporation also opted not to file documents , which were in its possession. These facts make it clear that ocular as well as documentary evidence was withheld by the Corporation, without any just cause. It is a case which justify in drawing an adverse inference against the Corporation to the effect that the evidence, if produced would have supported the cause ofthe claimant. After drawing an adverse inference and relying facts unfolded by the claimant and his witnesses it is concluded that the claimant could establish that he servedthe Corporation as a daily wager from 19th ofMay, 1997 till 23-9-2004. Shri Ajit Kumar Samal and ParmaNand spoke facts,which were contrary to those detailed in Ex . WW1/19. When authenticity ofEx. WW1 / 19 was not disputed, its contents discard ocular facts deposed by these witnesses . In view of these reasons it is announced that the claimant could show that he worked continuously for more than 240 days , preceding the date of his disengagement by the Corporation.

19. Retrenchment has been defined by clause (oo) ofSection 2 of the Act, as follows :

"(oo) " retrenchment " means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever, otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include-

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

(b) retirement ofthe workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

(bb) termination of the service of the workman as a result of the non renewal of the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned on its expiry or of such contract being terminated under the stipulation in that behalf contained therein; or

(c) termination of the service of a workman on the ground of continued ill-health; " 17. " Continuous Service" has been defined by Section 25B of the Act. Under sub-section (1 ) of the said section, "continuous service for period" may comprise of two period viz (i) uninterrupted service, and ( ii ) interrupted service on account of ( a) sickness , (b) authorized leave, (c) an accindent, (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, which 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 emoloyer ifhe has actualy 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) furinished a unit of measure and if during that unit of measure the period of service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days , then he can be considered to have rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose of the section . The idea is that if within a unit period of one year a person had put in at least 240 days of service, then he must get the benefit conferred by the Act .

20. It is not the case of the Corporation that the claimant sought voluntary retirement from service . No evidence was brought to establish that the claimant reached the age of superannuation or his services came to an end on account of non renewal of conract of employment . It was also not projected that service of the claimant were done away on account of his continued ill health . Consequently, it is evident that termination of services of 18. An enquiry has to be made to find out whether the claimant had actually worked for not less than 240 days during a period of 12 calendar months immediately preceding the retrenchment. Register Ex. WW/M19 portaits that various labours were employed, whose engagement atdifferent dates were verified by Shri Dharam Pal, Area Manager. Dharam Pal Singh, though present at the time of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1405 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

the claimant, for any other reason whatsoever, answers the definition of retrenchment as contained in clause (oo) Section 2 of theAct.

regularization and making permanent , was not emphasized here-can only encourage the State, the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer unduebenefits on a few at the cost ofmany waiting to compete. With respect the directions made in Piara Singh [ 1992 (4) SCC 118] is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 of the saidjudgement therein. With great respect, it appears tous that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad- hoc, temporary or casual employees engaged without following a regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent. "

21. Prem Singh projects that his services were dispensed with on 23-9-2004. The Corporation nowhere presents that notice or pay in lieu thereof was given to the workman while terminating his services . Retrenchment compensation was not paid to him . The Corporation was under an obligation to pay him compensation for retrenchment at the time of retrenchment. Payment of retrenchment compensation is a condition precedent to a valid order of retrenchment Precedents in Bombay Union ofJournalists case [ 1964 ( 1) LLJ 351 ], Adaishwar Laal ( 1970 Lab I.C. 936) and B.M. Gupta [ 1979 ( 1) LLJ 168 ] announce thatsubsequent payment of compensation can not validate an invalid order of retrenchment . As retrenchment compensation was not paid to Shri Prem Singh , consequently action of the management falls within the mischief of Section 25 - F of the Act . Hence termination of service ofthe claimant can not be termed as legal or jusitfied. Issue is answered in favour of the claimant and against the Corporation.

Relief

24. In P. Chandra Shekhara Rao and Others [2006(7) SCC488 ] the Apex Court referred Uma Devi's Case (Supra) with approval. It also relied the decision in a Uma Rani [2004 ( 7) SCC 112 ] and ruled that no regularization is permissible in exercise of statutory powers conferred in Article 162 of the Constitution , if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules . In Somveer Singh [ 2006 (5) SCC 493 ] the Apex Court ruled that appointment made without following due procedure cannot be regularized . In Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [2007 ( 1 ) SCC 408] theApex Court reiterated the law and announced that the rules of recruitment can not be relaxed and court can not direct regularisation oftemporary employess dehors the rules , nor can it direct continuation of service of a temporary employee (whether called a casual , ad-doc or daily rated employee) or payment ofregular salaries to them.

22. Services of the workman were retrenchment without payment of notice pay, and retrenchment compensation . It is well settled that in a case of wrongful retrenchment, dismissal or discharge, the normal rule is to award reinstatement . But where a case falls in any of the exception to general rule, the industrial adjudicator has discretion to award reasonable and adequate compensation, in lieu of re- instatement . Section 11A of the Act vests the industrial adjudicator with discretionary jurisdiction to give " such other relief to the workman" in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require , where for some valid reasons it considers that reinstatement with or without conditions will not be fair or proper.

23. In Uma Devi [ 2006 (4) SCC1 ] the Apex Court considered the proposition as to whether the persons who got employment , without following of a regular procedure or even from the back door or on daily wages can be ordered to be made permanent in their posts , to prevent regular recruitment to the posts concerned . Catena of decisions over the subject were considered and the court declined the submissions of the workmen to be made permanent on the posts which were held by them in temporary or ad -hoc capacity for a fairly long spell . The Court ruled thus :

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

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

26.Admittedly, Prem Singh was employed with the Corporation as a casual employee. No procedure for regular employment was followed . His engagement was dehors the recruitment rules . Hence his reinstatement in service would amount to back - door entry in Government job . In view ofwrongful employment of the claimant , there is no justification for his reinstatement in service of the Corporation. In the alternative , this Tribunal has to award compensationto the workman in lieu of his reinstatement . No definite yardstick for measuring the quantum of compensation is available. In S.S Shetty [ 1957 ( 11 ) LLJ 696] the Apex Court indicated some relevant factors which an adjudicator has to take into account in computing compensation in lieu ofreinstatement 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 ofthe 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 ofwhat his salary, benefits etc. wouldbe 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 its possible bearing, of course in mind all the relevant factors pro and con" .

28. InAssrm 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 years salary of the employee awarded by the industrial Tribunal was reduced by the Supreme Court to an amount equivalent to one year salary ofthe 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 Chakaraborty [ 1962 ( 11) LLJ 483 ] the Court converted the award of reinstatement into compensation of sum of Rs . 50000 as just and fair compensation in full satifaction of all his claims for wrongful dismissal from service. In O.P. Bhandari [ 1986 ( 11 ) LLJ 509 ] . TheApex Court observed that it was a fit case for grant of compensation in view ofreinstatement . 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 ofreinstatement yet restricted the back salary to 50 % of what would otherwise be payable to the employee. In Yashveer Singh (1993 Lab . I. C. 44) the courtdirectedpayment ofRs . 75000 in view ofreinstatement with back wages . In Naval Kishor [ 1984 ( 11 ) 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 ofreinstatement . In Sant Raj [ 1985 ( 11 ) LLJ 19] a sum of Rs . 2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu ofreinstatement . In Chandu Lal ( 1985 Lab . I.C. 12225 ) a compensation of Rs . 2 lac by way back wages in lieu of reinstatement was awarded . In Ras Bihari (1988 Lab L.C. 107) a compensation of Rs . 65000 was granted in lieu ofreinstatement, since the employee was gainfully employed elsewhere. InV.V. Rao ( 1991 Lab. I.C. 1650 ) a compensation of Rs . 2.50 lac was awarded in lieu of reinstatement.

29. Prem Singh served the Corporation for about 5years .He is aged about 30 years as on date . He presents that he could not get any job thereafter . Considering the span of time for which he served the Corporation as well as the time for which he ought to have served and the surrounding circumstances , I am of the view that a sum of Rs . 50,000 would be adequate compensation for him. The Corporation shall pay the amount of compensation to the claimant within one month from the date , the award becomes operative. An award is , accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 30-11-2010

27.ADivisional Bench ofthe Patna High Court in B. Choudhary Vs. Presiding Officer , Labour Court , Jamshedpur ( 1983) Lab . I. 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 the jobwith future prospect and obtainability of alernative 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 inmitigation ofdamages : and (viii ) 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 ofthe Tribunal to award interest on the amount determined 2s 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] .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1407

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

नई दिल्ली , 18 जनवरी , 2011

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Reference Case No. CGIT/NGP/ 121 /2004 का. आ. 463.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर, के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 121/2004 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Between: The Sub -Area Manager, Dhooptalla Sub Area ofW.C.L. P.O. Sast, Teh.: Rajura , Chandrapur (M.P.) PartyNo. 1 [सं. एल-22012/373/2003 - आईआर( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th January, 2011

AND Their Workman (Case of Sri. K. R. Kamila)

...PartyNo. 2

APPLICATION OF PARTY NO . 2 TO KINDLY PASS ORDER FOR CLOSING THE CASE AS WITHDRAWN

(1) The Counsel of Party No. 2 submits that he has sentnumber of letters to the President Koyla Shramik Sabha (H.M.S. ) Kharabe Building. Nagpur including last letter dated 22-11-2010 (sent by Post Regd. A/D.)

S.O. 463. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 121/2004) 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 Dhoptala Sub Area of Western Coalfields Limited, and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 18-1-2011 .

[No. L- 22012/373/2003 - IR (CM- II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

(2) That the counsel also contacted over phone at times the Area Union Representative, Ballarpur Area of K.S.S. (H.M.S. ) Sh. Anil Morpakka who informed that the workman Sh . K. R. Kamila has since retired and is not interested to pursue the case further and thus the union as well.

ANNEXURE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

No. 57/121/2004

Advocate for the workman is present. No body appears from the side of management . The workman is absent on call .

(3) The view of above submissions it is prayed to close the case as withdrawn . Prayer:Accordingly Sd/- K. K. YADAV, Counsel for Party No. 2/Workman

Nagpur,

Dated: 3-1-2011

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2011

Perused the record . The case is fixed for filing evidence on affidavit of the workman . Advocate for the workman files a petition for time Heard . Time is allowed as a last chance to adduce evidence from the side of the workman on affidavit .

Callon 3-1-2011 for filing affidavit of the workman. Advocate Sri B.N. Prasad and Sri S. T. Sahasrabudhe filejoint Vakalatnama for the management .

का.आ. 464.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एफ.सी.आई. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 51/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को18-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Advocate for the workman files an application to close the case as withdrawn as the workman has already retired and not interested to pursue the case further and the union is also not interested to contest the case any more . Copy served . The advocate for the management has no objection to close the case.

[सं. एल-22012/161/1999- आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 18th January, 2011

Inview of the application the case is closed as with drawn and the same be treated as a reference as no award . The petition be made part of the award. Send the award for notification .

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

S.O. 464.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 51/1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial [PART II-SBC. 3(ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

1408

Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of FCI and their workman, which was received bythe Central Government on 18-1-2011 .

[No. L-22012/161/ 1999- IR(C- II)] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 51 of 1999

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of TheDistt. Manager, FCI, Hyde Road Extn.

AND

Their workmen .

Present : Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar , PresidingOfficer

Appearance:

On behalf of the Management : Mr. B.K. Das , Ld . Advocate.

Mr. S. Majumdar, Ld.

Onbehalf of the Workmen :

Advocate with Mr. R. Talukdar , Ld.

Advocate .

Industry: Food

State: West Bengal

Dated: 3rd January, 2011

AWARD

By Order No.L- 22012 / 161 /99 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 22-11-1999 the Government of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10 (1 )(d) and (2A) of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the Distt . Manager (PD) . Food Corporation of India, 27, Hyde Road Extn .

Calcutta-88 in (i ) not regularizing the services of two casual sweepers namely Smt . Lakshmi Devi and Sh . Rajesh Dhanuk, although , they have been working before the cut off date of 2-5-86 and (ii) retrenching the six casual sweepers namely Smt . Lakshmi Devi , Sh . Rjesh Dhanuk , Sh . Lakshmi Narayan Hela, Sh . Raju Das , Sh . Binod Dhanuk and Sh . Ramu Mullick without following the provisions under Section 25F of the I.D. Act 1947 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled ?"

Dhaunk were engaged at D.O. (PO) , FCI for cleaning latrines , toilets of office building including Police Barrack from 08.02.1984 and 01.12.1985 respectively. Since there has been a long standing demand from various unions as well as FCI Mazdoor Union, for regularization of casual , daily rated workers engaged in FCI who were rendering service to the establishment for a substantial period of time, on consideration ofthe same the management ofFCI decidedto absorb those casual daily rated workers engaged prior to 02.05.1986 and names of eligible workers were invited from different depo's and offices of F.C.I. and a complete list of left out cases were called from the District Manager (P.D.) . Though one Assistant Manager (H.K.) through letter dated 21-7-1994 expressed that due to inadvertence or negligence or mistake names of some casual sweepers who were engaged prior to cut- off date could not be submitted. The management of FCI did not accede to the lawful request/demand of the union and not taking steps towards regularization oftwo workers , namely, Smt . Lakshmi Devi and Shri Rajesh Dhanuk in contravention of the policy promulgated towards regularization ofcasual daily rated workers engaged in the establishment prior to 2-5-1986. FCI Employees Union raised a dispute before Conciliation officer regarding such regularization of casual workers and thereupon on 7-10-1996 a meeting was held in the office of the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) in New Delhi and the said union and the management of FCI participated in the discussion and it was categorically expressed that casual workers engaged prior to 2-5-1986 and in service on the date of discussion would be regularized in terms of the Circular No. EP- 1 (4)/ 85 - Vol. II dated 6-5-1987 and also expressed that the other casual workers in categories III and IV appointed after 2-5-1986 and also completed 240 days continuous service should also be regularized and the management would have no justification in retrenching the said workmen appointed on or after 2-5-1986 . It is further claimed that in exercise of unfair labour practice themanagement terminated services ofsix casual workmen, namely, Smt . Lakshmi Devi, Shri Rajesh Dhanuk , Shri Lakshmi Narayan Hela, Shri Raju Das , Shri Binode Dhanuk and Shri Rami Mallick and those were effected by an order dated 1-5-1998 . The union raised an industrial dispute thereupon at tripartite level before the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Kolkata for regularization of above stated casual workers and the management of FCI called upon to submit its written comment by the Labour Commissioner and both the parties were called for jointdiscussion on 14-10-1998 . Immediately preceding that date, on 13-10-1998 the said six casual sweepers were disengaged by a ugly display ofunfair labour practice by ignoring all obligations and statutory liabilities imposed upon the management by the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act . Thereafter the union made several correspondences over the said issue to different officers

ofthe management of FCI in course of the conciliation 2. Inthe statement of claim of the workmen union the claimant's story has been stated as , two casual sweepers , namely, Smt . Lakshmi Devi and Shri Rajesh [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23, 1932

1409 process and ultimately the conciliation process failed and the Conciliation Officer submitted a failure report . Thereafter the present reference has been made .

said sweepers were intermittently engaged and discontinued periodically as they were engaged for limited purpose only.

3. The management of FCI in its written statement has denied the allegations made by the workmen union and submitted that the District Manager (P.D. ) discontinued work of six casual sweepers with effect from 1-5-1998 and subsequently they were allowed to continue with effect from 20-5-1998 and the necessity for such re- engagement of the casual labourers were intimated to the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) . The FCI management decided to absorb and/or regularize the casual workers prior to 2-5-1986 and the names of Smt. Lakshmi Devi and Shri Rajesh Dhanuk were forwarded for regularization. The six casual sweepers who were engaged in the establishment on different dates between 1984 and 1991 under instruction from the FCI Head Quarters and the District Manager (P.D. ) tried to disengage them from 09.05.1998 and the union agitated against the contemplated action of the management and so by a subsequent order these casual labourers were re- engaged at Jinjirapool Depot under D.M. (P.D.) with effect from 8-3-1999 for clearing latrine, sweeping the office floor etc. The issue of alleged discontinuation of casual sweepers were placed before the Regional Labour Commissioner at Nizam Palace, Kolkata, but the conciliation failed since the union was in favour of referring the dispute to voluntary arbitration which the management opposed and ultimately the management has claimed that the claim raised by the union is malafide and illegal .

4.Rejoinder filed by the workmen contains denial of the statements made by the management in its written statement and repetition of the contents of the statement ofclaim ofthe workmen union .

7. The issue involved here is whether the claim of the workers for regularization of the services of Smt . Lakshmi Devi and Shri Rajesh Dhanuk can be entertained orwhether the compliance under Section 25F ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 may be considered for the act of retrenchment of Smt . Lakshmi Devi and Shri Rajesh Dhanuk and four other workers who were admittedly engaged after the cut-off date . The learned Advocate for the workmen , Mr. Majumdar submitted that Ext. M- 10 acts as a guideline to the claim for regularization ofthe services of Lakshmi Devi and Rajesh Dhanuk. On going through the said Ext . M- 10 it is found that it was a letter from the Senior Regional Manager ofthe Food Corporation of India at its Calcutta Office to the Zonal Manager ( East) in Calcutta and therein it has been stated that the six casual sweepers were engaged and re-engaged as per direction of the A.LC. (C) . In the said letter the incident of engagement of the said six casual labourers were detailed and a suggestion was forwarded from the writer of the said letter to the Zonal Manager for regularization of the services of two casual sweepers , namely, Smt . Lakshmi Devi and Shri Rajesh Dhanuk as they were engaged prior to the cut-offdate and in respect of four other casual workers , their names were forwarded by the said writer for retrenchment after observing the formalities under the Industrial Disputes Act. So it is revealed that the matter of regularization of the two casual workers were proposed from one office to the other office of the management Corporation and the same was pending for its executive consideration of the Corporation. The proposal for retrenchment ofother four casual sweepers on compliance oftheprovisions of the I.D. Act in respect of giving notice and compensation to that effect is also pending for the executive consideration and no , paper is forthcoming to show that the said proposals were answered by the office to which it was addressed .

5.As stated in the initial paragraph, this reference has been made to ascertain the action of the management Corporationwhether justified, in two fold queries , firstly in not regularizing services of two casual sweepers , namely, Smt . Lakshmi Devi and Shri Rajesh Dhanuk although they have been working since before the cut-off date of 2-5-1986 and secondly, in retrenching the six casual sweepers , namely, Lakshmi Devi , Shri Rajesh Dhanuk, Shri Lakshmi Narayan Hela, Shri Raju Das , Shri Binode Dhanuk and Shri Rami Mallick was without following the provisions ofSection 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

8. Now the question arises whether this Tribunal sitting as an adjudicator can give any direction to the executive concerned by the provision of legislation to get the regularization done by an order of the Tribunal and also give direction to the management Corporation to comply with the provisions of Section 25F of the Act for retrenchment of four other casual workers .

6. Admittedly, the first two workers , namely, Smt. Lakshmi Devi and Shri Rajesh Dhanuk were engaged as casual sweepers since before the cut- off date and the rest four were engaged for the same work after the said cut-off date . It is also revealed from the side of the management Corporation that they were engaged initially for a limited period for cleaning operation of the latrine and sweeping office room etc. as the said service was needed from time to time . It is nobody's denial that the

9. In this context a reference may be made to the deposition ofmanagement witness . MW- 1 , Pranab Kumar Sengupta, an employee of the Regional Office at Calcutta of the management Corporation who has stated that no appointment letter was issued for engagement of the said six casual sweepers , nor any notice of retrenchment was issued to them for discontinuation of their engagement, This witness in course of his cross - examination has stated [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1410

that the said casual sweepers were initially engaged for a limited period of 15 days in a month and thereafter it was increased to the monthly engagement for 15 to 20 days . From the said statement of MW- 1 it is revealed that the engagement ofthese casual sweepers was made for a time bound programme and time to time they were asked to do thejob for which they were engaged and on expiry of the period after engagement, automatic disengagement was done and that too not by any action of the management, Corporation forretrenchment .

Public Service Commission. Therefore, the theory of legitimate expectation cannot be successfully advanced by temporary, contractual or casual employees . It cannot also be held that the State has held out any promise while engaging these persons either to continue them where they are or to make them permanent. The State cannot constitutionally make such a promise. It is also obvious that the theory cannot be invoked to seek a positive reliefofbeing made permanent in the post."

The said Hon'ble Court further held:

10. Whatever may be the action in respect of engagement and disengagement of these casual sweepers , now a question arises for consideration in the present context as to whether these casual sweepers , specially, Lakshmi Devi and Rajesh Dhanuk can claim regularization oftheir services under the management Corporation.

"There is no fundamental right in those who have beenemployed on daily wage or temporary or on contractual basis , the claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service . As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements ofArticles , 14 and 16 of the Constitution."

13. Mr. Majumder the Learned Advocate for the workmen submitted that these workers , specially, Smt . Lakshmi Devi and Shri Rajesh Dhanuk worked for a considerable period and are still continuing since their initial engagement in the year 1984 and their long engagement on daily wages assignment should be considered with sympathy and their long service with the management Corporation, as given then a hidden right to claim their regularization . In this context, Mr. Majumder also claimed that by denying regularization of these casual sweepers the Management Corporation has done an unfair labour practice as per provision of Item 10 of the Fifth Schedule and also Sections 25D and 25U of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

11. It is revealed from the respective parties case , these casual sweepers were engaged, perhaps , orally since there was no letter of appointment . Though the management Corporation has given the details from which date they were engaged . In other words, it can be safely stated that the engagement of these casual workers was donenot following the rules and regulation of appointment ofemployees under the Corporation. Admittedly, the Food Corporationof India is a government instrumentality and it is guided by the Acts and Rules as provided to that effect for its operation and other affairs including recruitment of employees . In this context a recollection should be made to the provision of Article, 309 of the Constitution of India where it has been stated that ' the Acts of the appropriate legislature may regulate the recruitment and condition of service of persons appointed to public service and posts in connection with the affairs of the union or any state' and formulation of rules regulating recruitment and the condition of service of persons appointed has been prescribed to be made by a competent authority in that respect.

14. In respect of long engagement, the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench in Uma Devi case (supra) it has been held

12. Inthis context also a referenced may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State ofKarnataka & Ors . v. Uma Devi & Ors . (AIR 2006 SC 1806). Wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court, Constitutional Bench held:

"... In most of these cases , no doubt, the employees had worked for some length of time but this has also been brought about by the pendency of proceedings in Tribunals and Courts initiated at the instance ofthe employees . Moreover, accepting an argument of this nature would mean that the State would be permitted to perpetuate an illegality in the matter of public employment and that would be a negation ofthe constitutional scheme adopted by us , the people ofIndia ."

The Hon'ble Court further held "When the Court is approached for relief by way of a writ, the count has necessarily to ask itself whether the person before it had any legal right to be enforced. " In this context the Hon'ble "38. When a person enters a temporary employment or gets engagement as a contractual or casual worker and the engagement is not based onaproper selection as recognized by the relevant rules or procedure , he is aware of the consequences of the appointment being temporary, casual or contractual in nature . Such aperson cannot invoke the theory of legitimate expectation for being confirmed in the post when an appointment to the post could be made only by following aproper procedure for selection and in concerned cases , in consultation with the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

1411

Corporation of India v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Asansol & Ors . ) wherein it has been held:

"There is no such provisions in the four corners of the statute, namely, Industrial Disputes Act, except the penal consequences in the event any workman is continued in casual status for continuous period to grant absorption in service by elevating status from casual to permanent appointee, in a permanent post ."

Constitutional Bench further held against an argument that in denying regularization would be violative ofArticle, 21 of the Constitution . That there are so many waiting for an equal opportunity for employment and it is in that context that the Constitution has one of its basic feature as included inArticles , 14, 16 and 309 so as to ensure that public employment is given in fair and equitable manner by giving all those who are qualified an opportunity to seek employment . In the guise of upholding rights under Article, 21 of the Constitution of India, a set ofperson cannot bepreferred over a vast majority of people waiting for an opportunity to compete for State employment. In this context the Hon'ble Bench further held:

"It also appears to us that importing these theories to defeat the basic requirement ofpublic employment would defeat the constitutional scheme and the constitutional goal of equality"

Next the Hon'ble Bench further held:

"... Their right to employment, if it is a part of right to life, would stand denuded by the preferring of those who have got in casually or those who have come through the back door."

From the above referred version of the Hon'ble Constitutional Bench it can be stated that unless the engagement or appointment whatever it may be, is done by following the proper recruitment rules of the employer in that respect, temporary, casual or daily - rated worker cannot claim permanent status by way of regularization since no legal right in that respect is created in such employment or worker in contravention of the constitutional provision thereto .

15. In respect of argument by Mr. Majumder ofunfair labour practice, the provision thereof is to be seen in the Fifth Schedule of the Act wherein "To employee a workman as ' badlis ' , casuals or temporaries and to continue them as such for years , with the object of depriving them of the status and privileges of permanent workmen " has been described as an unfair labour practice. In this context the provision of Section 25T of the Act can be referred to wherein it has been stated that no employer or workman or a tradeunion, whether registered under the Trade Unions Act, 1926, or not, shall commit any unfair labour practice. Section 25U oftheAct has provided penalty for committing suchunfair labour practice.

17. In respect ofclaim for compliance ofthe provision under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act . 1947 for theact ofretrenchment of four casual sweepers . It is found fromthe submission ofboth the sides that the engagement and disengagement of the casual sweepers was a regular affair in the establishment of the management Corporation. It is argued by Mr. Majumder on behalf of the workmen that though there was a temporary disengagement before re- engagement during that period, the said casual workers were left without any wage and in financial distress and the said loss on their part should have been compensated by the management Corporation by way of payment of compensation. In the said context it is found that the management Corporation has stated in course of the hearing of thepresent reference that none of these casual sweepers were disengaged by the any notice and whatever made in respect of their engagement , was oral or was done by way efflux of time . The act of the management Corporationby re-engaging them within a short period of time, shows that this act of re- engagement has been done by the concealed act of compensation and no right accrued in the four casual sweepers for getting any compensation since they are still doing work as casual sweepers in the meantime. Further , it may be mentioned in this context that the engagement of Smt . Lakshmi Devi and Shri Rajesh Dhanuk was done before the cut-off date of 2-5-1986 and thereby the Ld. Advocate for the workmen claimed that in the said provision of cut- off date there was aprovision of regularization of casual workers who were engaged before the cut- off date. It has already been discussed that there was an effort on the part of the office of the management Corporation which engaged these casual sweepers for getting them regularized and a proposal thereto has been made to their higher authority and the matter is pending in the executive level . In that context, the casual sweepers in the present reference have not accrued any right to say in support of their claim for regularization since the proposal from the office of their work has not yet been answered since no such document is forthcoming in the present reference.

16. On going through the provision of the unfair labour practice in the Act it appears that it is the prohibitory provision and commission of such act is provided with penaltyprovisions . It is not a curable provision favouring a temporary, casual , daily- rated worker as badli for getting them regularized only after long service with the employer concerned. In this context, reference may be given to an unreported decision of the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in FMA No. 2345 of 2005 (Food

18. In such circumstances , in view of all the discussions made above, I have no hesitation to hold that the act of the management Corporation was justified in not regularizing services of Smt . Lakshmi Devi and Shri Rajesh Dhanuk in the meantime and not following the 334GI/11-40 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1412

GeneralManager,

ChirimiriArea of SECL,

P.O West Chirimiri Colliery,

Management

Distt. Surguja (MP)

AWARD

Passed on this 3rd day of January, 2011 provision of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect ofother four casual sweepers , namely, Shri Lakshmi Narayan Hela, Shri Raju Das , Shri BinodeDhanuk and Shri Rami Mallick since no such occasion has arose . So, the concerned workmen have no case before this Tribunal and so, the action ofthe management Corporation is found to be justified.

AnAward is passed accordingly.

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer

1.TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No.L- 22012/ 82/ 94- IR(C- II) dated 18-7-94 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this tribunal:-

Dated,Kolkata.

3rd January, 2011 .

