This Gazette may contains Multiple Subjects

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

सत्यमेव जयते

भारत का राजपत्र The Gazette of India

प्राधिकार से प्रकाशित

PUBLISHED BY AUTHORITY

साप्ताहिक

WEEKLY

सं. 8]

नई दिल्ली, फरवरी 13 फरवरी19 , 2011 , शनिवार/माघ 24 - माघ 30 , 1932 8] NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 13-FEBRUARY 19, 2011 , SATURDAY/MAGHA 24- MAGHA 30, 1932

No.

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 Statutory Orders and Notifications Issued by the Ministries of the Government of India (Other than the Ministry of Defence )

कार्मिक , लोक शिकायत तथा पेंशन मंत्रालय

MINISTRY OF PERSONNEL, PUBLIC GRIEVANCES AND PENSIONS

(कार्मिक और प्रशिक्षण विभाग )

(Department of Personnel and Training)

New Delhi , the 11th February, 2011

नई दिल्ली, 11 फरवरी , 2011

S. O. 477. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub - section (8 ) of section 24 of the Code of Criminal Procedure , 1973 (Act No. 2 of 1974 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints Shri D. N. Salvi , Advocate as Special Public Prosecutor of the Central Bureau of Investigation in the Bombay High Court at Mumbai for conducting the prosecution appeals , revisions for other matters arising out of the cases investigated by the Delhi SpecialPolice Establishment .

[No. 225/1 /2010-AVD - II] V. M. RATHNAM, Dy. Secy.

का.आ. 477.-केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1973 ( 1974 का अधिनियम सं. 2 ) की धारा 24 की उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मुम्बई के मुम्बई उच्च न्यायालय में दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना द्वारा अन्वेषित किए जा रहे मामलों में अभियोजन अपीलों, पुनरीक्षणों या अन्य मामलों से उद्भूत मामलों का संचालन करने के लिए श्री डी. एन. साल्वी , एडवोकेट को केंद्रीय अन्वेषण ब्यूरो के विशेष लोक अभियोजक के रूप में नियुक्त करती है ।

नई दिल्ली, 14 फरवरी , 2011

[ सं. 225/ 1/2010 - एवीडी- II ]

का. आ. 478. केंद्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना अधिनियम , 1946 ( 1946 का अधिनियम सं. 25 ) की वी. एम. रत्नम, उप सचिव

(1459)

410 GI/ 2011 1460

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

connection with above mentioned offences and any other offence/offences committed in the course of the same transaction or arising out of the same facts.

[No. 228/55/2010-AVD-II]

V. M. RATHNAM, Dy. Secy. (V- II )

विदेश मंत्रालय (सीपीवी प्रभाग)

नई दिल्ली , 21 जनवरी , 2011 धारा 6 के साथ पठित धारा 5 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य सरकार, गृह विभाग , (राजनीतिक) गुप्त अनुभाग, कोलकाता की अधिसूचना सं. 1265- पी. एस. , दिनांक-15-7-2010 द्वारा प्राप्त सहमति से दिनांक 24-9-2009 को पुलिस थाना बर्वन ( मुर्शिदाबाद ) में भारतीय दंड संहिता 1860 (1860 का अधिनियम सं. 45) की धारा 409 , 420, 465 , 467,468 और 471 के तहत दर्ज मुकदमा सं. 288/09 के अधीनं , 1.30 करोड़ रु. (लगभग ) के बैंक धोखाधड़ी और उक्त अपराध से संबंधित अथवा संसक्त प्रयत्नों, दुष्प्रेरणों और षड्‌यंत्रों और संव्यवहार के अनुक्रम में किए गए अथवा उन्हीं तथ्यों से उद्भूत किन्हीं अन्य अपराधों का अन्वेषण करने के लिए दिल्ली विशेष पुलिस स्थापना के सदस्यों की शक्तियों तथा अधिकारिता का विस्तार सम्पूर्ण पश्चिम बंगाल राज्य पर करती है ।

का. आ. 479. राजनयिक और कोंसलीय ऑफिसर ( शपथ और फीस ) के अधिनियम , 1948 की धारा 2 के खंड ( क ) के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एत‌द्वारा श्री लोकनाथ चेटर्जी , सहायक को 21-1-2011 से भारत के राजदूतावास , ऐडिस अबाबा में सहायक कोंसुलर अधिकारी के कर्तव्यों का पालन करने के लिए प्राधिकृत करती है ।

[सं. 228 /55/2010- एवीडी- II ] वी. एम. रत्नम , उप सचिव (वी- II)

[सं. टी. 4330/1/2006 ] New Delhi , the 14th February, 2011

आर. के. पेरिनडिया , अवर सचिव ( कोंसुलर )

MINISTRY OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS

(CPVDivision)

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2011

S. O. 479. 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 Loknath Chatterjee, Embassy of India, Addis Ababa to perform the duties of Assistant ConsularOfficer with effect from 21st January , 2011 .

[No. T. 4330/1/2006] S. O. 478. In exercise ofthe powers conferredby sub- section ( 1 ) of section 5 read with section 6 of the Delhi Special Police EstablishmentAct, 1946 (Act No. 25 of 1946) , the Central Government with the consent of the State Government of West Bengal Home (Political) Department, Secret Section, Kolkata vide Notification No. 1265 - P. S. dated 15th July, 2010, hereby extends the powers and jurisdiction of the members of the Delhi Special Police Establishment to the whole of the State of West Bengal for investigation of Case No. 288/09 dated 24-9-2009 under sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Act No. 45 of 1860) regis- tered at Police Station Burwan (Murshidabad) relating to the case of Bank Frauds of Rs . 1.30 crore ( approx. ) and attempts , abetments and conspiracy in relation to or in

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

स्वास्थ्यतथा परिवार कल्याण मंत्रालय

(स्वास्थ्य तथा परिवार कल्याण विभाग )

नई दिल्ली , 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 480.-केन्द्र सरकार, दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की धारा 10 की उप- धारा ( 2 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, भारतीय दंत चिकित्सा परिषद से परामर्श करके , एतदद्वारा उक्त अधिनियम की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में निम्नलिखित संशोधन करती है नामतः

2. क्रम सं. 56 के सामने कालम 2 एवं 3 की मौजूदा प्रविष्टियों में दंत चिकित्सा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 16 ) की अनुसूची के भाग -1 में, जो चौ. चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ द्वारा प्रदान दी गई दंत चिकित्सा डिग्रियों की मान्यता से संबंधित है, निम्नलिखित प्रविष्टियों को अंतर्विष्ट किया जाएगा , नामतः:-

"कृष्णा दंत चिकित्सा महाविद्यालय , गाजियाबाद ( उत्तर प्रदेश )

( i ) बैचलर ऑफ डेन्टल सर्जरी

बीडीएस , चौ. चरण सिंह विश्वविद्यालय , मेरठ " ( यदि केवल शैक्षणिक सत्र 2005-06 के दौरान प्रवेश दिए गए बीडीएस के प्रथम बैच के छात्रों

को प्रदान की गई हो)

[सं.वी. 12017/22/2004-डीई ] अनीता त्रिपाठी, अवर सचिव 1461 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE

(Department ofHealth and Family Welfare)

New Delhi, the 31st January, 2011

S. O. 480.-In exercise ofthe powers conferred by sub- section (2) of section 10 ofthe Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948), the Central Government, after consultation with Dental Council of India, hereby, makes the following amendments in Part- I of the schedule to the said Act, namely :-

2. In the existing entries of colomn 2 & 3 against Serial No. 56, in Part - I of the Schedule to the Dentists Act, 1948 (16 of 1948) pertaining to recognition of dental degrees awarded by Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut, the following entries shall be inserted thereunder :-

"Krishna Dental College, Ghaziabad (Uttar Pradesh)

BDS, Ch. Charan Singh University, Meerut " Bachelor of Dental Surgery (ifgranted to the first batch ofBDS students admitted during the academic session 2005-06 only)

[No. V- 12017/22/2004- DE ] ANITA TRIPATHI , Under Secy.

विद्युत मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 3 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 481. सार्वजनिक स्थल ( अनधिकृत अधिभोगियों की बेदखली ) अधिनियम , 1971 ( 1971 का 40 ) की धारा -3 द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए केंद्र सरकार एतद्वारा निम्नलिखित तालिका के कॉलम सं. ( 1 ) में उल्लिखित अधिकारियों को, उक्त अधिनियम के प्रयोजन के लिए भारत सरकार के राजपत्रित अधिकारी के समतुल्य पद पर संपदा अधिकारी नियुक्त करती है , जो उक्त तालिका के कॉलम संख्या (2 ) में विनिर्दिष्ट सार्वजनिक परिसरों से संबंधित अपने अधिकार क्षेत्र की सीमाओं के भीतर उक्त अधिनियम के द्वारा अथवा इसके अंतर्गत संपदा अधिकारी को दी गई शक्तियों का प्रयोग करेंगे तथा सौंपी गई डयूटी का निर्वहन करेंगे , अर्थात्: -

तालिका

सार्वजनिक परिसरों की श्रेणियां तथा अधिकार क्षेत्र की स्थानीय सीमा अधिकारी का नाम और पदनाम

क्र. सं.

नेशनल थर्मल पावर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड ( एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड ) और इसकी तलाईपल्ली कोयला खनन परियोजना , गजानन्दपुरम , कोटरा थाना रोड, जिला- रायगढ़ , पिनकोड-496001 , छतीसगढ़ के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में आने वाले अथवा पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर । 1. श्री जनार्दन प्रसाद पाल , वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक (योजना और प्रणाली ) , नेशनल थर्मल पावर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड ( एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड) , तलाईपल्ली कोयला खनन परियोजना , जिला रायगढ़ , छत्तीसगढ़ ।

2. श्री राजीव रंजन , वरिष्ठ प्रबंधक ( भूविज्ञान/ योजना और प्रणाली ) नेशनल थर्मल पावर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड (एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड ) , दुलंगा कोयला खनन परियोजना , जिला सुन्दरगढ़ , उड़ीसा ।

नेशनल थर्मल पावर कारपोरेशन लिमिटेड ( एनटीपीसी लिमिटेड) और इसकी दुलंगा कोयला खनन परियोजना , प्लॉट नं. 56/4664, श्रीकृष्ण विहार , जिला- सुन्दरगढ़ , पिनकोड-770001 उड़ीसा के प्रशासनिक नियंत्रण में आने वाले अथवा पट्टे पर लिए गए सभी परिसर ।

[फा.सं. 8/6/ 1992 - धर्मल-1 ( पार्ट- VIII) ] आई. सी. पी. केशरी , संयुक्त सचिव 1462

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART I-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

MINISTRY OF POWER

New Delhi , the 3rd February, 2011

S. O. 481.-In exercise of the powers conferred by section 3 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants ) Act, 1971 (40 of 1971 ) , the Central Government hereby appoints the officers mentioned in column ( 1 ) ofthe following Table, being officers equivalent to the rank of Gazetted Officer of the Government, to be estate officers forthe purposes of the said Act, who shall exercise the powers conferred and perform the duties imposed on the estate officer by orunder the saidAct, within the local limits oftheir respective jurisdiction in respect of the Public premises specified in column (2) ofthe said Table, namely :-

TABLE

Name and designation of officer

Categories of Public premises and local limits of jurisdiction

(1)

(2)

1. Shri Janardhan Prasad Pal, Senior Manager (Planning and System) , National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC Limited) ,Talaipalli CoalMining Project , District-Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC Limited) and under the administrative control of its Talaipalli Coal Mining Project , Gajanandpuram, Kotra Thana Road, District- Raigarh, Pincode496001 , Chhattisgarh .

2. Shri Rajeev Ranjan, Senior Manager (Geology/ Planning and System) , National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC Limited ) , Dulanga CoalMining Project, District-Sundergarh , Orissa .

All premises belonging to or taken on lease by National Thermal Power Corporation Limited (NTPC Limited) and under the administrative control of its Dulanga Coal Mining Project , Plot No. 56/4664, Srikrishna Vihar, District :Sundergarh, Pincode-770001 , Orissa

[F.No.8/6/ 1992- TH.I (Part -VIII) ] I. C. P. KESHARI , Jt . Secy .

कारपोरेट कार्य मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 482. केंद्र सरकार , राजभाषा ( संघ के शासकीय प्रयोजनों के लिए प्रयोग ) नियम , 1976 के नियम , 10 के उप - नियम (4 ) के अनुसरण में कारपोरेट कार्य मंत्रालय के अंतर्गत कम्पनी रजिस्ट्रार कार्यालय , कोलकाता , जिसके न्यूनतम 80 प्रतिशत कर्मचारियों ने हिंदी का कार्यसाधक ज्ञान प्राप्त कर लिया है, को अधिसूचित करती है ।

[सं. ई. 11016/ 1 /2010- हिंदी ] जे. एस. गुप्ता , अवर सचिव

MINISTRY OF CORPORATE AFFAIRS

New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S.O. 482. In pursuance ofSub- Rule (4) of Rule 10 of the Official Languages (Use for Official Purposes of the Union) Rules , 1976, the Central Government hereby notifies the office of the Registrar of Companies , Kolkata as 80% of its staff have acquired working knowledge ofHindi .

[No.E- 11016/1/2010-Hindi ]

J. S. GUPTA , Under Secy .

1463

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

उपभोक्ता मामले , खाद्य और सार्वजनिक वितरण मंत्रालय

(उपभोक्ता मामले विभाग )

नई दिल्ली, 12 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 483.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मारुति इंटरप्राइज 5, शिवाजी नगर, सावरकुण्डला , गुजरात-364515 द्वारा विनिर्मित मैकेनीकल काउंटर मशीन के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " मारुति " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /10/30 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल प्रिंसिपल आफ मुमेंट्स आधारित मैकेनिकल काउंटर मशीन है जिसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 5 कि. ग्रा. है । इंडीकेशन एनालॉग प्रकार का है ।

MARUTI ENTERPRISE

SAVARKUNDLA

483

आकृति -1 मॉडल

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्तमॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाणपत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी साम्रगी से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित मॉडल विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 1 कि. ग्रा. , 2 कि.ग्रा. , 5 कि.ग्रा. , 10 कि. ग्रा. , 20 कि. ग्रा. , 25 कि. ग्रा. , 30 कि. ग्रा. , और 50 कि. ग्रा. तक की क्षमता में हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 26 )/2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1464

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii) ] MINISTRY OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, FOOD AND PUBLIC DISTRIBUTION

(Department ofConsumerAffairs)

New Delhi, the 12th October, 2010

S.O. 483. 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 Mechanical Counter Machine with brand name " MARUTI " (hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , maunfactured by M/ s Maruti Enterprise 5, Shivajinagar , Savarkundla Gujarat 364515 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 10/30;

The said model is Principle of Moments based Mechanical Counter Machine with a maximum capacity of 5 kg . The indication is of analogue type .

Figure- 1Model

MAR

483

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 capacities above 1 kg. , 2 kg. , 5 kg. , 10 kg. , 20 kg . , 25 kg. , 30 kg. &50kg. manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design and with the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F. No.WM -21 /(26)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1465 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 22 नवम्बर , 2010

का.आ. 484.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों को प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स पी. सी. इलेक्ट्रोनिक्स एण्ड सिस्टम , 3 /सी , गोपी बोस लेन, दूसरा तल , कोलकाता -700012 द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता -2 वाले " पीसीईएस "श्रृंखला के डिस्कंटिन्युअस टोटलाइजिंग स्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टोटलाइजिंग हुपर व्हीयर ) अंकक सूचन सहित के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " आटो वे " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 10/214 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित डिस्कंटिन्युअस टोटलाइजिंग स्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टोटलाइजिंग हुपर व्हीयर ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 20 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 500 ग्रा. है और मापमान अन्तराल ( डी) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । लिक्विड क्रिस्टल डायोड ( एल सी डी ) तोलन परिणाम प्रदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

SHAMPING PLATE SIDE SEALING

OTHER SIDE SKATING

B614

424

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्प्लेमें से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । ताकि सीलिंग के बाद सील हटाए बिना डिजीटर को खोला न जा सके । माडल 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 लिए 5 कि. ग्रा. से 200 कि. ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1x10 , 2x10 या 5x10 के, के हैं, जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 119)/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1466

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi, the 22nd November, 2010

S.O. 484. 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 approves and issues the certificate of approval of the model of Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic weighing instrument (Totalizing Hopper Weigher) with digital indication of Accuracy class - 2 of Series " PCES" and with brand name " AUTO WEIGH" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model) , manufactured by M/s P.C. Electronics & Systems , 3 /C, Gopi Bose Lane, 2nd Floor, Kolkatta-700012 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/214;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic weighing instrument (Totalizing Hopper Weigher) with a maximum capacity of 20 kg . and minimum capacity of500 g . The scale interval(d) is 5g. It has atare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Liquid Crystal (LCD) display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

SHAMPINGPLATE SIDE SEAL SEALING

9614

OTHER SIDE SKATING

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe model

Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire through the display, so that after sealing digitizer can not be opened without removing seal . A typical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

The instrument has external control to calibration. 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, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacites in the range of 5 kg . to 200 kg. 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 materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No.WM-21 (119)/2010]

B.N. DIXIT, Director ofLegal Metrology 1467 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 21 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 485.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स बालाजी इंडस्ट्रीज आफ संघेदिया बाजार, सावरकुण्डला , गुजरात -364515 द्वारा मध्यम उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III) वाले " एएसटी 11 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " इनटैल " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/279 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

INTEL

Secomisite Soling

Balaji industries

intel

ARE

ZERO

485

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

स्टाम्प और सील के सत्यापन के लिए बॉटम प्लेट, टॉप कव्र और स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट के होल में से टविस्टिड स्टील वायर लीड सील के साथ निकाला गया है । सील के साथ छेड़छाड़ किए विना उपकरण को खोला नही जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में केलिब्रेशन के लिए बाहरी पहुंच है । बोहरी 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 उक्त अनुमोदित 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 के 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 मांपमान 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 ( 153) /2009 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 410 GI/11-2 1468

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30 , 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 21st January, 2011

S.O. 485. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, Is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections ( 7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing Instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of medium accuracy (Accuracy class - III) of series " AST- 11 " and with brand name " INTEL" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s Balaji Industries Off.: Sanghediya Bazar, Savarkundla Gujarat- 364515 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/279;

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

Figure- 1Model

INTEL

Secomisite

SPLAT

Balaji industries intel

-ZERO

485

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe model

The weighing scale has sealing provisions with twisted steel wires passes through holes of bottom plate , top cover and stamping plate with lead seal for receiving the verification stamp and seal . 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 . 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, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 kg. for ' e' value of 100mg. to 2g . and 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, 2x10 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 salne materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[ F. No.WM-21/( 153)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1469 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 21 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 486.-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 मानक्र (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 बालाजी इंडस्ट्रीज आफ संघेदिया बाजार , सावरकुण्डला , गुजरात -364515 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III) वाले " बी1 - पी III " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " इनटैल" है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 / 09/280 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 2 कि. ग्रा. है । सत्त्यापन मापमान अन्तराल (ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

LIVDICATON.

wire.