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी, 2011

" Whether the action of the management of North Chirimiri Colliery under Chirimiri Area of SECL in employing 18 workers mentioned in the Annexure on the Tub repairing work between the period 1973 to 1990 as contract labour was bonafide or it was camouflage ? If not, to what relief the concerned workmen are entitled to ?" का.आ. 465.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस.ई.सी.एल के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , जबलपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 102/1994 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को18-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-22012/ 82/1994-आईआर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011

S.O. 465.-In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 102/1994) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SECL and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 18-1-2011.

2. The case of the Union/workmen in short is that theworkmen were member ofthe Trade Union. They were working as a Tub Repair workers in the North Chirimiri Colliery through name sake contractor since 1973 to 1990. Deo Narayan was himself a Tub Repair worker but he was named as contractor. After his death his son Ram Tapeshwar was named as a contractor who also worked as Tub Repairer. It is stated that there was regular maintenance work of tub repair and the management had employed Tub Repair employee in other mines . The supervision ofwork was of the management and it was in thepremises ofthe mines . The management used to supply materials and equipments for the work . Their work is a permanent and perennial nature. It is stated that in similar circumstances the case was referred to the Arbitrator and the award was passed and the worker of Tub repair of HasdeoArea of SECL are regularized. On these grounds , itissubmitted that these workmen be regularized in the service ofthe management .

[No. L- 22012/82/ 1994- IR (C- II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

3. The management also appeared and filed Written BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, JABALPUR

NO . CGIT/LC /R/102/94

Presiding Officer : Shri Mohd. Shakir Hasan .

Shri D. Jaiswal,

General Secretary, R.K.K.M.S (INTUC), Hasdeo Area, PO North

Statement in the case . The case of the management , interalia , is that the work of tub repairing was done by the employees ofNorth Chirimiri Colliery on the strength of two Mistri and four Mazdoors but when the departmental personnel could not complete the work then only occasionally work of tub repairing was given to contractor intermittently. During the last seven years , the work taken from the contractor were three weeks in 1986 , one week in 1988 and one month in 1990. The workmen were employed by the contractor during the said period. It is submitted that the workmen are not entitled to any relief.

Jhagrakhand Colliery,

Distt . Surguja (MP)

Workman/Union

4. The Union/workmen after filing statement ofclaim became absent . Lastly the then Tribunal proceeded exparte against the Union/workman on 16-2-2006.

Versus [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

5. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties , the following issues are framed-

I. Whether the action of the management in employing 18 workers on tub repairing work as contract labour was bonafide?

II. Whether the alleged contract was sham or bogus ?

III. To what relief the workmen are entitled?

6. Issue Nos . I & II

In order to prove the case, the management has adduced oral and documentary evidence . Management witness Shri R.K.Tare was working as Foreman Incharge inNorth Chirimiri Colliery of SECL at the relevant period. He has supported the case of the management . He has stated that the strength of Tub Repair workers in the colliery were two as Mistri and four as Mazdoors . He has stated that occasionally the work of tub repairing work was given to contractor and Shri Deo Narayan was engaged intermittently for repair of tub on contractual basis . After his death his son was given contractual work. To support this fact, the management has filed copy of work orders and relevant bills which are marked as Exhibit M/ 1 to M/ 17 . The evidence of the management is unrebutted. There is no other evidence to impeach the credit of the witness of the management . I do not find any reason to disbelieves these evidence. It is clear that the workmen were engaged occasionally on contractual basis through contractor. These issues are decided in favour of the management and against the workmen/Union.

7. Issue No. III

On the basis of the discussion made above, the workmen are not entitled to any relief. Accordingly the reference is answered.

costs . 8. In the result, the award is passed without any 9. Let the copies of the award be sent to the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour & Employment as per rules .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 466.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 112/2002 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था । [सं. एल-22012/323/2001- आईआर (सीएम- II, ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

1413 New Delhi , the 18th January, 2011

S.O. 466. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 112/2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the management of New Majri Open Cast Sub Area of WCL and their workman, received by the Central Government on 18-1-2011 .

[No. L- 22012/323/2001 - IR (CM- II)] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer ANNEXURE

BEFORE SHRI J.P. CHAND, PRESIDING OFFICER CGIT-CUM - LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR Case No.CGIT/NGP/ 112/2002

Date: 04-01-2011 .

Petitioner/Party No.1 : Shri Lomesh Maroti Khartad, General Secretary, National Colliery Workers Congress , Dr. Ambedkar Nagar,Ballarpur, PO & Tah. Ballarpur, Distt . Chandrapur.

Versus

Respondent/PartyNo.2: The Sub Area Manager, NewMajri Open Cast Sub Area of WCL, Post- Shivjinagar, Chandrapur.

AWARD

(Dated: 4th January, 2011)

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) ofsub- section ( 1) and sub- section 2 ( A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ("the Act " in short), the Central Govenment has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of New Majri Open Cast Sub Area ofWCL and their workman , Shri Mahendra Singh S/o Shri Jagat Singh for adjudication, as per letter No.L- 22012/ 323/2001- IR( CM - II ) dated 30-7-2002, with the following schedule :-

"Whether the action of the management of New Majri Open Cast Sub Area ofWestern Coalfields Ltd. , in not considering the objection of Shri Mahendra Singh S/ o Sh . Jagat Singh , Sr. Mechanic with regard to his date of birth and not correcting it from 2-1-45 to 7-4-47 is legal and justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?" [PART II-SBC. 3(ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

1414

provided they were issued by the said universities /boards/ institutes prior to the date of employment" and his case totally fits in the above criteria and therefore his case should have been considered by management on the basis of instruction No.76 and at the time of his initial appointment at Umrer open cast project, his date of birth was recorded as 2-1-1945 arbitrarily and without any basis by the management, as per practice during relevant time and the management has been correcting the date ofbirth in accordance with the provisions of implementation instruction No.76 and during the meeting held with the representatives ofRKMMS union on 3rd and 6th onD(p) level and on7th March, 2000 at CMD level ofWCL, Nagpur, the management had again agreed that further disputed cases, ifany, would be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of instruction No.76 and therefore, he is fully and legallyentitled for correction of his date ofbirth from 2-1-1945 to 7-4-1947. The workman has prayed for a direction to correct his date of birth from 2-1-1945 to 7-4-1947.

3.The management of W.C.L. in its written statement has pleaded inter-alia that the workman was appointed on 23-12-1963 at Umrer project ofthe erstwhileM/s National CoalDevelopment Corporation Ltd. , a Government of India undertaking and in the year 1973 the same came under the administrative control of W.C.L. and at the time of his initial appointment, the workman was required to furnish particulars like name, father's name and date of birth etc. for preparing his service register and the workman while furnishing these particulars , inter - alia mentioned his date ofbirth as 2-1-1945 under his L.T.I. and signature and for every employee and workman, who is appointed in a coal mine, entry ofhis particulars are made into statutory Form 'B' register as per the Mines Act , 1952 and Rules made thereunder and in the said Form 'B ' register, which bears the signature of the workman (Shri Mahindra Singh), his date ofbirth has been recorded as 2-1-1945 and in 1975 , the workman was transferred to the then Wardha Valley Areaandposted at New Majri open cast colliery and L.P.C. alongwith the extract ofthe service register ofthe workman was sent byUmrer project to New Majri, in which the date ofbirth of the workman was recorded as 2-1-1945 and while furnishing the particulars of his service register at Majri Colliery, the workman mentioned his date ofbirth as 2-1-1945 and the said document contains his signature and L.T.I. and at the time of such important two stages , the workman did not object about any mistake in recording his date ofbirth and the same requiring correction and in the year 1987-88 , the service excerpt of the workmanwas communicated to him in accordance with the decision of the JBCCI and in the said communication also , his date of birthwas communicated as 2-1-1945 and while returning the form, the workman mentioned that his date of birth should be 7-4-1947 , but neither he mentioned as to why and on what basis he wanted to change his date of birth 2.Onreceipt ofthe reference, the parties werenoticed to file the statement of claim and written statement and accordingly, the workman filed his statement of claim through his union and the management of the W.C.L. filed the written statement. The workman in his statement of claimhas claimed that the workman was appointed at Umrer Project on 23-12-1963 and was promoted as Senior Mechanic and presently working at New Majri open cast Sub Area ofW.C.L. and there are six National Coal Wage Agreements (N.C.W.A. ) till now and the said agreements cover the wage structure including dearness allowance, fitment in the revised scale ofpay, fringe benefits , service conditions and other allied matters and such agreements apply to all the employees of the coal industry and the procedure ofdetermination / verification of the age ofthe employees as finalized by the Joint Bipartite Committee for the Coal Industry was circulated by the management for implementation vide implementation instructionNo.37 dated 5-2-1981 and subsequently the said implementation instruction No.37 was revised as per the recommendation of the service records committee and implementation instruction No.76 vide No. CIL/NCWA- III/I.I.No . 76/ 88 / 185 dated 25-4-1988 was issued and in compliance ofthe instructions , W.C.L. issued printed forms with the nomenclature "Seva Abhilekh/ Sevavrita Se Mahatwapurna Vivaran" to all the employees for correction of service particular, if any and as such, he applied for correction of. his date ofbirth from 2-1-1945 to 7-4-1947 in the service record in the prescribed proforma supplied by the management and it was obligatory on the part of the management to take further steps for correction ofhis dateofbirthbut nothing was done by the management in this regard, in spite ofhis repeated approach andultimately the union approached the management by letter No.826 dated 26-8-2000 alongwith his service excerpts and other documents and he also filed an affidavit sworn by him on 17-10-2000 before the Executive Magistrate , Tarda , Hoshiarpur, Punjab to the effect that his date of birth is 7-4-1947; but the management did not consider his demand and as no response was made by the management, the matter was raised by the union before the Asstt . Labour Commissioner (Central ) , Chandapur , but as the management did not agree to settle the matter, failure report was submitted to the Government . It is further pleaded by the workman that he had submitted the certificate of. "Middle Standard Examination Boys and Girls" session 1961-62 issued by . District Inspector of Schools dated 1-4-1962, in which, his date of birth has been mentioned as 7-4-1947 and ofhis passing Middle Standard Examination in third division and according to clause (B) (i) (a) of implementation instruction No.76, " In the case of existing employees Matriculation certificate or Higher Secondary certificate issued by the recognized universities or board ormiddlepass certificate issued by the Board or Education and/ or Department of public instruction and admit cards issued by the aforesaid bodies should be treated as correct [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23, 1932

1415

his case is that the recorded date of birth should be corrected on the basis of the school certificate, which has been produced so belatedly and was never submitted to the management and the workman had the opportunities asmentioned below to get his date ofbirth corrected, if it hadanymerit:-

(1) At the very initial stage when he entered the service of the employer, he saw the entry of age in his service record and while putting his signature on the declaration given by him, he should have taken the help of the school certificate.

(ii) When he signed the statutory Form ' B" register having the particulars given by him but did not request for the correction of date ofbirth;

(iii) He was transferred to New Majri Open cast Mine in January, 1975 and at the said Mine, again his name and other particulars were entered in the statutory Form ' B ' register and whilepreparation of such register, his age was again recorded as 2-1-1945;

(iv) At New Majri Open cast mine, the workman gave a declaration in the year 1982 about his name, father's name , age, nationality and village home address etc. and in the said declaration also , he gave his date of birth as 2-1-1945 having his finger prints and signature. But he did find any mistake or error in his declared age;

(v) When the service excerpts were given to him in the year 1987-88 in terms of N.C.W.A. , though he mentioned that his date of birth should be 7-4-1947, he did not represent nor file any document to substantiate his claim and ifhehad the school certificate, he should have produced the same .

nor he enclosed any document in support ofhis claim and as such, the management rightly did not change the date ofbirth, which was recorded in the statutory registers and remained unaltered for nearly 24/25 years and thereafter also, the workman did not make any further representation for the alleged correction of his date of birth and after a silence of nearly 12 years , at the fag end of the career of the workman, an industrial dispute was raised by the union demanding the correction of the date of birth of the workman as 7-4-1947 and in support of such claim, one certificate from the Education Department ofPunjab issued by the District Inspector of Schools , Hoshiarpur District was produced, which was shown to have been issued on 1-4-1962 and on careful reading of the said certificate, it was found that the issuance of the said certificate was earlier to the appointment of the workman on 23-12-1963, in other words , when the workman came into employment inUmrer project, he was in possession of the said certificate and ifhe was in possession of the certificate, then whyhe did not produce the same and declared his date ofbirth as 2-1-1945, and the possibilities for the same as emerge are that in a Coal mine, no person is eligible for employment unless he has completed 18 years of age and as the workman as per his age recorded in the school certificate i.e. 7-4-1947 had not completed 18 years of service on 23-12-1963, at the time of taking employment, deliberately. concealed his real age to obtain the employment or in the alternative, he might have obtained a forged certified solely for the purpose of getting his age extended and in the certificate, the name as mentioned is " Mohinder Singh", whereas , in the records of the WCL the name of the workman has been mentioned as Mahendra Singh/ Mahender Singh and even such slight deviation in the spelling in the name of the person casts doubt upon his genuine identity and the workman did not ever approach the management for correction of his name and from the facts , the normal conclusion one can arrive at is that the workman played a fraud, while seeking alternation of his date ofbirth and as such, ifthe demand of the workman is granted, it will amount to giving a premium to dishonesty and fraud and the management could have initiated disciplinary proceedings against him, however, as he is at the fag end ofhis career, no action was taken against him and the workman never pleaded at any stage that he had wrongly declared his date of birth in his service records and he had also not furnished any reason for such a mistake, although he had many opportunities for getting thecorrection made and the most probable reason for such inaction of the workman is that the moment he would raise the issue, the fraud played by him would have been detected and he might be subjected to disciplinary action and the workman is an educated person and he had signed his service records with the full knowledge of the entries therein, therefore, there was hardly any scope of wrong entry taking place and the workman's case is not that his date ofbirh was wrongly recorded in his service- sheet but

(vi) When his request in 1987-88 was not considered, he should have appealed to the HigherAuthority or would have taken the help oftheunion, but he remained silent for nearly 12 years , before his cause was espoused by the newly established union R.K.M.S. in the year 2001 and the above circumstances go to prove that the claim of the workman is not bona fide and the same is motivated and manipulated and the workman/ union has not given any justification for raising such a belated matter at the fag end of the career of the workman, who is due to be retired in 2005 and the Ministry of Energy, Deptt. of Coal, under whosejurisdiction, the coal companies are functioning has issued a guideline in [PART II-SEC . 3( ii) ) THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1416

February, 1999 , according to which, there are persons who have rendered or likely to render more than 45 years of service in coal mines and considering the retirement age of 60 years no person is supposed to serve for more than 42years, (60-18 = 42) and if such cases are located, coal companies are advised to take disciplinary action and as such , the management reserve the right to deal with the case ofthe workman in accordance with the said guideline, if necessary and as such, the workman is not entitled to the reliefs claimed.

during relevant time" . The above pleading clearly shows that the workman was aware of recording of his date of birth as 2-1-1945 at the time of his appointment . The workman has also admitted in his cross - examination that in 1972, he obtained the certificate and approached the management to note his date of birth as per the certificate but he was intimated by the Babu that they have already noted his date ofbirth as 2-1-1945 and they cannot change it. According to his own evidence, the workman knew about the recording of his date of birth by the management in the official documents as 2-1-1945 in 1972, but he remained silent and did not take any action for correction ofthe date ofbirth and only in 1988 , for the first time in the prescribed form, supplied by the management, the workman mentioned that his date of birth should be 7-4-1947 but he did not even mention as to why there should be any change in his date of birth .

4. The workman in support of his claim besides examining himself as a witness has also examined one Shri Surendra Singh as a witness . One Shri T. R.Yadav has been examined as a witness on behalf ofthe management. Boththeparties have also relied on documentary evidence.

1 5.Onbehalfofthe management, one Shri T. R. Yadav, who had worked as Personnel Officer at New Majri open cast Sub Area of WCL from 14-4-1986 to 31-7-1993 has been examined as a witness , who has stated that during his tenure of seven years , the workman had never represented to the management for correction of his date ofbirth as recorded in his service records .

The workman, in his examination - in-chief, which is on affidavit has reiterated the stands taken by him in his statement ofclaim and the rejoinder filed by him. However, in his cross - examination, he has stated that he joined service on 23-12-1963 in Umrer project of Ex. NCDC and for the purpose of Form ' B' register and other official purpose, his thump impression and signature were taken and his name and his father's name were filled up and they asked for the date of birth certificate and he said he did not have the same at that time and he would bring the same in near future and in 1972 he brought his middle school certificate issued from Education Department, Punjab and Babu replied that they had put his date of birth as 2-1-1945 and they cannot change the same, so he kept quiet and as long he worked in Umrer , he did not make any written representation for correction of his age and in 1975 , he was transferred to Majri open cast and his date ofbirth was changed from 1947 to 1945 and in 1976, he made oral representation alongwith certificate to Shri M. B. Lamyia, Colliery Manager and though inthe printed form, "Seva Abhilekh ", he mentioned that his date ofbirth should be 7-4-1947, he was not given the reason as towhy the same should be 7-4-1947 in place of 2-1-1945 .

6.At the time of argument, it was submitted by the learned advocate for the workman that in view of the documents produced by the workman including the pass certificate issued by the Education Department ofPunjab, Driving Licence, Medical Card and Identity Card in which the date of birth of the workman has mentioned as 7-4-1947 , the management should have changed the date ofbirth from2-1-1945 to 7-4-1947 in view ofimplementation instructions No. 76. In support of such contentions , reliance was placed by the learned advocate for the petitioner on the decisions reported in 2007 (115 ) F.L.R.- 427 (Mohase Matho Vs M/s . Central Coal Fields Ltd. ) , 2009 1 CLR 568 Calcutta High Court (Bablu Singh Vs Coal India Ltd. and others) , (1999) 1 Supreme Court Cases 177 (Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. Vs Raghunath Balmiki and others) , AIR 1986 S.C. - 132 (H. D. Singh Vs Reserve Bank of India) , AIR 2000 SC - 1401 (Narsingh Pal Vs Union of India) , 2001 LLR- 584 ( Jharkhad High Court) (Balkeswar Vs Central Coal Fields Ltd. and another ) , AIR 2002 SC - 509 ( Cement Corpn. of India Ltd. Vs Raghbir Singh), 2008 , LAB IC - 2677(Jharkhand High Court) (Kamta Pandey Vs M/s . BCCL and others) and AIR 1987 Karnatak - 186 (M. M. Yaragatti Vs Vasant and others) .

So far the evidence of the other witness examined onbehalfofthe workman is concerned, the same is ofno avail to decide the issue in question as in his cross- examination, he has stated that he does not know the exact date ofbirth of the workman but he knows that there was adispute about his age as told by the workman to him. However, it is found from the evidence of W.W. 2 that he was appointed in service even though he was below 18 years of age at the time of his appointment.

7. On the other hand , it was submitted by the learned advocate for the management that the date of birth of the workmanwas noted as 2-1-1945 in the official records right from the date ofhis joining service in the year 1963 and he never producedthe school leaving certificate till the issue was raised by the union in the year 2000 and the dispute was raised for correction of date ofbirth at the fag end of It isnecessary to mention here that in paragraph 21 ofthe statement of claim, it has been mentioned that "the workmanwas appointed initially at Umrer open cast project andhis date ofbirth was recorded arbitrarily as 2-1-1945 andwithout any basis by the management as per practice [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

service, with the object of continuing in service. It was also contend that had the workman produced the certificate, he could not possibly have been appointed on account of his being below the age of 18 years and as such, he intentionally suppressed his date of birth at the time ofhis entry into service at Umrer and such no action can be taken for correction of the age basing on such certificate. In support of such contentions , reliance has been placed on the decisions reported in 1995 LAB I.C. 1825 (Burn Standard Co. Ltd. and Others . Appellants Vs Dinabandhu Mazumdar and another) and 1995 LAB IC 1831 (Shinder Singh and Others Vs Punjab School Education Board and Another) .

8. First ofall , I will take of the contention raised by the management that had the petitioner produced his school leaving certificate , he could not possibly have been appointed on account of his being below the age of 18 years . Such contention cannot be accepted since it is a presumption . At the time of the appointment of the workman, the employer was under a different management and the present management cannot emphatically assert that the ex- employer strictly followed the Rule of 18 years as the age, the minimum age of appointment . Moreover, it is clear from the documents filed by the workman that many employees were appointed by the management even though they were below 18 years of age at the time of their appointment. In any case , the management cannot take any such benefit of the workman's actual age on the date ofhis appointment, at this stage .

9. So far the raising of the dispute by the workman regarding his date of birth at the fag end ofhis service is concerned , management relying on the decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1995 LAB IC - 1825 (supra) and 1995 LAB IC- 1831 (supra) submitted that the claim of the workman cannot be entertained as he remained silent from 1963 till 2000 and raised the dispute at the fag end of his service.

On the other hand, it was contended by the learned advocate for the workman that the dispute was not raised by the workman at the fag end of his service but the same was raised as back as in 1988 but the management did not take any action in the matter and in the decision reported in AIR 2002-509, the Hon'bleApex Court entertained the dispute raised by the employee regarding his date ofbirth even after his retirement and directed payment of back wages for two years and as the same is a later decision of co-equal bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court , than the two decisions of the Hon'ble Apex Court, on which reliance has been placed by the management, the later decision should be followed; in view of the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Karmaka as reported in AIR 1987 Karnataka- 186(supra).

It is settled beyond doubt that when there is any conflict between the decision of co - equal benches of the

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

1417 Hon'bleApex Court, than the later view should be followed . However, with respect, I am of the view that the decision as reported in AIR -2002-509 (supra ) is not directly onthe point in issue. However, taking into consideration the rival submissions pleadings and the case law on the subject, it cannot be said that the workman raised the dispute at the fag end ofhis service. Moreover, the admitted fact remains thatthe instruction No.76 is enforceable and binding and that the workman did raise his age dispute in 1988, when the service excerpts were supplied to him itself and again in2000.

10. The admitted position remains that the instruction No.76 of National Wage Agreement - III is applicable and binding upon the management of WCL as well as to the workman . The instruction No.76 is a bilateral agreement between the company and the union and this deals with the procedure for verification of the age of the employees . Clause (B) of Instruction No.76 which provides for the review of determination of date of birth in respect of existing employees is reproduced below:

(B) Review determination of date ofbirth in respect of existing employees .

(i)(a) In case of the existing employees Matriculation Certificate or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by recognized university or Board or Middle pass certificate issued by Board of Education and/or Department ofPublic Instruction and admit cards issued by the above Boards should be treated as correct provided they were issued by the said university/board/instructions prior to the date ofemployment .

11. In the present case at hand, the workman has claimed his date ofbirth to be 7-4-1947 , mainly basing on thealleged certificate issued by the Education Department . Admittedly, the workman has not submitted any Matriculation or Higher Secondary Certificate issued by recognized university or board . The workman has claimed the certificate to be Middle pass certificate . However, on perusal of the said certificate, it is found that the same is a mark sheet of the middle standard examination for boys and girls issued by the Education Ddepartment, Punjab . It is also found that the same is issued by the District Inspector of Schools , Hoshiarpur District . The said mark sheet cannot be said to be a middle pass certificate issued byBoard ofEducation or department ofpublic instruction as required by clause B( i)( a) of the Instruction No. 76. Hence, basing on the said document , the date of birth of the workman cannot be changed.

12. So far the other documents produced by the workman are concerned, it is necessary to mention here that the workman has relied on the xerox copy of an Identity Card alleged to be issued in his favour showing his date of birth as 7-4-1947 . However, being directed by the [PART II-SBC. 3(ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011/ MAGHA 23 , 1932

1418

New Delhi, the 18th January, 2011

S.O. 467. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 280/99) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court, Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, receivedby the Central Government on 17-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/102/99- IR (B -1) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Tribunal, the workman failed to produce the original identity card. On perusal of the xerox copy of the identity produced by the workman, it is found that the same is not similar to the other xerox copy of identity cards produced by the workman himself. No serial number has been mentioned in the said card, though in all other identity cardsproducedby the workman of other employees bears serial number. The identity card has not been signed by the workman and so also by the L.W.O. On the other hand, the management has produced the xerox copy of the identity card issued to the workman alongwith the document showing receipt of the said identity card by the workman. On the identity card so produced by the management, the date of birth of the workman has been mentioned as 2-1-1945. The workman has also not disputed that the said identity card was not issued to him. Hence , the genuineness ofthe identity card produced by the workman isdoubtful and no reliance can be placed on the same.

Industrial Dispute No. 280 of99

Sri Hari Kishan, S/o Sh. Somai,

So far the driving licence produced by the workman is concerned, the management has nothing to do with the date of birth mentioned in the same and the same and driving licence are also ofno use in view of the Instruction No.76.

Prajapati C/o Sh . B.P. Pandey, 106/371, Hiraganj , Kanpur. Versus

TheManager,

StateBank of India, GovernmentBusiness Branch, 15/54, Civil Lines , Kanpur.

On the other hand, the documents produced by the management show that the workman has mentioned his dateof birth as 2-1-1945 himselfin the Forms PS - 1 , 3 and 4besides signing the Form ' B ' register and service register, wherein his date of birth has been mentioned as 2-1-1945 . In view of the evidence on record and the discussions made above, it is found that the management is justified in not correcting the date of birth of the workman . Hence, it isordered:

AWARD

ORDER

1. Central Government, Mol, Gol , New Delhi , vide notificationNo. L- 12012/102/99 /IR(B-1) dated 13/20-10-99 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

The action of the management of New Majri open cast SubArea ofWestern Colafields Ltd. in not considering the objection of Shri Mahendra Singh S/o Jagat Singh, Sr. Mechanic with regard to his date of birth and not correcting it from 2-1-1945 to 7-4-1947 is legal andjustified and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 18 जनवरी , 2011

2. Whether the action of the management of Chief Manager State Bank of India, Mall Road, Kanpur, in terminating the services ofSri Hari Kishan with effect from 1-03-93 and not giving employment again is legal and justified?

Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled ? 3. Brieffacts are-

का. आ . 467. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 280/99 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को17-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

4.Theclaimant alleges that he was appointed against the vacant post of cash coolie and the work of bundling the currency note, placing the concerned ledgers at the relevant cash counter and to place the bundle of notes as required on each cash counter strong room in the cash boxes fromblock no. 1 to block no . 3 with the one helper, The particular work of cash coolie since the date of [सं. एल -12012/102/99- आईआर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1419 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

appointment from 9-10-81 entrusted to the applicant but withulterior motive he was shown on the attendance record ofbank as casual worker and he was paid his salary at the end ofthe week. It is alleged that this malparetic continued in the bank till 27-03-82 and during this period the total number of working days of the claimant were shown 89 days on the record by the bank after deducting one day salary for each of weekly holiday and public and national holidays.

worked for 34 days and in 1991 he worked for 38 days in Govt. Business Branch Kanpur. It is stated that the bank has granted him an opportunity to appear in the interview held on 14-11-91 as per BPS . He appeared in the interview but he was not found suitable for selection. Concerned documents could speak itself. It is also stated that the casual labour was supplied by the contractor and the payment was made through the contractor. The work of casual labour was usually controlled by the contractor . No doubt bank took work from casual labour supplied by contractor and made payment to the contractor in the said duration the claimant was not in the bank engagement . It is stated that the claimant was issued the curfew pass in the year 1990 but other contents of Para 11 of the claim statement are false. The identity card alleged to have been issued by the bank is Farzi . It was not issued by the branch manager. Lastly it is alleged that the claim of the claimant is not maintainable under the provisions of the Act and is liable to be rejected.

7. The claimant has also filed rejoinder in the case but nothing new has been alleged in it except reiterating the facts pleaded by him in his statement of claim.

8. Both the parties have adduced oral as well as documentary evidence.

9. Claimant has filed 8 documents vide list 21/1 . I will explain all these documents at the appropriate stage during the course of recording my findings .

10. Claimant has also filed 10 documents vide list 16/1 . In this list mostly the documents are photocopies and a repetition of photocopy of the original .

5. It is also alleged by the claimant that on account of the extension oftransaction of money with the government department, under the Chief Manager of Main Branch Mall Road, Kanpur, established the said section as State Bank of India (Government Business Branch) at Civil Lines Kanpur , where the applicant was allowed to resume work from 26-3-87, but his wages were paid through some alleged contractor, though he had never appointed the claimant. Henever controlled or supervised the work of the applicant but his work was under the supervision and control ofthe officers ofthe bank from 25-3-87 to December 87. In Para 7 & 8 of the claim statement the workman has not given specific date on which he alleges to work under the bank, therefore, the statement given by him in Para under reference is nothing but bald statement . In Para 8 of the statement of claim the claimant has pleaded that the bank has breached the provisions of section 25F, 25G and 25H of the Act. Likewise in Para 9 of the claim the applicant has not given his roll number though it was alleged by him that he participated in the interview in the month of November 1991. Lastly it is alleged that his continuously approach for regularization because of anxiety resulted in his unlawful removal from the afternoon of 28-2-93 . It is alleged by the claimant that the opposite party has removed him from the service without following the mandatory provisions of the Act, therefore, his removal from 1-3-93 be held illegal and unjustified and he be reinstated in the service with full back wages and all consequential benefit .

11. Opposite party has filed 9 documents vide list 10/1 dated 2-2-01 . These documents are photocopy of the claim statement, w . s . , correction application filedbefore the ALC and chart of working days and the application form dated 13-9-91 and interview letter etc.

12. I will discuss the relevant documents during my findings.

13. Claimant has adduced himself in oral evidence as W.W.1 Hari Kishan . Opposite party has adduced one Sri Dinesh Chandra Srivastava retired Chief Manager of the Bank as M.W.1 .

14. Opposite party has also made a prayer that the fileof I.D. Case No.138 of99 Manoj Kumar Pandey Versus StateBank of India be summoned at the time of arguments saying that both the files were clubbed previously but later on were de- separated . They have stated that the evidence of Sri G. N. Mishra as M.W.2 be also read as evidence in the present case because the witness was recalled in that case in relation to the facts of this workman Sri Hari Kishan, so that file was also before me during the course of arguments .

6. On the contrary the opposite party has filed their reply refuting the claim of the applicant on a number of grounds inter - alia, that the claimant is not a workman within the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, that the present dispute is not the industrial dispute, that the claimant has not worked in any of the two branches for a period of240 days during period of 12 calendar months preceding the date with reference to which calculation is to be made as persection 25B oftheAct, that under these circumstances question of applicability of the provisions of the Actdoes not arise at all, that it is admitted by the opposite party that the claimant had worked for 66 days between June 75 to July 77 in main branch Kanpur and he had admittedly worked for 72 days in 1990 and 1991 at Government Business Branch, Kanpur. The opposite party has also given details of the working of the claimant for the year 1975, 1990 and1991 clearly showing that the claimant during the year 1975-77 had worked for 66 days in Main Branch, 1990 he

334GI/11-41 [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] 1420

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

15. Heard the arguments carefully and perused the record.

ifa branch manager has issued such a document, simply issuance of such kind of document will not make him either temporary, or permanent or regular employee ofthe bank. He was engaged as a casual labour according to the need ofthework.

16. The only short point to be decided in this case is whether the workman was engaged through a contractor or not and whether ifhe was engaged directly by the bank thenhehad completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding one year from the date of his alleged termination .

21. Claimant has filed the identify card stating that this has been issued by a branch manager. This fact has been denied by the opposite party that the same is a false document prepared by the workman himself. In this regard they have invited my attention towards the evidence of Sri G N. Mishra, which was recorded in I.D. Case No. 138/ 99, wherein the witness has stated that this document has not been issued by him.

22.Opposite witness Sri Dinesh Chandra Srivastava has clearly stated on oath that Sri Hari Kishan has not worked continuously in the year 1991-92. He stated that he had issued a certificate to Hari Kishan, wherein he has shown that workman has worked for only 72 days . This fact is not disputed because the claimant has also filed himself paper no . x. W- 4 which shows the working days of 72 days only.

17. Though there is an aversion by M.W.I that the work was being taken from the workman , through the contractor and he was also being paid his wages through the contractor, whereas the workman has stated in his claim statement that though he was being paid through the contractor but his work was subject to control and supervision by the officers of the bank. It is said that it was a sham transaction of alleged contractor. I have also given due thoughts of the evidence adduced by the management regarding the alleged contractor. In this respect a heavy burden shifts on the shoulder of the management by filing documents relating to contractor for proving the fact that in fact the claimant was not engaged by them rather he was the employee ofthe contractor. The documents were in the possession of the bank which they failed to produce the same before the tribunal.

23. Opposite party has also filed paper no.10/12- 10/14. This is an application given bythe claimant Sri Hari Kishan to the bank on 29-10-91 for his employment . In this application he has himself admitted that he had worked from 3-7-90 to 14-8-91 i.e. for 72 days .

18. It is fact that the workman was not given any appointment letter, his name was not called from employment exchange , he was not recruited by adopting prescribed procedure and it is also a fact that he was directly engaged by the opposite party management.

19. Now it has to be seen that whether he has completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding the date ofhis termination .

24. There is no documentary proof filed by the claimant that he ever worked till 1-3-93 or had completed 240 days preceding one year of the same . Heavy burden lies on the claimant to prove this fact since he has failed to discharge his burden that he had worked till 1-3-93; therefore, it cannot be believed that he was actually in the employment of the bank till the alleged date of his termination. Moreover his oral evidence too cannot be relied upon in the absence of any documentary evidence. The opposite party on the contrary has specifically stated on oath that the claimant never remained in their employment till 1-3-93 or did not work for 240 days continuously.

25. There is another reference that whether the action ofthe management in not giving employment again to the workman is legal and justified ?

26.Opposite party has specifically admitted that the workman was called for interview and he was not found suitable. They have filed documentary evidence paper no.10/16. In this document at serial no . C and D there is a reference ofHari Kishan having roll no . 1169 not found suitable . This fact has been proved by oral evidence by the management . This fact also goes against the workman and it is found that the management neither has violated any of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act nor has indulged themselves in an Unfair Labour Practice.

20.1 have gone through the documentary evidence filed by the claimant and by the management . Paper no.Ext . W- 2 is on the letter head of the bank . It states that theworkman be given entry for cleaning the premises . Paper no . W/ 3 states that Sri Hari Kishan is a labour at Government Business Branch and the same is also on the letterhead ofthe bank. Paper no. Ext . W-4 is also an official paper issued bank Government Business branch Kanpur to the claimant , it shows that the claimant had worked for 34 days in the year 1990, and 38 days in the year 1991 total : ofwhich comes to 72 days and also that he was being paid toRs.18.75 per day. Paper no .W.5 is letter in form of carbon copy issued by the bank's branch manager stating that Sri Hari Kishan is an employee ofthe bank and was working in the branch late night due to annual closing and government payment , paper no . W-6 is also on the letter head of the bank indicating Hari Kishan is a temporary employee ofthe branch working as messenger labour. This is for information during curfew area . These papers have been admitted by the opposite party also but they have explained the contents of these documents that curfew pass was issued during curfew period . He stated that even [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1421 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

Vs.

2nd Party/Respondent 27. As the workman has failed to prove his case by adducing cogent and reliable evidence, the reference is bound to be answered against him and in favour of the opposite party.

TheOfficer - in-Charge Regional Office Textiles Committee Ministry of Textiles,Government of India 11 -B, Jawahar Road, Chokkikulam Madurai -625002

28.Accordingly it is held that the workman is not entitled for any relief as has been claimed by him in his claim statement pursuant to the present reference order and the reference is decide accordingly.

APPEARANCES :

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2011

Forthe 1st Party /Petitioner

Sri M. Elanchezihan, Advocate

Forthe 2nd Party/Management Sri S. Kandaswamy, Advocate

AWARD

का. आ. 468.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार रीजनल ऑफिसर टैक्सटाईल कमेटी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 4/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its OrderNo. L- 42012/86/2009 - IR(DU) dated 5-1-2010 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

[सं. एल -42012/86/2009-आईआर ( डीयू) ]

The schedule mentioned in that order is :

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th January, 2011

"Whether the action of the management of Officer- in-Charge, Regional Officer Textiles Committee in terminating the services of Smt. G Balamani, w. e. f. 11-10-2008 is legal and justified ? Ifnot, what reliefthe workman is entitled to?"

S.O. 468 .-- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No. 4/2010) 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 Regional Officer Textiles Committee and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-1-2011 .

[No. L-42012/86/2009- IR (DU) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

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

Thursday, the 13th January, 2011

Present : A.N. JANARDANAN , Fresiding Officer

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as I.D. 4/2010 and issued notices to both sides . Both sides entered appearance through their respective counsel. Petitioner thereafter sent Claim Petition through post received on 15-3-2010 . Respondent filed Counter Statement . Thereafter during several adjournments there have been either no representation at all for both or any of the parties except with some irregular representations . On the petitioner's side no documents were produced. When the matter stood posted for enquiry to various dates from time to time there were no representations at all or there was some partial representation. When the matter came up finally to 10-1-2011 from 29-12-2010 there was no representation to the petitioner. The petitioner was also not present . Hence the petitioner is called absent and set ex-parte.

Industrial Dispute No. 4/2010

3. The contentions in the Claim Statement in brief are as follows:

(In the matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of Sub -section ( 1) and Sub - section 2 (A ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Officer - in- Charge, Regional Office, Textiles Committee and their Workman)

BETWEEN

Smt . G Balamani

... 1st Party/Petitioner

While the petitioner G. Balamani was working as sweeper under the Respondent for a length upto 15 years then with last drawn wages of Rs . 2,100 per mensem, virtually meagre wages to eke out living due to skyrocketing prices of essential commodities and she has been demanding wage increase including Overtime, HRA, [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1422

5. Points for consideration are:

(1) Whether the termination of services of Smt .G Balamani w.e.f. 11-10-2008 is legal andjustified ?

(ii) To what reliefthe concerned workman is entitled ?

6. Petitioner being absent and set ex-parte no evidence is adduced.

Points (i)&( ii)

Dearness Allowance , Leave Wages which were not considered and granted on 11-10-2008 the Management got enraged and orally terminated her. There was no charge against her. There was no enquiry held. She was not held guilty of any offence . The Management in misuse of its authority abruptly terminated her which is illegal, unjust and against all principles of natural justice. The termination is in colourable exercise ofpower in unfair labour practice. TheManagement has already admitted in their letter to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour (Central) regarding the above facts including fact of another worker working in herplace. Conciliation having failed the reference is made. The downtrodden poor workwoman who has to carry her family burden is to be reinstated with backwages and all benefits .

7. This is a case of a petitioner-sweeper allegedly having a service of 15 years and who has been orally terminated out of the fury of the Management on account of a demand for wage increase made by her without any charge vis - a- vis enquiry or any misconduct held established against her . The case of the petitioner is keenly refuted by the Management according to which petitioner was only engaged on part - time basis when need arose . She has neverbeen employed continuously. She is never a permanent employee. No oral termination as alleged is possible by reason of the Officer- in-Charge being on leave on 11-10-2008 on which allegedly the petitioner was orally terminated and also for the reason that the day is a holiday. Petitioner only abstained from work on 3-10-2008 voluntarily. There was no option for the Management other than to engage another individual in her place who cannot be removed except in a manner conforming to principles of naturaljustice and law.

8. Discernibly contentions on either side keep a long distance running mutually contradictory. It is for the petitioner to prove her specific contentions should she succeed. The burden of proof lies upon her. By avoiding the forum ofthis Court and shunning the witness box even after receipt of the reference to put up with the enquiry she is grossly at fault in not adducing any iota of evidence to substantiate her case . Therefore the reference is only to be answered against her. So ordered.

9.The reference is answered accordingly.

(Dictated to the P.A. , transcribed and typed by him, corrected and pronounced by me in the open court on this day the 13th January, 2011)

A. N. JANARDANAN, Presiding Officer

Witnesses Examined:

None

For the 1 st Party/Petitioner

Documents Marked:

From the Petitioner's side

Ex. No. Date

Description

From theManagement side:

For the 2nd Party/Management Nil Ex. No. Date Description None

Nil

4. The Counter Statement contentions briefly read as follows : The Textiles Committee is a statutory body by virtue ofSection- 3 ofthe Textiles Committee Act, 1963. It is under the administrative control of Ministry of Textiles , Government of India. The petitioner has no legal right to claim any relief. The petitioner is not a regular employee against the sanctioned Sweeper post . She was being engaged on part -time basis when need arose . The claim for permanency is not maintainable . She has never been employed continuously from 1-10-1993 to 11-10-2008 . She was paid consolidated amount of Rs . 150 per mensem initiallywhich was gradually revised to Rs . 2,100,No arrears remain to be paid . As administrative practice the housekeeping services were hired depending on the scope ofthe work involved. In small offices only individuals were engaged on the recommendations ofthe Officer- in- Charge for part -time jobs for a duration between 2-3 hours for cleaning, sweeping , mopping and disposal of trash and litter generated on day to day basis . The payment is drawn inthe name of the Officer -in-Charge. The Regional Office, in-charge of Madurai makes the payment as per actual number ofdays working a month . She is never a permanent employee . Recruitment regulations do not exist. Respondent has no right to issue appointment letter or termination letter to the casual employee. The petitioner does not come under the purview ofthe service conditions and disciplinary proceedings . The Regional Office is observing 5 working days a week. 11-10-2008 allegedly on which date she was asked not to come is a holiday. The Officer- in- charge was on leave from 1-10-2008 to 12-10-2008 and was out ofstation. There is no truth ofany incident on 11-10-2008 . The petitioner only abstained from work on 3-10-2008 voluntarily. The Respondent with no other optionhad to engage another individual. It would be unfair and unjust to remove the substitute abruptly without prior intimation. The petitioner filed a petition in Labour Court, Madurai as CP 77/2009 on 01-06-2009 under Section- 33 (C) (2) ofI.D. Act. The matter is sub -judice. The present claim is to be dismissed .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

1423

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 469. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार भारतीय स्टेट बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण- I , दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 29/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/137/2008- आईआर( बी-1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th January, 2011

S.O. 469. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 29/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court - I, Delhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank ofIndia and their workman, which was receivedbythe Central Government on 17-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/137/2008- IR(B- I) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

From a messengerial position Shri Brijender Singh waspromoted as Clerk-cum- Cashier on 1st ofAugust, 1992 by State Bank ofIndia (hereinafter called to as the bank). In May, 1996he was working at Laxman Jhoola Road branch, Rishikesh. It is alleged that on 24-5-96 he opened a saving bank account No.39/ 14559 by filling account opening form and signing it as Dharmender Kumar and obtained introduction of that account from one Shri Chotu Giri Baba ofShri Sidh Samadhi Mandir, Neelkanth, (who was holding saving bank account No. 27/12560) in that branch ofthe bank.Hedeposited a sum of Rs . 5001-initially and a sum ofRs . 2000 on 25-5-96, by signing as Dharmender Kumar. Pass book for that account was received by him on 24-5-96 and cheque book, containing cheques No.722561 to 722580, was obtained byhim on 25-5-96 by signing in that fictitious name, on cheque book issue register. He got a draft of Rs.5000 issued on 3-6-96 in favour of Dharmender Kumar from Hardwar branch payable at Rishikesh branch and deposited it at Laxman Jhoola Road branch on 6-6-96 for credit in the aforesaid saving bank account . The credit of the said draft was accorded to that account on 7-6-96, resulting in a balance of Rs.5500. On two occasions he prefixed digit of 9 and 4 to the credit entry and balance and thus inflated credit entry and balance to Rs.495000 and Rs.495500 respectively, between 11-6-96 to 14-6-96. Το facilitate commission of fraud, protective digit entry was left blank by Mukesh Kumar Singhal , Assistant (Cash/ Accounts), the ledger keeper.

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.Ι, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX : DELHI

I.D. No. 29/09 .

Bijender Singh , S/o Shri Ved Singh, Vill .& P.O. Barauna, Distt . Sonepat (Haryana) , Sonepat

.Workman

Versus

Cheque No. 722563 drawn for a sum of Rs.1750 in favour of self on 5-6-96 was encashed by the said clerk- cum-cashier. Token for encashment of the said cheque was issued by the said clerk/cashier favouring self. Cheque No. 722566 was issued on 10th of June, 1996, for a sum of Rs . 80,000, for which a token was issued by Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal. Cheque No.722569 for a sum ofRs . 24000 was issued on 13-6-96 and token for the said cheque was issued by Mukesh Kumar Singhal . Above three cheques were issued in the name of Dharmender Kumar. Payment ofthose cheques were obtained by Mohan Singh, Assistant (Cash/Accounts ) , working in the said branch.

1. The ChiefGeneral Manager, State Bank of India, L.H.O. , Delhi Circle, Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110001

2. The Dy.General Manager (Appellate Authority) , StateBank of India, ZonalOffice, 1, New Cantt. Road , Dehradun

3. TheAssistant General Manager , State Bank of India, Zonal Office, 1, New Cantt . Road, Dehradun

.Management

3. On 20-6-96 cheque No. 722769, drawn for a sum of Rs . 359470 in the name of Dharmender Kumar , was presented to Mukesh Kumar Singhal along with draft application form filled in by the said clerk cum cashier and Mohan Singh Assistant ( Cash/Accounts ) for issuance of a draft for a sum of Rs.358750 favouring M/ s .Quality Tires , Roshanara Road, payable at Roshanara Road branch, Delhi . Draft for the said amount was issued. Thus a fraud amounting to Rs.457970 was committedby the said clerk- cum-cashier , namely, Shri Bijender Singh in collusion with Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal and Mohan Singh, both Assistants (Cash/Accounts ) working in the said branch .

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2011/MAGHA 23 , 1932.

1424

Aneja, Assistant Manager , A.K.Malhotra, Asssistant Manager, B.M.Gupta, Assistant Manager, Mukesh Kumar Singhal , Clerk and Mohan Singh, Clerk, were also involved . With a view to protect real culprits , he was made a scapegoat .

4. On 21-6-96 branch manager lodged a report with thepolice againstDharmender Kumar, in whose name the account was being maintained. He was suspended on 3rd ofOctober, 1996.Bijender Kumar was arrested bythe police in that case on 3rd of March, 1997. A charge- sheet was filed against him and others by the police on 10-4-97, before a court of competent jurisdiction. The said criminal case pends adjudication as on date.

5. Charge-sheet dated 23-3-2001 was served upon him by the bank, in terms of para 521 (4) (j ) of the Sastry Award. Reply to the said charge- sheet was found to be not unsatisfactory by the bank and a decision was taken to initiate departmental enquiry against him . An Enquiry Officer was appointed, who conducted the enquiry. He submitted his report dated 4-10-2004 to the Disciplinary Authority. Show cause notice dated 7-12-2004 was issued and personal hearing was given to the claimant on 24-1-2005 . Vide order dated 16-9-2005 , punishment of dismissal was imposed on the claimant by the Disciplinary Authority.He filed an appeal, which came to be dismissed. He raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, seeking his reinstatement in services . Since conciliationproceedings failed, appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No. L- 12012/ 137/2008 - IR(B - I), New Delhi dated 2nd ofJuly, 2009, with the following terms :-

7. The claimant unfolds that he approached High Court of Judicature at Nainital for revocation of his suspension order. Vide order dated 29-6-2002 High Court stayed operation ofhis suspension order, which order was not honoured by the bank. He filed a contempt petition before the High Court and thereafter he was reinstated by the bank on 7-5-2003 and posted at Brahmakhal branch of the bank . Shri Kuldip Singh Pahwa, a biased and prejudiced officer, was appointed as an Enquiry Officer . The enquiry, conducted against him, was in violation of guidelines of Central Vigilance Commission, since the bank opted to conduct distinct and different enquiries against the officers/ employees , referred above , with a view to protect its stooges . A conspiracy was hatched and bogus opinion was obtained from Shri Ashok Kashyap , a hand writing expert. Shri Kashyap is notorious for manipulating reports . Neither Shri Kashyap was produced before the Enquiry Officer to testify facts nor his report in original was proved. Reliance on report of Shri Kashyap was placed by the EnquiryOfficer in an illegal and unjustified manner. Report ofC.F.S.L was not obtained, which fact casts aspersion on mala fide approach of the bank.

"Whether the action ofthe management of State Bank of India in dismissing Shri Bijender Singh from the services of the bank w.e.f. 16-9-2005 on the alleged charges of misconduct levelled against him vide charge-sheet No.R- I/21 /P & C/357 dated 23rd ofMarch, 2001 , is legal, fair andjustified ? If not, towhat reliefconcerned employee is entitled ?"

8. Building his case, the claimant details that he worked on saving bank account seat up to 6th of June , 1996. Thereafter Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal worked on that seat from 7th June, 1996 to 20th of June, 96. Therewas a credit balance of Rs . 500 in saving bank account No. 14557/39 on 6th ofJune, 96, and in digit column " three" was recorded properly. Thereafter Mukesh Kumar Singhal posted credit entry of Rs.5000 in that account making a creditbalance ofRs.5500. He had not recorded any entry in digit columnand left that column blank. Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal facilitated commission of fraud, by leaving digit columnblank. Shri B.M. Gupta checked pay book and ledger but did not point out this irregularity. All fraudulent payments /postings were made by Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal. The bank suspended him and the police charge sheeted him too . By a separate departmental enquiry, punishment of stoppage of two increments was awarded to Shri Singhal by the bank, with a view to favour him.

9. The Enquiry Officer based his findings on report ofShri Ashok Kumar Kashyap . He recorded his report on dictates ofvigilance department ofthe bank . Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 7th of December, 2004, on proposed punishment. He submitted hisdetailed reply vide letter dated 11-1-2005. Shri Sandeep Tiwari, Assistant General Manager, gave personal hearing on 24-1-2005 on proposed punishment. Shri Tiwari assured 6. Claim statement was filed by Bijender Singh, pleading that he joined services of the bank on 7-8-84 as a messenger. He was promoted as clerk- cum-cashier on 1-8-92. When he was working at Laxman Jhoola Road Branch, Rishikesh, a case was lodged at Police Station Rishikesh, by the branch manager against one Dharmender Kumar R/o Village Dhalwala, District Tehri Garwal , Uttranchal , in respect ofa fraud . On 30-10-96 he was placed under suspension on filmsy grounds ofhis involvement in that fraud. He was arrested by the police in that case on 3-3-97 alongwith one Mohan Singh, but was released on bail on 4-3-97 . One Mukesh Kumar Singhal was also arrested by the police, who could get bail from High Court of Judicature at Allahabad after six months . A charge- sheet was filed against him by the police on 10-4-97 in a court of competent jurisdiction . After about five years of his suspension, a charge- sheet dated 21-3-2001 was served upon him on false and baseless allegations , with a view to protect and shield really guilty employees . He projects that in that fraud V.K. Gupta, Branch Manager, O.P. Gulia, Assistant Manager , Hari Om Tandon, Accountant , A. Κ.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1425

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

him that he would not pass order of dismissal, despite pressure from the vigilance department . On his transfer, Shri Ohri took charge on 10th of September, 2005, and passed dismissal order against him without giving him any hearing in the matter. He opted not to consider facts presentedby him in reply dated 11th of January, 2005 .

Enquiry Officer had relied documents as well as ocular facts testified by the witnesses , while recording his report dated 4-10-2004. Indictment made by the claimant against hand writing expert is unfounded and not correct. On consideration of the enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued a show cause notice dated 7-12-2004 to the claimant. Shri Sandeep Tiwari gave personal hearing to the claimant on 25-1-2005 . It has been denied that Shri Tiwari gave assurances , as alleged in the claim statement.

10. Detailing post-decisional steps, the claimant narrates that he preferred an appeal . An appeal was preferred by him before the Deputy General Manager on 14-11-2005. On that very date personal hearing was granted tohimby theAppellate Authority. During personal hearing, theAppellateAuthority misbehaved with him. He rejected his appeal . He presents that the action of the bank, in dismissing him from service , is illegal . He claims reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

14. The bank pleads that Shri Ohri, who passed dismissal order dated 16-9-2005, was not supposed to give personal hearing to the claimant . Penalty was awarded to the claimant in terms of para 521 (5) ( a) of Sastry Award readwith para 18.28 of Desai Award, besides para 6(a) of the memorandum of settlement dated 10-10-2002 . It has been denied that the Appellate Authority misbehaved with the claimant . It is highlighted that the enquiry conducted against the claimant was in consonance with the principles ofnaturaljustice. However, in case the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the enquiry was defective in any manner then right to lead evidence, to substantiate the charges and punishment imposed on the claimant , may be accorded, presents the bank. It claims that the claim statement, being devoid ofmerits , may be dismissed.

settled: 15. On pleadings of the parties following issues were

( 1) Whether the enquiry conducted by the management wasjust, fair and proper?

(2) As in terms ofreference.

(3) Relief..

11. Management demurred the claim pleading that Bijender Singh, while working as Assistant (Cash/ Accounts) at Laxman Jhoola Road branch , committed fraud and falsification of accounts in saving bank account No.39/ 14559, during June, 1996. He was placed under suspension vide order dated 3-10-96 and served with a charge- sheet on 23-3-2001 . On careful consideration ofhis reply, a decision was taken to conduct departmental enquiry against him, since his reply was found to be not satisfactory. It is not disputed that an FIR dated 21-6-96 was lodged, in which case the claimant was arrested and later on released on bail. However, it is projected that the charges in the criminal case were entirely distinct and different from the charges levelled in departmental enquiry. It has been pleaded that the claimant was involved in a fraud for Rs . 457970 alongwith Mohan Singh . Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal was also involved in that matter . Action was taken against Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal too.

16. Issue No.1 was treated as preliminary issue . To discharge onus resting on it, the has examined Shri Vijay PalTyagi . The claimant had examined himself in rebuttal . Afterhearing the parties and on appreciation of evidence, preliminary issue was answered in favour of the claimant and against the bank, vide order dated 28-5-2010.

17. To prove misconduct of the claimant , Shri V.K. Gupta, Chief Manager was brought in the witness box by the bank . Claimant examined himself and Shri Inderpal Singh in rebuttal . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .

12. The bank had conducted staff accountability exerciseby holding a proper domestic enquiry, as per rules . Shri V.K.Gupta and Shri J.C.Aneja were awarded, punishment of warning while Shri Hari Om Tandon, A.K.Malhotra, O.P.Guliani and B.M.Gupta were awarded reductionto lower stage of pay by one year, Mukesh Kumar Singhal was awarded punishment of reduction in pay by two stages for a period of two years , while Mohan Singh and the claimant were dismissed from service ofthe bank . It has been denied that the claimant was made a scapegoat .

18.Arguments were heard at thebar. Shri J.N. Kapoor, authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf ofthe claimant Shri Rajat Arora presents his points ofview onbehalf of the management . Written submissions were filedby Shri Kapoor. 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:

IssueNos . 2 and 3

13. Issuance of orders by High Court of Judicature at Nainital is not disputed. It has been pleaded that in pursuance of the said order claimant was reinstated w.e.f. 7th of May, 2003, and posted at Brahmkhal branch of the bank. The bank disputes that Shri Kuldeep Singh Pahwa, Enquiry Officer , was biased or prejudiced against the claimant. It has been denied that he followed dictates of the vigilance departments . A claim was made that the enquiry conducted by Shri Pahwa was just , fair and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The

19. Shri V.K.Gupta unfolds that in 1996 he was working as Chief Manager, Laxman Jhoola Road branch , [PART II-SBC. 3(ii) ] 1426

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

ofRs . 15500 was shown in that account. Thereafter word '4' was prefixed to figure ' 9 ' after 11th of June 96. Accordingly the balance amount was interpolated as Rs . 495000 and after encashment of cheque of Rs . 80,000 balance of Rs . 415500 was shown . Copy of ledger sheet of that account isEx. MW2/6.

21. Shri Gupta went on to detail that on 14-6-96 a cheque ofRs . 45000 was presented, in that account which cheque is Ex. MW2/7 . Cheque for Rs . 80,000 is Ex. MW2/8 . Cheque Ex . MW2/7 was honoured and payment was released . On 20-6-96 an application was moved for issuance ofadraft, which was supported by a cheque of Rs . 359470. Draft was issued on that application, in favour of Quality Tyres,Roshnara Road, Delhi . On 21st ofJune, 96 telephone number ofQuality Tyre were searched from the directory and a call was made. A dialogue took place with one Varyam Singh, who told that someone gave telephone call to him around 11 PM previous night informing him that he would come alongwith a draft for purchase ofgoods .Varyam Singh was informed that the draft was got issued fraudulently by someone. He was requested that when somebody approaches with a draft he should inform police . Police Control Room was also informed . Since members of the staffwere aware about these developments , which took place inthebranch, the draft was not presented to Quality Tyres next day or on subsequent dates .