CSTAMPING

PLATE

486

Balaji Industries Savarkundal

486

आकृति -2 मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण उपयोग को रोकने के लिए बाटम प्लेट, टॉप बाडी और स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट में बनाए गए छेदों में से लीड वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । उपकरण को सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना नही 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 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 के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि. ग्रा. से 5000 किं. ग्रा. तक 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 (153)/2009 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1470

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

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

New Delhi , the 21st January, 2011

S.O. 486. 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 ) ofSeries " BI - PIII" and with brand name " INTEL" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ), manufactured by M/s Balaji Industries Off.: Sanghediya Bazar, Savarkundla Gujarat- 364515 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/280;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Platform type ) with amaximum capacity of 1000 kg . and minimum capacity of2kg. The verification scale interval (e) is 100g . It has atare device with a 100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing results . The Instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

LIVDICATOR .

wire.

PLATE

486

Balaji Industries Savarkundal

Figure-2 Sealing provision of the indicator of model

Sealing is done by passing lead wire through the holes made in the bottom plate, side cover and stamping plate with lead seal ofthe scale to avoid fraudulent use. The instrument can not be opened with out tempering the seal . Atypical 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 above 50 kg . up to 5000kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10kor 5x10k, where 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/ (153)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1471 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ].

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी, 2011

का, आ. 487.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स स्वामी इंटरप्राइजिज , सालासर रोड, सीकर, राजस्थान द्वारा मध्यम_यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III) वाले " एस.ई. 101 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्वामी डिजि " है (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदम चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/281 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. ग्राः है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 5 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । 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 ।

487

SIRAD SOUARE

आकृति 2- मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण उपयोग को रोकने के लिए बाटम प्लेट, टॉप कवर और स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट में बनाए गए 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 ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 100 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई" मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के 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* ,या 5x10 *, के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 158 )/2009 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1472

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 487. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of medium accuracy. (Accuracy class - III) of Series " S.E.101 " and with brand name " SWAMI DIGI" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model), manufactured by M/s . Swami Enterprises , Salasar Road, Sikar , Rajasthan which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/281 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument (Tabletop type) with amaximum capacity of30 kg and minimum capacity of 100 g. The verification scale interval (e) is 5 g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing result. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure-2

487

Figure 2-Schematic Diagram of sealing provision ofthe model

Sealing is done by passing lead wire through the holes made in the bottom plate, top body and stamping plate withlead seal ofthe scale to avoid fraudulent use. The instrument can not be opened without tempering the seal . A typical schermatic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above.

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

Further, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make , accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity up to 50 kg. with verification scale interval (n) inthe range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 100 mg. to 2 g . and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5 g . or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10k or 5x10k, wherek is a positive or negativewhole number or equalto zero, manufactured by the same manufacturer in accordance with the same principle, design andwith the same materials with which, the said approved model has been manufactured.

[F.No.WM - 21 (158)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1473 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ] L

नई दिल्ली , 27 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 488.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम, 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा (7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स स्वामी इंटरप्राजिज , सालासर रोड, सीकर , राजस्थान द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III ) वाले " एस.ई. 102 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " स्वामी डिजि " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09 /282 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

200.6 قعبا

週

488

आकृति 2- मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण उपयोग को रोकने के लिए फ्रंट बाडी, रियर बाडी और स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट में बनाए गए छेदों में से लीड वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । उपकरण को सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना नहीं खोला जा सकता । मॉडल के सिलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी कलिब्रेशन 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 हैकि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत, डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक 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 * या 5x10 , के हैं , जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 158 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1474

- THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011/MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 27th January , 2011

1 S.O. 488. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Plateform type) with digital indication of medium accruacy (Accuracy class - III) ofseries " S.E. 102" andwith brand name " SWAMI DIGI" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s . Swami Enterprises , Saläsar Road, Sikar, Rajasthan and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/282;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Plateform type) with a maximum capacity of 1000 kg. and minimum capacity of2kg. The verification scale interval ( e) is 100g. It has atare device with a 100per cent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) indicates the weighing results . The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure 1-Model

BLITOM FLATE OF

FBALMOLE 488

SWAMI ENTERPR

488

Figure 2- Sealing provision of the indicator of model

Sealing is done by passing lead wire through the holes made in the front body, rear body and stamping plate with lead seal of the scale ot 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. 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 Governmenthereby declares that this certificate of approval ofthe said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similarmake, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg . up to 5000 kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 2x10 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 (158)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1475 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माष 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 27 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 489.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सी.जे. इंडस्ट्रीज , 78 /3 /टी, मकरपुरा , जीआईडीसी , वडोदरा -390010 गुजरात ( इंडिया ) द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग X( 1 ) वाले " सीजेआई- 100- जीटी " श्रृंखला के स्वचालित ग्रेविमेट्रिक फिलिंग उपकरण ( ग्रोस टाइप ) डिजिटल टाइप के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सीजेआई " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/489 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित ग्रेविमेट्रिक फिलिंग उपकरण डिजिटल टाइप है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा. मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 10 ग्रा. सहित उत्पाद के मात्रा और प्रकार पर आधारित फिल्सरेट 6 फिल्स प्रति मिनट है । मशीन को फ्री फ्लोइंग , नॉन स्टिकी, नॉन डस्टी उत्पाद जैसे गेहूं, चाय आदि भरने के लिए डिजाइन किया गया है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी) तोलन परिणाम सूचित करता है ।

439

मॉडल के इंडिकेटर का सीलिंग प्रावधान

वेइंग इंडीकेटर को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग की जाती है । डिस्पले के बेस टॉप कवर में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्प्ले के दायीं तरफ सीलिंग की जाती है ताकि सीलिंग के बाद सील हटाए बिना डिजिटर को खोला नहीं जा सके । माडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 282 ) /2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 410 GI /11-3 1476

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 489. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8 ) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the Model of Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument (Gross Type) of digital type belonging to Accuracy Class , X( 1 ) of series " CI - 100 -GT" and with brand name "CJI" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , manufactured by M/s C.J Industries 78/3/T, Makarpura GI.D.C. Vadodra- 390010 Gujarat (India) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/489;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument of digital tupe. It has the maximum capacity of 100 kg and and minimum capacity of 10kg. with scale interval (e) is 10kg with its fillrate as 6 fills per minute depending upon the quantity and nature of the product . The machine is designed for filling the free flowing, non sticky, non-dusty products like wheat , tea etc. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply. The Light Emmitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing results .

Figure 1-Model

منه

489

Figure2-Sealing diagram of the sealing provision of the model

Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . Sealing is done on right of the display by passing wire in base top cover of the display, so that after sealing digitizer cannot be opened without removing 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 .

[F.No.WM- 21 (282)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1477 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी, 2011

का.आ. 490.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स सी.जे. इंडस्ट्रीज , 78/ 3/टी , मकरपुरा , जीआईडीसी , वडोदरा -390010 गुजरात ( इंडिया ) द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग X( 1 ) वाले " सीजेआई- 100- एनटी "श्रृंखला के स्वचालित ग्रेविमेट्रिक फिलिंग उपकरण ( नेट टाइप ) डिजिटल टाइप के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " सीजेआई " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09 /09/490 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित स्वचालित ग्रेविमेट्रिक फिलिंग उपकरण डिजिटल टाइप है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 100 कि.ग्रा. और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा. मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 10 ग्रा. सहित उत्पाद की मात्रा और प्रकार पर आधारित फिल्सरेट 6 फिल्स प्रति मिनट है । मशीन को फ्री फ्लोइंग , नॉन स्टिकी, नॉन डस्टी उत्पाद जैसे गेहूं, चाय आदि भरने के लिए डिजाइन किया गया है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) तोलन परिणाम सूचित करता है ।

490

मॉडल के इंडिकेटर का सीलिंग प्रावधान

वेइंग इंडीकेटर को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग की जाती है । डिस्पले के बेस टॉप कवर में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर डिस्पले के दायीं तरफ सीलिंग की जाती है ताकि सीलिंग के बाद सील हटाए बिना डिजिटर को नहीं खोला जा सके । 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 ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 (282 )/2009 ]

बी. एन, दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1478

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 490.-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 ofthe 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 ofthe Model ofAutomatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument (Net Type) of digital type belonging to Accuracy Class , X( 1 ) of series " CI - 100- NT" and of brand " CJI " (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . C. J. Industries 78/3/T, Makarpura GI.D.C. , Vadodra- 390010 Gujarat (India) and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/09/490;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based Automatic Gravimetric Filling Instrument ofdigital type . It has the maximum capacity of 100 kg and and minimum capacity of 10kg. with scale interval ( e) is 10kg with its fillrate as 6 fills per minute depending upon the quantity and nature of the product . The machine is designed for filling the free flowing, non sticky, non- dusty products like wheat , tea etc. The instrument operates on 230 Volts and 50 Hertz alternative current power supply. The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) indicates the weighing results .

Figure 1-Model

Figure 2-Sealing diagram of the sealing provision ofthe model

Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machin for fraudulent practice . Sealing is done on right of the display by passing wire in base top cover of the display, so that after sealing digitizer cannot be opened without removing the seal . 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.

[F. No. WM- 21 (282)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1479

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 491.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इनसेफ इलैक्ट्रोनिक्स , यादव नगर कालोनी , कादिपुर शिवपुरी , वाराणसी ( उत्तर प्रदेश ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III) वाले " ईएनपी 7 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " इनसेफ " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/488 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

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

491

आकृति 2 - मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों से वेइंग मशीन को खोले जाने से सीलिंग की जाती है । स्टाम्पिंग के लिए स्केल की बाडी में से लीड सील के साथ सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट जोड़ी गई है । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है । उपकरण में केलिब्रेशन के लिए बाहरी पहुंच है । बाहरी केलिब्रेशन तक पहुंच को रोकने के लिए ए/डी कार्ड/ मदर बोर्ड में डिप स्विच 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 प्रमाण- पत्र के अंतर्गत उसी विनिर्माता द्वारा उसी सिद्धांत , डिजाइन के अनुसार और उसी सामग्री से जिससे उक्तअनुमोदित 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 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 या 5x10 * , के हैं, जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 276 )/2009 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1480

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3(ii) ]

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 491. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Plateform type) with digital indication of MediumAccruacy (Accuracy class - III) of series " ENP 7 " and with brand name " ENSAFE " (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s . Ensafe Electronics , Yadav Nagar Colony, Kadipur Shivpuri, Varanasi (U.P.) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/488;

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

Figure1-Model

491

Figure- 2 Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing shall be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . Stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the body of scale with the lead seal , to get the stamping . 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 powers conferred by sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity above 50kg up to 5000 kg with verification scale interval ( n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g . or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k, 2x10kor 5x10k, where kis 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 (276)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1481 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 492.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स इनसेफ इलैक्ट्रोनिक्स , यादव नगर कालोनी , कादिपुर शिवपुरी , वाराणसी ( उत्तरी प्रदेश ) द्वारा उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग II) वाले " ईएनटी 13 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " इनसेफ " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/487 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण-पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्तमॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है। इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक धारित धेयतुलन 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 ।

492

498

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

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 हैकि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस प्रमाण- पत्र 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 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10* या 5x10 , के हैं, जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 (276)/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माघ विज्ञान 1482

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 492. 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 (Tabletop type) with digital indication of High Accruacy (Accuracy class - II ) of series " ENT 13 " and with brand name " ENSAFE" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ), manufactured by M/ s Ensafe Electronics , Yadav Nagar Colony, Kadipur Shivpuri , Varanasi (U.P. ) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/487;

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

492

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

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

The instrument has external control to calibration . 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, accuracy 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 ofverification scale interval (n) in the range of 5000 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100mg. or more and with ' e ' value 1x10k, 2x10kor 5x10k, 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 (276)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1483 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 27 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 493. केन्द्रोंर्व सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह संमाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णितं 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 को 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 प्रदत शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मगनलाल गोविन्दजीं, 12 , श्रीजी नगरें, सांवरकुण्डला-364515 , जिला अमरेली ( गुजरात ) द्वारा उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग II ) वाले " एमजी - टी III " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एमजी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एम डी/09/09/ 277 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. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमाने अंतराल (ई ) 5 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 हैं ।

493

MaganialGovindji

आकृति 2- मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का घौजमाबद्ध डायग्राम

तुला के दायीं तरफ दो बोरेड स्क्रू लीडिड सीलिंग वायर से कस कर, स्टॉम्ब और सील के सत्यापन के लिए आउटर कवर और बाटम प्लेट के नीचे से निकाला गया है । इन छेदों में से लीडिड वायर निकाल कर कसा गया है । वैरंग स्केल को सील तोड़े बिना खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

उपकरण में बाहरी के 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 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 या 5x10 *, के हैं, जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 125 )/2009 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 41C G1 /11-4 1484

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 493. 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 saidAct, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of high accruacy (Accuracy class - III ) of series " MG - TIII " and with brand name " MG" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s Maganlal Govindji, 12 , Shreeji Nagar, Savarkundla- 364515, Dist Amreli (Gujrat) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/277;

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

Figure- 1Model

493

Maganlal Govindji

493

Figure- 2 Schematic diagram of sealing provision ofthe model

Onthe right side ofthe balance, two bored screws are fastened by a leaded sealing wire, passing under the outer cover and bottom plate, for receiving stamp and seal. The instrument can not be opened without tampering 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 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 upto 50kg . with varification scale interval (n) inthe range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 100mg . to 2g. and with varification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k, 2x10 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 / (125)/2009]

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

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

1485

नई दिल्ली , 27 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 494, केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त स्पिोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स मगनलाल गोन्त्रिन्दजी , 12 , श्रीजी नगर , सावरभुण्डला-364515 , जिला अमरेली ( गुजरात ) द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग III) वाले " एमजी भी III " श्रृंखला के अंकफ सूजन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " एमजी " है ( जिसे इसमें इसको पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 09/278 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 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यकलनात्मक्क धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हृदूर्ण प्रत्त्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदास पर कार्य करता है ।

PASCA AFFORM SCALE

194

Maganlal Govindji Savarkundla

494

आकृति -2 मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण उपयोग को रोकने के लिए सर्किट और मैकेनिकल असम्बेली की सुरक्षा के लिए स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट पर दायीं और लीड सील लगाई जाती है । उपकरण की बाडी पर दिए गए छेदों के माध्यम से लीड और सील तार लगाकर सीलिंग की जाती हैं । 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 को अनुमोदन को 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 के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से अधिक और 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 * या 5x10 *, के हैं, जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 125 )/2009 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1486

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 494.-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 saidAct , the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatie weighing instrument (Plateform type) with digital indication of medium accruacy (Accuracy class - III) ofseries " MG- PIII " and with brand name " MG" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s Manganlal Govindji , 12, Shreeji Nagar, Savarkundla- 364515, Dist Amreli (Gujrat) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/278 ;

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

494

Maganlal Govindji Savarkundla

494

Figure- 2 Sealing provision of the indicator of model

Lead seal is affixed on the right side of stamping plate for the security of circuit and mechanical assembly to avoid fraudulent use . Sealing can be done by applying lead & seal wire through the holes provided on the body of the instrument . Theinstrument cannot be opened without tampering the seal .Atypical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is givenabove.

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 herebydeclares 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 upto 5000kg with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 5g . or more and with ' e' value of 1x10 , 2x10kor 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/(125)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1487

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 495. केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः अब केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स माइक्रो जीन , डायगनोस्टिक सिस्टम ( प्रा. ) लि. , 806 , विक्रम टावर , राजेन्द्र प्लेस , नई दिल्ली -110005 द्वारा विनिर्मित साधारण यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग IIII) वाले " बीआर " श्रृंखला के अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( मैकेनीकल बाथरूम स्केल ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " डा.जीन " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/243 समनुदेशित किया गया है, अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल स्प्रिंग आधारित सिद्धांत का अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( मैकेनीकल बाथरूम स्केल ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 130 कि, ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 10 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( ई ) 1 कि. ग्रा. है ।

आकृति - 1 मॉडल

495

445

आकृति -2

यहांपर स्टाम्पिंग और सीलिंग प्लेट है जिसमें इंडिकेटर के पास सभी डिस्क्रिप्टिव मार्किंग स्थित है । इसके अतिरिक्त मॉडल की बाड़ी पर लीड और तार सील की सीलिंग व्यवस्था दी गई है जिसकी सीलिंग उपकरण की अव्यवस्था को पर्याप्त रूप से रोकती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 क़ी 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 100 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 या 5x10 , के हैं , जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम -21 ( 117 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1488

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 ( ii)] New Delhi, the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 495. 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 (Mechanical Bathroom scale) of ordinary accruacy (Accuracy class - IIII) of series " BR" and with brand name "Dr. Gene" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/s Microgene Diagnostic Systems (P) Ltd. , 806, Vikram Tower , Rajendra Place, New Delhi- 110005 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/243;

The said model is the principal of spring based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Mechanical Bathroom scale) with amaximum capacity of 130 kg . and minimum capacity of 10kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 1kg.