Rishikesh, Uttrakhand Claimant was working in his branch and worked on saving bank counter upto 6-6-96. From 7-6-96he was working on cash receipt counter. On 19th of June, 96, he passed an office order for balancing of saving bank accounts , operated in the branch . On 21st of June 96, he was told that in the account of Dharmender Kumar, entered in ledger No. 39, a fraud has been committed. Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal has done balancing of that ledger. Matterwas informed to higher authorities . Senior Officers came inthebranch. They had gone through the record and noted that fraud was committed in an account maintained inthe name of Dharmender Kumar. , On investigation of facts he came to know that the said account was introduced byChotu Giri Baba. He called him in the bank and shown photo of the account holder, annexed on the account opening form. When questioned Chotu Giri Baba told that he had not introduced account of the said person . He unfolded that he introduced the account at the instance of some officials of the bank, who had represented that the said person wants to deposit money in the bank and would not obtain any loan thus he would not cause any embarrassment, hence he introduced the account. When enquired about identity ofthe official at whose instancehe introducedthe account, Shri Chotu Giri Baba told that the said official is a tall and thin person, whose cheeks are inverted inside . Since description of that person matched withthe claimant he produced the claimant before Shri Giri Baba. He confirmed that the account was introduced by him at the instance of the claimant. Photo copy of the account opening form is Ex . MW2/ 1 .

22. Shri Gupta declares that on 10-2-96.claimant got purchased a cheque of Dehradoon branch , by changing name of "Dehradoon" as "Laxman Jhoola Road" branch . The word ' road ' written in that cheque was in the very fashion as written in " Quality Tyre, Roshanara Road" , in the application moved for issuance ofdraft. All these facts led them to get handwriting of all employees compared with questioned documents . Documents , referred above, werehanded over to the hand -writing expert. Shri Kashyap , Hand-Writing Expert, gave his report which is Ex. MW1/9 . Itcame to light that the claimant has signed as Dharmender Kumar when account was opened and when he dealt with it . The claimant obtained pass book as well as cheque book of that account. Copy of pass book issue register is Ex. MW2/ 10 and cheque book issue register is Ex. MW2/ 11. Claimant and Mohan Singh were suspended . On 21-6-96 an FIRwas lodged with the police of Police Station Rishikesh, which is Ex . MW1 /W1 . Supplementary FIRwas lodged on 16-10-96, copy ofwhich is Ex . MW1/W2. Police investigated the case and claimant as well as Mohan Singh were charge sheeted in that matter . On 7-5-97 bank informed thepolice thatMukesh Kumar Singhal was also involved inthematter. Letter Ex. MW1 /W5 was written in that regard. He appeared before the Enquiry Officer and made a statement which is Ex . MW1 / 10 .

20. Shri Gupta went on to detail that he came to know that an application was moved for issuance of a draft alongwith a cheque for a sum of Rs . 359470 , which application is Ex. MW2/2 and cheque is Ex. MW2/3 . In cheque Ex . MW2/3 spelling of 'lac' was written as ' lack ' . It aroused his attention that 'lac' is written in that fashion by the claimant. He called for receipt scroll maintained by the claimant, probably on 25-6-96. In that scroll the claimant hadwritten ' lack' to denote ' lac ' . It confirmed that cheque Ex. MW2/3 was issued by the claimant . Signatures as "Dharmender Kumar " were tallied with various names written by the claimant for various account holders and kumar' written in the signature as Dharmender Kumar was inthe same style and fashion as written by the claimant for various customers in whose name ' kumar ' was there . Word 'kr' was written by the claimant in deposit voucher dated 25-5-96, which deposit voucher was used in that account. In scroll deted 25-6-1996 word ' kr ' was written by the claimant in the same manner . Deposit voucher dated 25-5-96 is Ex . MW2/4 . There was a credit entry ofRs . 5000 inthat account and in ledger sheet a balance of Rs . 5500 was there on that day. Ex. MW2/5 is transfer voucher relating to the aforesaid sum ofRs . 5000.Afigure of '9' was prefixed to the amount ofRs . 5500 in between 8th and 11th ofJune, 96 in ledger sheet. A cheque of Rs . 80,000 was presented on 11-6-96, which was honoured and a balance

23. Claimant entered the witness box to adduce evidence in rebuttal and tendered his affidavit Ex , WW1 /B as evidence . He swears that Chotu Giri Baba, neither came tothebank nor to police station for his identification. He never worked under direct control and supervision of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1427 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

Shri V.K. Gupta, the Chief Manager. He worked under supervision of Shri J.C. Aneja, O.P. Guliani, A.C.Mehrotra, Hari Om Tandon, Shri Joshi and Shri Inderpal Singh . He unfolds that when he refused to carryout unlawful orders. of Shri Gupta , the latter threatened him of dire consequences . According to him false charges were levelled against him, since Shri Gupta was prejudiced and biased against him.

25. Shri Inderpal Singh unfolds that on 24-5-96 he was posted at Laxman Jhoola Road Branch of the bank. On that date he was working on teller. Ex . WW1 /M1 was handled by him, when a sum of Rs . 5000 was deposited with him. Dharmender Kumar, approached him to deposit a sum of Rs . 5000 on that day. Ex. WW1 / M1 was filled in by Dharmender Kumar in his presence . He was the very person whose photograph appears on Ex . MW2/ 1 . Shri O. P. Guliani used to work as saving bank incharge , against leave arrangement vacancies . He used to check work of clerical staff and not the Branch Manager. Ex . WW2/ 1 was passed by Shri Joshi , Head Clerk. During the course of his cross examination, he concedes that when fraud came to light , the person who impersonated himself as Dharmender Kumar was found not traceable .Address projected by him was non existent . Except voucher, no other document was produced before him by the said person . He concedes that he had not seen account opening form when account holder deposited a sum of Rs . 5000 with him. He had not verified identity of the person who impersonated himself as Dharmender Kumar.

26. When facts unfolded by Shri Gupta, claimant and Shri Inderpal Singh are appreciated , it came to light that on 24-5-96 claimant was working at saving bank counter, Laxman Jhoola Road branch of the bank . On that day an account opening form was filled in, got introduced from Shri Chotu Baba Giri and presented to Shri O. P. Guliani , saving bank incharge, for verification . He verified that form. A sum of Rs . 500 was deposited with Inderpal Singh , whọ was working on teller and saving bank account No. 39/ 14557 was opened . Account opening form had not reached hands of Shri Inderpal Singh, with whom a sum of Rs . 500 was deposited. An account was opened in the name of one Dharmender, who was shown as r/o village Dhalwala, Post Office Muni Ki Reti , District Tehri Garwal , Uttrakhand , which address was found to be non existent . Photograph was not affixed on that form , when it reached hands of Shri Guliani for verification, otherwise he would have initialed it also . Subsequently the person whose photograph was affixed on account opening form was found untraceable . When Chotu Baba Giri was questioned by Shri Gupta, he informed that the account was introduced by him at the instance of a tall and thin official , whose cheeks invert inside . He identified claimant as the person at whose instance he introduced the said account . Though he made abald claim that Chotu Baba Giri was not called in the bank or police station to identify him , yet his claim does not stand to reasons . As a first step introducer of an account is questioned to ascertain identify of an account holder . Hence his claim is found to be contrary to ordinary course of human behavour . Discarding his claim and relying deposition of Shri Gupta, it is concluded that the claimant could not dispel the fact that Chotu Baba Giri had identified him as the person at whose instance he introduced the account .

24. He unfolds that on 24-5-96 he opened saving bank account No. 39/14557, on receipt of account opening form duly completed, authorised and verified by saving bank in charge, namely, Shri O. P. Guliani . He presents that neither account opening form was filled by him nor he impersonated as Dharmender Kumar. He performed his clerical duties in respect of opening of that account . He went on to unfold that neither pay in slip of Rs . 500 was filled in by him nor he deposited that amount. He did not deposit Rs . 2000 in that account . He never signed as Dharmender Kumar or impersonated himself as Dharmender Kumar. Neither, he received pass book nor cheque book of that account . Incharge saving account was supposed to sign pass book and deliver it to the account holder. Cheque book in a new account is issued on written request from the account holder, which is authorised by saving bank incharge . Cheque book was delivered to the account holder against a proper receipt . He disputes that he got issued a draft of Rs . 5000 on 3-6-96 , favouring Dharmender Kumar from Haridwar branch payable at Rishikesh branch and deposited it at Laxman Jhoola Road Branch on 6-6-96. According to him on 3-6-96 he was present on his duties at Laxman Jhoola Road Branch , Rishikesh , which is at a considerable distance away from Haridwar branch of the bank. He could not remain present at two branches on that date. He disputes that the draft in Laxman Jhoola Road Branch was deposited by him , besides filling related vouchers . Voucher of Rs . 5000 was deposited by Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal , which was checked by.V. M. Gupta . After assuming duties at cash receipt counter on 7-6-96, he had neither seen ledger No. 39 nor handled it thereafter . According to him Dharmender Kumar personally cameto thebranch to open an account and Shri O. P. Guliani verified his signatures , attested signatures of the introducer and gave a command to open the account. All formalities in respect of opening that account were completed by Shri Guliani . Photo of the account holder was already affixed on account opening form . He performed his clerical duties and opened the account in ordinary course ofhis business . He disputes that he signed three cheques , referred in the charge - sheet dated 23-3-2001 . He disputes that cheque No.72265 dated 20-6-96 for a sum of Rs . 359470 was filled in by him, impersonated himself as Dharmender Kumar and presented it on saving bank counter to Mukesh Kumar Singhal alongwith draft application form . He denied his collusion with Mukesh Kumar Singhal and Mohan Singh . He asserts that charge sheet was issued after 5 years . He claims himself to be innocent.

334GI/11-42 [PART I-SBC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

1428

account and not avail any loan. These uncontroverted facts go to show that the claimant played a mischief and misrepresented facts to Chotu Baba Giri . On his misrepresentation and persuation he introduced the account . Culpable intention of the claimant emerged over the record. Consequently it came to the light of the day that the claimant was interested in getting that account opened. His claim that he obeyed commands of Shri Guliani in that regard is neither satisfactory nor plausible.

29. Ex . MW2/6 is photo copy of ledger sheet of account No. 39/14556, which was opened in a fake name. This document tells that initially a sum of Rs . 500 was deposited on 24th of May, 96, when the account was opened. On 25th ofMay, 96 a sum ofRs.2000 was deposited in that account, vide deposit voucher Ex. MW2 /4. Shri Gupta presents that on this voucher word 'kr' was written for'kumar' . Word 'kr' was written by the claimant on Ex . MW2/4 in the very manner in which he used to write names ofauthorised account holders containing 'kumar' in various accounts . He announces that voucher Ex, MW2/4 was filled in by the claimant . Facts unfolded by Shri Gupta on above aspect are found to be credit worthy. These facts bring it over the record that voucher Ex . MW2/ 4 was filled in by claimant . His self serving depositions , on that issue, stand discarded by clear and cogent facts testified by Shri Gupta. Consequently it is apparent that on 25-5-96 a sum of Rs.2000 was deposited by the claimant in that account, for which exercise he filled in voucher Ex . MW2/4 . Therefore, contention of the claimant that he discharged his official duties in maintaining that account is unfounded . His culpable intention stands fortified.

27. Though Shri Inderpal Singh deposed in bold words that Shri Dharmender Kumar approached him, filled in voucher Ex. WW2/M1 in his presence and deposited a sum of Rs.5000 with him, yet those facts are found to be farther from truth. In one breath he asserts that the person, whosephotograpli appear on Ex. MW2/ 1 , came before him, filled in the voucher and deposited a sum ofRs.500, but in subsequent breath he concedes that account opening form was not seen by him when a sum ofRs.500 were deposited on 24-5-96. Without comparing photograph, affixed on account opening form Ex. MW2/ 1 , Shri Inderpal Singh was not in position to claim that the person who deposited a sum of Rs . 500 with him was the very person whose photograph appears on Ex . MW2 / 1 . When tested on standards of veracity, it came to light that facts unfolded by Shri Inderpal Singh do not stand to litmus test of reasons . Shri Inderpal Singh nowhere claims that he verified identity of the person who deposited a sum ofRs.500 with him . As projected by the witnesses , except the form Ex. MW2/ 1 and voucher Ex . WW1 / M1 no other document was produced when saving bank account No.39/ 14557was opened. These admitted facts make it clear that no proof relating to residence or identity was produced by the person, whose account was opened that day. When identity documents were not there before the bank, Shri Inderpal was not in a position to youch that the person who filled in voucher Ex.WW1 / M1 was the very person whose photograph appears on account opening form. Admittedly address detailed in the account opening form was found to be non - existent and the alleged account holder is not traceable . Therefore, these facts make it clear that Shri Inderpal Singh had entered the witness box with a view to depose facts convenient to the claimant. To show his sympathy to the claimant, he coined a story and presented facts to the effect that Dharmender Kumar appeared before him, filled in voucher Ex . WW1 /M1 and deposited a sum of Rs.500 on 24-5-96. Facts unfolded by Shri Inderpal Singh, on those circumstances , are brushed aside , when it do not withstand standards of veracity and truthfulness .

30. Ex . MW2/ 6 highlights that on 4-6-96 a withdrawal ofa sum ofRs.1400 was made vide cheque No.733561.A balance of Rs.1100 was there in the account and in "protected digit column " '4' was written. On that very day a sum of Rs . 2400 was deposited through cash voucher and balance reached to Rs.3500 . On 5th of June,2006 two withdrawal entries were recorded in that account, which withdrawals were made through cheque No.763 drawn for a sum of Rs . 1750 and No. 764 drawn for a sum of Rs . 1250 and balance of Rs.500 was left in the account . Vide transfer voucher Ex . MW2/5 a sum of Rs.5000 was deposited in that account on 7-6-96 and thus balance amount reached to Rs . 5500. "Protective digit column " was left blank by Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal who was working on saving bank counter that day. By leaving protective digit column blank Mukesh Kumar Singhal facilitated fraud in that account . Figure ' 9 ' was prefixed to the credit entry of Rs . 5000 as well as balance entry of Rs . 5500. It was subsequent step taken towards commission of the fraud . Shri Gupta deposed that figure.' 9 ' was prefixed between 8th or 9th June 96 to 11th June, 96 in the ledger sheet on which dates Mukesh Kumar Singhal was working on saving bank counter.

31. On 11th of June, 96 a cheque Ex. MW2/8 drawn for a sum of Rs.80000 was presented for withdrawal . The 28. An account was opened on 24-5-96 in a fake name. Claimant was working on saving bank counter , while Shri O. P. Guliani was officer incharge saving bank. Claimant performed duties of a cash clerk while Guliani performed duties of saving bank incharge . Shri Guliani verified contents ofthe application Ex. MW2/ 1 and claimant opened thataccount . Therefore, it is emerging over the record that when account No. 39/14557 was opened in the name of a fake person, claimant had played an active role. Now he attempts to pass responsibility on Guliani , projecting that after verification of contents of the application, the latter commanded him and in obedience ofthat command account was opened . Whether there is any substance in this assertion ? To ascertain answer to this proposition , facts are scanned and different proposition arises . Shri Gupta present that Chotu Baba Giri told him that he introduced the account at the instance of the claimant , who projected that the account holder would deposit money in that [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1429 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

Ex, MW2/ 11 respectively. He signed on these documents asDharmender Kumar. He clinches the issue when he deposed that application for issuance of draft Ex.MW2/2 and supporting cheque Ex.MW2/3 are in the hand writing ofBijender Singh. According to him since Mukesh Kumar Singhal and A.C.Malhotra were involved in the fraud, they never informed the bank in that an application was moved byBijender Singh for issuance of draft . The facts so presentedby Shri Gupta remained above board. These facts belie his stand that he opened the account in obedience of commandgiven by Shri Guliani .

said cheque was honoured and payment was made . Balance amount was shown as Rs . 15500 and in the protective digit column figure' 5' was prefixed to the credit entry as well as balance entry, as shown on 7-6-96 . It was also prefixed to the balance entry as shown on 11th of June, 96. Though in protective digit column figure ' 5' left unaltered when figure '4' was prefixed to the balance amount shown in that account . By making these interpolations an amount of Rs . 415500 was shown balance on 11th of June, 96. On 14-6-96 a cheque Ex. MW2/7 drawn for Rs . 24000 was presented for encashment, which cheque was honoured and payment was released . Thus by 14-6-96 an amount of Rs.1,04000 was withdrawn out of that account by playing a fraud on the bank. This fraud was facilitated by Mukesh Kumar Singhal by leaving protected digit column blank andby way of suffering act of prefixing figure of ' 9' and '4' against credit entry ofRs . 5000 as well as balance entries of Rs . 5000 and Rs . 15500, shown when cheque of Rs . 80000 was honoured.

35.Claimant attacks testimony ofShri Gupta pleading thathe never worked under his supervision and control . It were Shri J.C.Aneja, Cash Officer , O.P Guliani , Saving Bank Incharge, A.C.Malhotra Saving Bank Incharge, Hari Om TandonAccountant, Shri Joshi , Head Clerk and Inderpal Singh, who used to check his books and register . They were the best witnesses to depose facts relating to his writings on vouchers , cheques and application for issuance ofa draft. He alleges that being a co accused Shri Gupta was biased against him. According to him, his testimony is unworthy of credence.

36.Handwriting on a document can be proved in followingways;

1. by proof of signature and handwriting of the person alleged to have signed or written the document,

32. On 20-6-96 an application was moved for issuance of a draft, supported by a cheque of Rs . 359470. Aprayer was made in the application that draft may be issued in favour of Quality Tyres , Roshanara Road, Delhi. A draft was issued in pursuance of prayer, so made . After honouring cheque Ex . MW2/7 a balance ofRs.391500 was shown in that account and it was mentioned in figures as '6' in protective digit column . It facilitated presentation of the cheque referred above for issuance of a draft in favour ofQuality Tyres , Roshanara Road, Delhi . On 21st ofJune, 96 while reconciling accounts , fraud came to light .

2. by opinion of an expert who can compare hand writings.

3. by a witness who is acquainted with the handwriting of a person by whom it is supposed to have been written and signed , and

4. by comparison of signatures , writing and seal with other admitted or proved documents .

33. Shri Gupta unfolds that on 21st of June , 96 he was on leave . When he was informed about the fraud, he reached office . He details that telephone number of Quality Tyres was searched from the directory. A telephone call was givento Quality Tyres and Varyam Singh attended the call . Varyam Singh told them that someone gave a telephone call around 11 PM previous day, informing him that he would come alongwith a draft for purchasing goods . He was told that the draft was obtained by playing fraud on the bank . A request was made that when somebody approaches him with a draft he should inform the police . Police control room was also informed . Shri Gupta went on to depose that none approached Quality Tyre next day or on any subsequent day alongwith that draft to purchase goods . He explains that since someone from the bank was involved , who was aware of the developments referred above, hence draft was not presented to Quality Tуге, Roshanara Road, Delhi , for purchasing goods from them.

37. Signatures and handwriting of a person, alleged to have signed or written a document, can be proved by adducing evidence to the effect that the document bear his signatures or handwriting. Proof of that fact may be made by direct evidence of the person( s) who has seen him writing or signing that document. Therefore, for proof of a document, the bank is under an obligation to establish that signature or writing over that document is of the claimant . It can establish so by calling the claimant, who has written or signed the document, or a person in whose presence the document was signed or written, or a person who is acquainted with hand writing of the claimant, or by proof ofan admission of the claimant , admitting his signatures and writing on the document, or by opinion ofa handwriting expert, or by way of comparison by the Tribunal of the disputed document with admitted signature or writings of the claimant .

34. Shri Gupta highlights that on 10-2-96 Shri Brijender Singh got purchased a cheque of Dehradun branch by changing name " Dehradun " as Laxman Jhoola Road branch of the bank. The word ' road' written in that cheque was in the very fashion as written in Quality Tyre, Roshanara Road, Delhi in the application moved for issuance of draft . He presents that pass book and cheque book of that account were obtained by the claimant by signing Ex.MW2/ 10 and

38. Since the claimant is an adversary, the bank cannot compel him to testify facts against himself, for that would amount to denial of fundamental right against [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011/MAGHA 23, 1932

1430

advanced by Shri Kapoor that being an accomplice Shri Gupta cannot be a witness against the claimant, is also unfounded .

testimonial compulsion. Persons , in whose presence documents were written and signed were not known to the bank, hence recouse of examining them was not available to it. Bank opted to call Shri Gupta in witness box to prove the documents , since Shri Gupta was acquainted with hand writing and signatures of the claimant, in capacity of the branchmanager , Laxman Jhoola Road branch ofthe bank . Therefore, evidence of Shri Gupta cannot be branded as irrelevant and father from truth .

41. Assuming that Shri Gupta can be termed as an accomplice , even then facts testified by him are relevant for consideration . The Evidence Act is not applicable before this Tribunal . However, broad principles of law of evidence may be borrowed. Borrowing those principles , it can be said that evidence of an accomplice is unworthy ofcredence, unless he is corroborated in material particulars . The evidence of an accomplice requires to be scruitinized with caution because: ( 1 ) he has a motive to shift guilt from himself, (2) he is an immoral person likely to commit pergery on occasion, and (3 ) he hopes for pardon or secured it and so favours prosecution.

42. In Rameshwar ( 1952 S.C.R. 377) the Apex Court laid down four principles with regard to nature and extent ofcorroboration of the testimony of an accomplice, which are:

(1) that it is not necessary that there should be independent confirmation of every detail of the crime in the sense that the independent evidence in the case, apart from the testimony of the complainant or the accomplice, should itself be sufficient to sustain conviction. All that is required is that there must be some additional evidence rendering it probable that the story of the accomplice (or friend) is true and that it is reasonably safe to act upon it,

(2) that independent evidence must not only make it safe to believe that the crime was committed, but itmust in some way reasonably connect or tend to connect the accused with it, by confirming in some material particular, the testimony of the accomplice or complainant that the accused committed the crime,

39. Claimant asserted that he never worked under Shri V. K. Gupta . According to him it were S/ Shri J. C. Aneja, O. P. Guliani , A. C. Malhotra, Hari Om Tandon, Joshi and Inderpal Singh, under whose supervision and control he worked. However, he is silent on the issue whether Shri Guptawas acquainted with his hand writing and signatures . Who can claim himself to be acquainted with hand writing of a person, who allegedly wrote or signed disputed document ? A person is said to be acquainted with a person'shandwriting when he has seen that person writing at any time . The frequency and reasonableness of occasions and attention paid to the matter by the witness may affect value but not admissibility of the evidence . A person, who has received documents written by someone or under his authority and addressed to that person, or when in ordinary course ofbusiness documents purporting to be written by that person have been habitually submitted to him, can claim himself acquainted with hand writing and signature ofthat person . Shri Gupta was Chief Manager of the branch and in that capacity habitually used to receive documents written and signed by the claimant. Claim of Shri Gupta, that he was acquainted with handwriting and signature of the claimant , is well founded. Though daily work of the claimant was not supervised immediately by Shri Gupta, yet he was overall incharge of the bank, and in that capacity used to receive documents written and signed by the claimant , in ordinary course of business of the branch . Therefore , arguments put forward by Shri Bijender Singh, to the effect that Shri V. K. Gupta was not competent to identify his signature and hand writing is unfounded.

(3) that the corroboration must come from independent source and thus ordinarily the testimony of an accomplice would not be sufficient to corroborate that ofthe another,

(4) that the corroboration need not be direct evidence that the accused committed the crime and it is sufficient if it is merely circumstancial evidence ofhis connection with the crime .

40. Claimant attempts to castigate depositions of Shri Gupta agitating that he was a co - accused, since a charge sheet was served upon him . It has been argued on his behalf that being a co - accused Shri Gupta was not competentto testify facts against him . It is not a matter of dispute that a charge sheet was served upon Shri V. K. Gupta, contents of which charge sheet are detailed by the claimant in his written submission. When perused it came to light that V. K. Gupta was called upon to explain lapses inhis supervisory functions . No allegations were levelled against Shri Gupta relating to his involvement in commission of fraud or that he was a beneficiary of the amount defrauded . As is evident Shri Gupta, was found slack in exercise of his supervision over the matter . Therefore, it is emerging over the record that though a charge sheet was served upon Shri Gupta yet he was not an accomplice to the fraud. Consequently, submissions

43. When an accomplice turns as a witness , on accepting pardon, the court has to satisfy itself that the statement of the approver is credible in itself and there is evidence other than the statement of the approver that the approver himself had taken part in the crime. The court should seek corroboration of his evidence with respect to the part of other accused persons in the crime, and this evidence has to be of such a nature as to connect other accused with the crime. The corroboration need not consist of evidence which , standing alone , would be sufficient to justify conviction of the accused . Every details of the story 1431 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

ofthe accomplice need not be confirmed by independent evidence although some additional independent evidence must be looked for to see whether the approver is speaking the truth and there must be some evidence , direct or circumstantial , which connects the co - accused with the crime in pendently ofthe accomplice . Approver's evidence islooked upon with great suspicion, but, if it is found to be trust worthy, it can be decisive in securing conviction.

took steps to protect Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal . According to him when "protective digit column " was left blank by Shri Singhal , he facilitated the fraud. Shri Singhal was not named in the FIR, alleges the claimant . He presents that it was so done by Shri Gupta , to protect his protegee . He further presents that handwriting of Singhal was not sent to an expert for comparison. He claims that Shri Gupta hadnot raised any finger on Singhal in his report Ex . MW1 / 4. However, it is not a disputed fact that subsequently needle of suspicion pointed towards Shri Singhal , whose name was referred to police as a person involved in the crime.Whether the fact that initially Singhal was not held accountable would exonerate the claimant of the charges ? As detailed above, the account, in which fraud was committed , was got introduced by the claimant from Chotu Giri Baba on misrepresentation of facts , he deposited a sum of Rs.2000 on the strength of vouchers Ex . MW2/4 , moved an application Ex. MW2/2 for issuance of a draft and issued cheque Ex. MW2/3 in support ofthat application . All these facts make it clear that involvement of the claimant was there in the fraud and act of initially not raising an accusing finger on Singhal would not absolve him of the liability. Therefore, his submission in that regard are also discarded.

44. As unfolded above , Shri Gupta was charge sheeted for lack of his supervision over acts of his subordinates , who committed fraud. In such a situation it cannot be said that he has a motive to shift guilt from himself, when he entered the witness box to testify facts against the claimant. No evidence worth name was brought over the record to show that Shri Gupta, being an accomplice was likely to commit pergery. It was not a case where Shri Gupta secured pardon or was likely to favour the bank . Therefore, no such standards are brought over the record that Shri Gupta was likely to shift guilt from himself and throw entire responsibility on the claimant . Even otherwise corroboration of his testimony is coming forth out ofthe documents , which are being used by him to claim that he was acquainted with hand writing and signatures ofthe claimant . Under these circumstances , claim put forward by Shri Brijender Singh that testimony of Shri Gupta is unworthy of credence, is discarded.

47. Aclaim has been made that Dharmender Kumar was a real person and his photo was affixed on the account opening form . He was interviewed by Shri Guliani and after verification of facts the account was opened. It has been argued that Shri Dharmender Kumar had appeared before Inderpal Singh when he deposited a sum of Rs . 500 on 24-5-96 and claim ofthe bank that account was opened in a fictitious name, is unfounded . Submissions so advanced, onbehalf of the claimant are false to his own knowledge . When arguments were advanced by Shri Kapoor the Tribunal advised the claimant to bring Dharmender Kumar or Chotu Giri Baba in the witness box to prove genuineness ofhis actions . Though time was granted to the claimant to do the needful, yet he opted not to bring either of them in the witness box. Hollowness ofhis claim surfaced over the record. On the other hand it is not disputed on behalf of the claimant that in the criminal case lodged against him , Dharmender Kumar has been projected as a fictitious person. All these circumstances highlight that Dharmender Kumar, in whose name the account was opened, was a fictitious person and his address was non existent . Photograph of a person was subsequently affixed on the account opening form and that person is also found to be not traceable . These facts go to establish that claimant is raising irrelevant issues , which have no bearing on the matter.

45. Next attack was made agitating that Hari Om Tandon, A. C. Malhotra, J. C. Aneja, O. P. Guliani , V. M. Guptawere material witnesses , who were not examined by the bank. It is , of course , open to a court of fact to believe ordisbelieve a statement, but simply because the statement is of one witness that cannot by itself be a ground for not actingupon that testimony. It is not the duty of the bank to examine all witnesses who could give an account of sequence of events upon which the case was based against theclaimant. The question whether the witness is a material and ought to have been called depends upon the circumstances of each case . As a general rule this Tribunal may act upon the testimony of a solitary witness , who is neither an accomplice nor anything analogous to accomplice but an ordinary witness , without corroboration, unless circumstances of the case necessitates corroboration. Hari Om TandonA. C. Malhotra , J. C. Aneja, O. P. Guliani and V.M.Gupta were the officers who were slack in performance oftheir duties and facilitated commission of fraud . Under these circumstances these officers were to be labelled , in case thebank would have opted to bring them in the witness box, as accomplices . The bank thought it expedient to examine Shri V. K. Gupta who was Chief Manager of the branch, against whom no allegations were levelled relating to his involvement in commission of fraud . Therefore, it cannot be said that testimony of Shri Gupta was unworthy ofcredence. These aspects make it clear that submissions advanced by Shri Brijender Singh are irrelevant on these issues too .

48. Shri V. K. Gupta could highlight that the claimant got opened account No. 39/14557 in the name of one fictitious person , deposited a sum of Rs . 2000 in that account on 25-5-96 , obtained pass book and cheque book impersonating himself as Dharmender Kumar, conspired with Mukesh Kumar Singhal and others to defraud the bank and in furtherence of that conspiracy Mukesh Kumar 46. Claimant has raised his eye brows on the issue of lodging an FIR in the matter. He presents that Shri Gupta 1432

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

Singhal left protective digit column blank and digit '9' was prefixed to the credit entry of Rs . 5000 as well as other entryof Rs . 5500 in between 8th to 11th of June 1996, a sum of Rs.80000 was withdrawn out of that account on 11-6-96 on the strength of cheque Ex . MW2/8 , prefixed figure'4' tothe credit entry ofRs . 5000which was already interpolated and balance entry of Rs . 5500 which was interpolatedas referred above and then presented a cheque ofRs . 24000 on 14-6-96 and got it encashed and on 20-6-96, presented application for issuance of a draft in favour of Quality Tyres , Roshanara Road, Delhi , supported by a cheque Ex. MW2/7, The draft was issued and obtainedby the claimant. Since fraud came to light on 21-6-96 and further development became known to all and sundry, the said draft was not presented to and Quality Tyres , Roshanara Road, Delhi , for purchase of goods . The events detailed above form a complete chain, pointing out that it was the claimant and his associates who entered into a conspiracy and in furtherance of that conspiracy the bank was defrauded in the manner portraited in preceding sections . The bank has been able to prove misconduct of the claimant, beyond doubts .

49.As detailed above, the claimant defrauded the bank and put it to loss to the tune of Rs.1,04000 Acts of dishonesty or fraud constitute misconduct of serious nature warranting penalty of dismissal . Reference can be made to aprecedent inTika Ram & Sons Ltd. [ 1960( 1 ) LLJ 514] . Το warrant punishment ofdismissal , the act must be of a grave nature, since casual or minor act, which may technically constitute fraud or dishonesty, will not warrant severe punishment. Such acts must have a rational connection with employment ofthe employee with his employer . When misconduct ofthe claimant is perceived, it is evident that it was ofa verygrave complexion. Being an employee ofthe bank he was under an obligation to protect its property and to discharge his duties in a loyal and faithful manner. Instead of proving true to salt, the claimant defrauded the bank and put it to loss of a huge amount. Consequently one cannot project that misconduct committed by the claimant was of lesser gravity or consequences . Such an employee cannot be retained in service. Punishment lesser than their removal from service is not warranted for such serious and grave misconducts .

50. There is other facet of the coin. Shri Mukesh Kumar Singhal , who left "protective digit column " blank and facilitated fraud, was charge sheeted and punished with stoppage of two increments . Claimant agitates that punishment awarded to him was discriminatory, since he was placed in the same bracket in which Singhal was fixed . Punishment of dismissal from service was awarded to him, while Shri Singhal is still in service ofthe bank. In Criminal Jurisdictions a person who facilitates commission of crime is known as accessory before the fact, in case he is not present at scene ofcrime . Accessory before the fact is one who , being absent at the time of crime committed, assists , counsels or commands another to commit a crime . Accessory after the fact is one who , knowing that a crime

[PART I-SBC. 3 ( ii) ] has been committed, receives , comforts or assists the criminal .Any assistance, whatsoever given to a criminal, makes such a person an accessory. The Indian Penal Code does not draw a distinction in an accessory to the fact and aprinciple of the first degree, that is, the actual perpetrator ofcrime.Accessory before and after the fact are treated withdifferent stands , since offences coined for themmake provision for different punishment. Except the cases of vicarious liability, accessory is an offender of second degree, who receives punishment for the specific offence as coinedby the Legislature . But in industrial jurisdiction thoseprinciples cannot be imported. In industrial relations the employer may distinguish between a person who perpetrates crime and the other who receives or relieves the employee after commission of the misconduct. One who perpetrates serious misconduct may be dealt differentlythan the one who facilitates misconduct . In such a situation different yardsticks may be adopted, while awarding punishment to the person who committed serious misconduct and the one who facilitated it, without being present at the scene of crime. Here in the case Shri Singhal facilitated misconduct by leaving "protective digit column" blank. His role is different and distinct than that of the claimant, who was mastermind ofthe entire show. However, magnanimity shown to Shri Singhal by the bank in award ofpenalty will have to be taken note of while awarding punishment to the claimant . Considering facts in entirety, thisTribunal is of the view that punishment of removal from service, which may not be a stigma for future employment, would be adequate punishment for the claimant. Hence punishment of removal from service is substituted for the punishment of dismissal , which punishment shall relate back to the date of punishment awarded to him by the bank. An award is accordingly, passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer Dated: 29-11-2010

नई दिल्ली , 19 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 470.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं सेन्ट्रल नारकोटीक ब्यूरो के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , जयपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 129/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/ 112/ 2003- आईआर(सीएम- II) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 19th January, 2011 S.O. 470.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1433 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 129/2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum-Labour Court, Jaipur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Central Narcotics Bureau, and their workman, received by the Central Government on 19-1-2011 .

[No. L-42012/ 112/2003 -IR(CM - II) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Therefore, his termination is in violation of provisions of Section 25(G) of the I.D. Act. He has also pleaded that he had filed an O.A. before the CAT which was disposed of with the direction that on submission ofthe representation bythe workman the same should be decided by a speaking order. Accordingly, he submitted his representation on 13-3-2002 but the same was rejected vide order dated 8-7-02. The workman has contended that he had worked continuously during period from 1-3-97 to 24-2-2002 . Therefore, his termination is illegal & unjustified. The workman has prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages and other consequential benefits .

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM-LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

I.D. 129/05

ReferenceNo.L-42012/ 112/2003 - IR(CM- II) dated:

21-11-2005

Shri Uma Shanker Aggarwal

S/oNarayan Lal, B- 37, Subhash Colony, Kherli Phatak, Kota (Raj .)

Petitioner

V/s

TheDy. Narcotics Commissioner,

3. In reply, refuting the claim of the workman, the non-applicant has contended that the services of the applicant were taken as contingent worker on as and when required basis .He was never appointed against any vacant post and had never worked for 240 days in any calendar year . Therefore, the workman is not entitled for any relief. The non - applicant has further contended that being a government department appointment against any post can be made only after following the procedure and rules in this regard. The non - applicant has denied this fact that juniors to the workman have been retained . It has been contended that the workman himself had left the service, therefore, the claim ofthe workman deserves to be rejected.

Central Narcotics Bureau , Jhalawar Road , Kota (Raj .)

Respondent

Sh.N.K.Purohit

Present:Presiding Officer

4. The workman submitted his affidavit on 2-5-06 and he has been cross - examined on the said affidavit by the non- applicant on 2-6-2006 . The workman has also produced documents Ex. W- 1 to Ex . W- 13 on the record in support ofhis claim.

FortheApplicant

Sh . Suresh Kashyap

For the non- applicant

Ex-party

AWARD

3-01-2011

1. The Central Government in exercise of the powers conférred under clause (d) of sub - section 1 & 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has referred the following Industrial dispute to this tribunal for adjudication which runs as under:

"Whether the action of the management of Central Narcotics Bureau, Kota in terminating the services ofSh. Uma ShankerAgarwal S/o Sh . Narayna Lal is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief he is entitled to and from which date ? "

5. It is pertinent to mention that after closing the evidence of the workman the case was posted for non- applicant's evidence on 12-7-06, but the post of the PresidingOfficer remained vacant for more than three years . Therefore, fresh notices were issued to both the parties after posting of the Presiding Officer. It appears from the proceedings that both the parties were present on 19-4-10. But on next date i.e. 21-5-10, none appeared on behalf of the non- applicant side, therefore, order to proceed ex -party against the non - applicant was passed . Subsequently, Shri Brajesh Dhabai , Advocate, appeared and filed an application to set aside the ex -party order. But he was not having any authority letter on behalf of the non - applicant . It is also pertinent to mention that the non - applicant's representative Shri T.P. Sharma, Advocate did not appear on the said date . On15-7-10 the case was fixed for hearing on the application to set aside the ex-party proceedings but the authorized representativeon fof the non- applicant did not appear on the said date also and on behalf of him Shri Siyaram Chaudhary, Advocate , appeared and submitted memo of appearance . He sought time for arguments on the application for setting aside the ex - party proceedings , Therefore, case was posted on 23-8-10 for hearing arguments on the said application but none appeared on behalf ofthe non-applicant. Resultantly, the said application dated21-5-10was rejected and case was posted on 14-10-10 for hearing ofex-party arguments . On that date too none 2. The workman has pleaded in his claim statement that initially he was employed as part time worker on 1-3-97 and he was performing full time work as daily wager worker w.e.f. 7-1-98 on minimum wages basis . But management has terminated his services w.e.f 24-2-2002 without assigning any reason in violation of Section 25 (F) of I.D. Act and his salary for the period from 17-12-2001 to 24-1-2002has also not been paid to him . The workman has further pleaded that workmen Shri Narayan Singh, Sh . Sunil Kumar , Sh . Pratap Singh, Sh.Ramswaroop Meena etc. who werejunior to him have been retained by the non - applicant .

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

1434

appeared on behalf ofthe non- applicant , therefore, in above factual backdrop after hearing the representative for the workman, the case was reserved for award.

6. Inview ofthe rival pleadings ofboth the sides the questions crop-up for consideration are as under:-

that such orders used to be issued every month. The workmanhas also produced two experience certificate Ex.4 and Ex. W- 6 given by the then Superintendent, Central Narcotics Bureau, Kota (Rajasthan). The certificate Ex.W-4 dated 30-6-99 shows that the workman was working under non-applicant for last two years on the said date of certificate. The another certificate Ex. W- 6 shows that on thedate ofissuing certificatei.e. 19-10-2000 he was working for last three years as daily wager.

(1) Whether the workman had continuously worked from1-3-97 to 24-2-2002 and completed 240 days of actual service with the non - applicant during the calendar year preceding his termination, whose service was terminated in violation of Section 25 (F) ofthe Act?

(ii) Whether juniors to the workman have been retained, therefore, his termination is in violation ofprovisions under section 25 (G) of I.D. Act ?

(iii) What relief the workman is entitled to ?

PointNo.1

12. The document Ex. W- 7 is a fax massage dated 9-7-01 sentby the Assistant Narcotics Commissioner (IQRS) to the Dy. Narcotics Commissioner, Kota/Lucknow / Neemach wherein instructions were given for strict compliance ofthe directions ofthe Narcotics Commissioner that daily wagers who were being paid for half day work shouldbe kept for the whole day and paid for the day and directions were also given to furnish the names , place and date of employment of all daily wagers in the departments . In response to the said fax massage a list Ex . W- 8 of such daily wagers was faxed on 18-7-01 . In the said list the workman was shown as waterman at Kota office since 1-6-97.

7. The learned representative for the workman has submitted that the workman was engaged as part time employee w.e.f 1-3-97. He was given appointment as daily wager for one month vide order dated 27-1-95 but it was not disclosed to him that his appointment was for a particular period. The workman had continued to work as such till his termination . It has been further submitted that thedeposition ofthe workman is fortified by the documents Ex.W- lto Ex. W- 13 adduced by him in documentary evidence and it is established from the said documents that workman had continuously worked under the non- applicant from 1-3-97 to 24-1-2002 and had completed 240 days in a calendar year preceding his termination . He has also submitted that the non - applicant has not rebutted the evidence of the workman by adducing any oral or documentary evidence . Thus , there is no reason to disbelieve the evidence adduced by the workman .

8. I have bestowed my thoughtful consideration on the submissions of the learned representative for the workman and scanned the relevant record.

13. The workman has also produced the copy of the letter dated 14-12-01 Ex.W-7 of the Dy. Narcotics Commissioner (Admn . ) addressed to the Dy. Narcotics Commissioner, Kota/Lucknow/Neemach wherein directions were issued not to terminate any daily wager till further orders . The copy of the order dated 21-2-2002 passed by the CAT, Jaipur Branch in O.A.75 /02 Ex. W- 7 producedby theworkman reveals that directions were given in the said O.A. to the non - applicant to decide the representation of theworkmanby a speaking order. Ex. W- 11 is representation givenby the workman and Ex. W-12 is order of the Dy. Narcotics Commissioner, Kota passed in compliance ofthe directions given by CAT in the aforementioned O. A. In said order Ex. W- 12, it is mentioned therein that the workman had worked as daily wager worker and had performed the work ofa contingent worker.As regard experience certificate Ex.W-6 dated 19-10-2000 following observations were made inthe said order :

9. The workman in his affidavit has deposed that he was engaged as part time employee on 1-3-97. Subsequently, vide order dated 27-1-98 Ex. W- 2, he was engaged as full time worker on daily wages for one month w.e.f. 7-1-98 . Thereafter he had continued to work as such till date oftermination i.e. 24-1-2002. He has further deposed thathis servicewas orally terminated on 24-1-2002 without assigning any reason . The workman in support of his submissions has adduced the documents Ex.W- 1 & Ex.W-2 on record.

श्री उमाशंकर द्वारा उल्लेखित पत्र संख्या 1 ( 22 ) -9/प्रशा/98 7402दिनांक19-10-2000 का प्रमाण- पत्र एक अधीक्षक (कार्यपालक ) स्तर के अधिकारी द्वारा दिया गया है , जो इस प्रकार की अधिकारिता नहीं रखता क्योंकि ऐसा अधिकारी न तो नियोक्ता है और ना ही नियंत्रण अधिकारी है । यह प्रमाण-पत्र अधिकारी विशेष ने अपने व्यक्तिगत हैसियत से दिया है। अतः विभाग के लिए यह प्रमाण पत्र बंधनकारी नहीं है । 10. Ex. W- 1 is copy of the application dated 7-1-98 submitted by the workman for engaging him as full time worker. He has stated in the said application that he was workingas part time employee as waterman.

14. From above observation, it is evident that the said certificate was issued by the officer of the non- applicant and it is not the case of the non-applicant that facts mentioned in the certificate are not correct .

15. In the said order Ex. 12 the following observation as regards termination of the workman is very pertinent:

11. Ex .W- 2 and Ex. W- 3 are orders ofthenon- applicant dated 27-1-98 and 3-4-98 respectively which show that the workman was appointed as dailywager worker for the period mentioned therein on 32 Rupees per day as wages w.e.f. 7-1-98 and 10-3-98 respectively. The workman has stated [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

1435

junior to the workman going to be retrenched should belong to a particular category of workmen in the establishment.

श्री उमांशंकर को कार्य न होने के कारण हटाया गया क्योंकि बिना कार्य के शासकीय धन का व्यय करना निमानुसार उचित नहीं है । इनके अनुरूप कार्य उपलब्ध नहीं था। इसलिए इनको दिनांक 24-1-2002 से हटा दिया गया ।

21. On perusal ofthe list ofdaily wager worker Ex.W- 8 relied on by the workman, it reveals that the workman was working as waterman in the establishment, but the persons said to bejuniors to him viz Shri Narayan Singh, Sh. Sunil Kumar, Sh . Pratap Rao , Sh . Ramswaroop Meena said to be retained by the non - applicant were not working as waterman at Kota. Since they were not working in particular category i.e. waterman at Kota, it cannot be said that the action of the non- applicant in terminating the service of theworkmanwas in violation of Section 25(G) . Therefore , this point is decided against the workman.

Point No.III

22. Now, the question left for consideration is as to whether the workman is entitled to be reinstated with back wages ? As regards back wages Hon'ble Apex Court in ( 2005 ) 5 SCC 591 between Haryana Roadways v/ s Radha Singh Hon'ble Apex Court has observed :-

16. It is an admitted fact in the said order Ex . W- 12 that the workman's service was terminated on 24-1-02. It has been impliedly admitted that prior to termination of service on 24-1-02, the workman was working with thenon- applicant as daily wager. The non - applicant has not adduced any evidence in rebuttal of the workman's evidence and except pleadings of the non- applicant, there is nothing on record to substantiate the version of the non- applicant in its reply but pleadings are no substitute for proof. Under these circumstances , there is no reason to disbelieve the version of the workman that he had worked withnon- applicant during period from 1-6-97 to 24-1-02 and has also completed 240 days in preceding twelve months from the date ofhis termination i.e. 24-1-2002 .

"There is no rule of thumb in every case where the industrial Tribunal gives a finding that the termination ofservice was in violation of Section 25 -F of the I.D. Act, entire back wages should be awarded .

However, where the total length of service rendered byaworkman is very small. The award ofback wages forthe completer period from the date of termination till the date of award, whichever experience shows is often quite large, would be wholly inappropriate. Another important facts , which required to be taken into consideration is the nature of employment . A regular service of permanent character cannot be compared to short or intermittent daily wage employment though it may be for 240 days in a calendar year."

17. In view of the above discussions it is established from the statement of the workman and the documentary evidence adduced by him in support of his submissions that the workman had continuously worked for 240 days during preceding 12 months from the date ofhis termination i.e. 24-1-2002 . The workman has stated that his service was terminated without assigning any reason and without complying with the provisions of Section 25 (F) ofthe I.D. Act. It is not the case of the non - applicant in its reply that one months notice or pay in lieu thereof and the retrenchment compensation were paid to the workmanprior to his termination on 24-1-2002. Thus, the workman is entitled to get the protection u/s 25 (F) of the I.D. Act . Accordingly, this point, therefore, is decided in favour of theworkman.

Point No.II

18. The workman has deposed that at the time of termination ofhis service on 24-1-2002juniors to him namely viz . Shri Narayan Singh, Sh. Sunil Kumar, Sh. Pratap Rao, Sh . Ramswaroop Meena were working under the non- applicant have been retained and they are still in service.

23. Inpresent matter the workman was working as a daily wager. He has not embodied the fact in the claim statement that he has not remained in gainful employment since his termination nor he has described this fact in his affidavit . Having regard to the nature of job, the period during which he had worked, the amount of wages he was receiving and keeping in view the entire facts and circumstances , the interest ofjustice would be sustained by reinstating the workman with 25% back wages .

19. In cross -examination the workman has admitted that they were performing work as mentioned against their names . The workman has produced the copy of fax Ex .W-8 dated 9-7-2001 showing particulars regarding names of persons who were working as daily wager, their place of working and date of engagement as daily wager .

24. In the result the reference is answered in the affirmative in favour ofthe workman and it is held that due tonon compliance of Section 25 (F) ofthe I.D. Act the action ofthemanagement Central Narcotics Bureau in terminating the service of the workman Shri Umashankar is illegal and unjustified. The applicant is entitled to be reinstated with 25% back wages from the date of his termination i.e. 24-1-2002. The award is passed in these terms accordingly,

25. Let a copy of the award be sent to Central Government forpublication u/ s 17(1 ) of theAct .

N. K. RUROHIT, Presiding Officer 20. Section 25 (G) casts an obligation to follow the procedureprescribed therein at the time of retrenchment of a workman . It envisages that where a workman is to be retrenched who belongs to a particular category of a workman in that establishment, in the absence of any agreement, the employer shall ordinarily retrenched the workman who was the last person to be employed in that category. Thus , it is essential that the persons said to be

334GI/11-43 1436

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 471.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं बी. बी. एम. बी. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के, बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 2 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 330/2005 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-23012/6/1999- आईआर ( सीएम- II ) ]

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] 2(A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act) has referred the following Industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the Assistant General Mananger, State Bank of India, Region- 1 , Haryana Zone in removing Shri V. K. Miglani , Ex- Clerk- cum-Cashier from his services injustified ? Ifnot, whatrelief is the workman entitled?"

डी. एस. एस . श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 19th January, 2011 S.O. 471. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 330/ 2005) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court -No . 2, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure inthe Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of BBMB and their workman, which was receivedby the Central Government on 19-1-2011 .

[No. L-23012/6/1999- IR (CM- II)]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, DeskOfficer

ANNEXURE

IN THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM-LABOUR COURT- IL, CHANDIGARH

Present:

Sri A.K. Rastogi, Presiding Officer Case No. ID 330/2005

Registered on 10-03-2000

...Applicant

Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Ram Lal, PlotNo. 114, Karnail Singh Nagar, Pakhowal Road, Ludhiana.

Versus

TheChiefEngineer, Bhakra Dam, Nangal Township , District Ropar (Punjab).

Respondent

APPEARANCES

Sh. R.K.S. Parmar, Forthe workman

The workman has raised an industrial dispute by stating that he was employed with the management as Fitter skilled Mazdoor on daily wages . He could not attend his duties w.e.f. 1-12-1993 on account of illness , about which hehad intimated the management from time to time but his services were terminated on 30-11-1993 vide order dated 20-6-1995 . His name was deleted from the Muster Roll and the seniority list. He was informed about his termination in August 1995 when he went to report for duty with the Medical and Fitness Certificates . His services were terminated with back date . According to him his absence from duty is misconduct but he was not issued any charge- sheet and no domestic enquiry was held. He was not paid any retrenchment compensation either, though he had rendered 285 days service within 12 calendar months . His termination is illegal. He has prayed for his reinstatement with full back wages .

A.R. ofWorkman

Sh. S.K. Goel , FortheManagement

Joint. Director (Legal) , BBMB.

AWARD

Passed on 7th Jan. , 2011 Central Government vide Notification No. L-23012/ 6/99- IR(CM-II) Dated 29-02-2000, by exercising its powers under Section 10 sub section (1) Clause (d) and sub-section

Claim was contested by the management. In the written statement it was stated that after October 1992, the workman started remaining absent from duty. In the months ofNovember and December 1992 and January and February 1993 his absence was 3-4 days in a month but graduallyhe start remaining absent for longer period without any intimation and prior permission. He had been called to explain his absence and his reply in this regard was not found satisfactory and a charge- sheet -cum-explanation letter was served but he did not reply to it and left thejob after attending for 28 days in November 1993. Subsequently, several letters were sent to the workman but no reply was received. Vide letter No. 8897-903/50- G dated 9-6-1995 the workman was informed that his name has been struck off from the rolls of Workshop Division and accordingly, a Letter No. 9484-91/50-G dated 20-06-95 was issued to him but he made no representation. It was denied that the name of the workman was struck off without affording any opportunity to him. According to management the workman remained willfully absent from duty and it is not a case of abandonment. His case has no merits .

In support ofhis case, the workman filed his own affidavit along with certain documents . On the other hand the management filed the affidavits of Sh . A.K. Alhuwalia, S.D.O. Nangal Workshop Division, Nangal and examined Dr. Pummy Singh as witness . Management also relied on certain documents , which will be referred to at the appropriateplace.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1437 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

TheAR of the workman did not appear to argue the case . However, the claim statement has a mention of some case law . I have heard the learned Law Officer of the Management and perused the record .

Itis, therefore clear that the action of the Chief Engineer, Bhakra Dam, BBMB , Nangal Township , Ropar in terminating the service of the workman without conducting domestic enquiry is just and legal and the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly, answered against the workman. Let two copies of award after due compliance be sent to the Central Government for further necessary action.

ASHOK KUMAR RASTOGI , Presiding Officer It is important to note that the reference is about the justification and validity or otherwise of the service of the workman without conducting domestic enquiry. The termination without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act is not in cuestion.

नई दिल्ली, 19 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 472.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार सेन्ट्रल वेयर हाऊसिंग कॉर्पोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , नई दिल्ली के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 23/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/ 1 /2009- आईआर(डी.यू) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी-

New Delhi , the 19th January, 2011

Admittedly the workman was a daily wager and his Services were terminated by striking offhis name from the rolls due to his continuous absence from duty. From Ex. M-24 it is clear that his name was struck off from the rolls/ seniority list of daily rated workers of Nangal Workshop with immediate effect on 16-6-1995 . The contention ofthe workman that on 20-6-1995 his services were terminated from back date w.e.f. 19-6-1993 is therefore wrong. The workman has relied on ajudgment of the Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in Sita Ram Versus Labour Court , Patiala FJRVol. 88 Page 516 in which the Division Bench of ine Hon'ble High Court has held that absence from duty is Fot covered by any of the exceptions enumerated in Sub Clause ( a), (b), (bb) and (c) ofSec . 2(00 ) oftheAct . Absence from duty can at the most be held to be a misconduct. The termination of services on the ground of misconduct could not be resorted to without holding an enquiry or complying with the Provisions of the Act .

S.O. 472. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 23/2009) of the CentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum-Labour Court- 1, NewDelhi as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Central Ware Housing Corporation and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 19-1-2011 .

[No. L-42012/ 1/2009- IR(DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

But in this regard one fact is important and it is that admittedly workman was a daily wager. The question is whether the termination of the services of a daily wager without conducting domestic enquiry on the charge of remaining absent from duty is just and legal . I am of the view that a daily wager not holding any post or rank in service cannot claim rights of regular employees available inthe service rules including right to departmental enquiry. My view finds support from the judgment of a Division Bench of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Delhi State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. Versus J.K. Thakur 2001 LLR830 .

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESINDING OFFICER CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIALTRINUNALNO. 1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX DELHI ID . No 23/2009

It is, therefore, held that the management committed no illegality by terminating the services of the workman without conducting any domestic enquiry and the action of the management is just and legal .

ShVeer Singh and 19 others , House No.70, Gali No.7, VillageGajipur, Delhi .

..Workman

Versus

TheManager, Central Ware Housing Corporation, ICD. Patparganj . NewDelhi .

Though it is not the subject matter of the reference you the termination of the workman cannot be assailed on the ground of violation of Section 25F of the Act also . Because for the protection of Section 25F of the Act, the workman must have worked for at least 240 days in 12 calendar months preceding the date of the termination, which is 20-06-1995 in the present case, while admittedly the workman remained absent from duty from 1-12-1993 till his services were terminated .

...Management THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] 1438

AWARD

3. Claim statement was filed on behalf of thedrivers pleading that they were engaged by the Corporation in November, 99, to ply its Volvo vehicles . Their wages were fixed at Rs . 6000/- PM, besides Rs . 100 per day as food allowance . No appointment letter was issued in their favour. Legal facilities such as ESI and P.F. Contribution , attendance card, pay slip, punching card , identity card , name in employment register etc. were not provided to them . When they raised a demand for legal facilities , they were put off on one pretext or the other. It has been pleaded that the drivers used to ply vehicles of the Corporation from ICD Patparganj to Mumbai, besides other stations . Since they had to spent considerable period in journey, hence they could not unite to bargain collectively. They used to drive vehicles No.HR55-2095 . HR55-2098 , HR- 55-2192 , HR55-2093 , HR55-2200, HR-55-2097 , HR-55-2199, HR55-2201 and HR55-2198 . When they demanded their legal, rights , the Corporationdispensed with their service on 6-5-06, in an illegal manner . No notice was served on them. Their earned wages were also not paid . Action, of terminating their services is violative of labour laws . They are unemployed since date of their termination. A claim was made that an award may be passed reinstating their services with continuity and full back wages , besides other benefits available to them under labour laws .