Figure- 1Model

495

445

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

There is a stamping and sealing plate containing all the descriptive markings located near the indicator. In addition to that , a sealing arrangement with lead and wire seal is provided on the body of the model sealing of which can adequately prevent maladjustment of the instrument .Atypical schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model is given above .

Further, in exercise of the power conferred by sub - section (12) of section 36 of the said, Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certificate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instruments of similar make, accuracy and performance of same series with maximum capacity upto 200kg with verification scale interval (n) inthe range of 100 to 1000 for ' e ' value of 5g. or more and with ' e' value of 1x10k, 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 / (117)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1489 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 496.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का , विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अंब, केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जोडिक्स वेइंग सोल्यूशन , ए-42/26 , गुरूद्वारा रोड, दिलशाद गार्डन इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया शाहदरा , दिल्ली -95 द्वारा विनिर्मित उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " जेडडब्ल्यूएसटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जोडिक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/334 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक विकृत गेज प्रकार का भार सेल आधारित अस्वचालित तोलने उपकरणं ( टेबलंटाप टाइप ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 30 कि.ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आर्धयतुलन 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 ।

TOP BODY OF SCALE

SEAL WIRE

LEAD SQUARE SEAL

SEALWIRE

0000 ZODIX

496

BOTTOM OF SCALE

SEAL

LEADSQUARE

आकृति 2 - मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण उपयोग से बच्चने के लिए और स्केल की स्टाम्पिंग के लिए , वेइंग इंडीकेटर की बाडी में से लीड सील के साथ लीड वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील से छेड़छाड किए बिना उपकरण को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार 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 प्रमाण पत्र 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 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10 , 2x10 और 5x10 , के हैं , जो धनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 189 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1490

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)]

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 496. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act , 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of High Accuracy (Accuracy class -II) of Series " ZWST " and with brand name " ZODIX" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , maunfactured by M/s . Zodix Weighing Solutions , A-42/26, Gurudwara Road, Dilshad Garden Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi - 95 which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/334;

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

Figure 1-Model

TOP BODY OF SCALE

SEAL WIRE

0000

Zodix

SEALWIRE

LEAD SQUARE SEAL

ZODIX

496

BOTTOM OF SCALE

LEAD SQUARE SEAL

496

Figure 2-Schematic diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done by passing lead wire through the body of scale with the lead seal to get the stamping of the scale to avoid fraudulent use. The instrument can not be opened without tampering the seal . 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 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 up to 50 kg . with verification scale interval (n) inthe range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of 1mg . to 50 mg. and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 50,000 for' e value of 100 mg 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 ( 189)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1491 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 497. केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 ( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स जोडिक्स वेइंग सोल्यूशन , ए-42/26 , गुरूद्वारा रोड , दिलशाद गार्डन इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , शाहदरा , दिल्ली-95 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " जेडडब्ल्यूएसपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " जोडिक्स " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है), और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/335 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 न्यूनतम क्षमता 2 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 100 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

max-1000kg. min-2kg. -100g clese- ill

TOP OF INDICETOR

000

SEALWIRE

BEAL WIRE

ZODIX

LEAD SQUARE SEAL

Zadix

LEAD SQUARE

BEAL

2197

497

BOTTOM OF INDICATOR

आकृति 2 - मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण उपयोग से बचने के लिए और स्केल की स्टाम्पिंग के लिए, वेइंग इंडीकेटर की बाडी में से लीड सील के साथ लीड वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना उपकरण को खोला नहीं जा सकता । मॉडल के सीलिंग 'प्रावधान का स्कीमवार 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 का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे जो 5 ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 500 से 10,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. से 5000 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई" मान 1x10 , 2x10*, या 5x10*, के हैं, जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यू एम-21 ( 189 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 410 Gi /11-5 1492

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 497. 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 " ZWSP " and with brand name " ZODIX" (hereinafter referred to as the said Model ) , maunfactured by M/s . Zodix Weighing Solutions , A- 42/ 26, Gurudwara Road, Dilshad Garden Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi - 95 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/335;

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

Figure1-Model

max-1000kg .

min-2kg . e-100g class-

TOP OF INDICETOR

000

SEALWIRE

SEAL WIRE

ZODIX

LEAD SQUAME SSAL

Zodix

SEAL Figure 2- Sealing provision of the indicator of model

Seaii is done by passing lead wire through the body of the weight indicator with the lead seal to get the to avoid fraudulent use. The instrument can not be opened without tampering the seal . A typical schematic dias.. ealing provision of the model is given above. stainping of the

The instrument has externs 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 conferredby sub- section ( 12) of Section 36 of the said Act , the Central Government hereby declares that this certiticate of approval of the said model shall also cover the weighing instrument of similar make, accuracy and perforce of same series with maximum capacity above 50 kg . up to 5000 kg. with verification scale (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of 5 g or more and with ' e ' value of 1x10k , 2x10 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 ( 189)/2009 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology 1493 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

नई दिल्ली , 27 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 498.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी नीदरलैंड मीटिनस्टिटूट ( एन एम आई ) , नीदरलैंड द्वारा जारी मॉडल अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र के साथ उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक ( मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) एवं उप- धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स माइक्रो मोशन इन. 7070 विनचेस्टर सर्किल , बाउलडर , सीओ 80301 , यू एस ए द्वारा विनिर्मित यथार्थता वर्ग 0.3 (जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) वाले " सीएमएफएचसी विद एमवीडी 700 " श्रृंखला के मापमान सेंसर ( कोरिओलिस सेंसर ) जिसे मापमान उपकरण के पार्ट के रूप में प्रयोग होता है जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " माइक्रो मोशन " है और जिसे भारत में मैसर्स एमरसन प्रोसेस मैनेजमेंट ( इंडिया ) प्रा. लि. , दूसरा तल, डी विंग , मार्डन मिल्ज कम्पाउंड, साने गुरूजी मार्ग , जकॉब सर्किल , महालक्ष्मी, मुंबई-400 011 द्वारा विपणीत किया गया है और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 13/09 /318 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण पत्र जारी करती है ।

आकृति

उक्त मॉडल एक इलेक्ट्रोनिक कोरिओलिस डाइरेक्ट मास फ्लो मीटर ( कोरिओलिस सेंसर ) है , जिसका उपयोग तेल और तेल उत्पाद , रसायन , पेय तरल पदार्थ , दबाव युक्त तरल गैस और हिमकारी लिक्विड्स जो 450 और 2000 kg/m³ के बीच के घनत्व में हैं । उक्त मॉडल द्रव्यमान माप , तरल पदार्थों के घनत्व और वाल्यूम , जिनके मापमान की रेंज 200° C/+ 200° C ( द्रव्यमान माप ) और -10 ° C/+ 50° C ( वाल्यूम और घनत्व का माप ) है , के लिए अनुमोदित किया गया है । इसके दो घटक हैं , एक मापमान सेंसर CMFxxx और इलेक्ट्रोनिक सिगनल प्रोसेसिंग यूनिट जिसे एमवीडी के नाम से जाना जाता है । इसके व्यास की रेंज 6 एमएम से 100एमएम में है । इसकी अधिकतम प्रवाह दर Qmas 22,000 kg./min है और न्यूनतम प्रवाह दर 36kg./min है । न्यूनतम मापमान मात्रा 0.5 कि.ग्रा. है । इसका परिवेश तापमान -25 ° C से + 55 ° C है । अधिकतम परिचालन दबाव की रेंज 125 से 205 बार के बीच है । उपकरण 230 वोल्टस , 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है । ओआईएमएल आर 117 के अनुसार माडल का परीक्षण किया गया है ।

इलैक्ट्रोनिक प्रोसेसिंग यूनिट पासवर्ड से लॉक की जाती है और स्पेशल क्लांप जो कि एक स्क्रू द्वारा स्थान पर लगी है , जिसे स्टैंडर्ड लीड आयर सील से सील लगायी गई है , हाउसिंग के साथ सील किया गया है ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 79 ) /2009 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1494

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 498. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by the prescribed authority along with the Model approval certificate issued by the Netherlands Meetinstituut (NMI ), Netherlands, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) , is in conformity with the provisions ofthe 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 the third proviso to sub - section (3 ) and sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of model of a measurement sensor ( Coriolis Sensor) intended to used as part of measuring instrument with brand name 'MICRO MOTION' and of series " CMFHC3 with MVD 700" series of accuracy class 0.3 (hereinafter referred to as the model ), manufactured by M/s . Micro Motion Inc, 7070 Winchestor Circle, Boulder , CO 80301 , USA and marketed in India by M/s . Emerson Process Management (India) Pvt . Ltd. , 2nd Floor, D- Wing , Modern Mills Compound, Sane Guruji Marg , Jacob Circle, Mahalakshmi, Mumbai -400 011 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 13/09/318 .

498

Figure

The said model is an electronic coriolis direct mass flow meter (Coriolis Sensor ) used for measurement of oil and oil products , chemicals , potable liquids , liquefied gases under pressure and cryogenic liquids with densities between 450 and 2000 kg./m³ . The said model has also been approved for measuring mass , density and volume of liquids in the temperature range of-200° C/+200° C (measuring mass ) and -10 °C/ +50 ° C (measuring volume and density ) . It consist of two components , a measurement sensor CMFxxx and electronic signal processing unit known as MVD . Its diameter is in the range of 6mm to 100mm . Its maximum flow rate Qmax is 22,000 kg./min and minimum flow rate is 36 kg./min . The minimum measured quantity is 0.5kg. The temperature range ambient is -25 ° C to + 55 ° C. The maximum operating pressure is in the range 125 to 205 bar. The instruments operates on 230V, 50Hz alternative current power supply. It has been tested according to OIML R 117 specifications .

Electronic processing unit may be locked by password and also sealed along with housing accomplished with special sealing clamp that is held in place by a screw that can be sealed by standard lead wire seal .

[F. No. WM- 21 (79)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director, Legal Metrology 1495

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 28 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 499.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्सडिजी-टेक सिस्टम्स , आर. एच-14 , बिमल इन्कलेव , वास तालाब के पास, रायपुर (छत्तीसगढ़ ) द्वारा उच्च यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- II ) वाले " ईएसजे " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " ईएसएस डिजीकॉम " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/09/310 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. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 100 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 2 ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्ति है जिसका शत प्रतिशत व्यवकलनात्मक धारित आधेयतुलन प्रभाव है । प्रकाश उत्सर्जक डायोड ( एल ई डी ) प्रदर्श तोलन परिणाम उपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

300mm

120m

240лил

330mm

SEAL WITH

OTHER SIDE SEALINKI

STAMPING PLATE

479

OTHER SHK

आकृति 2- मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

कपटपूर्ण व्यवहारों से बचने के लिए स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट पर सीलिंग प्वाइंट लगाया गया है । वेइंग मशीन को कपटपूर्ण व्यवहार के लिए खोले जाने से रोकने के लिए सीलिंग की जाती है । स्टाम्पिंग के लिए लीड सील के साथ स्केल की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर स्टाम्पिंग प्लेट से जोड़ा गया है । उपकरण को सील से छेड़छाड़ किए बिना नहीं खोला जा सकता । मॉडल के सीलिंग प्रावधान का स्कीमवार 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 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 1 मि.ग्रा. से 50 मि.ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 50,000 तक के रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) और 100 मि.ग्रा. या उससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 5000 से 50,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन मापमान अंतराल ( एन ) सहित 50 कि.ग्रा. तक की अधिकतम क्षमता वाले हैं और " ई " मान 1x10* , 2x10* या 5x10 *, के हैं , जो घनात्मक या ऋणात्मक पूर्णांक या शून्य के समतुल्य हैं ।

[फा. सं. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 177 )/2009 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1496

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

New Delhi, the 28th January, 2011

S.O. 499. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report ( see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 ( 60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub- sections (7) and ( 8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication ofhigh accuracy (Accuracy class - II ) ofseries "ESJ " and with brand name "ESS DIGICOM " (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Digi - Tech Systems , R.H. - 14, Bimal Enclave, Nr Vas Talab , Raipur ( C.G) which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/09/310.

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

Figure 1-Model

300mm

120mn

240mmn

330

ORIFE SUE SEALING

AMING PLATE

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

Scaling point is affixed on the stamping plate to avoid the fraudulent uses . Sealing shall also be done to prevent opening of the weighing machine for fraudulent practice . The stamping plate is connected through sealing wire passing from the body of scale lead seal to get stamping . 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 ofthe 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 upto 50kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 50,000 for ' e ' value of Img. to 50mg. and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 50,000 for ' e' value of 100mg . or more and with ' e' value of lx10k , 2x10 or 5x10% , 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 ( 177)/2009]

B. N. DIXIT, Director, Legal Metrology 1497 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 500.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम , 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप- धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स यूरेका वेइंग सिस्टम प्रा.लि. , 101 , आचार्य इंड. एस्टेट, तेजपाल कंपाउंड , नियर लथिया रबर, साकीनाका, अंधेरी ( ई. ) , मुंबई-400072 द्वारा विनिर्मित विशेष यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग-1 ) वाले " ईडब्ल्यूएम -10 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटॉप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " यूरेका " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/397 समनुदेशित किया गया है , अनुमोदन प्रमाण- पत्र जारी करती है ।

उक्त मॉडल एक इलैक्ट्रो मैग्नेटिक फोर्स कम्पनसेशन प्रिंसिपल पर आधारित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप प्रकार ) है । इसकी अधिकतम क्षमता 1000 ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 10 मि. ग्रा. है । इसमें एक आधेयतुलन युक्तिहै 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 ।

5000

500

आकृति -2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्प्ले की बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की गई है । डिस्प्ले की बेस प्लेट और टाप कवर के छेद से सील को जोड़ा गया है , तब सील वायर इन दोनों छेदों में से निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा गया है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपरोक्त दिया गया है ।

और केन्द्रीय सरकार उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 12 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए यह घोषणा करती है कि उक्त मॉडल के अनुमोदन के इस 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 1 मि.ग्रा. या इससे अधिक के " ई " मान के लिए 50,000 या उससे अधिक के 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. डब्ल्यूएम -21 (246 )/2010 ]

बी. एन . दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1498

[PART II-SBC . 3 ( ii) ] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O.500.-Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of Special Accuracy ( Accuracy class - I) of series "EWM - 10" and with brand name " EUREKA" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s Eureka Weighing System Pvt Ltd, 101, Acharya Ind. Estate, Tejpal Compound, Nr. Lathia Rubber , Sakinaka, Andheri (E) , Mumbai - 400072 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/397;

The said model is a Electro Magnetic Force Compensation Principle based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type) with a maximum capacity of 1000g . and minimum capacity of 1g. The verification scale interval (e) is 10mg. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode (LED ) Display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure 1

STAMPING

Figure- 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body of the display. The seal is connected by hole inbase plate & top cover of display, then 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 . Adip switch has also been provided in A/D card/ mother board to disable access to external calibration .

Further, in exercise ofthe power conferred by sub - section( 12) of Section 36 ofthe 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 50000 or more for ' e' value of 1mg . or more and with ' e ' value of lx10 , 2x10 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 (246)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director, Legal Metrology

1499 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 501.-केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976 (1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के. उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब, केन्द्रीय सरकार, उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप- धारा (7 ) और उप- धारा (8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स यूरेका वेइंग सिस्टम प्रा.लि. , 101 , आचार्य इंड. एस्टेट, तेजपाल कंपाउंड, नियर लथिया रबर , साकीनाका , अंधेरी ( ई ) , मुंबई-400072 द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " ईडब्ल्यूटीटी -11 " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का , जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " यूरेका " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/ 09/ 10/398 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. है 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 ठपदर्शित करता है । उपकरण 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

UTHERSIDESEALINK

105

501

EUREKA

आकृति-2 मॉडल को सीलिंग करने का योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम

डिस्प्लेकी बाडी में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की गई है । डिस्प्ले की बेस प्लेट और टाप कवर के छेद से सील का जोड़ा गया है , तब सील वायर इन दोनों छेदों में से निकाल कर सील से जोड़ा 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 डिपस्विच 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 उक्त अनुमोदित मॉडल का विनिर्माण किया गया है, विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक , यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे । 1 मि.ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक के 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. डब्ल्यू एम-21 (246 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 410 G1 /11-6 1500

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3(ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 501. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models ) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions ;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non- automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III) ofseries "EWTT- 11 " and with brandname"EUREKA" (hereinafter referred to as the said model) , manufactured by M/ s EurekaWeighing System Pvt . Ltd. , 101 ,Acharya Ind. Estate, Tejpal Compound, Nr. Lathia Rubber, Sakinaka, Andheri ( E) , Mumbai - 400072 and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/ 10/398;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non - automatic weighing instrument (Table Top Type) with a maximum capacity of 30kg . and minimum capacity of 100g . The verification scale interval ( e) is 5g. .It has a tare device with a100 percent subtractive retained tare effect. The Light Emitting Diode (LED) Display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230V olts , 50Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figure 1

USERSIDESEALPI

105

125

EUREKA

WAL PLATE

Figure 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done on the display by passing sealing wire from the body ofthe display. The seal is connected by hole in base plate & top cover of display, then seal wire is passed through these two holes attached with 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 AID card/ mother board to disable access to external calibration .

Further, in exercise ofthe power conferred by sub - section( 12) of section 36 ofthe said Act, the Central Government herebydeclares 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 up to 50kg . with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 100 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of Img to 2g. and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of5000 to 10,000 for ' e' value of5g. or more and with ' e ' value of lx10 , 2x10 or 5x10% , 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 (246)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director, Legal Metrology 1501 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 502.- केन्द्रीय सरकार का, विहित प्राधिकारी द्वारा उसे प्रस्तुत रिपोर्ट पर विचार करने के पश्चात् यह समाधान हो गया है कि उक्त रिपोर्ट में वर्णित मॉडल ( नीचे दी गई आकृति देखें ) बाट और माप मानक अधिनियम , 1976( 1976 का 60 ) तथा बाट और माप मानक (मॉडलों का अनुमोदन ) नियम, 1987 के उपबंधों के अनुरूप है और इस बात की संभावना है कि लगातार प्रयोग की अवधि में भी उक्त मॉडल यथार्थता बनाए रखेगा और विभिन्न परिस्थितियों में उपयुक्त सेवा प्रदान करता रहेगा;

अतः , अब , केन्द्रीय सरकार , उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 36 की उप - धारा ( 7 ) और उप - धारा ( 8 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए मैसर्स विक्टोरियस इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स, इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , पाटनवा, रामनगर, चन्दौली जिला, उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता ( यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " वीईटी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( टेबलटाप टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " फास्ट्रेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/282 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. है 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 230 वोल्ट और 50 हर्ट्ज प्रत्यावर्ती धारा विद्युत प्रदाय पर कार्य करता है ।

StampingPlate

Leadseal

Sealingwith

88888

502

आकृति-2 उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

स्केल की बाडी के होल्स में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम ऊपर दिया गया 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 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. 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. डब्ल्यूएम-21 ( 184 )/2010 ] बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक , विधिक माप विज्ञान 1502

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 502. Whereas the Central Government, after considering the report submitted to it by prescribed authority, is satisfied that the model described in the said report (see the figure given below) is in conformity with the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (60 of 1976) and the Standards of Weights and Measures (Approval of Models) Rules , 1987 and the said model is likely to maintain its accuracy over periods of sustained use and to render accurate service under varied conditions;

Now, therefore, in exercise of the powers conferred by sub - sections (7) and (8) of Section 36 of the said Act, the Central Government hereby issues and publishes the certificate of approval of the model of non - automatic weighing instrument (Table top type) with digital indication ofMedium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III) of series "VET" and with brand name "FASTRACK" (hereinafter referred to as the said model ), manufactured by M/s Victorious Engineering Works , Industrial Area, Patanwa, Ramnagar , Chandauli - Distt . U.P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/09/10/282;

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

Figurel

StampingPlate

1,modseal Sealingwith

502

Figure-2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

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

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

Further, in exercise ofthe power conferred by sub -section ( 12) of section 36 ofthe 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 of100 to 10,000 for ' e' value of 1 mg. to 2g . and with verification scale interval (n) in the range of 500 to 10,000 for ' e ' value of5g . or more and with ' e ' value of lx10 , 2x10 or 5x10*, 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)/2010 ]

B. N. DIXIT, Director , Legal Metrology 1503

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

नई दिल्ली, 31 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 503.- 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 विक्टोरियस इंजीनियरिंग वर्क्स, इंडस्ट्रियल एरिया , पाटनवा , रामनगर, चन्दौली जिला , उत्तर प्रदेश द्वारा विनिर्मित मध्यम यथार्थता (यथार्थता वर्ग- III ) वाले " वीईपी " श्रृंखला के अंकक सूचन सहित अस्वचालित तोलन उपकरण ( प्लेटफार्म टाइप ) के मॉडल का, जिसके ब्रांड का नाम " फास्ट्रेक " है ( जिसे इसमें इसके पश्चात् उक्त मॉडल कहा गया है ) और जिसे अनुमोदन चिह्न आई एन डी/09/ 10/283 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 200 कि. ग्रा. है और न्यूनतम क्षमता 1 कि.ग्रा. है । सत्यापन मापमान अन्तराल ( ई ) 50 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 ।

Stamping plate

Lead seal

fladicator oftre Platform Scale- Front Side]

StampingPlate

Lead seal

Sealingwire

Andicator of the platforin Scare Lower back Side ;

आकृति -2 उपकरण के मॉडल का सीलिंग प्रावधान

स्केल की बाडी के होल्स में से सीलिंग वायर निकाल कर सीलिंग की जाती है । मॉडल को सीलबंद करने के उपबंध का एक प्ररूपी योजनाबद्ध डायग्राम उपर 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 का विनिर्माण किया गया है , विनिर्मित उसी श्रृंखला के वैसे ही मेक, यथार्थता और कार्यपालन के तोलन उपकरण भी होंगे । जो 1 मि. ग्रा. से 2 ग्रा. तक के " ई " मान के लिए 100 से 10,000 तक की रेंज में सत्यापन 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. से 5000 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. डब्ल्यूएम -21 ( 184 )/2010 ]

बी. एन. दीक्षित , निदेशक, विधिक माप विज्ञान 1504

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30 , 1932

[PART II-SBC. 3( ii) ]

New Delhi , the 31st January, 2011

S.O. 503. 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 (Plateform type) with digital indication of Medium Accuracy (Accuracy class - III) of series "VEP" and with brand name ' FASTRACK " ( hereinafter referred to as the said model ) , manufactured by M/s . Victorious Engineering Works , Industrial Area, Patanwa, Ramnagar, Chandauli - Distt. U.P. and which is assigned the approval mark IND/ 09/ 10/283 ;

The said model is a strain gauge type load cell based non- automatic weighing instrument ( Plateform Type) with a maximum capacity of 200kg . and minimum capacity of 1 kg . The verification scale interval (e) is 50g. It has a tare device with a 100 per cent subtractive retained tare effect . The Light Emitting Diode ( LED) Display indicates the weighing result . The instrument operates on 230 Volts , 50 Hertz alternative current power supply.

Figurel

Stampingpiate

Lead sual

0000

(Indicator of the Platform Scale - Front Side)

Stamping Plate

Lead seal

5 Sealingwire

(Indicator of the platform S - sie Lower back Side;

50 %

Figure 2 Schematic Diagram of sealing provision of the model

Sealing is done by passing the sealing wire from the body ofthe scale through holes .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 ofthe 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 . 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 lx10 , 2x10 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)/2010]

B. N. DIXIT, Director of Legal Metrology भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

1505

पेट्रोलियम और प्राकृतिक गैस मंत्रालय

नई दिल्ली, 10 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 504.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि मैसर्स रिलाएन्स इंडस्ट्रीज 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- बासुदेवपुर हावडा 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 बिछाई 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 हितबद्ध है, उस तारीख से जिसको उक्त अधिनियम की धारा 3 की उपधारा (1 ) के अधीन जारी की गई अधिसूचना की प्रतियाँ साधारण जनता को उपलव्ध करा दी जाती हैं, इक्कीस दिन के भीतर भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन विछाई जाने के लिए उपायोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री भास्कर त्रिपाठी, 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:कटक

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक:अठागढ

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं.

गाँव का नाम

2 1

आर.ओ.यूअर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

हेक्टेयर एयर सि एयर

00 80

सकसना (आरक्षित वन)

1 ) सुकसना (आरक्षित वन)

3011

2) बेंटापाडा

3010

346

3) बेतखोली

345

344

343

342

231

341

229

226

227

211

00 00

00 30

00 00

00 01 1506

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

३) बेतखोली (निरंतर)

340

320

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

00 01 59

00 02

00 01

सर्वे सं 320 और 68 के वीच में

159

160

161

158

162

163

157

148

147

149

150

151

146

180

212

202

204

203

00 00

00 04

00 00

00 08

सर्वे सं 203 और 205 के बीच में

205

270

383

4) गरियापट

384

380

357

322

321

329

320

349

331

405

332

333

334

335

338

00 02

00 18

00 02

22 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

339

4) गरियापट (निरंतर)

184

181

182

180

176

177

175

173

174

171

170

169

1091

5) राजनगर

1090

1089

1088

1092

1093

1094

1095

1096

1097

1099

1100

1102

1101

1104

1107

1080

1105

1106

1131

1128

1130

1132

1133

1129

1141

1142

1140

1143

1144

1145

1146 410 Gl / 11-7

1507

10 00 00

47 00 01

64 09

85 02

02 06

35 00 07

35 00 01

58 02

68 17

11 01

89 00

09 11

18 06

99 06

57 04

22 01

14 00

73 02

46 00

19 10

05 03

12 02

72 02

24 08

81 00 09

00 1508

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

1112

6) गोकुलपुर

347

351

350

349

348

367

1184

414

413

412

428

411

430

431

403

404

402

401

400

433

461

462

463

464

465

466

470

471

472

469

1241

450

1138

479

478

481

482

299

298

795

1092

537

536

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

97 00

52 00 00

10 00 00

89 02

44 00 05

69 00 00

16 00 00

70 00

20 00 00

26 00

00 00

00 06

00 05

00 00

00 06

00 00

00 22

00 00

32 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

531

6) गोकुलपुर (निरंतर)

535

532

533

530

545

546

525

1178

524

523

521

514

515

512

1154

511

510

508

504

461

7) राधामाधाभपुर

460

462

463

466

464

459

465

458

445

471

1814

8 ) माहाकालबस्त

1812

1813

1811

1810

1809

1808

1807

1806

1509 4

05 00

49 00

90 02

05 00

00 09

75 00 05

78 00 05

62 00 09

97 00 00

00 10

58 04

40 01

96 00

64 05

98 04

00 06

55 07

38 00 05

83 20

32 00 00

50 02

08 03

32 00

35 04

06 00

00 00

00 10

22 00 06

00 02

02 1510

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA30, 1932

2 1

1805

8) माहाकालवस्त (निरंतर )

1804

1803

1802

1801

1799

1798

1793

1797

1794

1795

1791

1790

1787

1785

1783

1782

1777

1776

1751

1750

1749

1746

1817

1822

1820

1818

1819

1961

1962

1279

1963

113

(9 ) राधाधाभपुर

154

161

117

118

157

152

121

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

24 03

63 00

85 02

25 00

85 00

28 00

49 00

15 00 02

60 00 01

02 00 03

83 00 01

28 03

27 00

60 00

25 00

80 03

39 00

66 00

26 03

00 02

84 00

79 00

02 31

00 34

37 00

21 01

47 00

51 00 05

72 00 47

39 00 38

65 00

06 13

86 00

69 00

00 06

22 13

48 00

38 01

73 00

30 04 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

120

9) राधाधाभपुर (निरंतर)

122

162

146

143

जिला:कटक मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: टंगी चौडवार

1) माहलपडा

142

130

141

147

140

150

149

148

151

170

216

218

219

235

2) गोपीनाथपाडा

234

1511

00 00

51 00

राज्य:ओडिशा

59 00 00

30 00 00

04 00

99 00

38 00

34 00

46 00

10 00

59 00 13

80 00

03 1512

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

233

2) गोपीनाथपाडा (निरंतर)

213

212

211

210

209

244

198

245

199

201

200

197

196

186

185

184

183

181

3) कखडी

185

186

184

187

183

182

181

173

170

2030

171

172

174

139

138

137

136

130

135

133

131

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

83 00

70 19

75 00 00

10 00 08

14 00

40 00 00

10 00

72 00 09

15 00 02

30 00 00

31. 00 02

76 00

61 00 00

55 00 00

64 00 02

86 00 08

95 01

02 00

63 00

00 00

54 00 05

00 00

00 02

00 00

00 10

00 05

00 07

00 06

54 [भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

2 1

129

3) कखडी (निरंतर)

128

107

106

108

115

114

109

110

113

102

101

111

112

1513 3

5 00 07

75 00

93 00

45 00

13 11

10 00 00

04 00

27 00

44 06

26 03

21 00

98 03

01 00

72 04

43 00

सर्वे नं 59 और गाँव सींमा ब्रहमना बस्ता

1082 4) कोछिलानौगन

1083

1105

1084

1086

1087

1091

1090

335

5 ) रघुनाथप्रसाद

334

333

338

339

322

342

343

383

379

381

380

377

376

370

828

46 00

01 00

02 00 09

95 32

04 00

95 49

00 00

14 13

47 00

96 00 16

07 00 19

76 00

34 12

22 05

36 00

76 00

72 00 15

06 00

59 00

00 03

69 06

96 13

37 00 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

1514

2 1

438

5) रघुनाथप्रसाद (निरंतर)

445

443

498

499

865

880

881

882

883

879

519

521

495

525

869

526

527

528

529

598

597

897

596

595

593

592

580

581

582

575

574

583

573

567

565

568

564

563

561

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

08 00

00 12

22 29

34 18

92 00

54 00

54 05

66 00

15 01

36 00 12

33 00

10 00

69 02

96 00

33 00

32 00 02

27 09

64 00

46 15

61 12

85 00

10 00

88 00 04

08 00

99 06

68 02

73 00

41 00

02 00

00 00

10 00 06

43 00 16

00 09

81 00 00

67 00

96 00

23 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

562

5) रघुनाथप्रसाद (निरंतर)

856

136

6) बगधारा

147

146

150

144

143

145

140

142

175

176

141

177

178

179

180

181

182

107

106

220

7) मंगराजपुर

410 GI/11-8

1515 4

96 00

70 00

60 00 00

00 00

42 00

15 00

00 02

23 00 09

67 00

90 00

61 00

12 00

07 00 06

70 00

66 00

66 01

75 00 10

61 01

33 00

00 03

84 00

47 00 28

74 00

85 00

10 00

63 00

60 00

34 00

35 00 06

25 10

86 01

84 06

0.0

73 00

92 00 01

69 01

43 03

12 00

11 1516

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

7) मंगराजपुर (निरंतर)

251

8) रामचंद्रपुर

253

255

530

529

531

528

527

536

535

542

543

541

671

553

552

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

94 00

19 00

24 00

00 01

00 06

99 00 12

36 00

53 00

91 00

46 03

00 06

13 00

93 00 04

00 04

25 00

82 00 06

48 00 00

66 00

10 00

22 00

13 00

10 00

52 00

21 00 04

13 00

39 00

25 00 02

02 00

32 04

71 04

63 00 05

25 00 08

21 00

13 00

87 00

60 16

00 18

30 00 05

83 00

07 11

87 05

86 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

721 8) रामचंद्रपुर (निरंतर)

555

554

507

720

483

484

732

487

488

489

490

802

492

500

736

491

794

जिला:कटक मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: गुरूदीजहटिया

1 ) गोपालप्रसाद

1155

1095

1231

1225

1224

102

103

104

106

105

101

1163

114

100

1517

98 00

24 00

25 00

09 00

49 00

56 00

32 00

24 00

राज्य:ओडिशा

69 00 16

51 00 28

49 00

93 00

24 00

16 00 00

10 00

56 00

77 00 09

79 00

76 00

55 00

73 00 05

00 1518

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

1 ) गोपालप्रसाद (निरंतर)

127

126

156

157

161

164

163

162

233

234

232

237

235

239

240

242

241

250

249

1161

1190

287

289

288

295

296

298

299

297

300

317

316

1141

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

00 06

15 05

48 00

16 00

75 00 04

96 00 00

44 00

55 00 10

80 00 03

79 00 05. 94 00 04

85 00 02

28 00 02

24 00

97 00 02

29 00

47 00 08

53 00 06

56 00 08

06 00

42 01

00 09

09 00

00 04

28 00 02

20 00

00 09

00 04

00 02

00 08

63 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

505

1) गोपालप्रसाद (निरंतर)

506

328

504

331

503

332

490

491

488

487

486

485

484

483

429

430

528

527

531

532

1183

533

534

535

476

537

1220

536

545

1146

543

558

559

544

561

560

396

398

395

1519 4

47 00 07

10 00

65 04

78 00 04

10 00

99 00 04

53 00

00 08

27 00 08

23 00

76 00 00

43 06

17 00

20 03

19 00

21 00

00 00

27 00 05

82 00

64 00

94 00

47 00

86 03

26 00

01 14

97 00

92 00

28 38

14 00 24

13 00 00

39 00

34 00

19 00 16

24 07

28 00 03

71 00 01

02 00 08

82 00 00 1520

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

399

1 ) गोपालप्रसाद (निरंतर)

400

401

402

393

392

404

403

406

405

408

407

409

410

411

412

413

388

382

381

380

374

1168

300

2) निधिपुर

294

293

298

297

295

296

292

291

306

307

310

311

289

264

265

268

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

83 00

47 00

98 01

71 00

38 00

51 00

82 03

12 01

05 00

61. 00 02

31 00 01

91 01

18 00

00 00

90 00 00

84 00

10 00

10 00 02

20 00 01

10 00

78 00

13 00 00

41 00 00

71 00 08

08 00 00

16 00 00

82 00 03

00 01

43 00

00 01

60 00 00

88 00

29 11

03 01

59 00

37 10

00 00

56 00

74 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2 1

269

2) निधिपुर (निरंतर)

270

273

274

275

277

278

280

282

142

3) पिहुरा

137

138

140

139

150

148

146

147

151

152

208

206

203

205

204

202

200

201

199

224

195

194

225

192

193

248

249

246

255

257

1521

95 01

12 00

47 05

10 00 05

10 00

64 00

85 01

28 00

56 00 02

13 00

36 00

60 00 20

10 00 00

40 00

65 03

00 04

13 01

19 02

16 00

73 00

10 00

00 00

54 00 02

93 00

73 06

31 00

65 00

23 00 06

74 00

87 00 12

13 00

61 00 00

76 00 16

00 02

78 00 06

30 18

90 42

24 00

30 00

10 1522

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

258

3) पिहुरा (निरंतर)

268

259

260

261

263

265

1080

4 ) कपुरसिंह

1079

358

351

357

1067

363

365

366

367

368

370

369

1064

361

1063

377

1032

260

543

325

542

544

555

556

540

1007

549

557

558

596

595

599

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

00 04

75 00

23 00 06

43 00 06

41 13

52 00 19

57 00

36 11

00 06

37 00 00

10 00

11 35

53 00

19 00

22 00

81 00

14 00 17

87 00 00

78 00

48 00

74 00

85 00 00

82 00

19 00

76 00 05

33 00

25 00

97 00

13 00 00

10 00

03 19

00 00

34 00

61 00 02

98 00 00

19 00

10 00

00 00

42 11

45 13

81 00

26 00 12

90 00 07

53 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30, 1932

623

4) कपुरसिंह (निरंतर )

622

618

621

720

723

740

743

741

739

738

737

736

734

735

800

799

798

797

796

795

794

808

793

809

810

811

815

813

814

816

820

817

818

819

824

832

828

825

822

410 G1/11-9

1523 4

10 00

36 00 00

10 00 11

77 00

00 01

10 07

44 00

18 17

83 00 03

95 00

06 00

21 00

00 08

65 00

98 00

69 00 00

02.