Central Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referredto as the Corporation) runs Inland ClearanceDepot (in short L.C.D.) at Patparganj , Delhi . It transports containers at I.C.D. Patparganj from various destinations especially from Central Freight Station (in short C.F.S. ), Jahawar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai. For transportation of containers , the Corporation took a decision to purchase tentractor trailers fromVolvo India Pvt. Ltd. (in short V.I.P.L.). The Corporation entered into an agreement with the said company on 19-11-99. Besides purchasing ten tractors trailer, the Corporation decided to award container transportation work to V.I.P.L. , who in turn agreed to run those tractor trailers with experienced trained staff and supervise, manage, maintain and operate those trailers @ Rs.16.25p Km. in 1st year for trips to be undertaken from ICDPatparganj to Navi Mumbai . Agreement was to last for 5years and variable rates were decided in the agreement, referred above . To carry out the responsibility undertaken, V.I.P.L. engaged 20 drivers, who were specially trained to ply those tractor trailers . Drivers, so engaged, were put under the supervision of "M/ s National Freight Career". From October, 2003 , to September, 2004, those tractor trailers were not put to use and remained stationed at C.S.F. , Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai . On 9th of May, 2006, services of those 20 drivers were dispensed with. They ran away with keys and registration documents ofthe vehicles . With intervention of local police, keys and registration documents were got returned . Those drivers raised a demand of their reinstatement in service of the Corporation, which demand was dispelled. They raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer. Since they were not taken in service by the Corporation, conciliation proceedings failed. On consideration of failure report submitted by the Conciliation Officer under sub- section (4) of section 12 of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (in short the Act) the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No.L- 42012/ 1 /2009 - IR (DU) , New Delhi , dated 11-5-2009, with following terms :-

"Whether there is employer - employee relationship between the Management of Central Warehousing Corporation and Shri Veer Singh and 19 others , as per Annexure ? If so , whether the action of the management in terminating their services w.e.f. May, 2006 is legal and justified and if not, what relief the workmen concerned are entitled to ? "

4.Claim statement was demurred pleading that being a statutory Corporation the opposite party has its recruitment rules . Only one post of staff car driver is there withthe Corporation. Besides that post, no post ofdriver, to drive a heavy vehicle, is available with the Corporation. The claimants were never engaged by the Corporation, hence relationship ofemployer and employee never existed between the parties . Claimants filed a civil suit No. 1174 of 2006wherein an admission was made that they were under supervision ofM/s . National Freight Career, since 19th of December, 1999. They further admit that their salaries were paid by the said contractor. The Corporation pleads that the claimants do not dispute that in October, 2003 , contractor handed over responsibility of an operator to the Corporation, tractor trailers were lying stationed at C.F.S. , Jawahar Lal Nehru Post Trust, Navi Mumbai, from October , 2003 to September, 2004 and the fact that a writ. petition being WP ( C) No. 9908-27 of 2006 was filed by them inHigh Court of Delhi wherein they admitted that they were supervised by the contractor, referred above. In view ofthe admission so made, now it does not lie in their mouth to claim themselves to be employees of the Corporation.

5.The Corporation projects that a license has been issued in its favour by custom authorities to run inland clearance depots , which license can be revoked at any pointoftime. Central Freight Station being run at Kalamboli , Navi Mumbai was closed when license was abruptly terminated by custom authorities on 29-1-96. In the same manner ICD at Surat . Udaipur, Rajkot and Raipur had tobe 2. In the annexure names ofVeer Singh, Sher Bahadur Singh, Gaya Baksh Yadav, Ram Bachan Chauhan, Rajender Chauhan, Rambir Sharma , Ram Kumar, Ramveer Singh, Murli Patil , Gaja Nand Kadam, Ram Chander Kharode, Narender Gautam , Ajay Kumar Yadav, Ram Prasad, Kundan Singh, Manoj Kumar, Ankush Gudgude, Raja Babu, Brijesh Singh and Ram Karan Sharma were detailed .

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

1439

Manager, I.C.D. Patparganj , was examined on behalf ofthe Corporation. No other witness was examined in the matter.

closed down. Work ofhandling containers at ICD is variable and no fixed volume of work is available . Work depends on government policies , market trends and services provided by the IC.Ds. Large number of IC.Ds. have come up in private sector also . Hence work being undertaken by I.C.D. cannot be called perennial in nature . Manual handling of cargo is nowhere being done by regular employees ofthe Corporation.

8.Manoj Kumar entered the witness box on 4-1-2010. onwhichdatehe tendered his affidavit Ex.WW4/A, besides placing reliance on documents Ex .WW1 / 1 to Ex. WW1/24. Hiscross -examination was deferred for the next date at his request. Thereafter he opted not to appear for cross- examination. No opportunity could be accorded to the Corporation to purify testimony of Shri Manoj Kumar by an ordeal of cross - examination . Hence testimony of Shri Manoj Kumar cannot be read against the Corporation. The same is , therefore, discarded from consideration in support ofthe claim.

9.Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri B.S.Rana and Shri B.B.M.Nahotia authorised representatives , advanced arguments on behalf of the claimants . Shri J.Buther, authorised representative , raised submissions on behalf of the Corporation. Written submissions were also filed on behalf ofthe claimants . 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:

6.The Corporation admits that it purchased 10 tractor trailers in 1999 from V.I.P.L. An agreement was entered into on19-11-99 and in terms of the said agreement V.I.P.L. had to provide services to run, operate, supervise, manage and maintain those tractor trailers on agreed lump sum amount payableper trip between one designation to another . V.I.P.L. has also agreed to run those tractor trailers with experienced trained staff and carry out day to day maintenance, repairs and replacement ofworn out/defective parts of those vehicles initially for a period of five years . The vehicles were to be maintained in accordance with Volvo Maintenance Policy and V.I.P.L. agreed to incur all expenditure in respect of diesel , transportation, maintenance, repairs , octroi, road tax, contingent enroute expenses , besides miscellaneous expenses associated with transport and movement . The Corporation agreedto compensate V.I. P. L. for the services , as detailed above. It was specifically agreed by V.I.P.L. that there would be no liability of the Corporation of any kind for the drivers and workers engaged by it to run tractor trailers . Sixty six round trips of those tractor trailers in a year was agreed . In an average 2 to 5 trips in a month could take place, which fact makes it clear that there was no regular work for those tractor trailers ' movements . The Corporation projects that the claimants might have been employed by V.I.P.L. or National Freight Career (in short NFC) in furtherance of the agreement so entered . Later on M/ s Ornate Multi Model Careers (in short OMMC) agreed to operate tractor trailers on agreed rates . Salary of the claimants might have been paid by the V.I.P.L. , N.F.C. or OMMC, in case they were employed by them. From October, 2003 to September, 2004 vehicle remained idle at Mumbai . From September, 2004 the contract was awarded to OMMC . It has been denied that the claimants were engaged by the Corporation. It has further been denied that their salary was fixed at Rs . 6000 PM besides Rs.100 per day as food allowance. The Corporation pleads that there was no question ofits liability to provide legal facilities to the claimants . It has been disputed that the Corporation terminated services of the claimants . A claim has been made that the claimants have no cause against the Corporation, hence their claim statement may be dismissed.

7. Rambir Sharma ( WW1 ) , Ram Bachhan (WW2), Kundan Singh (WW3 ) , Manoj Kumar (WW4) , Ram Kumar (WW5) , Rambir Singh (WW6) , Gaya Bux (WW7) Ram Karan Sharma (WW8) and S.D.Sharma (WW9 ) , were examined on behalf of the claimants . Shri V.K.Tyagi ,

10. Rambir Sharma swears in his affidavit that he started serving the Corporation as a driver on Volvo truck No.HR- 55-2095 , purchased by it from VIPL. He was paid Rs . 6000 as his wages , besides Rs.100 per day as expenses . No appointment letter was issued to him, besides other facilities . As and when he demanded appointment letter and legal facilities , he was put offby the Corporation saying that it would be provided after a few months . He was sent for training to Bangalore. He received training from VIPL and started working with the Corporation as a driver . His wages were paid by the Corporation. There were direct relationship of employer and employee between him and the Corporation. Reference made by the Corporation, to his civil suit and writ petition, nowhere take away relationship of employer and employee between them. Facilities such as ESI and P.F. contributions , attendance card , pay slip, punching card, identity card and name in wage register etc. were not provided to him by the Corporation. Since he used to spend considerable period in transportation of goods from I.C.D. Patpar Ganj to Mumbai, hence he could not assert his demand of above legal facilities by way ofcollective bargaining. His service wereillegally terminated on 6-5-2006, without any notice. At the time of termination ofhis services neither his account was settled nor labour laws were followed . He is unemployed since the date of his termination. During the course ofhis cross - examination, he concedes that copy of the plaint Ex. WW1 / M1 bears his signature. besides other claimants . He further concedes that copy ofwrit petition, filed before High Court ofDelhi. is Ex .WW1/M3 . He also admits that supporting affidavit was filed by Shri Veer Singh, copy ofwhich is Ex . WW1 /M4 . He presents that original of [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

1440

Ex.WW1 /M5 was given by him in the office of VIPL at Bangalore, where he was sent for training . As a proof of fact that a room was allotted to him by the Corporation , he produced a receipt ofmoney order sent by him to his family members , which is Ex.WW1/160 .

11. Shri Ram Bachan Chauhan, Kundan Singh, Ram Kumar, Ramvir Singh, Gaya Baksh, Ram Karan Sharma, and S.D.Sharma swear facts in their respective affidavits on the same lines , as detailed by Shri Ramvir Singh. They project that they were engaged as driver(s ) by the Corporation for drivingVolvo trucks, purchased from VIPL. They were sent to training at Bangalore and thereafter served as driver(s) onrespective tractor trailer(s ) for transportation of goods from I.C.D. Patparganj to Mumbai. All ofthem project that theywere employees ofthe Corporation, whom they served till6-5-2006. As unfolded by them, their services were dispensed with by the Corporation in an illegal manner, without any notice and payment of their duties . All ofthem claim reinstatement with continuity of service. During the course oftheir cross - examination, they admit that a civil suit was filed on their behalf. It is also not disputed by them that a writ petition was filed before High Court of Delhi . It is also not disputed by them that on 6-6-2006 they took away keys and registration documents of the vehicles , whichwere returned on intervention by local police .

wherein it was agreed that services to run, operate , supervise , manage and maintain tractor trailers , including employing drivers on agreed lump sum amount per round trip between one destination and the other , would be provided by V.I.P.L. V.I.P.L. had also agreed to run tractor trailers with experienced staff trained by them and carry out day to day maintenance, repairs and replacement of worn out/defective parts initially for a period of five years . V.I.P.L. also agreed to incurr all expenditure in respect of diesel, transportation, maintenance, repairs , octroi, road tax permits , contingent enroute expenses as well as miscellaneous expenses , associated with truck transport . Corporation agreed to compensate V.I.P.L. for cost of running, maintenance or/ and operation of the fleet . V.I.P.L. agreed that there would be no liability of the Corporation ofany kind in respect of the drivers and cleaners engaged by it to run tractor trailers . The Corporation paid advance in exigencies on request of contractors for enroute expenditure , like octroi , toll tax diesel etc. From October, 2003 to September, 2004, vehicles remained idle at Mumbai . From September, 2004 contract was awarded to OMMC . The claimants absconded with keys and registration documents of the vehicles on 6th of May, 2006. A police complaint was lodged in that regard . He presents that termination of the services of the claimants was not done by the Corporation. During the course of his cross- examination, he concedes that when agreement Ex . MW 1/5 cameto an end, fresh agreement was executed in favour of OMMC. He admits that when contractor changed, vehicles were handed over to new contractor by the Corporation . It is not disputed that in the year 2006 no contract was awarded to anyone to run aforesaid tractor trailers .

12. Shri V.K. Tyagi, Manager I.C.D. Patparganj , swears in his affidavit Ex.MW1 /A that claimants were not engaged bythe Corporation and there existed no relationship of employer and employee between the parties . None ofthem was ever recruited in accordance with the rules of recruitment by the Corporation. He projects that there was onlyone post of staff car driver, for light vehicle. However there was no post of driver to drive heavy vehicles . No vacancywas advertised at any point oftime for recruitment ofheavy vehicle driver(s) . Corporation has no ICD or depot at Tuglakabad. In civil suit as well as writ petition claimants admitted that they were under supervision of M/s National Freight Career, the contractor. He details that sinceOctober, 2003 to September, 2004, all tractor trailers were lying idle at CFS , Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai . The Corporationoperates Inland Clearance Depot at PatparGanj, on license being granted by the custom authorities , which license can be withdrawn or revoked at any stage . CFS at Kalamboli , Navi Mumbai , and I.C.Ds. at Surat, Udaipur, Rajkot and Raipur, were closed down when custom authorities terminated the license granted in favour ofthe Corporation. Work of handling containers at I.C.D. is variable and no fixed volume is guaranteed . Work undertaken at I.C.D. can neither be anticipated nor perennial in nature. Manual handling of cargo is not done by regular employees ofthe Corporation.

14. When facts testified by rival parties are appreciated, it came to light that at first instance claimants filed a civil suit, copy ofwhich plaint is Ex.MW1 /2. In that plaint it was projected that the claimants were recruited as drivers by the Corporation, after interview, screening test and verification of documents in November, 99 and sent for 10 days training at VIPL, Bangalore . It has also been detailed therein that initially the Corporation placed them under supervision of NFC . After successful completion of their training, they started working under NFC w.e.f. 19th ofDecember, 99. They were getting salary of Rs . 6000 PM, besides Rs.100 per day as food allowance . They were getting their salary from the contractor, namely, M/s . National Freight Careers . In October, 2003 , contractor handed over charge and responsibility of operating aforesaid vehicles to the Corporation. When contract of NFC was withdrawn the Corporation assured them that they would be absorbed in its service. Since October, 2003 to September, 2004 , the Corporation dealt with the claimants directly, whentractor trailers were lying idle at CFS, J.N.Ρ.Τ. , Navi Mumbai . It has also been mentioned in the plaint that on6-5-2006 when they approached the Corporation for payment of salary, they were asked to deposit keys and 13. Shri Tyagi unfolds that 10 volvo tractor trailers werepurchased from VIPL in 1999. On 19-11-99 an agreement was entered into between V.I.P.L. and the Corporation, [भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

registration documents of the vehicles and told that their services stand terminated . Writ petition, copy of which is Ex.MW1/3 , was filed in which petition too the claimants project that they were selected by the Corporation in Nov. , 1999 as drivers for operating Volvo tractor trailers . Their selection was done after proper interview, screening test and verification of documents . After their recruitment by the Corporation, they were sent to Bangalore for specialized training with V.I.P.L. On completion of their training, some kind of supervision over them was handed over to NFC . It wasunfolded in Ex. MW1 /3 that payment of Rs.6000 as wages and Rs.3000 PM as food allowance was made to them on vouchers through NFC . In September, 2004 , they were informedby the Corporation that they have been put onpermanentjob at C.F.S. , J.N.P.T. , Navi Mumbai . They continued to work up to 5th of May, 2006 .

15. Shri Buther argued that there is a specific admission by the claimants in civil suit as well as writ petition to the effect that their salaries were being paid by N.F.C. , the contractor. He agitates that the claimants project in the suit as well as writ petition that they were working under supervision of the contractor. He builds his case highlighting that as per their own admissions , claimants were working under supervision of the contractor, who was their employer . Their wages were being paid by the contractor. He attacks the stand taken in the claim statement arguing that a contradictory assertion has been made, when claimants claim to be employed by the Corporation. According to Shri Buther, facts admitted by the claimants in civil suit as well as writ petition would go to establish that they were employees of the contractor and not of the Corporation. In view of their admission, detailed above , the claimants cannot maintain a claim against the Corporation, argued Shri Buther. Arguments raised by Shri Buther are dispelled by Shri Rana .

16. Contents of Ex.MW 1/2 and Ex.MW1/3 make it clear that there is no dispute to the proposition that after their recruitment and training the claimant were placed under supervision of a contractor. Their wages were also disbursed by the contractor. Subsequent events pleaded in Ex.MW1 /2 and Ex.MW1/3 make their stand clear when theclaimants claim that from Oct. , 2003 to Sept. , 2004 , they were dealt directly by the Corporation, Assuming that the claimants were employees of the contractor , a proposition arises as to whether contract -labour can maintain a case for getting himself declared as an employee of the principle employer . For an answer to this proposition , the Tribunal has to take note of the law contained for section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation andAbolition) Act, 1970 ( in short the Contract Labour Act), which makes provision for prohibition of employment of contract labour. For sake of convenience provisions of section 10 of the Contract Labour Act are reproduced thus :

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in thisAct, the appropriate Government may, after

1441

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

consultationwith the Central Board or, as the case maybe, a State Board, prohibits by notification in the Official Gazette , employment ofcontract labour in any process , operation or other work in any establishment .

(2) Before issuing any notification under sub- section (1) inrelation to an establishment, the appropriate Government shall have regard to the conditions of work and benefits provided for the contract labour in that establishment and other relevant factors , such as

(a) whether the process , operation or other work is incidental to, or necessary for the industry, trade business , manufacture or occupation thatis carried on in the establishment;

(b) whether it is of perennial nature, that is to say, it is of sufficient duration having regard to the nature of industry, trade business , manufacture or occupation carried on in that establishment;

(d) whether it is sufficient to employ considerable number ofwholetime workmen.

Explanation-If a question arises whether any process or operation or other work is of perennial nature , the decision of the appropriate Government thereon shall be final .

17. As emerge out of the provisions of sub - section (1) ofsection 10 of the Contract LabourAct, the appropriate Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, prohibit employment of contract labour in any process , operation or other work in any establishment . When employment of contract labour is prohibited, by issuance of a notification in Official Gazette by the appropriate Government, what would be the status of the contract labour employed in the establishment . Such a question arose before the Apex Court in the precedent in Steel Authority of India Limited [2001 (7) S.C.C.IJ. The Apex Court ruled therein that there cannot be automatic absorption of contract labour by principal employer on issuance of notification by the appropriate Government on abolition of a contract labour, under sub - section (1 ) of Section 10 of theContract LabourAct, it would be expedient to reproduce the law laid by the Apex Court which is extracted thus:

"... the contract labours fall in three classes viz . (1 ) where contract labour is engaged in or in connection withthe work of an establishment and employment ofcontract labour is prohibited either because the industrial adjudicator/court ordered abolition of [PART I- SEC. 3 ( ii) ] 1442

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

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 .

contract labour or because the appropriate Government issued notification under Section 10(1) ofthe Contract Labour Act, no automatic absorption ofcontract 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 labourworking in the establishment of the principal employer were held , and in fact and in reality to be the employees ofthe 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 acanteen in an establishment the principal employer availed the services of the contractor. The courts have held that the contract labour would indeed be employees ofthe principal employer" .

19. As announced by the Apex Court, on issuance of a prohibitive notification, prohibiting employment of contract labour or otherwise in any industrial dispute brought before it by the contract labour in regard to conditions of his service , the industrial adjudicator will have to consider the question whether the contractor has been interposed either on the ground ofhaving undertalken to produce any given result in the establishment or for supply of the contract labour for the work of the establishment under a genuine contract or it is a merre ruse/camouflage to evade compliance of beneficial legislation so as to deprive the workers of the benefits , therein. Thus the Apex Court ruled that a contract labovar can raise a dispute before the industrial adjudicator in regard to his conditions of service and in case the contract is found to be not genuine but a mere camouflage, tlave so called contract labour will have to be treated as employees ofthe principal employer . The law laid by the Apex Court makes it clear that a contract labour can maintain an in Justrial dispute against the principal employer, in regard to his service conditions and genuineness of the contract , awarded to a contractor. The contractor may be a formal party but not a necessary party. Therefore, a contract labour can raise an industrial dispute against the 'principal employer for getting the contract declared as shar , or bogus . Consequently it cannot be said that a contract lab our cannot maintain an industrial dispute against the principal employer, without impleading the contractor as a party. Contention advanced by Shri Buther are brashed aside, accordingly.

20:Out of facts unfolded by the claimants , w'nich are not dispelled by the Corporation , it emerge over the record that in November , 1999, 10 tractor trailers were purchased from V.I.P.L. Those tractor trailers were to be driven by specially trained drivers . Claimants were sent to Bangalore for training. After necessary training, Jaimants were put on job to drive those tractor trailers . The Corporation projects that it awarded contract to V.AP.L. which contract is Ex . MW1/5 . Perusal ofEx. MW1 / 5 r /-affirms that 10 tractor trailers were purchased by thie Corporation for transportation work . V.I.P.L. agreed to run these tractor trailers with experienced staff trained by them and to maintain , repair and replace worri out part of those tractor trailers for an initial period of five years . Consequently Ex. MW1 /5 bring it to the light of the day that V.I.P.L. agreed to run and maintain aforesaid tractor trailers for a period of five years . Shri Tyagi admits in his cross examination that on change of contractor, tractor trailers were handed over to the new contractor. One may put emphasis on the proposition that those tractor trailers were to be driven by specially trained drivers , who were the claimants . Therefore, by his admission . Shri Tyagi projects that when tractor 18. 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 ofthe 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 ofthe 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 ofprohibitive notification under Section 10 ofthe 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 ofhaving 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 thereunder. Ifthe 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 1443 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

trailers were handed over to the new contractor, services of the claimants were engaged by that new contractor.

However, the said proposition does not get support from any cogent evidence, direct or circumstantial . On the other hand a proposition , to the effect that the claimants were employed by the Corporation, emerge over the record out of the documents which are considered herein below:

Uran , P.O. Vokarveera, Distt . Rai Garh , New Mumbai , had sent a sum ofRs . 1000 to Brij Gopal Sharma . This document portraits that Kundan Singh was residing in a room at 5 CWC building, located at Uran, Distt . Rai Garh , New Mumbai . In the same manner Ex. WW1 / 160 is a photo copy ofmoney order receipt for a sum of Rs . 2000 sent by Kundan Singh to Shri Satish Nagar. In the same manner another sum ofRs . 1000 was sent by Kundan Singh to Satish Nagar, which amount was received by the letter on 29th of July, 2005.These documents go to establish that Kundan Singh was residing in room No.7, Second floor, 5 CWC building, located at Uran, District Rai Garh, Navi Mumbai . Claimants project that the said building belongs to the Corporation , which proposition has not been dispelled . Therefore, these money order receipts highlight that the claimants were allotted rooms in a building owned by the corporation .As projected by the claimants , in October, 2003 contractor handed over vehicles to the Corporation. Since October, 2003 till September , 2004, vehicles remained idle, parked at CFS , Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai . The Corporation does not detail that as to who was the contractor during that period, when vehicles remained idle atCFS , Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai . It is also not projected as to in whose possession keys and registration documents of these vehicles remained for the period referred above . On the other hand the claimants assert that the vehicles and its registration documents were in their possession .

21. Ex.WW1 /10 is an application addressed by claimant Ram Kumar to the Manager, I.C.D. Patparganj , Delhi , but handed over to the Manager , I.C.D. , Kondli, wherein it has been detailed that the author of the application was in need , of money. It emerges out of Ex. WW1/10 that when Ram Kumar ran short of money to fuel the vehicle and meet other expenses , he made a request to the Manager , I.C.D. , Kondli , who consulted the Manager , I.C.D. , Patparganj on telephone and thereafter paid a sum ofRs . 1800 to Shri Ram Kumar. In the same manner document dated 10-1-2006 was relied by the claimant, on the strength ofwhich a claim for a payment of Rs . 19021 was presented to Manager, ICD, Patparganj , Delhi . On perusal of that document it came to light that Ram Kumar spent money for refueling the vehicle and on other expenses including penalty charges . Details submitted by Ram Kumar were considered and on 31st of January, 2006 Manager I.C.D. , Patparganj sanctioned the amount in his favour. Ex .WW1 / 13 is a bill presented by Shri Kundan Singh for payment to Manager , I.C.D. , Patparganj , Delhi , wherein money spent on refueling the vehicle , repairs . payment of penalty and sundry expenses were detailed . Manager, ICD, Patparganj , considered his request and sanctioned a sum of Rs . 22938 in favour ofKundan Singh and Ramvir Sharma. Ex. WW1 /14 is a receipt issued by driver Maruti Patil when a sum of Rs.15000 was handed over to him by Manager, I.C.D. , Patparganj , for enroute expenses for playing of vehicle bearing registration No. HR55-2095. Ex . WW1 / 16 is a letter written byMaruti Patil requesting Manager, I.C.D. , Kundli , for payment of some money to him . An order was passed on that application for payment of a sum ofRs . 1800, as per instruction of the Manager, I.C.D. , Patparganj . Ex. WW1 / 17 is a letter written by Dy. General Managerto Regional Manager of the Corporation at Jaipur, mentioning therein thata sum ofRs . 6000 was paid to Volvo driver Ram Bachan on 15-12-2005 to meet enroute expenses for two vehicles . On 31-1-2006 an advance amount of Rs . 15000 was paid to Shri Maruti Patil, driver of vehicle No. HR-55-2098 , by Manager , I.C.D. , Patparganj for enroute expenses . Ex.WW1/ M5 is a document through which drivers were informed as to whom they were to contact at Bangalore . Office address of VIPL at Bangalore, besides telephone numbers of the contractor were detailed in this document . This document was written on letter head of the Corporation and given to the claimants .

22. Ex.WW1 /18 is a photo copy of money order receipt . Thisdocument projects that Kundan Singh , Volvo driver residing at room No.7, Second floor , 5 CWC building,

23. Claimants project that when contractor handed over his responsibility to the Corporation, vehicles remained in their charge . No evidence has been brought over the record to the effect that when a new contractor was assigned job of plying these vehicles , he approached the claimants and engaged them . Out of facts brought over the record it is evident that as and when contractor changed, the claimants continued working with the Corporation. All these facts raise an issue as to whether the claimants were under complete control of the Corporation. For an answer to this proposition, it is to be seen whether the control was exercised and if yes where was the right of control . A distinction is to be drawn between the physical control and the right to control . Various considerations , such as the nature of the undertaking,, freedom of action , given magnitude of the work taken from the claimants , contract amount to be paid, manner in which it was paid, the power of dismissal or circumstances in which the period of reward may be withheld bear on the solution of the question . As brought over the record, the Corporation paid enroute expenses , fuel expenses , toll tax amount, penalty imposed by the authorities on enroute and miscellaneous expenses incurred by the claimants . Though the claimants admit in plaint Ex. MW1 /2 and writ petition EX. MW 1/3 that they were placed under supervision of National Freight Career, yet it has been brought over the record that it was the Corporation 334GI /11-44 [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1444

who used to pay them in case of exigencies and allotted them residential accommodation at Uran, District Rai Garh, Navi Mumbai. The Corporation projects that expenses paid to them were to be reimbursed by the contractor. This proposition does not get confirmation from evidence brought over the record. Payments were made by the Corporation to the claimants even on the dates when contract ofV.I.P.L. came to an end . The Corporation could not establish as to who was the contractor from October , 2003 till September, 2004, when vehicles were lying idle, parked at C.F.S. , Jawahar Lal Nehru Port Trust, Navi Mumbai. It has not been brought over the record as to how claimants remained in possession ofkeys and registration documents of the vehicles for that period. It is also not explained as to how claimants were in possession of keys and registration documents of the vehicles in May, 2006, when there was no contractor to carry out job of transportation of containers for the Corporation.