00 06

92 00

56 00

00 00

00 1524

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

829

4) कपुरसिंह (निरंतर)

905

916

914

913

835

879

881

882

876

1099

884

891

890

1108

5) ओरण्डा

109

108

107

सर्वे से 107 और 49 के बीच में

सर्वे से 59 और 58 के बीच में

सर्वे सं 58 और 41 के बीच में

[Part II Sec. 3 ( ii )] 3

98 00 06

34 00 00

88 00

66 05

00 09

34 00

20 00

42 01

00 06

63 00 08

10 00 00

66 00

56 00

52 01

00 08

32 00

73 00

82 00 12

63 00 09

47 00 18

37 00 00

32 00 04

08 00

61 00 03

51 00 02

74 00 06

45 00 18

71 00 05

45 00

38 00

85 00

11 02

32 00

48 00

50 01

15 00 02

18 00

84 00

58 03

64 00 12

41 00 09

28 00

10 [ भाग II - खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /मात्र 30, 1932

6) पिठाखिआ

136

138

139

149

160

161

162

159

158

165

172

17.1

173

170

203

200

199

188

189

193

198

197

191

196

195

194

236

237

253

252

251

254

255

257

256

367

372

368

369

366

1525 3

00 03

84 00

05 07

71 00 02

32. 00 01

35 00 04

75 00 02

07 00

99 00 12

19 02

29 00

23 00

07 00 05

42 00 00

10 00 00

16 00 04

00 00 02

11 00

38 00 02

71 00

12 04

00 00

59 02

77 00 02

61 00

00 16

26 00 05

00 01

00 00

29 21

95 00 05

62 00 12

00 00

00 01

80 1526

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 1

364

6) पिठाखिआ (निरंतर)

7) कोटरा

117

874

862

118

119

836

113

120

142

141

140

137

139

136

135

134

138

130

133

131

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

11 00

12 00

20 13

00 09

67 00 08

86 00

50 00

54 00

10 00 00

18 09

14 00

35 06

57 00 00

10 00

55 00

07 12

00 08

64 00 00

73 00 02

33 00

21 10

98 00 09

33 00 00

10 00

29 00

10 00

00 04

47 00

10 00 00

55 00

43 00

72 00

06 04

53 08

32 00

00 00

57 00

22 00

29 00 00

47 00 00

64 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

132

7) कोटरा (निरंतर)

126

336

127

128

335

342

333

331

332

777

775

778

860

779

780

785

757

935

756

755

806

738

736

972

971

731

732

730

729

723

906

724

725

754

8 ) गुरूडीझाटिआ

752

755

753

749

750

1527 3

06 00

02 00

10 03

89 00

69 00

33 00

74 00 00

00 00

13 00

87 00

10 00 00

81 03

51 02

76 00

67 10

83 00

97 00

00 10

11 00

1.9

70 00

00 14

65 00

57 00

68 00 05

09 00 12

06 01

41 00

86 01

23 10

00 00

10 03

51 00

16 01

76 01

10 00 06

04 00 10

92 00 31

24 00 00 1528

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

761

8) गुरूडीझाटिआ (निरंतर )

763

748

747

737

736

765

735

734

733

729

732

673

731

676

707

706

704

690

703

702

698

697

699

1014

१ ) साउरिआ

1015

1105

1020

10) शेरकुओं

240

239

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

54 00 05

88 00 13

62 00

63 00

50 00

20 00 00

77 00 06 00 00

45 00 15

70 00 00

80 00

04 00

54 00

98 00 12

76 00 03

25 00

89 00 02

34 00

74 00

25 00

64 00 04

59 00 04

24 00

00 00

00 20

00 02

00 07

00 03

00 01

00 08

00 09

00 05

00 02

58 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ: 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

10) शरकुओं (निरंतर )

167

11 ) गोबराशासन

168

443

169

189

188

187

186

184

185

183

181

177

180

179

178

242

243

1529 4

32 00 02

07 00

00 00

21 00

60 00

86 00

68 00

21 24

64 01

00 00

92 00 02

00 07

00 02

00 05

00 09

सर्वे सं 243 और 292 के बीच में

292

291

294

300

301

00 02

41 1530

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

299

11 ) गोबराशासन (निरंतर)

302

303

298

427

323

341

324

325

328

329

330

170

475

2) कंटानिया

485

482

486

487

693

489

679

490

492

491

470

675

577

499

501

451

452

450

373

374

375

377

376

367

364

365

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

75 00

56 00 00

10 00

14 01

00 02

28 00 09

14 00

13 00

30 00 49

34 00 16

89 00 18

04 00 00

24 00 00

10 00

12 04

60 00

22 00

66 00

99 00

74 00

45 00 14

79 00 00

45 00 05

29 00 00

24 00

00 00

00 20

00 00

00 08

77 1531 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

366

12) कंटानिया (निरंतर)

369

361

360

351

358

156

158

664

161

697

160

695

658

102

101

694

[फा सं. एल. - 14014/110/2010-जी.पी. ]

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

New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S. O. 504. 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;

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 Bhaskar Tripathy , Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, 1st Floor , Fortune Tower , Chandrasekharpur , Bhubaneswar 751023 , Orissa State .

410 GI /11-10 1532

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

Schedule Mandal/Tehsil /Taluk : Athagad

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii )]

District: Cuttack

Village

State:Orissa

Survey No./Sub-Division

2 1 ) Sukasana Reserve Forest

Area to be acquired for

Hee

Are

C-Are 3

Sukasana Reserve Forest

2) Bentapada

3011

3010

3) Betakholi

346

345

344

343

342

231

341

229

226

227

211

340

320

In bet suy no. 320 & 68

159

160

161

158

162

163

157

60 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माथ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 3) Betakhali (Contd)

148

147

149

150

151

146

180

212

202

204

203

In bet suy no . 203 & 205

205

270

383

4) Gariapat

384

380

357

322

321

329

320

349

331

405

332

333

334

335

338

339

184

181

182

180

176

177

175

173

174

1533 4

11 1534

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 4) Gariapat ( Contd)

171

170

169

1091 5) Rajnagar

1090

1089

1088

1092

1093

1094

1095

1096

1097

1099

1100

1102

1101

1104

1107

1080

1105

1106

1131

1128

1130

1132

1133

1129

1141

1142

1140

1143

1144

1145

1146

1112

6) Gokulpur

347

351

350

349

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

44 1535

भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

348

6) Gokulpur (Contd)

367

1184

414

413

412

428

411

430

431

403

404

402

401

400

433

461

462

463

464

465

466

470

471

472

469

1241

450

1138

479

478

481

482

299

298

795

1092

537

536

00 1536

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30 , 1932

2 6) Gokulpur ( Contd)

531

535

532

533

530

545

546

525

1178

524

523

521

514

515

512

1154

511

510

508

504

461

7) Radhamadhabpur

460

462

463

466

464

459

465

458

445

471

8) Mahakalabast

1814

1812

1813

1811

1810

1809

1808

1807

1806

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

43 1537

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माष 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

1805 8) Mahakalabast (Contd)

1804

1803

1802

1801

1799

1798

1793

1797

1794

1795

1791

1790

1787

1785

1783

1782

1777

1776

1751

1750

1749

1746

1817

1822

1820

1818

1819

1961

1962

1279

1963

113

9) Radhadhabpur

154

161

117

118

157

152

121

04 1538

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

120

9) Radhadhabpur ( Contd)

122

162

146

143

District: Cuttack Mandal / Tehsil / Taluk : Tangi -Choudwar

11) Mahalapada

142

130

141

147

140

150

149

148

151

170

216

218

219

235

2) Gopinathapada

234

[Part II Sec . 3 ( ii) ] 3

State:Orissa

03 1539

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2 1

233

2) Gopinathapada (Contd)

213

212

211

210

209

244

198

245

199

201

200

197

196

186

185

184

183

181

185

3) Kakhadi

186

184

187

183

182

181

173

170

2030

171

172

174

139

138

137

136

130

135

133

131

410 GI /11-11

00 1540

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 3) Kakhadi (Contd )

129

128

107

106

108

115

114

109

110

113

102

101

111

112

Nala Bet Suy no . 59 & VB of Brahmana 00

4) Kochilanuagan

1082

1083

1105

1084

1086

1087

1091

1090

335 5) Raghunathprasad

334

333

338

339

322

342

343

383

379

381

380

377

376

370

828

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

37 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

438

5) Raghunathprasad ( Contd )

445

443

498

499

865

880

881

882

883

879

$19

521

495

525

869

526

527

528

529

598

597

897

596

595

593

592

580

581

582

575

574

583

573

567

565

568

564

563

561

1541 4

23 1542

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 5) Raghunathprasad( Contd)

562

856

136

6) Bagdhara

147

146

150

144

143

145

140

142

175

176

141

177

178

179

180

181

182

107

106

220

7) Mangarajpur

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

11 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) )

2 1

7) Mangarajpur ( Contd)

.80

251

8) Ramchandrapur

253

255

530

529

531

528

527

536

535

542

543

541

671

553

552

1543

00 1544

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011/ MAGHA 30 , 1932

721

8) Ramchandrapur ( Contd)

555

554

507

720

483

484

732

487

488

489

490

802

492

500

736

491

794

District: Cuttack Mandal /Tehsil / Taluk : Gurudijhatia

1) Gopalprasad

1155

1095

1231

1225

1224

102

103

104

106

105

101

1163

114

100

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

State: Orissa

71 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

1) Gopalprasad ( Contd)

127

126

156

157

161

164

163

162

233

234

232

237

235

239

240

242

241

250

249

1161

1190

287

289

288

295

296

298

299

297

300

317

316

1141

1545

01,

00 1546

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 1) Gopalprasad ( Contd)

505

506

328

504

331

503

332

490

491

488

487

486

485

484

483

429

430

528

527

531

532

1183

533

534

535

476

537

1220

536

545

1146

543

558

559

544

561

560

396

398

395

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

82 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30 , 1932.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

399 1) Gopalprasad (Contd)

400

401

402

393

392

404

403

406

405

408

407

409

410

411

412

413

388

382

381

380

374

1168

300 2) Nidhipur

294

293

298

297

295

296

292

291

306

307

310

311

289

264

265

268 410 GI/11-12

1547

100

00 1548

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 2) Nidhipur (Contd)

269

270

273

274

275

277

278

280

282

3) Pihura

142

137

138

140

139

150

148

146

147

151

152

208

206

203

205

204

202

200

201

199

224

195

194

225

192

193

248

249

246

255

257

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

30 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

258

3) Pihura (Contd)

268

259

260

261

263

265

1080 4) Kapursingha

1079

358

351

357

1067

363

365

366

367

368

370

369

1064

361

1063

377

1032

260

543

325

542

544

555

556

540

1007

549

557

558

596

595

599

1549

.90

00 1550

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 4) Kapursingha ( Contd)

623

622

618

621

720

723

740

743

741

739

738

737

736

734

735

800

799

798

797

796

795

794

808

793

809

810

811

815

813

814

816

820

817

818

819

824

832

828

825

822

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

93 [भा भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1551

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

829

4) Kapursingha (Contd)

905

916

914

913

835

879

881

882

876

1099

884

891

890

1108

5) Orarida

1,09

108

107

1 .

In bet suy no . 107 & 49

In bet suy no . 59 & 58

In bet suy no . 58 & 41

16 1552

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30 , 1932

136

6) Pithakhia

138

139

149

160

161

162

159

158

165

172

171

173

170

203

200

199

188

189

193

198

197

191

196

195

194

236

237

253

252

251

254

255

257

256

367

372

368

369

366

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

80 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

364

6) Pithakhia (Contd)

7) Kotara

117

874

862

118

119

836

113

120

142

141

140

137

139

136

135

134

138

130

133

1-31

1553

64 00

00 1554

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 7) Kotara( Contd)

132

126

336

127

128

335

342

333

331

332

777

775

778

860

779

780

785

757

935

756

755

806

738

736

972

971

731

732

730

729

723

906

724

725

754

8) Gurudijhatia

752

755

753

749

750

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

24 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माम 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

761

8) Gurudijhatia (Contd)

763

748

747

737

736

765

735

734

733

729

732

673

731

676

707

706

704

690

703

702

698

697

699

1014 9) Sauria

1015

1105

1020

10) Sarkuan

240

239

29 410 GI/11-13

1555

0054

00 1556

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 10) Sarkuan (Contd)

51-

11 ) Gobarasasan

167

168

443

169

189

188

187

186

184

185

183

181

177

180

179

178

242

243

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

In bet suy no . 243 & 292

292

291

294

300

301

41 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग 11- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

299

11 ) Gobarasasan (Contd)

302

303

298

427

323

341

324

325

328

329

330

170

475 12) Kantania

485

482

486

487

693

489

679

490

492

491

470

675

577

499

501

451

452

450

373

374

375

377

376

367

364

365

1557

00 1558

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[Part II Sec. 3( ii ) ] 1

5 12) Kantania ( Contd)

366

369

361

360

351

358

156

158

664

161

697

160

695

658

102

101

694

[ F. No. L -14014/110/2010-G.P. ]

K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 505.- 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 बासुदेवपुर हावडा 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, अव, 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 हितबद्ध 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 भूमि के नीचे पाइपलाइन बिछाई जाने के लिए उपायोग के अधिकार के अर्जन के संबंध में श्री भास्कर त्रिपाठी, सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलोजिस्टिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड , प्रथम मंजिल , फोर्चुन टावर, चन्द्रशेखरपुर , भुवनेश्वर 751023, ओडिशा राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 19 , 2011 माप 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii ) ]

अनुसूची

जिला:कटक मंडल/ तेहसिल / तालुक:टंगी चौडवार

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं- गाँव का नाम

2 1

1) छोटा पडगांन

286

277

276

323

270

279

345

267

361

2) अंबीलिझरी

360

362

363

372

379

1559 राज्य: ओडिशा

आर.ओ.यू अर्जित करने केलिए क्षेत्रफल

सि एयर हेक्टेयर एयर

74 04

10 00 00

16 02

50 10

11 06

29 18

10 00

50 00 00

20 00 01

94 00

35 00 04

19 00 13

00 1560

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30 , 1932

371

2) अंबीलिझरी (निरंतर )

370

368

329

327

319

320

322

324

323

295

296

297

276

275

274

273

299

300

303

304

582

256

581

259

811

3) माछापंगी

421

418

419

417

416

283

287

288

291

290

292

266

268

265

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

58 00

72 00 04

91 00 00

22 00 00

28 00 20

57 00 09

24 00 12

73 00 00

65 00

74 00 14

25 00 00

36 00 11

09 00 00

10 22

48 00 11

45 00 06

30 00 00

63 00

50 00 02

05 00 19

00 00

07 00

92 00

72 00

24 09

00 06

98 00

03 00

93 00

41 00 20

92 00

25 00

71 00 01

31 00

55 00

87 00

74 00

10 00

59 00 00

28 00 01

35 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

846

3) माछापंगी (निरंतर)

260

261

259

201

200

199

177

211

175

212

213

172

174

173

169

166

168

167

142

165

164

146

147

148

161

160

159

841

150

151

839

840

874

119

896

865

118

153

894

1561

20 06

95 09

87 04

89 03

71 05

25 11

14 03

99 22

87 09

62 03

81 06

10 00

16 02

85 00

50 00

66 00 06

97 00

10 00

10 00 00

82 00

05 00

00 1562

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30 , 1932

892

3) माछापंगी (निरंतर)

117

869

116

917

115

910

890

891

899

107

106

923

930

109

824

111

820

922

828

907

۲۵۰

816

873

815

898

924

900

232

(4) पातालासिगंरा

229

231

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

00 06

40 00 91

10 00 17

46 00

77 00 05

41 00

45 00 00

77 00

46 00 16

73 00

38 00

73 00

35 00

76 00

17 00 08

47 00 04

62 00 18

02 00 11

62 00 01

57 00 14

48 00 04

25 00 00

38 00

60 00 09

62 00 10

26 00 11

00 24

00 17

00 38

00 00

00 08

27 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

230

4) पातालासिगंरा (निरंतर )

208

207

904

181

182

183

187

186

188

190

191

192

172

173

174

175

176

163

164

159

158

157

132

133

152

134

151

150

149

146

147

410 G1/11-14

1563

48 08

10 00

36 02

79 00. 03

00 06 02

18 04

40 11

34 02

86 02

36 01

41 03

67 04

76 00

55 02

00 1564

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

4) पातालासिगंरा (निरंतर)

646

647

650

651

645

652

653

5) अभयापुर

358

616

617

357

359

360

361

363

362

338

337

366

136

134

135

132

145

144

162

636

160

159

158

156

148

155

154

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

00 01

83 00 20

99 00 01

18 00 00

10 00 14

20 00 01

45 00 32

74 00 00

10 00 00

61 00 06

06 00 08

31 00 17

80 00 20

90 00 02

16 00 00

34 00 20

00 00

00 29

00 02

00 07

00 03

00 00

00 14

00 00

00 07

00 03

00 06

00 12

00 00

00 09

00 02

00 04

00 17

00 00

00 14

88 भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

153

5) अभयापुर (निरंतर)