25.Arrangement in the form of Ex.MW1 /5 provides thatVIPL has agreed to run tractor trailers with experienced staff trained by it and carry out day to day maintenance including repairs , replacement ofworn out/defective/broken parts, to keep equipments in good working condition for aninitial period of five years . This document makes it clear that VIPL was having its registered office at Bangalore, while the Corporation was having its registered office here atAugust Kranti Marg , New Delhi . Claimants are residents ofvillage Gajipur, Delhi, Trilok Puri, Delhi, West Sanwal Pur New Delhi , Village Meethapur Delhi, Nehru Camp Patparganj , Delhi and Sodhakpur Faridabad . These facts make it clear that the claimants were engaged here in Delhi and not at Bangalore . Though the Corporation has placed agreement Ex.MW1/ 5 over the record, yet no document is put forward to show that the claimants were engaged by VIPL, through NFC. VIPL ought to have engaged persons residing in near vicinity of Bangalore City, when it was to engagetrained drivers on tractor trailers . The Corporation has left a vacuume of evidence on the issue as to when and through whom VIPL used to make payment of wages to the claimants . Who paid wages to these claimants . When vehicles were lying idle from October , 2003 to September, 2004, no evidence was adduced on that issue by the Corporation. How, claimants were allotted room(s ) in a building of the Corporation, an eerie silence has been maintained in that regard . No evidence was put forward to show as to how claimants could get employment with new contractor , as and when agreement of old contractor came to an end. No evidence is there on that issue as to how claimants were in possession of keys and registration documents of the vehicles in May, 2006, when there was no contractor to carry out transportation job . Vacuume of evidence on these issues could show that intentionally the Corporation had withheld the best possible evidence . Documents, proved by the claimants, on the strength of which they were sent to Bangalore for training, enroute expenses were given to them, money was paid to them as and when they fell short of it , during the course ofjourney and allotment of residential accommodation in a building ofthe Corporation bring it over the record that the claimants were working under control and supervision of the Corporation . These shades of evidence make me to comment that the arrangement in the form of Ex.MW1 /5 was sham and bogus, created with a view to provide smoke screen in between. It was the Corporation who was real employer and the contractor was interposed in between with a view to avoid legal liability, in respect of the employment given to the claimants . I am constrained to conclude that there was direct employer and employee relationship between the claimants and the Corporation and veil created by the Corporation could not last any longer. Precedent in International Airport Authority of India [2009 (IV) L.L.J. 31 ] does not come to rescue of the Corporation, on account of distinct and different facts of thepresent controversy. Proposition raised in the first limb 24. Contract agreement Ex. MW1 /5 fastens a liability toundertake 66trips from I.C.D. Patparganj to Mumbai for transportation of containers . It has been claimed by the Corporation that the claimants were employed as drivers bythe contractor. However a blank has been drawn as to whoused to assign work to the claimants . Claimants agitate that they used to visit I.C.D. Patparganj where tractor trailers were filed with the containers . It is not a disputed proposition that at I.C.D. Patparganj no employee of the contractor used to remain present to assign work to the claimants . Therefore, it is emerging over the record that the containers were loaded on tractor trailers by the employees ofthe Corporation. It is evident that magnitude of the work was decided by the Corporation. How many containers were to be transported and by whom, it was to be decided by authorities of the Corporation . At C.F.S. , JNPT, Navi Mumbai , same situation prevailed. Therefore, it crystalises thatmagnitude of the work was decided by the Corporation and its employees used to assign job to the claimants for transportation of containers from one destination to another On some points evidence is deficient since claimant failed to establish as to who paid their wages when there was no contractor. Documents relating to payment of wages were in possession of the contractor or the Corporation . Claimants were having no control over those documents . It is not expected of them to produce documentary evidence, to substantiate ocular facts unfolded by them. Therefore, beads of circumstances presented by the claimants go to establish that it was the Corporation who used to exceraze supervision and control over the claimants . Undoubtedly it stood established that it was the Corporation who was in a position to decide fate of the claimants . The claimants were in their power and control . The Corporation was the real authority to decide magnitude of the work, payment made to the claimants and their continuity in service . Consequently, not only right to control but actual control over acts and duties of the claimants vested with the Corporation.

1445 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23 , 1932

of the order of reference is answered in favour of the claimants and against the Corporation.

supervision of a contractor, after their engagement by the Corporation. Hence it is evident that the case projectedby the claimants is clear, when they plead that after their engagement a contractor was interposed . Pleadings of the parties are specific , without any ambiguity. While adjudicating the issue in preceding sections and articulating that the arrangement ofinterposing a contractor was sham and bogus , the Tribunal has not made a new case for the claimants . Therefore , the precedent relied by the Corporation nowhere come to its rescue, since facts of the present controversy are distinct and different than one raised before the Apex Court . Contention advanced by Shri Buther is , therefore, brushed aside.

27.At the cost ofrepetition, it is said that the claimants had deposed that they joined services of the Corporation inNovember, 1999. They were sent for training to Bangalore. After training they were deputed to work as drivers on tractor trailers , purchased by the Corporation from VIPL . They served the Corporation upto 6th of May, 2006 , the date when their services were terminated without service of any notice. On that issue the Corporation claimed that they were employees of the contractor. However , it was not disputed that the claimants worked on tractor trailers from November, 1999 till 6th ofMay, 2006 .

28. Out of facts so projected, it is emerging that the claimants rendered continuous service with the Corporation for a considerable long time . Continuous Service has been defined by section 25-B ofthe Act. Under sub - section ( 1 ) of the said section, " continuous service for a period" may comprise oftwo period viz. ( i) uniterrupted 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 ofwork that is not due to any fault on the part of the workman . shall be included in the "continuous service ." Sub- section (2) ofthe 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 ifhe has actually worked for the days specified in clauses (a) and (b) thereof. In Vijay KumarMajoo (1968 Lab.I.C.1180) it was held that oneyear's period contemplated by sub- section (2) furnished a unit of measure and if during that unit of measure the period of service actually rendered by the workman is 240 days , then he can be considered to have rendered one year's continuous service for the purpose of the section. The Idea is that ifwithin 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. Consequently, an enquiry has to be made to find out whether the claimants have actually worked for not less than 240 days during a period of12 calendar months immediately preceding the date of their retrenchment .

26. Shri Buther raised a submission that in the claim statement it was not pleaded that the contract awarded by the Corporation to VIPL was sham and bogus . According tohim without a pleading on that issue this Tribunal cannot make out a new case for the claimants . He agitates that in view of the law laid in Steel Authority of India [ 2006 (III ) LLJ 1037] when a contention is raised that the contract entered into by and between the Corporation and the contractor is sham one , only than this Tribunal would be entitled to determine that issue. He agitates that when there is no pleading to that effect in the claim statement , the reference is liable to be discarded and this Tribunal would have nojurisdiction to entertain it. Reliance has been placed by him on a precedent in Steel Authority of India Limited [2009 ( 1 ) LLJ 241 ] . Issue raised by Shri Buther has been disputed on behalf of the claimants . To answer the submissions made by Shri Buther, it is expedient to recapitulate the issues once again . As detailed in the order ofreference, the appropriate Government sent a proposition as to whether there existed employer employee relationship between the Corporation and the claimants . No issue was sent by the appropriate Government for adjudication whether the claimants can be absorbed in the services of the Corporation, when a notification was issued by the appropriate Government under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 ofthe Contract Labour Act, prohibiting employment of contract labour in certainjobs . Therefore, the parties were to plead facts for adjudication of the issues so referred and the claimants assert, "they have worked directly and indirectly in the institution of the respondents as their employces since 1999 for driving Volvo vehicles" . In civil suit Ex.MW 1/2 and writ petition Ex.MW1 /3 the claimants plead that they were placed under supervision of the National Freigt Careers . However, in the plaint as well as the writ petition it was asserted that they were employed bythe Corporation . Therefore, in the pleadings the claimants have not put forward a case that they were employed by a contractorandthe Corporation was their principal employer. Their case has been that they were engaged by the Corporation and subsequently they were placed under supervision of a contractor. The Corporation presents a case that there was an agreement between it and VIPL on the strength of which agreement the latter was to provide services to run, operate , supervise, manage and maintain tractor trailers on agreed lump sum amount payable per . round . It has further been pleaded that the claimants were employed by the contractor. Consequently it is emerging over the record that the claim projected by the claimants is that they were employees of the Corporation and a contractor was interposed in between . On the other hand an issue was raised by the Corporation that the claimants were employees of the contractor . The claimants detail in plaint as well as writ petition that they were placed under

29. FromNovember, 1999 till 6th ofMay, 2006, the [PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1446

32. Claimants deposed that their services were terminated by the Corporation on 6-5-2006 without any notice. They further declare that their earned wages were not paid out of facts unfolded by the claimants , it stand crystalised that neither notice nor pay in lieu thereof nor retrenchment compensation was paid by the Corporation to the claimants . Therefore , their retrenchment is violative ofthe provisions of section 25- F of theAct.

claimants rendered services to the Corporation . No iota of fact was produced to dispel this proposition . Therefore, it is evident that services rendered by the claimants to the Corporation were for a period of more than 240 days in every calendar year, preceding 6th May, 2006. In light of facts noted above, it would be considered as to whether disengagement of claimants amount to retrenchment . Retrenchment has been defined by clause (oo) of section 2 ofthe Act, as follows:

"(OO) "retrenchment " means the termination by the employer of the service of a workman for any reason whatsoever , otherwise than as a punishment inflicted by way of disciplinary action but does not include

(a) voluntary retirement of the workman; or

33. Services ofthe workmen were retrenched without payment ofnotice pay, and retrenchment compensation. It is well settled that in a case of wrongful retrenchment , dismissal or discharge . the normal rule is to award reinstatement . But where a case falls in any of the exception to general rule, the industrial adjudicator has discretion to award reasonable and adequate compensation, in lieu of re- instatement . Section 11A of the Act vests the industrial adjudicator with discretionary jurisdiction to give " such other relief to the workman " in lieu ofdischarge or dismissal as' the circumstances of the case may require, where for some valid reasons it considers ' that reinstatement with or without conditions will not be fair or proper.

(b) retirement ofthe workman on reaching the age of superannuation if the contract of employment between the employer and the workman concerned contains a stipulation in that behalf; or

34. In Uma Devi [2006 (4) SCC I ] the Apex Court considered the proposition as to whether the persons who got employment, without following of a regular procedure or even from the back door or on daily wages can be ordered to be made permanent in their posts , to prevent regular recruitmentto the posts concerned. Catena of decisions over the subject were considered and the court declined the submissions of the workmen to be made permanent on the posts which were held by them in temporary or ad- hoc capacity for a fairly long spell . The Court ruled thus:

30. It is not the case that the claimants reached the ages of superannuation or they sought voluntary retirement . No evidence was brought to show that they were employed for a fixed term of contract and their services came to an end onnon- renewal of contract of employment . It was not asserted that their services were terminated on the ground ofcontinued ill- health . Thus it is obvious that termination of services ofthe claimants , for any other reason . amounts to retrenchment, as defined by clause (oo ) of section 2 of theAct.

"With respect , why should the State be allowed to depart from the normal rule and indulge in temporary employment in permanent posts ? This Court, in our view , is bound to insists on the State making regular and proper recruitments , and is bound not to encourage or shut its eyes to the presistent transgression of the rules of regular recruitment . The direction to make permanent- the distinction between regularization and making permanent . was not emphasized here - can only encourage the State , the model employer, to flout its own rules and would confer undue benefits on , a few at the cost of many waiting to compete . With respect the directions made in Piara Singh [1992(4) SCC 118 ] is to some extent inconsistent with the conclusion in para 45 of the said judgement therein . With great respect, it appears to us that the last of the directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision. Really, it cannot be said that this decision has laid down the law that all ad -hoc , temporary or casual employees engaged without following 31. The claimants had rendered continuous service ofmore than six years . as contemplated by section 25 - B of the Act. Thus project that their services were dispensed with from May, 2006. According to them retrenchment compensation was not paid. which fact was not dispelled by the Corporation . The Corporation was under an obligation to pay them compensation for retrenchment . at the time oftheir retrenchment. Payment of retrenchment compensation is a condition precedent to a valid order of retrenchment. Precedents in Bombay Union of Journalists [1964 (1 ) LLJ 351 ] . Adaishwar Laal (1970 Lab.I.C.936) and B.M.Gupta [ 1979 (1 ) LLJ 168 ] announce that subsequent payment ofcompensation can not validate an invalid order ofretrenchment .

1447 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

a regular recruitment procedure should be made permanent" .

35. In P.Chandra Shekhara Rao and Others [2006 (7) SCC 488 ] theApex Court referred Uma Devi's Case (Supra) with approval. It also relied the decision in a Uma Rani [2004 ( 7) SCC 112 ] and ruled that no regularization is permissible in exercise of statutory powers conferred in Article 162 of the Constitution, if the appointments have been made in contravention of the statutory rules . In Somveer Singh [ 2006 (5) SCC 493 ] the Apex Court ruled that appointment made without following due procedure cannotbe regularized. In Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd. [ 2007 (1 ) SCC 408 ] the Apex Court reiterated the law and announced that the rules of recruitment can not be relaxed and court can not direct regularisation of temporary employees dehors the rules , nor can it direct continuation ofservice of a temporary employee (whether called a casual , ad-hoc or daily rated employee) or payment of regular salaries to them .

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

27-11-99 . the date when he was sent to Bangalore for training. He could not spell as to whether any interview letter was issued in his favour or not . Kundan Singh also recites the events in the same vein, detailing that a notice was displayed at notice board of I.C.D. Tuglakabad . According to him no interview letter was issued in his favour. However, he claims that he was interviewed and appointed . Shri Ram Kumar deposed that he came to know about vacancies ofdriver with the Corporation from Rambir. Hewas interviewed and sent to Bangalore for training . He feigned ignorance on the propositions as to whether an application was moved by him for his appointment as driver . Shri Rambir Singh also claims to be interviewed here in Delhi around 20-11-99. He concedes that no interview letter was issued in his favour . Gaya Baksh also projects those very facts . Thus out of facts unfolded by the claimants it emerge over the record that they could not establish that vacancies were advertised by the Corporation for appointment ofdriver. None ofthem claim to have submitted an application for appointment as driver. They simply project that they tendered their bio - data(s ) and were interviewed for the post. According to them they reached ICD. Tuglakabad, on a date of their convenience and choice, where they were interviewed and appointed. No inland clearance depot is /or was run by the Corporation at Tuglakabad, deposes Shri Tyagi . His evidence on that fact remained unassoiled. Thus it is emerging that the claimants coined a story of submitting applications at ICD Tuglakabad, facing an interview there and got appointment asdrivers . Display of a notice at ICD Tuglakabad for recruitment ofdrivers is a fact which is contrary to ordinary course of events , since absence of inland clearance depot at Tuglakabad robes away veracity of those facts . Admittedly no post of tractor trailer driver was available withthe Corporation. Hence engagement of the claimant asdriver(s) by the Corporation can not be said to be in consonance with recruitment rules . Thus it is emerging over the record that no regular procedure for recruitment ofclaimants as driver( s) was followed . Their engagement was dehors the recruitment rules . Hence their reinstatement inservicewould amount. to back-door entry in Government job .

38.At the cast of repetition, it is concluded that the claimants were engaged by the Corporation dehors the recruitment rules . In view of their wrongful employment, there is no justification for their reinstatement in the service ofthe corporation. In the alternative, this Tribunal has to award compensation to the workmen in lieu of their reinstatement. No definite yardstick for measuring the quantum ofcompensation is available. In S.S.Shetty [ 1957 (11 ) LLJ 696] theApex Court indicated some relevant factors which an adjudicator has to take into account in computing compensation in lieu of reinstatement, in the following words:

37. Claimants project that a notice was displayedat I.C.D. Tuglakabad detailing that drivers were required by the Corporation. Rambir Sharma unfolds on that issue that he read an advertisement published in "HindustanTimes" and applied for the post of driver. He went on to depose that a notice was also displayed at I.C.D. Tuglakabad, New Delhi . However, he concedes that no interview letter was issued in his favour . He detailed that he used to visit officeofthe Corporation to enquire about his appointment . Aletter was given to him, deputing him to Bangalore for training. On that issue Ram Bachan Singh announced that he reached I.C.D. Tuglakabad, where he was interviewed and appointed . His interview was taken a week prior to [PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

1448

"The Industrial Tribunal would have to take into account the terms and conditions of employment, thetenure of service, the possibility oftermination ofthe employment at the instance ofeither party, the possibility of retrenchment by the employer or resignation or retirement by the workman and evenofthe employer himself ceasing to exist or ofthe 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 ofthe 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, ofcourse in mind all the relevant factors pro and con" .

awarded by the Industrial Tribunal was reduced by the Supreme Court to an amount equivalent to one year salary ofthe 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 ofher 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 Chakaraborty [ 1962 ( 11 ) LLJ 483] the Count convertedthe award of reinstatement into compensation of a sum of Rs.50000 as just and fair compensation in full satisfaction ofall his claims for wrongful dismissal from service . In O.P. Bhandari [ 1986 ( 11 ) 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% ofwhat would otherwise be payable to the employee . In Yashveer Singh (1993 Lab.I.C.44) the court directed payment of Rs.75000 in view ofreinstatement with back wages . In Naval Kishor [ 1984 ( 11 ) LLJ 473 ] the Apex Court observed that in view of the special circumstances of the case adequate compensation would be in the interest ofthe appellant. A sum of Rs.2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement . In Sant Raj [ 1985 (11 ) LLJ 19] a sum ofRs . 2 lac was awarded as compensation in lieu of reinstatement. In Chandu Lal (1985 Lab.I.C.12225 ) a compensation of Rs. 2 lac by way ofback wages in lieu of reinstatement was awarded . In Ras Bihari (1988 Lab.I.C.107) a compensation ofRs.65000 was granted in lieu ofreinstatement, 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 .

39. A Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court in B.Choudhary Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court , Jamshedpur ( 1983 ) Lab.1.1755 ( 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 the job with future prospect and obtainability of alternative employment; (iii) employee's age (iv) Length of service in the establishment (v) capacity ofthe employer to pay and the nature of the employer's business ( vi ) gainful employment in mitigation of damages ; and (viii ) 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 ofthe Tribunal. Reference can be made to Tabesh Process, Shivakashi (1989 Lab . I.C.1887) .

41. Claimants rendered more than six years service to the Corporation. Ranbir Sharma, Ram Bachan Chaunhan, Ram Karan are in their mid thirtees while Manoj Kumar Sharma is aged about 30 years . Karan Singh has reached 50years ofage, Ram Kumar is 56 years old, while Rambir Singh is 44years old as on date. None of them could get any job, as deposed by them. Other claimants are also sailing in the same boat . Taking into consideration the fact that specialized training was accorded to the claimants to run tractor trailers and the period of service rendered by them to the Corporation, I think it expedient that compensation to the tune ofrupees three lacs each to Ranbir Sharma, Ram Bachan Chauhan, Ram Karan and Manoj Kumar Sharma would be adequate amount for them to settle in life , while a sum of rupees two lacs each for remaining claimants would meet ends ofjustice, in lieu of their reinstatement in service . Lesser amount of compensation is awarded to remaining claimants since they have almost played their innings in life and would have served the Corporation for a considerable lesser period 40. InAssam Oil Co. Ltd. [ 1960 (1 ) LLJ 587] theApex 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 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

1449

For the Workmen :

Shri M.M. Khan, Advocate.

State : Jharkhand .

Industry: Coal.

Dated, the 31st December, 2010.

AWARD

than Ranbir Sharma, Ram Bachan Chauhan, Ram Karan and Manoj Kumar Sharma, in case termination order had not come into operation. Accordingly the Corporation is commended to pay compensation to the claimants as quantified above, in lieu of reinstatement of their services . An award is, accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriateGovernment for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 30-11-2010

नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2011

ByOrder No. 20012/392/2000-(C- I) dated 12-1-2001 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- sec. (1) and sub- sec. (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 in determining the date ofbirth ofSri Shankar Nodak as 1-7-50 instead of 1-7-56 is justified ? Ifnot, to what reliefis the workman entitled ?"

का.आ. 473.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी. सी. सी.एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय नं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 11/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-20012/392/2000- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 20th January, 2011

2. The case of the concerned workman, in brief, is that he was given employment as land looser vide appointment letter No. N/PST/62 dated 9-7-1962. He was working as such and was issued identity card in 1977 showing his date of birth as 31 years as on 1-1-77. The workman was medically examined before his employment inthe company in 1962. The management prepared service excerpt on 7-6-87 entering wrong date ofbirth as 1-7-1941. This was objected to by the concerned workman inwriting on17-8-87. It is very funny that the management accepted the date ofbirth recorded as 1-7-56 as per school certificate which was produced at the time of his joining .

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble be graciously pass an award in favour of the workman by directing the management to accept the date of birth of the concerned workmen as 1-7-1956 instead of1-7-1950.

S.O. 473. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No 11/2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court- 1, Dhanbad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s . B.C.C.L. and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-1-2011 .

[No. L-20012/392/2000- IR(C- I) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO . 1AT DHANBAD

In the matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act. 1947

Reference No. 11 of2001

3. The case ofthe management, in brief, is that the date ofbirth ofthe concerned workman as recorded in form 'B' Register maintained under sec. 48 of the Mines Act and Rules is 1-7-1950. In the year 1987 the management issued service excerpts to all the employees including the concerned workman giving them opportunity to submit their representations , if any, for reviewing any particular recorded in the service record, if the same was according to that concerned person was incorrect. The concerned workman was also served with service excerpt indicating his date of birth as 1-7-1950, but he did not raise any objection regarding recorded date ofbirth in the company's record.

Parties : Employers in relation to the Managerment of Patherdih Colliery ofM/ s . BCCL

AND

Their Workmen

Present: Shri H.M. Singh, Presiding Officer.

APPERANCES :

In view of the above, the managemnt has prayed before this Tribunal to answer the reference in favour of themanagement holding that the action of the management in determining the date ofbirth ofthe concerned workman as1-7-50 instead of 1-7-56 and the concerned workman is not entitled to get any relief.

Forthe Employers : Shri B.N. Prasad,Advocate.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of [PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

1450

the paragraphs of each other's written statements .

and School Leaving Certificate shows that his date ofbirth is1-7-56 . So whether this 1-7-50 is correct it has not been explainedby themanagement. In Ext. M- 1 Form 'B' Register the concerned workman also signed . It shows that he is literate person and his date of birth should have been 1-7-56 as per School Leaving Certificate. Moreover, this date of birth has been mentioned in Identity Card issued byN.C.D.C. as per Ext. W-2 and also in Health Card as per Ext. W-4.

5. In the above reference case an award was passed on 10-8-2009 in favour ofthe management. Being aggrieved with the award the concerned workman filed a writ petition beforeHon'ble High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi . InW.P. (L) No. 1332 of 2010 the Hon'ble High Court passed an order on 18-8-2010 by remanding back the matter to this Tribunal for re-hearing the matter afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties and to pass a fresh award in accordance with law.

8.Theconcerned workman has referred (2009) I SCC 80 inwhich Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down-

"Service Law-Age-Date ofbirth-Correction ofentry-Time- limit-No time- frame prescribed in rules-Appellent applying for correction immediatelyhe came to know the mistake-There was still a period of about four years before appellant was to retire on the basis of his uncorrected date of birth-Held, his request for correction should have received favourable consideration.

B. Service Law-Age-Date ofbirth-Correction of entry-emplloyer's mistake due to which appellant shown as much older than his actual age-There was evidence on record to show that mistake occurred because there were two persons with the same name-There was also evidence (school leaving certificate) to ascertain appelant's actual date ofbirth-held, mistake ought to have been rectified .

C. Service Law-Age-Date ofbirth-Correction of entryNatural justice-Documents of two employees with same name getting mixed up, with the result that younger employee (appellant shown as older and older shown as younger-appellant applying for correction-Held, opportunity to show cause was necessary in the case of other employee but not in case of appellant. " 6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concernedworkman is that actually his date of birth from School Leaving Certificate which has been issued on 5-1-68, is 1-7-1956. In this respect the concerned workman hasreferred 2007(3 ) JLJR 726 in which Hon'ble Jharkhand HighCourt laiddown that as per implementation Instruction No.76 ofNational Coal Wage Agreement- III between the company and the unions it has decided that in the School Leaving Certificate age be given priority and it should be the date of birth of the concerned workman which finds place in School Leaving Certificate . Another argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman that the National Coal Development Corporation Ltd. also issued Identity Card inwhich his date ofbirth has been mentioned as 1-7-1956 and also in family health card issued by BCCL on 17-2-1987 his age has been mentioned as 31 years which comes his date ofbirth as 1-7-1956 . There was explosion in shaft mines , Sudamdih in the year 1976 Form B Register was seized by the DGMS for production before the court ofenquiry and the same was not returned. The management has not taken care to get back the same from DGMS . It has beenargued that his date ofbirth has been changed behind theback ofthe workman without giving notice before such change which is not legal.

9. Considering the facts and circumstances it shows that the concerned workman has filed school leaving certificate in which his date of birth has been mentioned as 1-7-56 as per Ext . W- 1 , Identity Card issued by National CoalDevelopment Corporation in which his date ofbirth has been mentioned as 1-7-56, as per Ext.W- 2 . The concernedworkman is a literate person and in Health Card, Ext. W-4 , his age has been shown as 31 years on 17-2-87.

The concerned workman has filed documents , Ext. W-2 which shows Identity Card which has been issued by National Coal Development Corporation, his date of birth has been mentioned as 1-7-56 and as per Ext. W- 5 which is service excerpt which shows that his date ofbirth is1-7-56 and Educational qualificaiton shows that he was 5th Class educated. As per School Leaving Certificate his date ofbirth has been mentioned , as per Ext. W- 1 as 1-7-56 and as per Ext. W- 4 Health Card his age has been shown 31 years on 17-2-87. When the concerned workman is literate personthen his age must be mentioned giving date ofbirth whichhas been mentioned in the School Leaving Certificate as per Implementation Instruction No. 76 ofNational Coal WageAgreement.

10. In view of the above facts and evidence it shows that the date ofbirth of the concerned workman is 1-7-56 . So , the action of the management in determining the date ofbirth of the concerned workman, Shankar Modak, as 1-7-50 instead of 1-7-56 is not justified . The management is directed to correct the date of birth of the concerned workman as 1-7-1956 instead of 1-7-1950 within 30 days from the date ofpublication of theAward.

This is myAward.

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer 7. In this respect the management's representative argued that Form' B ' Register is statutory register in which the date ofbirth cannot be changed in any circumstances . In Form 'B' Register the concerned workman's date ofbirth has been mentioned as 1-7-50 , but this Ext. M- 1 shows that the concernedworkman is literate person, he has signed it [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12 , 2011 / माघ 23 , 1932

1451 नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2011

sec. (1) and sub-sec . (2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

का, आ. 474.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बी.सी.सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , सं. 1 , धनबाद के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 28/99) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

"Whether the action of the management of Ram Kanali Colliery of M/s . B.C.C. Ltd. in dismissing Sri SurendraBeklar, M/Loader w.e.f. 7/9-9-96 only onthe ground of unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f. 2-3-96 under clause 26-1-1 of Certified Standing Order of the Company is justified? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

[सं. एल-20012/232/98- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 20th January, 2011

S.O. 474. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 28/99) 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 20-1-2011.

[No. L-20012/232/98- IR(C- I)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL No. 1 DHANBAD

Inthe matter of a reference U/s . 10(1) (d)(2A) of L.D. Act, 1947

Reference No. 28 of1999

Parties : Employers in relation to the Management of Ram Kanali Colliery of M/s . B.C.C.Ltd.

AND TheirWorkmen

2.Written statement has been filed on behalfofthe concerned workman stating that the concerned workman had been performing work of minor/loader since 31-7- 1991 at Ram Kanali Colliery as a permanent workman . Since the date ofhis joining at Ram Kanali Colliery he had been regularly attending his duty after comming from his quarter situated 25 km far from his place ofduty. He several time represented before the management to allot quarter at Ram Kanali Colliery or to transfer him at near by his quarter, but without any effect. All of a sudden in the year 1992 the concerned workman became serious due to verious kind of disease. He was initially treated under a localDoctor.When he was not cured his family members rushed to specialised Doctor at Ranchi for his treatment and since then he had been regularly getting treatment of that very specalised Doctor. The management was informed about his illness from time to time . But inspite of thatthe management had issued charge- sheet . Thereafter an enquiry was conducted by the management through its Enquiry Officer without following rule ofnatural justice. Onthe basis of perverse enquiry he was dismissed from the service of the management . Neither he was supplied with enquiry report nor issued second show - cause before order ofpunishment. Thereafter an industrial dispute was raised before the A.L.C. (C) , Dhanbad which ended in failure and the present reference is the out come of that dispute.