711

152

151

186

189

187

667

6) सफा

668

651

656

655

657

2562

654

228

2560

227

199

198

167

2565

169

171

179

123

174

149

150

148

136

129

128

151

152

127

125

122

121

1565 3

17 00

34 26

00 21

30 00 00

26 00 04

82 38

47 00 12

30 05

48 02

65 00

04 00

60 00

24 03

11 00

71 00

18 13

00 05

29 09

23 00

37 00

65 05

63 00 48

00 00

03 00

38 00

86 01

31 00 40

74 07

19 00

03 00

56 00

99 00

87 00

32 00

53 00

03 00

01 00 1566

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA30, 1932

117

6) सफा (निरंतर)

119

118

108

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

00 20

38 00 42

12 00 00

10 00

77 00 20

95 00 17

89 00

38 00

60 00 00

10 00 05

36 00 10

59 00 00

16 00

97 00 07

जिला:कटक

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: गुरूदीजहटिया

114

1 ) कुमारपुर

111

110

2) बालीपुर

2465

112

110

2285

109

108

147

149

148

150

2411

146

2375

2312

2381

राज्य:ओडिशा

00 09

85 00

68 00 06

83 00 18

00 20

00 09

00 04

00 01

00 19

00 02

00 04

00 46

00 27

00 10

00 24

00 [ भाग II- खण्ड (ii) ]

182 2) बासीपुर (निरंतर)

183

184

185

178

जिला:जाजपुर मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक बडचणा

140 1) सातमाणा

139

138

111

सर्वे से 111 और 114 के बीच में

114

208 2) समिआ

207

204

206

194

195

197

196

4123

191

188

190

189

187

186

4109

266

267

4412

4413

269

294

298

299

300

312

314

315

317

62 राज्य:ओडिशा

39 00 13

69 00 09

35 00 00

33 00 09 1

2 2) समिआ (निरंतर)

318

4274

329

333

332

331

343

761

760

758

756

757

750

749

748

746

745

742

743

744

735

790

789

792

728

727

726

772

710

709

707

706

705

704

703

1056

1037

1057

1119

1065

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

00 02

46 00

37 00 05

18 00 11

65 00 03

02 00 17

68 00 00

92 00 03

30 00 48

39 00 00

00 04

00 28

00 06

00 01

00 05

00 08

00 06

00 05

00 08

00 01

00 02

00 01

00 02

01 19

00 02

00 10

00 00

00 04

00 00

00 05

00 01

02 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

1064

2) समिआ (निरंतर):

1063

1071

1072

1070

1074

1075

1076

1023

1024

1022

1082

1084

1085

993

1088

992

991

4131

989

1087

988

987

1089

4444

1094

1093

1096

1097

1606

1711

1724

1723

4297

1725

4415

1720

1730

1729

1728

1569

00 02

00 05

00 16

00 00

00 12

00 23

00 00

00 02

00 07

29 00

00 04

22 00

00 20

00 00

00 08

28 00 00

00 10

23 00

76 1570

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

1735

2) समिआ (निरंतर)

1736

1743

1742

4430

4431

1760

1752

4432

1755

1759

1756

1758

1709

1761

1763

1771

4206

1770

1769

1778

1767

325

3) हरिचंदनपुर

323

322

324

331

327

316

200

315

314

305

306

304

344

341

342

343

303

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

00 03

38 00 01

83 00 08

78 00 08

86 00

63 00

11 00 18

61 00 09

78 00. 00

00 09

47 04

96 00

00 00

10 00

81 01

63 00

62 06

47 00 01

14 01

75 00

39 00 03

29 00 00

93 00

00 03

29 00 14

42 00

00 01

88 00 22

27 00 00

19 00 03

04 00 26 48 00

32 00

73 00 18

49 00 06

34 00 04

26 00 03

53 00 12

56 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

302

3) हरिचंदनपुर (निरंतर)

251

301

299

252

253

254

298

297

295

292

293

294

264

273

265

4) काशिआपल

126 5) बडपाला

132 410 GI/11-15

1571

95 00 09

02 02

22 02

38 05

66 04

67 01

38 00

76 15

08 20

79 19

10 00

47 02

40 05

44 06

54 00

55 06

00 1572

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

133

5) वडपाला (निरंतर)

134

136

135

138

146

140

147

145

148

211

375

223

224

144

234

226

227

232

228

229

250

249

252

408

149

263

247

266

262

377

265

264

267

268

269

274

270

271

6) एंडारापडा

1021

[Part II Sec. 3 (ii ) ]

00 04

68 00 12

00 00 01

99 00 13

42 00 04

68 00 12

79 00 01

29 00 0.0

89 00 01

02 00 01

00 03

70 00 00

00 00

96 00 03

00 16

00 00

20 00 00

00 06

00 01

00 11

00 02

00 00

00 03

00 00

00 02

00 09

00 00

00 03

00 05

00 00

00 11

30 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

566

6) एंडातपड़ा (निरंतर)

579

578

580

582

583

584

586

588

587

591

700

617

619

620

621

622

955

953

954

956

957

958

959

962

1059

960

961

964

965

966

1159

1121

974

973

972

969

971

970

990

1573

20 07

66 00

00 00

92 00 05

12 00 21

22 00 09

38 00 06

11 02

14 00 01

58 03

00 00

43 01

22 00

10 00

20 00 03

30 00

64 01

67 00 02

60 00 01

00 03

40 00 05

28 00 06

14 00 00

00 05

10 00 00

88 00 00

00 01

16 00 06

58 00

14 00

00 03

94 00 05

51 00

37 00 00

72 00

57 00

03 00 08 1574

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011/MAGHA30, 1932

992

6) एंडारापडा (निरंतर)

994

993

996

997

949

912

919

918

920

921

922

917

926

923

924

938

925

937

940

928

936

930

931

929

7) पुनीआ

174

175

173

172

176

मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक धर्मशाला

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

63 00

00 03 57 00 00

85 00 00

10 00 02

33 00

02 00 00

67 00 01

00 00 02

42 00 02

10 00

00 06

20 00

00 03

22 00 05

90 00 01

74 00

00 00

18 00 00

24 00 17

90 00 02

85 00

76 00

87 00

54 00

73 00 06

40 00 05

00 04

82 00

00 00

85 00 01

94 00

95 00

62 00

00 02

राज्य:ओडिशा

जिला:जाजपुर

188

1) सहासपुर

00 20

05 1575

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड3 (ii) ]

2 1

190

1) सहासपुर (निरंतर)

289

241

242

243

186

184

180

179

125

126

127

124

119

128

115

129

114

113

110

111

112

117

130

131

135

137

06 01

10 00

36 01

25 03

99 03

10 00

81 13

54 21

10 00

79 02

58 00

57 01

68. 00 12

28 00

35 00 01

87 00 00

09 00

गाँव सींम और सर्वे सं 114 के बीच में

2) बेरहमपुरसाना

157

104

05 00 02

00 1

2) बेरहमपुरसाना (निरंतर)

102

103

101

100

429

3) पाइकेरापुर

430

435

431

432

434

433

438

448

447

452

453

454

518

517

519

520

513

512

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

00 06

24 00

64 00 03

76 00 00

76 00 01

35 00 00

51 00 00

10 00

81 00

29 00 05

84 00 13

09 00 00

23 00

20 00 07

92/ 00 00

00 00

00 02

00 01

00 02

00 05

00 00

00 05

00 00

00 07

00 00

00 09

00 04

00 08 22

00 01 05

00 04

00 02

00 01

60 1577

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

521,

3) पाइकेरापुर (निरंतर)

828

836

837.

827

826

825

824-

844

823

819

820..

936

821

935

817

807

808

809

810

811

803

802

801

800

562

4) राहाडपुर

570

563

631

1099

1100

1062

632

630

633

636

1025

740

741

818

41 00

.79

28 00 01

98 00 01

57 00

32 00 06

00 03

27 00 04

00 02

96 00 00

44 00 12

01 00 04

00 06

24 01

27 00

32 00 00

26 04

07-

15 00

47 11

80 00 03

00 06

68 00 04

32 00 00

45 08

11 00 00

68 23

92 00

11 03

14 00

32 00 02

26 00 02

64 00

69 00

00 00

92 00

20 03

32 00 00

10 1578

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

639

4) राहाडपुर (निरंतर)

644

645

646

654

653

647

657

648

641.

659

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

719

1029

1020

785

784

754

760

759

758

764

768

767

1114

773

772

771

774

775

776

5) रंपेइ

736

683

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

0:0 12

16 00 02 73 00 02

10 00 00

00 01

20 00

97 00

33 00

11 00

47 00 00

10 00

39 00 00

53 00 01

36 00 03

75 00 04

16 00

83 00 00

99 00

22 00 08

25 00 07

08 00 00

13 00

55 00 16

44 00 02

34 01

80 00

83 00

79 00 04

40 00

22 00 04

06 02

07 00

31 00

65 00 05

65 09

18 00

23 00 10

18 00

31 00

24 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

682

5) रपेइ (निरंतर)

684

158

157

174

176

177

178

179

181

186

185

184

182

183

222

270

278

279

287

286

285

650

289

280

283

282

284

290

295

300

292

291

294

301

293

231

जिला: ढेंकानल मंडल/ तेहसिल/ तालुक: गॅदिआ

149

1) तालपदा

410 GI/11-16

1579

३

43 00 04

51 DO

10 00 04

88 00

:00

19 00

85 00

00 03

36 00

14 00

12 00

01 00

00 02

61 00

12 00 04

20 00

11 00 06

24 00 01

15 00

10 00 00

31 00

83 00 00

10 00 06

20 00

10 00 00

68 00

54 00

राज्य:ओडिशा

18 00 02 1580

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

119

1 ) तालपदा (निरंतर)

117

120

148

121.

122

144

123

124

130

126

129

127

128

132

131.

133

134

135

136

137

188

2) कुशपदा

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

14 00

10 00 11

02 00

10 00

78 00

17 00

56 00 02

68 00

08 00 02

76 00 02

99 00 03

72 00 03

15 00

26 00 07

71 00

55 04

52 00 04

56 00 03

98 00 00

10 00 00

10 00 01

65 00

10 00

76 00 00

21 00

89 00

29 00 08

70 01

66 00 02

55 06

19 09

20 00 00

75 06

70 00

15 00 00

58 00 02

31 00

22 00

46 00 00

77 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

2) कुशपदा (निरंतर)

381

3 ) नीलाबरपुर

173

172

171

185

186

4) धउलिआ

197

277 5) रिआ

276

275

278

274

273

249

272

665

271

1581

20 08

47 00 04

95 01

17 01

06 00 06

04 07

30 00

88 00 03

13 06

18 00

18 01

02 00

89 00

00.

00 1382

269

5) रिआ (निरंतर)

280

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

00 00

10 00 07

सर्वे सं 280 और 285 के बीच में

285

281

284

283

286

287

288

289

295

702

296

294

301

298

299

300

690

305

00 00

54 bo 05

24 00 00

10 00

25 00 05

18 00

95 00 06

29 00

05 00 04

00 01

00 03

00 09

00 00

00 01

00 08

00 00

सर्वे सं 305 और 316 के वीच में

316

327

713

111

318

321

320

319

110

330

101

100

671

763

764

00 03

00 02

00 00

00 06

00 00

00 01

00 10

00 17

00 02

00 00

67 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

102

5) रिआ (निरंतर)

677

654

1583 3

98 01

10 00 00

38 00

56 01

41 00 04

43 00 04

31 13

00 02

63 00 01

10 05

सर्वे सं 654 और 79 के वीच में नाला

505

6) रतनपुर

467

सर्वे सं 467 और 468 के वीच में

468

466

465

470

463

462

461

438

439

440

441

442

367

364

540

539

366

365

355

357

541

359 :

581

542

352

237

235

544

234

543

231

229

70 00

66 01

47 00 01

74 02

79 01

10 00 00

19 12

09 00

10 00

00 10

16 01

38 00

63 00 02

00 13

32 03

88 00

10 03

55 00

36 04

02 00 03

13 00 01

15 00

41 00

50 00

22 19

00 03

55 02

07 00

77 00 01

28 00 00

99 00 11

66 01

00 01

69 01

75 00

43 00

98 00

87 00

20/ 06

00 1584

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

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

230

00 01

89 6) रतनपुर (निरंतर)

218

524

00 02

216

00 21

200

563

202

00 06

559

201

203

1029

00 01

37 7) एरपदा

1030

00 02

1031

1032

00 17

1035

1036

1037

[फा सं. एल. -14014/111 /2010 -जी.पी. ]

के.के .शर्मा , अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S. O. 505. 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;

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 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 Bhaskar Tripathy , Competent Authority , Relogistics Infrastructure Limited , 1st Floor, Fortune Tower , Chandrasekharpur , Bhubaneswar 751023 , Orissa State .

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

1585

Schedule

District: Cuttack Mandal/Tehsil / Taluk : Tangi -Choudwar

State:Orissa

Area to be acquired for

Survey No./Sub-Division

Village

2 1

1 ) Chota Padagan

286

277

276

323

270

279

345

267

361 2) Ambilijhari

360

362

363

372

379

C-Are Are

Hec

00 1586

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 2) Ambilijhari ( Contd)

371

370

368

329

327

319

320

322

324

323

295

296

297

276

275

274

273

299

300

303

304

582

256

581

259

811

3) Machhapangi

421

418

419

417

416

283

287

288

291

290

292

266

268

265

846

260

261

259

201

200

199

177

211

175

212

213

172

174

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

01.

85 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

173

3) Machhapangi (Contd)

169

166

168

167

142

165

164

146

147

148

161

160

159

841

150

151

839

840

874

119

896

865

118

153

894

892

117

869

116

917

115

910

890

891

899

107

106

923

930

109

824

111

820

922

828

907

816

873

815

898 410 GI/11-17

1587

00 1588

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

924

3) Machhapangi (Contd)

900

232

4) Patalasingara

229

231

230

208

207

904

181

182

183

187

186

188

190

191

192

172

173

174

175

176

163

164

159

158

137

132

133

152

134

151

150

149

146

147

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

42 भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 19, 2011/माष 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

4) Patalasingara (Contd)

646

647

650

651

645

652

653

358 5) Abhayapur

616

617

357

359

360

361

363

362

338

337

366

136

134

135

132

145

144

162

636

160

159

158

156

148

155

154

153

711

152

151

186

189

187

667 6) Sapha

668

651

656

655

657

1589

30.

00 1590

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 6) Sapha(Contd)

2562

654

228

2560

227

199

198

167

2565

169

171

179

123

174

149

150

148

136

129

128

151

152

127

125

122

121

117

119

118

108

District: Cuttack Mandal/Tehsil/ Taluk: Gurudijhatia

114

1) Kumarpur

111

110

2) Balipur

2465

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

State: Orissa

51 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

112 2) Balipur (Contd)

110

2285

109

108

147

149

148

150

2411

146

2375

2312

2381

182

183

184

185

178

1591

24-

State: Orissa

District:Jajapur

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Badachana

140 1) Satamana

139

138

111

In bet suy no. 111 & 114

114

208 2) Samia

207

204

206

194

195

197

196

4123

191

188

190

189

187

186

4109

266

267

4412

4413

269

294

298

299

~ 00

11 1592

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011/MAGHA 30, 1932

2 2) Samia(Contd)

300

312

314

315

317

318

4274

329

333

332

331

343

761

760

758

756

757

750

749

748

746

745

742

743

744

735

790

789

792

728

727

726

772

710

709

707

706

705

704

703

1056

1037

1057

1119

1065

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

13.

.87

01 1593

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

1064 2) Samia ( Contd)

1063

1071

1072

1070

1074

1075

1076

1023

1024

1022

1082

1084

1085

993

1088

992

991

4131

989

1087

988

987

1089

4444

1094

1093

1096

1097

1606

1711

1724

1723

4297

1725

4415

1720

1730

1729

1728

00 1594

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 2) Samia ( Contd)

1735

1736

1743

1742

4430

4431

1760

1752

4432

1755

1759

1756

1758

1709

1761

1763

1771

4206

1770

1769

1778

1767

325

3) Harichandanpur

323

322

324

331

327

316

200

315

314

305

306

304

344

341

342

343

303

[Part II-Sec. 3(ii)]

56 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

302

3) Harichandanpur (Contd)

251

301

299

252

253

254

298

297

295

292

293

294

264

273

265

4) Kasiapal

126 5) Badapala

132 410 GI/11-18

1595

8888 00

96 1596

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 5) Badapala (Contd)

133

134

136

135

138

146

140

147

145

148

211

375

223

224

144

234

226

227

232

228

229

250

249

252

408

149

263

247

266

262

377

265

264

267

268

269

274

270

271

6) Endrapada

1021

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

30 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

566

6) Endrapada (Contd)

579

578

580

582

583

584

586

588

587

591

700

617

619

620

621

622

955

953

954

956

957

958

959

962

1059

960

961

964

965

966

1159

1121

974

973

972

969

971

970

990

1597

08 1598

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 6) Endrapada (Contd)

992

994

993

996

997

949

912

919

918

920

921

922

917

926

923

924

938

925

937

940

928

936

930

931

929

7) Punia

174

175

173

172

176

Mandal/Tehsil/Taluk : Dharmasala

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

District: Jajapur

188

1) Sahaspur

State:Orissa

05 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

190

1) Sahaspur (Contd)

289

241

242

243

186

184

180

179

125

126

127

124

119

128

115

129

114

113

110

111

112

117

130

131

135

137

1599

In bet VB & suy no. 157

2) Berhmpursana

157

104

00 1600

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

92 2) Berhmpursana (Contd)

102

103

101

100

429 3) Paikerapur

430

435

431

432

434

433

438

448

447

452

453

454

518

517

519

520

513

512

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

01 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

521

3) Paikerapur ( Contd)

828

836

837

827

826

825

824

844

823

819

820

936

821

935

817

807

808

809

810

811

803

802

801

800

562

4) Raharpur

570

563

631

1099

1100

1062

632

630

633

636

1025

740

741

818

1601 4

64.