Present:

Shri H. M. Singh, PresidingOfficer.

Apperances:

Forthe Employers : Shri H. Nath, Advocate.

Under the facts and circumstances stated above, it has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award setting aside the order of dismissal and directing the management to reinstate the concerned workman with full back wages and other benefits .

For the Workman :

Shri N.G Arun, Treasurer, Rashtriya Colliery Mazdoor

Sangh .

State : Jharkhand .

Industry:Coal.

Dated, the 31st December, 2010.

AWARD

ByOrderNo. L- 20012/232/98- IR (C- I)dated29-1-1999 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub-

3. Written statement has been filed by the management stating that the concerned workman was working as Loader in 2 Seam at Ram Kanali Colliery. He absented from duty from 3-2-96 without intimation and for this unauthorised absence he was issued charge-sheet by themanagement vide order dated 16-3-96 and he was asked tosubmit reply. He submitted his reply on 25-5-96 which was not found satisfactory by the management . Accordingly Shri S. N. Dubey was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Shri S. N. Pandey was appointed as management's representative to conduct the enquiry . The 334Gl /11-45 [PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA: FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23, 1932

1452

Euquiry Officer issued several notices to the workman to attend the enquiry on the date fixed. Ultimately, the workman attended enquiry on 5-8-96 and fully participated in the enquiry. He was given full opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to defend himself and the Enquiry Officer held enquiry fairly and properly according to the rule ofnatural justice. The concerned workman made no complaint against the enquiry proceedings . The Enquiry Officer held the charge of unauthorised absent proved against the concerned workman and submitted his report dated 17-8-96 to the Project Officer who recommended dismissal ofthe workman, which was approved by the Chief General Manager, Katras Area . Consequentyly the concerned workman was dismissed from service with immediate effect videOffice Order No. 1416 dated 7/9th September, 1996 by the C.M.E./Project Officer/Agent, Ramkanali Colliery.

concerned workman is Award labour Digest Vol. XXVI- 6- 8:20 page 188 in which Hon'ble Madras High Court laid down that the punishment of dismissed from service for the alleged miscounduct of remaining absent for ten days wasdisproportionate . No- instalement with 75 % back wages ordered. Another law referred by the concerned workman isAward Digest XXVII- 5-6; 18 page 176 in which Hon'ble Gujarat High Court laid down that Domestic Enquiry- Industrial Disputes Act, 1947- Sec . 11 -A-Quantum of punishment: Before imposing punishment, the disciplinary authority should consider the Socio - economic and family background of the workman, length of service and the compelling circumstances for committed misconduct and past records.Proportionality or punishment : Punishment ofdismissal from service was harsh if it was impossed only because ofviolation of administrative instructions and there was no allegation of corruption of dishonesty. Another law referred by the workman is 1995 LLJ - II page 68 inwhich Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that the appellant authority functioned as disciplinary authority, the delinquent deniedright ofappeal and dismissal order suffers from inherent defect.

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass the award holding that the action of the management in dismissing the concerned workman w.e.f. 7-9-96 on the ground of unauthorised absence from duty w.e.f. 3-2-96under clause 26.1.1 of Certified Standing Order ofthe Company is justified, and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statement .

8. The management's representative argued that non- supply of enquiry report does not vitiate the proceeding. Inthis respect reference has been referred reported in2001 Lab . I.C. 2379 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down that non-furnishing of enquiry report to delinquent employee, no prejudice caused to delinquent-Disciplinary proceedings not vitiated . Dismissal order passed therein not liable to be interfered with.

5.The concernedworkman has produced himselfas WW- 1 . He has proved documents as Exts . W- 1 , W- 2 and W-3 . During his cross - examination he has proved and admitted documents of the management as Exts . M- 1 to M-5 .

6. In this reference case a No dispute award was passed on 28-12-2005 which has been quashed by Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court in a W.P. ( L) No. 5650 of 2009 by order dated 26-8-2010 .

7. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman that the enquiry proceeding and enquiry report have not been supplied to him . It has also been argued that the management has dismissed him for Minor offence. In this respect the concerned workman referred award Digest Vol . XXVI 6-8 : 42 page 208 in which Hon'ble Jammu and Kashmir High Court laid down that non-supply of copy of enquiry report vitiates the entire disciplinary proceedings and violates the principles of naturaljustice.

9. The concerned workman, WW- 1 , has stated in cross -examination at page 2 that I replied my chargesheet dated 25-4-96, Ext. M-2 . I know EnquiryOfficer, S. N. Dubey. I have attended enquiry on 5-8-96 on the basis ofenquiry notice dated 29-7-96, as per Ext. M-3 . The enquiry officer conducted the enquiry and recorded evidence of management's witnesses in my presence. On that date my statement was also recorded which I signed. I signed all enquiry papers with witnesses of management . I have not produced any defence witness in enquiry procedure. I have not given any letter to the management during the enquiry and after that enquiry was not conducted fairly and properly. Thedismissal letter Ext. M- 4 in enquiry proceeding finds my signature . Ext . M -5 enquiry proceeding was conducted in mypresence. I have given medical papers to the management . Except 25-5-96 I have not given any paper for illness to the management . After 3-2-96 I have never worked in the colliery.

10. Papers submitted by the concerned workman show that the concered workman had got mental case and he got his treatment for mental illness for a long. Such person ofmental disbalance cannot work in the Government Organisation and such person cannot be kept onthe rollof the management .

Another law referred on behalf of the concerned workman is Award Labour Digest No. XXIX- 1-2 : 21 page 54 inwhich Hon'ble Gujarat High Court laid down that the disciplinary authority which initially initiated proceedings for imposition of minor penalty could not convert it to a major ponalty after the disciplinary proceedings were over. This counted to denial ofreasonable opportunity to defend out was hitby Art- 311 (2) . Another law referred by the [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011 /माघ 23, 1932

1453

AND

Theirworkmen

PRESENT: Mr. JusticeManik Mohan Sarkar, .Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

On behalf of the

11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case it shows that the concerned workman is not able to perform his duty due to mental illness and due to mental illness he was unauthorisedly absent from duty from time to time because he was absent from 26-7-95 to 3-8-95 and againt from 9-8-95 to 1-1-96 and again from 11-1-96 to 19-1-96. It only shows that he is not able to work with the management . Moreover, this fact is also supported by his medical papers , Ext . W- 3 series .

Management : Mr. Safiqul Islam, Deputy General Manager .

Onbehalf of the

Workmen: Mr. Mihir Bandopadhyay, Vice President of the Union .

State: West Bengal . Industry: Airlines .

Dated: 27th December, 2010.

12. In the result, I hold that the action of the management of Ram Kanali Colliery of M/ s . B.C.C. Ltd. in dismissing the concerned workman, Surendra Beldar , loader w.e.f. 7/9-9-96 only on the ground ofunauthorised absence from duty w.e.f. 2-3-96 under clause 26.1.1 of Certified Standing Order of the Company is justified and the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

This is my Award.

AWARD

H. N. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2011

By Order No. L- 11012/57/99 - IR (C -I) dated 4-2-2000 the Government of India, Ministry of labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1)( d) and (2A) ofthe industrial Disputes Act , 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

का.आ. 475.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं मैसर्स बंगलादेश विमान कॉरर्पोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 07/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11012/57/99- आईआर ( सी-1 ) ]

"Whether the action of the management ofBiman Bangladesh Airlines in not regularizing Mr. Md. Sharif, Night Guard , Md. Kalam, Peon- cum- cleaner, Mr. Umesh Rajbanshi, Sweeper , Mr. Nana Lal Turia, Sweeper and Mr. Sattya Jit Sarkar, cleaner -cum-loader in the services of the Compeny is legal and justified. If not to what relief are these workmen entitled ?"

डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th January, 2011

2. One joint application from the parties has been filed today and it is contained therein and also submitted by the authorized representatives of both the sides that the dispute involved in the present reference has been disposed ofby way of a mutual settlement in between the parties and as the matter has been settled in between the parties , they do not want to proceed any more with the present reference and a prayer has been made for a consent Award in this reference .

S.O. 475. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No 07/2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/s . Bangladesh Biman Corporation and their workmen , which was receivedby the Central Government on 20-1-2011 .

[No. L- 11012/ 57/99 - IR(C-I) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

3. I have gone through the terms of settlement in the memorandum of settlement annexed with the joint application filed today and I find that the terms are fair. reasonable and in the interest of the parties and the same canbe entertained along with this application for disposal ofthe matter.

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 07 of2000

4. Inview ofthe prayer made in thejoint application filed today and also by the version of the authorized representatives of the respective parties, let the present reference be disposed of on amicable settlement in terms of the memorandum of settlement annexed with the said application filed today.

Parties : Employers in relation to the management of M/s . Bangladesh Biman Corporation THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1454

5. Insuch aview, anAward on the basis ofmemorandum of settlement in between the parties is passed accordingly. Thejoint application together with the memorandum of settlement is made Annexure ' A' of this Award.

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Offfcer Dated, Kolkata, 27th December , 2010 .

ANNEXURE'A'

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL KOLKATA Reference No. 07/2000

BETWEEN BANGLADESH BIMAN CORPORATION (NOW BIMAN BANGLADESH AIRLINES LTD. )

AND

BANGLADESH BIMAN EMPLOYEES UNION JOINT PETITION OF COMPRISE The humblejoint petition on behalf of both parties Most respectfully SHEWETH

1. That the above matter is pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication.

2. That both the parties desired to settle the dispute mutually and with that objective held prolonged discussions time to time as Dhaka and Kolkata finally reaching an amicable settlement .

3. That the parties resolved the dispute and signed a Memorandum of Settlement on 6-12-2010. A copy of the said settlement is annexed hereto .

It is therefore prayed

That the Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to pass a consent award in terms of the settlement annexed hereto .

And for such act of kindness the parties as duty bound shall ever pray.

Sd/-

Mr. Quazi Golam Mohammad

(Panna), Secretary BangladeshBiman Employees Union, Kolkata.

Mr. Md. Shafiqul Islam DeputyGeneral Manager, Legal Affairs , BimanBangladesh

Airlines Limited, Dhaka

VERIFICATION

We, Md. Shafiqul Islam and Quazi Golam Mohammad (Panna) do hereby state that the statements contained in paragraphs 1, 2 & 3 of above petition are statements of facts , true to the best of our knowledge and rest is our humble submission.

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) )

Sd/-

Mr. Md. Shafiqul Islam Mr. Quazi Golam Mohammad (Panna), Secretary BangladeshBiman Employees Union, Kolkata.

DeputyGeneral Manager, Legal Affairs , BimanBangladesh Airlines Limited, Dhaka

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SEC 2 (P) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 BETWEEN BIMAN BANGLADESH AIRLINES LTD. AND BANGLADESH BIMAN EMPLOYEES UNION, KOLKATA

This agreement has been entered into on this the sixth day of December, 2010 between Biman Bangladesh Airlines Ltd. here- in -after referred to as " Airlin" .

And

BangladeshBiman Employees Union, Kolkata here- in - after referred to as "Union"

Short Recital

Whereas 05. (five) casual workers as per AnnexureA have filed case no . 7/2000 and Misc case no . 01/2001 claiming re- instatement of service with full backwages .

Whereas , theBangladesh Biman Employees Union, Kolkata representing the workers before the Industrial Tribunal (Central), Kolkata.

Whereas, all the efforts for a settlement failed and the dispute was then referred to the Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Kolkata by the appropriate government for adjudication.

Whereas , thedisputes are under litigation for a very long time , both the parties considered to settle the matter afresh and expressed their desire to settle the disputes mutually. Prolonged discussions were held time to time at Dhaka finally reaching to an understanding . A memorandum of understanding was signed at Kolkata on 20thNovember, 2009 subject to approval by theAirlines and acceptance of the concerned workmen.

Sd/-illegible

Whereas , the Airline informed that Biman Management had approved and accepted the saidMOU.

Whereas , the union also informed the management ofAirline, that the workers had approved the said MOU .

In consideration of the above matter, the dispute has been resolved on the following terms and conditions :

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT

It is agreed by and between the parties that- 1. The airline will pay INR40,000 (Forty thousand) onlyto each of the workmen concerned in the dispute under reference No.7/2000 and Misc 01/2001. :

2. The table showing the amount payable to each workman is given in Annexure A which forms a part ofthe settlement.

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

1455

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

the dispute as above and further I have no claim whatsoever against the Airline management in the matter.

Signature of the

Worker

Signature ofthe

Union Executive

3. The airline and the union will jointly approach the Hon'ble Tribunal with the appeal to approve this agreement and graciously be kind enough to pass a consent award on the basis of this agreement .

Name:

Designation:

Address :

Sd/-illegible

4. The payment as applicable to the workmen or persons concerned will be made by the airline within 15 days , after such consent award by the court and subject to declaration as such, by the worker concerned as per Annexure- B which forms a part ofthe agreement .

Sd/-illegible

IN WITNESS here of, the parties have signed this agreement on this the sixth day of December , 2010.

For and on behalf of BimanBangladesh Airlines Ltd.

For and on behalf of Bangladesh Biman Employees Union Kolkata

Sd/-illegible

Mr.Mihir Bandyopadhyay

Vice President

Mr. Md . Sahidul Islam DeputyGeneral Manager LegalAffairs

Sd/-illegible

Quazi Golam Mohammed (Panna), Secretary

Mr. Md . Shafiqul Islam DeputyGeneral Manager Revenue

Sd/-illegible

Madan Kumar Banik

VicePresident

Mr. MohammedAlauddin Regional Manager (Eastern India)

Annexure-A 07/2000 & Misc. 01/2001

Night Guard

1. Mohammed Sharif

Rs .40,000 2. Mohammed Kalam Peon-cum- Cleaner Rs . 40,000

Rs .40,000 3. Umesh Raj Banshi Sweeper

4. Nanda Lal Turia

Rs .40,000 5. Satyajit Sarkar Loader,Airport Rs.40,000 Sd/-illegible

Sd/-illegible

Annexure-B

Receipt

I, the undersigned have filed case reference no . 7/2000 and misc case no . 01/2001 before Industrial Tribunal (Central) claiming re - instatement of service with full backwages through Bangladesh Biman Employees Union, Kolkata.

That during the pendency of the suit before the Industrial Tribunal ( Central) effort was made by the union and theAirline to settle the matter out of court . That after prolong discussion a Memorandum of Settlement was signed between the union and the Airline management and that I am aware of the contents of the said settlement and also gave consent as such in the matter.

Accordingly, undersigned do hereby receive INR 40,000 (Forty Thousand) being full and final settlement of

Sd/-illegible

नई दिल्ली , 20 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 476.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स बंग्लादेश विमान कॉरपोरेशन के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 33/1999 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-11012/33/99- आईआर( सी-1 ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 20th January, 2011

S.O. 476. -In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 33/ 1999) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata as shown in theAnnexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofM/s . Bangladesh Biman Corporation..and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 20-1-2011 .

[No. L- 11012/33 /99 - IR (C- I)] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALAT KOLKATA Reference No.33 of 1999

Parties : Employers in relation to the management.of M/s . Bangladesh Biman Corporation

AND

Their workmen .

Present : Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar,

PresidingOfficer

APPEARANCE:

Mr. Safiqulislam,

Onbehalf of the Management :

DeputyGeneral Manager.

Onbehalf of the Workmen:

Mr. Mihir

Bandopadhyay, Vice President of the Union .

Industry:Airlines .

State : West Bengal . Dated: 27th December, 2010.

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011 /MAGHA 23 , 1932

1456

AWARD

ByOrder No.L- 11012/33/99- IR(C- 1 ) dated 18-8-1999 theGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour in exercise of its powers under Section 10(1 )(d) and (2A) ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Biman Bangladesh Airlines in retrenching its 28 employees ( list enclosed) without following Section 25F and 25G and denying re- employment ofthe retrenched workmen in violation of Section 25H of the I.D. Act 1947 is proper and justified ? If not, to what relief are the workmen entitled?" 2. One joint application from the parties has been filed today and it is contained therein and also submitted by the authorized representatives of both the sides that the dispute involved in the present reference has been disposed of by way of a mutual settlement in between the parties and as the matter has been settled in between the parties , they do not want to proceed any more with the present reference and a prayer has been made for a consent Award in this reference .

3. I have gone through the terms ofsettlement in the memorandum of settlement annexed with the joint application filed today and I find that the terms are fair , reasonable and in the interest of the parties and the same can be entertained along with this application for disposal ofthe matter.

4. Inview ofthe prayer made in thejoint application filed today and also by the version of the authorized representatives of the respective parties , let the present reference be disposed of on amicable settlement in terms of the memorandum of settlement annexed with the said application filed today.

5. In such a view, an Award on the basis of memorandum of settlement in between the parties is passed accordingly. The joint application together with the. memorandum of settlement is made Annexure 'A' ofthis Award.

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer Dated, Kolkata, 27th December, 2010.

F. No. L- 11012/33/99- IR(C-I) Name of the Retrenched Staff

Sl . No. Staff No. Name

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

Loader 7. F: 90009 Mr. Sk. A. Ali

Loader 8. F: 90010 Mr. P.K.Dutta

9. F: 90011 Mr. Ramchandra Balmiki

Sweeper

Loader 10. F: 90019 Mr. N.K.Chawdhury

Loader 11. F: 90017 Mr. M.K.Banik

Loader 12. F: 90020 Mr. Md.Hanif

Loader 13. F: 90113 Mr. Md. Sharifuddin Ahmed

Loader Mr. S.C. Dey 14. F: 90112

Loader 15. F : 90114 Mr. Vasan Dey

Loader 16. F: 90115 Mr. Nirmal Dey

17. F: 90116 Nr. Relu Balmlki

Sweeper

Loader 18. F: 90116 Mr. Nanda Dulal Mirtra

Loader 19. M: 90116 Mr. Dilip Kumar Das

Loader 20. M: 90116 Mr. Abul Wahab

Loader 21. M: 90116 Mr. Sk.Din Islam

Loader 22. M: 90116 Mr. Rabi Paul

23. M : 90116 Mr. Prakash Balmiki

Sweeper

Loader 24. M: 90116 Mr. Vajan Kumar Das

Loader 25. M: 90116 Mr. Md . Anwar Ali Mollah

Loader 26. M: 90116 Mr. Md. Selim Khan

Loader 27. M: 90116 Mr. Ashoke Dhal

Sweeper 28. M: 90116 'Mr. Sunil Kumar Mondal ANNEXURE ' A'

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA Reference No. 33/1999. BETWEEN

Bangladesh Biman Corporation (Now Biman Bangladesh Airlines Ltd. )

AND

Bangladesh Biman Employees Union Joint Petition of Comprise

The humblejoint petition on behalf of both parties Most respectfully SHEWETH :

1. That the above matter is pending before this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication.

2. That both the parties desired to settle the dispute mutually and with that objective held prolonged discussions time to time as Dhaka and Kolkata finally reaching an amicable settlement .

Designation

Sr. TrafficAsstt .

Mr. T.K. Raha

1. F : 90015

Loader Mr. S.K. Bhattacharjee

2. F: 90001

Loader 3. F : 90002 Mr. B.C. Dey

Loader 4. F: 90003 Mr. B. Mondal

Loader 5. F: 90004 Mr. R.K. Das

Loader 6. F: 90006 Mr. A.K. Giri

3. That the parties resolved the dispute and signed aMemorandumofSettlement on 07-12-2010.A copy ofthe said settlement is annexed hereto .

It istherefore prayed

That the Hon'ble Tribunal will be graciously pleased to pass a consent award in terms of the settlement annexed hereto .

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1457

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 12, 2011/माघ 23 , 1932

And for such act of kindness the parties as duty bound shall everpray.

Mr. Quazi Golam Mohammad (Panna) Secretary, Bangladesh Biman Employees Union, Kolkata .

Mr. Md. Shafiqul Islam DeputyGeneral, Manager Legal Affairs , BimanBangladesh Airlines Limited, Dhaka

VERIFICATION

We , Md . Shafiqul Islam and Quazi Golam Mohammad (Panna) do hereby state that the statements contained in paragraphs 1 , 2 & 3 of above petition are statements of facts , true to the best of our knowledge and rest is our humble submission.

Mr. Quazi Golam Mohammad (Panna) Secretary, BangladeshBiman . Employees Union, Kolkata .

Mr. Md . Shafiqul Islam DeputyGeneral , Manager Legal Affairs , BimanBangladesh, Airlines Limited , Dhaka

MEMORANDUM OF SETTLEMENT UNDER SEC . 2 (P) OF THE INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT, 1947 BETWEEN BIMAN BANGLADESH AIRLINES LTD. AND BANGLADESH BIMAN EMPLOYEES UNION, KOLKATA

The settlement has been entered into on this the seventh day ofDecember, 2010 between Biman Bangladesh Airlines Ltd. here- in -after referred to as " Airline" .

And

Bangladesh Biman Employees Union, Kolkata here- in - after referred to as "Union" .

Short Recital

Whereas from 1st June, 1989, the management of BimanBangladesh Airlines retrenched 28 of its workmen atKolkataAirport .

Whereas , the Bangladesh Biman Employees Union, Kolkata contested the said action of the management and raised an industrial dispute before the Regional Labour Commissioner ( Central ) , Kolkata demanding re- instatement with full back wages .

Whereas , all the efforts for a settlement failed and the dispute was then referred to the Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal, Kolkata by the appropriate government for adjudication. The dispute is pending before the Hon'ble Tribunal under Reference no.33/1999 .

Whereas , the dispute is under litigation for a very long time, both the parties desired to settle the dispute mutually. Prolonged discussions were held time to time at Dhaka and Kolkata , finally reaching an understanding .A memorandum ofunderstanding was signed at Kolkata on 20thNovember, 2009 subject to approval by the Airlines and acceptance of the concerned workmen.

Whereas, by its letter ref. CCUUUBG/LEGAL/2010/ 002 dated 05-01-2010 addressed to the union. the Airline informed that Biman Management had approved and accepted the said MOU .

Whereas, the union in its letter dated 25-01-2010 and 27-02-2010 had also informed the management of Airline , that the workers had approved and accepted the amount of lump sum compensation of INR 18.52 Lacs (Eighteen Lacs and Fifty Two Thousand only) agreed upon by the Airline in the said MOU . but sought some changes without however seeking any increase in the aforesaid amount.

Inconsiderationof the above matter in dispute has been resolved on the following terms and conditions : Terms of Settlement

It isagreed by and between the parties that- 1. Since one of the concerned retrenched workmen Shree Tapas Kumar Raha resigned from the union and obtained an order from the Hon'ble Kolkata High Court to defend his case individually and separately under the same reference before the CGIT, he has been kept out of purview of this agreement. TheAirline is free to discuss and settle thematter withhim without any reference to the said MOU dated 20th November, 2009.

2. Shree Ram Chandra Balmiki and Shree Prakash Balmiki also have been kept out of purview of this agreement on the demand of the Union since they had accepted the retrenchment compensation at the very initial stage before the union raised the dispute in the matter of retrenchment .

3. Out of aforesaid compensation of INR 18.52 Lac (Eighteen Lac and fifty two thousand) payment will be made by the airline to worker concerned on the production of distribution/disbursement list by the Union . However , under no circumstances the total payment to all workers with reference to case No. 33/1999 shall exceed INR 18.52 lacs .

4. The legal heir/ s of the workmen who have expired in the meantime will receive compensation as per distribution/disbursement list by the union , subject to production of all necessary documents to the satisfaction of the airline management .

5. Out of the aforesaid amount , the Airline will pay an amount of INR 2,27,100 to the union through account payee cheque to compensate theunion towards its legal and allied incidental expenses .

6. The table showing the amount payable to each workman is given in Annexure-A which forms a part of the settlement .

7. The airline and the union will jointly approach the Hon'ble Tribunal with the appeal to approve this agreement and graciously be kind enough to pass a consent award on the basis of this agreement .

8. The payment as applicable to the workmen or persons concerned will be made by the airline within 15 days , after such consent award by THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 12, 2011/MAGHA 23 , 1932

1458

the Hon'ble Tribunal and subject to signature by the worker concerned as per the format given in Annexure- B which forms a part of the settlement . If there is a violation or non- compliance of this settlement by either party, the aggrieved party will have the option to approach the Hon'ble Tribunal for review/ recall ofthe settlement, provided however that if any worker does not approach the airline for payment within one year from the consent award, in that event the airline will send a list ofsuch remaining workmen to the union at its functional office and thereafter, further six months time will be given, so that efforts may be made to inform/ advise the concerned workmen by the union to collect his /her payment . Thereafter this settlement will not be effective for them .

In witness here of, the parties have signed this agreement on this the seventh day ofDecember 2010.

For and on behalf of Bangladesh Biman Employees Union Kolkata

For and on behalf of BimanBangladesh Airlines Ltd.

Sd/- Mr. Mihir Bandyopadhyay Vice President

Sd/- Mr.Md. Shafiqul Islam DeputyGeneral Manager Legal Affairs

Sd/-

Quazi Golam Mohammed (Panna) Secretary Sd/- Mr. Md. Sahidul Islam DeputyGeneral Manager Revenue

Sd/-

Madan Kumar Banik Vice President

Mr. Mohammed Alauddin Regional Manager (Eastern India)

ANNEXURE-A Name ofthe workmen

Amount of Compensation

(2) (1)

INR94,050 1. S.K.Bhatacharjee

INR94,050 2. Babul Chandra Dey

INR94,050 3. Ajit Kumar Giri

INR94,050 4. S.K. Akbar Ali

INR 76,230 5. Parimal Dutta

INR74,910 6. Madan Kumar Banik

INR 74,910

7. Sarfuddin Ahmed

INR74,910

8. Subal Chandra Dey

INR74,910

9. Vasan Chandra Dey

INR 74,910

10. Rełu Balmiki

INR63,690

11. Nanda Dulal Mitra

INR.63,690

12. Dilip KumarDas

INR63,690

13. S.K. Din Islam

INR63,690

14. Rabi Paul

[PART II-SBC . 3 (ii) )

⑦ (1)

INR63,690 15. Vajan Kumar Das

INR63,690 16. Anwar Ali Mondal

INR63,690 17. Md. Selim Khan

INR63,690 18. Sunil Kumar Mandal Deceased

Amount ofCompensation

INR27,075 19. Bechu Mondal

INR20,000 20. RanjitDas

INR20,000 21. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhury

INR20,000 22. Md. Hanif

INR62,725 23. Abdul Wahab

INR74,910 24. Nirmal ChandraDey

INR63,690 25. Ashoke Dhal

Sd/-illegible

ANNEXURE-B

Receipt

The Biman Bangladesh Airlines retrenched my service vide reference No. CAL/72A/89/365 dated 29May, 1989 which was challenged by Bangladesh Biman employees Union, Kolkata, and filed T.S. No. 922/1989 beforeCityCivil Court and obtained temporarily restrained order from giving effect to the notice of retrenchment No. Cal/72A/89/359 dated 29-5-1989.

TheBiman filed appeal before the High Court.As perHon'ble Courts direction undersigned collected an amount of INR more covering the amount of retrenchment compensation including ex -gratia additional amount of INR offered by the Airline with the right to move before Industrial Disputes for getting relief under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Incontinuation ofthe above effort was made by the Union for conciliation before RLC ( Central) which, was subsequently referred to Industrial Tribunal (Central) by theGovernment of India.

That during the pendency of the suit before the Industrial Tribunal (Central) effort was made by the union and the Airline to settle the matter out of court; and a settlement was signed.

Accordingly, the undersigned do hereby receive INR more being full and final settlement of retrenchment compensation as per disbursement/distribution list submitted by the union and further I have no claim whatsoever against the Airline management in the matter ofretrenchment.

Further, management is at liberty to make payment as agreed between union & Biman management to union from the compensation amount as per settlement.

Signature ofthe Worker

Signature of the Union Executive

Name: Sd/-illegible

Designation:

Address:

Printed by the Manager , Government of India Press , Ring Road , Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications, Delhi - 110054 .