10 1602

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 / MAGHA 30, 1932

639

4) Raharpur (Contd)

644

645

646

654

653

647

657

648

641

659

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

719

1029

1020

785

784

754

760

759

758

764

768

767

1114

773

772

771

774

775

776

5) Rampei

736

683

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

24 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

682 5) Rampei ( Contd)

684

158

157

174

176

177

178

179

181

186

185

1.84

182

183

222

270

278

279

287

286

285

650

289

280

283

282

284

290

295

300

292

291

294

301

293

231

1603

State: Orissa

District: Dhenkanal

Mandal /Tehsil /Taluk: Gandia

149 1) Talapada

410 GI/11-19

00 1604

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA: 30, 1932

2 1) Talapada (Contd )

119

11.7

120

148

121

122

144

123

124

130

126

129

127

128

132

131

133

134

135

136

137

188

2) Kushapada

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

77 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

5 2) Kushapada (Contd)

381

39 3) Nilambarpur

173

172

171

185

186

17 4) Dhaulia

197

277 5) Ria

276

275

278

274

273

249

272

665

271

1605

بار

00 1606

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 5) Ria(Contd)

269

280

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

In bet suy no . 280 & 285

285

281

284

283

286

287

288

289

295

702

296

294

301

298

299

300

690

305

In bet suy no . 305 & 316

316

327

713

111

318

321

320

319

110

330

101

100

671

763

764

-00

67 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

102

5) Ria(Contd)

677

654

Nala bet suy no. 654 & 79

505 6) Ratanpur

467

In bet suy no. 467 &468

468

466

465

470

463

462

461

438

439

440

441

442

367

364

540

539

366

365

355

357

541

359

581

542

352

237

235

544

234

543

231

229

230

218

524

216

1607

01-

00 1608

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30 , 1932

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

5 6) Ratanpur ( Contd)

200

563

202

559

201

203

1029

7) Erapada

1030

1031

1032

1035

1036

1037

[ F. No. L-14014/111/2010-G.P. ]

K. K. SHARMA , Under Secy.

नईदिल्ली , 10 फरवरी , 2011

का. आ. 506.- भारत सरकार को लोकहित में यह आवश्यक प्रतीत होता है कि तमिलनाडु में तिरूतन्नी के पास विजयवाडा-नैल्लोर -चैन्नई पाइपलाइन के टर्मिनल प्वाइंट से देश के विभिन्न हिस्सों में उपभोक्ताओं तक प्राकृतिक गैस के परिवहन के लिए मैसर्स रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड द्वारा चैन्नई - टयूटीकोरिन 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 कियाजाए;

अतः, अव, भारत सरकार , पेट्रोलियम और खनिज पाइपलाइन (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 , उनमें उपयोग के अधिकार का अर्जन करने के अपने आशय की घोषणा 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 प्रतियां साधारण जनता को उपलब्ध 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 वी. वेंकटसुव्यु , सक्षम प्राधिकारी , रिलोजिसटिक्स इन्फ्रास्ट्रक्चर लिमिटेड, न . 89, डॉ . राधाकृष्णन सलाई, छठवीं मंजिल , मैलापुर, चैन्नई 600004, तमिलनाडु राज्य को लिखित रूप में आक्षेप भेज सकेगा । भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II - खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

1609

अनुसूची

राज्य: तमिलनाडु

जिला:तिरूवन्नमलाय

तालुकतिरूवन्नमलाय

सर्वे सं / सब डिविजन सं

गाँव का नाम

2 1

50/2

1 ) कोतंटावडी

49/1

49/3

49/5

49/2

47/1

47/2

48/6

47/5

43/1

43/3

43/9

43/4

43/8

41/3

38/1

39/4

39/5

39/6

35/1

35/2

33/4

131

130

129/1

129/2

129/3

112

127/1

128/10

233/3

233/8

126/1

235/1 आर- ओ - यू- अर्जित करने के लिए क्षेत्रफल

एयर सिएयर हेक्टेयर

4.0

86 00 11

0.0

24 00 14

00 1610

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

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

5 00

235/18

1) कोतंटावडी (निरंतर)

235/2

235/3

235/4

235/5 00 07

93 00 02

61 00

75 00

98 00

236/15

236/16

236/5

236/4

237/2

238

247

2) एरूमपुंडी

248/4

248/5

248/6

248/7

245

00 16

51 00 07

50 00 05

19 00 04

66 00 42

14 00

87 00 07

11 00 11

83 00

78 00 19

68 00

250/ 3ए1

251/1

28 00

252/ 1 ए

33/2ए 3) वलुनडलांकुनम

33/2वी

33/2ई

34/6

16/1

16/2

16/3

17/2

162

4) गनापापुरम

33 00 05

88 00 00

89 00 00

51 00

95 00

85 00

63 00 01

63 00 70

04 00

75 00

00 01

11 00

99 00 61

79 00 40

15 00

80 01 02

02 00

90 00

33 00 30

38 00

12 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

2 1

46 4) गंनापापुरम (निरंतर)

54/1बी

54/ 1 ए

54/13

54/4ए

54/4वी

सर्वे न . 52/9 में रास्ता

52/3

52/6

52/8 ए

52/8वी

59/3

59/1 ए

59/1वी

59/2डी

62/1

62/3ए

62/3ई

62/2

62/4

62/3एच

62/5

62/6

62/7

62/8ए

61/1

61/2

96/2

96/5

96/14

118/1 वी 5 ) कल्लिकुलम

118/2

118/3

123/1वी

123/ 1 ए2

123/2

123/3ए 2

123/ 3ए 1 410 Gi /11-20

1611

95 00 17

95 00

59 00

40 00 14

00 1612

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

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

123/3बी

5) कस्लिकुलम (निरंतर)

00 19

64 00 00

123/3सी

29 00

120/2आय

120/2जे

00 08

120/ 2एच

121/1

00 00

10 00 12

121/25

00 07

69 00

121/2एफ

121/ 2जी

2/1

6) कर्णमपुंडी

2/7ए

2/8ए

2/9ए

2/9वी

2/10

2/11सी

2/16

2/17ए

00 12

66 00 03

09 00 00

10 00 07

32 00 02

10 00 02

97 00 01

84 00 00

74 00

89 00 05

2/18 वी4

17वी

07 00 00

2/18वी 2

2/18वी3

19ए

2/19वी

2/20

2/21

65/3

65/4ए

51 00

10 00 04

05 00

31 00 00

10 00 18

84 00

42 00 04

13 00

73 00

62 00 12

65/4वी 1

00 02

65/4वी 2

00 19

54 00

65/2वी 2

65/ 2ए2

00 09

95 00 00

29 00

65/ 2ए3

74 00

65/ 2 ए6

63/ 1 ए3

63/1ए 1

02 00

37 00 09

31 [ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

2 1

63/1 ए2 6) कर्णमपुंडी (निरंतर)

63/1ए4

63/ 1ए5

63/2बी

63/2डी

63/2ए

63/ 2सी

67/4

68/3

68/2

98/8

98/7

98/ 6सी

98/6वी

98/6ए

98/5

98/3

98/ 2सी

98/4

100/1

100/2

101/4

101/3

101/2

1/3ए

7) सिरूनत्तुर

1/3वी

1/3सी3

1/1 वी 2

1/3सी 2

1/1 वी3

1/3सी 1

13/2ए

1/2

13/1

15/15

361/2

8) सोमसापडी

369/3वी

369/4

369/3सी

369/ 2वी

1613

5 3

76 00 17

47 00 02 09 00 00

90 00

06 00

90 00 12

65 00

49 00 00

26 00

99 00

06/

00 07

71 00 30

25 00 00

12 00

00 00

68 00

07 00 06

14 00

49 00

13 00

58 00

72 00 00

80 00

20 00

91 00

20 00

81 THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

1614

2 1

370/1

8) सोगसापडी (निरंतर)

369/5

369/6 [Part II-Sec. 3( ii)]

84 00

78 00 39

15 00

सर्वे न . 368 में नाला

351

349/2

348/7

348/6

348/5

346/1

384/3

384/5

384/1

93 00

71 00

37 00

38 00 12

सर्वे न . 383 में रास्ता

389/3

69 00

15 00

389/ 2वी

389/ 2ए

77 00

389/4सी

00 00

389/4ए2

14 00 12

389/4ए1

00 15

389/4वी

389/1

9) कडंबाई

62/15

62/14

62/13

62/11

61/6

61/5

61/9

61/10

60/13

49/5

49/6

48/6

44/3

44/11

44/12

44/10

43/1

25 00 36

87 00 01

42 00 03

58 00

02 00

00 28

29 00 19

68 00

84 00

75 00 08

42 00

33 00

91 00 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3(ii) ]

2 1

43/19वी 9) कडंबाई (निरंतर)

43/19ए

43/16

43/18

43/17

43/12

42/1

42/4

42/3

42/21

42/9

सर्वे न . 42/10 में रास्ता

42/20

42/14

42/15

42/22

42/13

42/12

39/1

39/2

38/5

सर्वे न . 88 में रास्ता

89/2

89/3एफ

89/35

86/3ए

90/10ए

90/11

91/3

91/2सी

91/ 2वी

91/ 2ए4

91/ 2ए3

123/1

122/4

122/5

122/6

123/4

121/4

123/5

123/6

24/ 1 ए1 10) काटुवेलंनंडल

1615

5 3

16 00 08

55 00 05

71 00 06

21 00 03

85 00 08

42 00

07 00 16

39 00 05

19 00 07

48 00

00 1616

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

24/ 1 ए2 10) काटुवेलंनंडल (निरंतर)

24/1ए5

24/2

26/1बी

26/ 1 ए

23/4ए

27/3बी4

27/3सी 5

27/3डी

115/1 सी 11 ) पोलकुन्नम

115/1ए

114/1

114/2

115/1वी

114/12

114/14

114/13

114/11

114/8

सर्वे न . 113 में रास्ता

121/3

121/2

122/3ए

122/3वी

122/4

111/2ए

111/ 2सी

111/ 2वी

111/4ए

111/4वी

127/2

127/1

128/3

135/2

141/ 2ए

141/2वी

141/3ए

141/3वी

141/4वी 2

141/ 6वी

140/3ए

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

5 00

10 00 16

11 00 04

94 00

27 00

16 00

00 11

90 00

14 00 14

08 00 00

24 00

22 00 01

86 00 00

32 00

23 00

31 00 20

05 00

34 00 02

94 00 00

43 00 02

61 00

69 00

84 00

02 00 15

05 00

02 00 01

18 00

99 00 13

83 00 08

46 00

15 00 46

62 00

59 00 54

61 00 07

38 00

85 00 06

75 00 05

40 00

10 00

67 00 00

41 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

140/4 11) पोलकुन्नम (निरंतर)

140/3वी

140/5

149

151/6सी

151/6डी

151/7ए

151/7बी

146/3

146/4

152/5ए

152/5वी

152/5डी

152/55

152/5एफ

156/1 ए2

156/ 2 ए2

156/ 2ए1

155

154/1बी

154/21

154/14बी

154/20

154/13

154/12

सर्वेन . 39/2में नदी 12) नेयकुप्पम

38/9

38/4

38/3

37/11

38/5

38/2

38/1

37/12

37/13

42/1

42/2

42/4ए

42/4वी

42/3

42/5ए

35/ 6सी

1617

39 00

56 00 05

48 00 10

60 00 03

00 26

10 00 00

53 00 01

10 00 00

76 00 05

71 00 06

95 00 05

12 00

89 00 35

68 00

84 00

69 00

38 00

89 00

38 00

87 00

52 00 09

00 02

59 00 00 1618

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

35/8बी 12) नेयकुप्पम (निरंतर)

35/9ए

35/9बी

35/10

35/7

44/1

56/1

56/2

44/3बी

44/ 2बी

44/5

44/6ए

45/6

52/7

52/6

52/2

52/3

52/4

52/5

52/9

52/11

51/5

51/4

51/6

81/ 2ए2 13) पेरियाकल्लपडी

81/ 2ए1

81/4

81/ 2वी1 वी

81/5

81/ 2वी 1 ए2

81/6

82/1 बी 2वी

82/ 1 वी 2 डी

82/1 वी 3

82/1 वी4

82/1 वी 5

82/1 वी 1

82/1 ए

82/ 2ई

82/ 2सी

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

96 00 02

86 00

14 00

15 00 12

29 00 29

24 00

35 00

00 00

58 00 17

71 00

58 00

32 00

10 00

73 00 06

10 00 00

65 00

90 00 02

84 00

29 00

05 00 18

46 00

30 00

73 00

04 00 07

08 00 09

98 00 01

98 00

35 00 05

06 00

04 00 03

63 00 01

90 00 02

42 00

62 04

00 00

46 00 19

00 01

36 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) !

2 1

82/ 2डी 13) पेरियाकल्लपडी (निरंतर)

64/ 1ए1

64/1 ए2

64/1ए3

65/2ए2

64/1वी

सर्वे न . 00000 में चैनल

65/ 1 सी 1

65/1सी3

65/1सी2

65/1 सी 2 ई

65/1 सी 2वी

65/1सी2ए

सर्वे न . 65/3 में रास्ता

62/1 सी 1

62/ 2वी 1

62/1वी

62/ 1 ए2

62/1ए3

62/1ए4

62/ 1ए5

61/8डी

61/8號

62/5ए

61/6

61/5號

56/1जी

56/ 2डी

56/3

56/4वी

56/7वी

56/8वी

56/ 8 ए

56/10डी

56/10सी

55/10

55/11

55/9वी

55/15ए

55/15वी

55/15सी 410 GI / 11-21

1619

88 00

93 00

35 00 00

92 00 19

96 00

00 00

05 00

28 00

01 1620

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

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

5 00

55/15डी

13) पेरियाकल्लपडी (निरंतर)

55/4

55/9ए

55/8

55/7

7/3सी4ए

15 00 00

10 00

29 00

02 00 15

20 00 14

7/3सी4बी

7/3सी3

7/3सी 2

7/3सी 1

25/4बी

25/4ए

25/5ए

25/6सी

25/7सी

25/7डी

47 00 03

71 00 06

03 00

78 00

22 00

25 00 02

50 00

10 00

47 00 05

60 00

25 00

25/ 2ए 2

25/ 2ए1

78 00 01

83 00

25/2वी1

27/ 1 ए

45 00

27/1 सी 1

27/ 1 डी 1

27/15

00 03

98 00

27/1 एफ

27/1जी

27/1 एच

43 00 00

10 00

34 00 00

27/1 आड

27/1जे

27/1एल

27/1के

39 00 06

35 00

61 00 09

00 00 28

38 00

46 00 06

19/ 2ए1 ए

00 07

19/2ए1वी

19/3

01 00

19/12

00 02

19/ 2ए 1 सी 1

19/1 ए3ए

76 00 19

19/1 ए3वी

18/8

00. 05

62 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

2 1

18/5ए2 13) पेरियाकल्लपडी (निरंतर)

18/5बी

18/5ए

18/7वी

18/7सी

15/5सी2

15/4सी1 डी

15/4सी 1 सी

14) टच्चमपादु

9/1 ए

9/3वी

9/3ए

9/2वी

11/2

11/3

सर्वे न . 12 में रास्ता

सर्वे न . 13 में रास्ता

14/3वी

14/3ए

14/ 2ए

14/1

14/4

1/9

15 ) अल्लिकोण्डापटु

1/7ए

1/7वी

1/8

2/1

2/3

2/4

6/1 ए

6/1वी

6/7

5/3

5/5

5/4

10/6वी

1621

68 00

68 00 01

97 00

55 00

45 00 09

46 00 00

84 00 00

17 00 14

80 00

00 1622

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

10/ 6ए 15) अल्लिकोण्डापटु (निरंतर)

10/ 6सी

[Part II-Sec . 3(ii) ]

5 00

54 00 12

10/3ए 2सी

10/4

10/3बी

10/3सी

11/8

11/9

11/7

11/12

11/14

12/3

12/19

11/13

12/20

12/18

12/4

12/21 00 18

41 00

02 00 18

38 00 06

91 00 09

26 00

29 00 01

30 00 01

80 00 08

59 00 00

10 00 01

25 00

30 00 03

60 00

16 00

88 00 02

82 00

12/17 वी

12/5

12/6

12/13

12/11

12/9

14/1

14/2

17/1

17/3

17/4

17/5

17/6

17/7

16 ) नवमबटु

8/7वी

00 00

49 00 09

50 00 02

10 00 04

09 00

33 00

53 00

49 00 00

10 00

13 00

36 00

91 00

23 00

45 00

61 00

72 00

57 00

7/ 2ए 1 वी

7/ 2ए2

46 00

7/ 2ए3सी

10/1 ए

7/ 2वी4

6/1जी1

00 06

84 00

17 00

75 00 00

50 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

6/1एफ

16) नवमबटु (निरंतर)

सर्वे न . 6/3 में रास्ता

6/55

6/5डी

60/1

62/6

62/8

62/7

62/9

62/3

62/2

62/10

62/12

64/ 2ए

64/1बी

64/ 2सी

64/1सी

64/3ए

64/4ए

68/ 2ए1

68/ 2ए2

69/1

68/2वी 2

69/ 2ए1

71/1 वी/2ए

71/1 वी/ 2वी

71/3ए

71/9

71/1 वी 1

71/11

71/12

71/10

72/ 2वी

72/ 2सी

सर्वे न . 73 में रास्ता

74/2वी1 सी

74/2वी1 वी

74/2 वी1 ए

सर्वे न . 74/1 सी 2 में चैनल

74/ 2वी3वी

74/ 2वी3ए

1623

03 02

97 00 03

51 00 27

96 00 04

48 00

89 00 09

47 00 08

65 00 00

95 00

34 00

15 00

91 00

65 00

00 00

98 00

04 00

94 00

56 00

60 00 16

09 00

89 00 12

00 1624

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 16) नवभबदु (निरंतर)

74/2ए3सी

77/ 2ए

77/ 2वी

77/3ए

77/3वी

77/4ए

77/4वी

77/5

85/1

85/ 2ए

7/3/डी

17 ) काल्लोटु

7/3/ई

7/3/ए

7/3/एच

7/3

7/11 /16वी

7/1सी/16ए

7/1सी/19

7/1सी/21

7/1सी/15ए

7/1सी/15वी

7/1सी/ 22

7/2

8/1/ए

8/1 वी/1

8/1/सी

8/2/ए

8/ 2/वी

8/2सी/1

8/2सी/ 2

8/2सी/3

5/ 2जी 1

5/ 2 एफ 1

5/ 2जी 2

5/2एफ 2

9/501

9/6

9/4

9/2वी

9/ 2सी/1

9/ 2डी/1

9/2डी/ 2

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

5 00 01

89 00

36 00 03

26 00

52 00

29 00 09

72 00

05 00 19

42 00 12

46 00

00 08

89 00 05

57 00 05

07 00

69 00

25 00 05

30 00

04 00

28 00

10 00 01

50 00 02

86 00

99 00 09

18 00 11

71 00 12

28 00 06

01 00

40 00 06

56 00 06

87 00

08 00

26 00

77 00

12 00

84 00 00

10 00 05

95 00

30 39

00 12

79 06

38 00

20 05 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

9/3ए/1 17) काल्लोटु (निरंतर)

9/30/2

9/3बी/1

24/3/1

24/3/2

24/2

24/5सी 2

24/30/3

24/6वी 2

24/3वी

24/5ए

2/3डी

18 ) वेलायमबक्काम

सर्वे न . 2/3ई में रास्ता

2/7

1/5ए/ 1 ए

1/6वी

1/6सी

1/6डी

67/4

67/5वी

67/6

67/8

67/9

67/10

67/17बी

67/17ए

67/17सी

सर्वे न . 67/13 में नाला

70/1के

70/1 एल

70/ 1 एच

70/ 1 एम

70/1 एन

70/2

77/2

1625

14 02

86 06

43- 00 01

29 00 06

80 00

00 1626

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 18) वेलायमबक्काम (निरंतर)

77/4

78/4ए

78/4बी

78/5

78/25

78/3

78/6

78/7

82/ 6ए

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

5 00

24 00 24

50 00

01 00 19

96 00

09 00

37 00 05

10 00 00

10 00 45

52 00 09

68 00

सर्वे न . 82/1 ए में रास्ता

82/7

82/8

96/1ए

97/11

97/13

96/5

96/6

96/7

96/ 2ए 00

74 00

64 00 06

35 00 15

55 00 01

14 00

00 17

89 00

58 00

24 00 12

52 00

96/22वी

100

75 00

45 00 80

102/4ए1

00 04

15 00

102/4ए 2

84 00

102/403

51 00

102/4ए4

84 00

102/4ए6

94 00 19

102/4ए5

87 00

102/4ए7

जिला :तिरूवन्नमलाय

तालुक:चेय्यार

1) शिवाराम

45/1

45/2

20/1

20/4

20/3

20/2

21/1

19/6

राज्य:तमिलनाडु

37 00

81 00

36 00 35

84 00 06

39 00

10 00

88 00

40 00

05 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

19/5 1) शिवाराम (निरंतर)

19/4

19/3

3/1

जिला:तिरूवन्नमलाय तालुक:अरनी

266/1 1) नचापुरम

266/2

266/3

269/1

269/3ए

269/9

269/6

268/1बी

271/1

271/2

271/4ए

271/7

271/5

271/6बी

273/2

272/15

272/1एच

272/1जी

272/ 1 एफ

272/3

272/ 2ए

272/4

272/ 2वी

183/5सी

234/1

275/2

234/3

236

235/3

235/6

237/9

237/3

237/4

237/8

237/10

238 410 GI /11-22

1627

राज्य:तमिलनाडु

08 00 07

34 00 03

12.

00 1628

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

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

5 1) नकापुरण (निरंतर)

219/3

00 22

218

00 41

[फा सं. एल.- 14014/83/2010- जी.पी. ]

के.के .शर्मा, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 10th February, 2011

S. O. 506.-Whereas it appears to Government of India that it is necessary in public interest that for the 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 - Tuticorin pipeline shouldbe 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;

Any person interested in the land described in the said Schedule may, within twenty -one days from the date on which the copies of this notification as published in the Gazette of India 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 V. Venkatasubbu , Competent Authority, Relogistics Infrastructure Limited, No. 89, Dr. Radha Krishnan Salai , 6th Floor, Mylapore , Chennai - 600004 , Tamil Nadu State .

Schedule

Taluk: Thiruvannamalai

District: Thiruvannamalai

State: Tamil Nadu Village

Survey No./Sub-Division No. Area to be acquired for RoU

Hec

Are

C-Are 1

5 1) Kothantavadi

50/2

49/1

49/3

49/5

49/2

47/1

47/2

48/6

47/5

43/1

43/3

43/9

43/4

65 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

2 [भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

43/8

41/3

1) Kothantavadi (Contd)

38/1

39/4

39/5

39/6

35/1

35/2

33/4

131

130

129/1

129/2

129/3

112

127/1

128/10

233/3

233/8

126/1

235/1

235/18

235/2

235/3

235/4

235/5

236/15

236/16

236/5

236/4

237/2

238

247

248/4

248/5 2) Erumpundi

248/6

248/7

245

250/3A1

251/1

252/1A

33/2A

33/2B 3) Valundalankunam

33/2E

34/6

1629

00-

00 1630

4) Ganapapuram(Contd)

16/1

16/2

16/3

17/2

162 4) Ganapapuram

54/1B

54/1A

54/13

54/4A

54/4B

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[Part II-Sec. 3( ii)]

00 25

Road in Survey No.52/9

52/3

52/6

52/8A

52/8B

59/3

59/1A

59/1B

59/2D

62/1

62/3A

62/3E

62/2

62/4

62/3H

62/5

62/6

62/7

62/8A

61/1

61/2

96/2

96/5

96/14

49 1631

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

118/1B 5) Kallikulam (Conid)

118/2

118/3

123/ 1B

123/1A2

123/2

123/3A2

123/3A1

123/3B

123/3C

120/21

120/2J

120/2H

121/1

121/2E

121 /2F

121/2G

2/1

6) Karanampundi

2/7A

2/8A

2/9A

2/9B

2/10

2/ 11C

2/16

2/ 17A

2/18B4

17B

2/18B2

2/18B3

19A

2/19B

2/20

2/21

65/3

65/4A

65/4B1

65/4B2

65/2B2

65/2A2

65/2A3

65/2A6

63/1A3

63/ 1A1

09 00

00.

10 00

31 00

10 00

81 00

29 00

37 00

00 1632

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 6) Karanampundi (Contd)

63/1A2

63/1A4

63/1A5

63/2B

63/2D

63/2A

63/2C

67/4

68/3

68/2

98/8

98/7

98/6C

98/6B

98/6A

98/5

98/3

98/2C

98/4

100/1

100/2

101/4

101/3

101/2

7) Sirunathur

1/3A

1/3B

1/3C3

1 / 1B2

1/3C2

1/1B3

1/3C1

13/2A

1/2

13/1

15/15

8) $ omasapadi

361/2

369/3B

369/4

369/3C

369/2B

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

5 00

76 00

47 00

09 00

90 00

72 00

35 00

90 00

44 00

81 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

2 1

370/1 8) Somasapadi ( Contd)

369/5

369/6

Nala in Survey No.368

351

349/2

348/7

348/6

348/5

346/1

384/3

384/5

384/1

Road in Survey No.383

389/3

389/2B

389/2A

389/4C

389/4A2

389/4A1

389/4B

389/1

9) Kadambai

62/15

62/14

62/13

62/11

61/6

61/5

61/9

61/10

60/13

49/5

49/6

48/6

44/3

44/11

44/12

44/10

43/1

1633

5 4

78 00

74 00

38 06

93 00

78 00

69 00

15 00

56 00

65 00

14 00

87 00

89 00

58 00

02 00

72 00

00 1634

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 9) Kadambai (Contd)

43/19B

43/19A

43/16

43/18

43/17

43/12

42/1

42/4

42/3

42/21

42/9

Road in Survey No.42/10

42/20

42/14

42/15

42/22

42/13

42/12

39/1

39/2

38/5

Road in Survey No.88

89/2

89/3F

89/3E

86/3A

90/10A

90/11

91/3

91 /2C

91/2B

91/2A4

91 /2A3

123/1

122/4

122/5

122/6

123/4

121/4

123/5

123/6

10) Kattuvelanandal

24/ 1A1

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

5 00

16 00

98 00

76 00

95 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30, 1932.

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

24/1A2 10) Kattuvelanandal (Contd)

24/1A5

24/2

26/ 1B

26/ 1A

23/4A

27/3B4

27/3C5

27/3D

115/ 1C 11 ) Polakunam

115/ 1A

114/1

114/2

115/ 1B

114/12

114/14

114/13

114/11

114/8

Road in Survey No.113

121/3

121/2

122/3A

122/3B

122/4

111 /2A

111/2C

111/2B

111/4A

111/4B

127/2

127/1

128/3

135/2

141 /2A

141/2B

141/3A

141/3B

141/4B2

141/6B

140/3A 410GI/11-23

1635

5 3

10 00

27 00

16 00

40 00

08 00

86 00

31 00

02 00

18 00

99 00

59 00

61 00

85 00

75 00

00 1636

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 11 ) Polakunam (Contd)

140/4

140/3B

140/5

149

151 /6C

151/6D

151 /7A

151/7B

146/3

146/4

152/ 5A

152/5B

152/5D

152/5E

152/5F

156/ 1A2

156/2A2

156/2A1

155

154/ 1B

154/21

154/14B

154/20

154/13

154/12 12) Neikuppam

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

5 00

39 00

56 00

48 00

60 00

73 00

10 00

River in Survey No.39/2

38/9

38/4

38/3

37/11

38/5

38/2

38/1

37/12

37/13

42/1

42/2

42/4A

42/4B

42/3

42/5A

35/6C

59 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माष 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

35/8B 12) Neikuppam(Contd)

35/9A

35/9B

35/10

357

44/1

56/1

56/2

44/3B

44/2B

44/5

44/6A

45/6

52/7

52/6

52/2

52/3

52/4

52/5

52/9

52/11

51/5

51/4

51/6

81/2A2 13) Periyakallapadi

81 /2A1

81/4

81/2B1B

81/5

81/2B1A2

81/6

82/ 1B2B

82/ 1B2D

82/ 1B3

82/ 1B4

82/ 1B5

82/ 1B1

82/ 1A

82/ 2E

82/2C

1637

5 4

96 00

86 02

14 04

15 07

30 00

98 00

35 00

00 1638

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 13) Periyakallapadi (Contd)

82/2D

64/1A1

64/1A2

64/1A3

65/2A2

64/1B

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

5 00

79 00

88 00

1.1

82 00

04 00

91 00

Channel in Survey No.65 / 1B

65/ IC1

65/1C3

65/1C2

65/ 1C2E

65/ 1C2B

65/ 1C2A

Road in Survey No.65/3

62/ 1C1

62/2B1

62/ 1B

62/1A2

62/ 1A3

62/1A4

62/1A5

61/8D

61/8E

62/5A

61/6

61/5E

56/1G

56/2D

56/3

56/4B

56/7B

56/8B

56/8A

56/10D

56/10C

55/10

55/11

55/9B

55/ 15A

55/15B

55/ 15C

27 00

60 00

28 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

55/ 15D 13) Periyakallapadi (Contd)

55/4

55/9A

55/8

55/17

7/3C4A

7/3C4B

7/3C3

7/3C2

7/3C1

25/4B

25/4A

25/5A

25/6C

25/7C

25/7D

25/2A2

25/2A1

25/2B1

27/ 1A

27/ ICI

27/ 1D1

27/ 1E

27/ 1F

27/ 1G

27/ 1H

27/11

27/ 1J

27/ 1L

27/ 1K

19/2A1A

19/2A1B

19/3

19/ 1A2

19/2A1C1

19/1A3A

19/ 1A3B

18/8

1639

5 4

15 00

10 00

02 00

00 1640

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 / MAGHA 30, 1932

2 13 ) Periyakallapadi (Contd)

18/5A2

18/5B

18/5A

18/7B

18/7C

15/5C2

15/4CID

15/4CIC 14) Tachchampattu

9/1A

9/3B

9/3A

9/2B

11/2

11/3

[Part II Sec . 3(ii)] 3

5 00

10 00

44 00

45 00

57 00

68 00

37 00

Road in Survey No.12

Road in Survey No.13

14/3B

14/3A

14/2A

14/1

14/4

15) Allikondapattu

1/9

1 /7A

1/7B

1/8

2/1

2/3

2/4

6/1A

6/1B

6/7

5/3

5/5

5/4

10/6B

97 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

10/6A 15) Allikondapattu (Contd)

10/6C

10/3A2C

10/4

10/3B

10/3C

11/8

11/9

11/7

11/12

11/14

12/3

12/19

11/13

12/20

12/18

12/4

12/21

12/17B

12/5

12/6

12/13

12/11

12/9

14/1

14/2

17/1

17/3

17/4

17/5

17/6

177

9 16) Navambattu

8/7B

7/2A1B

7/2A2

7/2A3C

10/1A

7/2B4

6/ 1G1

1641

26 00

33 00

49 00

72 00

40 00

46.

01.

00 1642

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 16) Navambattu ( Contd)

6/1F

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

5 00

04 00

Road in Survey No.6/3

6/5E

6/5D

60/1

62/6

62/8

62/7

62/9

62/3

62/2

62/10

62/12

64/2A

64/ 1B

64/2C

64/1C

64/3A

64/4A

68/2A1

68/2A2

69/1

68/2B2

69/2A1

71 / IB/2A

71 / 1B/2B

71 /3A

71/9

71/ IBI

71/11

71/12

71/10

72/2B

72/2C

03 00

97 00

17 00

51 00

96 00

48 00

82 00

19 00

89 00

35 00

22 00

65 00

63 00

95 00

34 00

Road in Survey No.73

74/2BIC

74/2B1B

74/2BIA 00

Channel in Survey No.74/ 1C2

74/2B3B

74/2B3A 07

64 भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 19 , 2011/माथ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

2 1

74/2A3C 16) Navambattu (Contd)

77/2A

77/2B

77/3A

77/3B

77/4A

77/4B

77/5

85/1

85 /2A

7/3/D 17) Kallottu

7/3/E

7/3/A

7/3 /H

7/3M

7/ 1C/ 16B

7/ IC/ 16A

7/1C/ 19

7/1C/21

7/ 1C/ 15A

7/ 1C/ 15B

7/ 1C/22

712

8/1 /A

8/1B/1

8/1 /C

8/2/A

8/2/B

8/2C/ 1

8/2C/2

8/2C/3

5/2G1

5/2F1

5/2G2

5/2F2

9/5A1

9/6

9/4

9/2B

9/2C/ 1

9/2D/ 1

9/2D/2 410 GI/11-24

1643 4

5 3

89 01

26 03

29 05

72 09

89 00

05.

04 00

86 00

12 00

00 1644

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 17) Kallotte (Comed)

9/3A/1

9/3A/2

9/3B/ 1

24/3A/ 1

24/3A/2

24/2

24/5C2

24/3A/3

24/6B2

24/3B

24/5A

18) Velaiyambakkam

2/3D

[Part II-Sec. 3 ( ii ) 3

5 00

14 00

86 00

47 00

17 00

28 00

10 00

44 00

96 00

43 00

75 00

71 00

34 00

77 00

52 00

Road in Survey No.2/3E

2/7

1/5A/ 1A

1/6B

1/6C

1/6D

67/4

67/5B

67/6

67/8

67/9

67/10

67/ 17B

67/ 17A

67/17C 00

26 00

40 00

Nala in Survey No.67/13

70/ 1K

70/ 1L

70/ 1H

70/ 1M

70/ IN

70/2

77/2

51 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

2 1

77/4 18) Velaiyambakkam ( Contd)

78/4A

78/4B

78/5

78/2E

78/3

78/6

78/7

82/6A

Road in Survey No.82/ 1A

82/7

82/8

96/1A

97/11

97/13

96/5

96/6

96/7

96/2A

96/22B

100

102/4A1

102/4A2

102/4A3

102/4A4

102/4A6

102/4A5

102/4A7

1645

36 00

89 00

58 00

75 00

78 00

84 00

94 00

87 00

15 00

Stata: Tamil Nadu

District: Thiruvannamalai

Taluk: Cheyyar

1) Seevaram

45/1

45/2

20/1

20/4

20/3

20/2

21/1

19/6

37 00

81 00

40 00

00 1646

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

2 1) Seevaram(Contd)

19/5

19/4

19/3

3/1

Taluk:Arani

District: Thiruvannamalai

266/1 1) Nachapuram

266/2

266/3

269/1

269/3A

269/9

269/6

268/ 1B

271/1

271/2

271 /4A

271/7

271/5

271/6B

273/2

272/ 1E

272/ 1H

272/ 1G

272/ 1F

272/3

272/2A

272/4

272/2B

183/5C

234/1

275/2

234/3

236

235/3

235/6

237/9

237/3

237/4

237/8

237/10

238

219/3

218

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

5 00

95 00

21 00

10 00

46 00

36 00

77 State:Tamil Nadu

33 00

25 00

08 00

03 00

16 00

65 00.

45 00

29 00

63 00

74 00

34 00

17 00

46 00

38 00

03 00

09 00

60 00

85 00

12 00

85 00

03 00

52 00

29 00

98 00

37 00

52 00

89 00

48 00

57 00

64 00

72 00

92 [ F. No. L-14014/83/2010-GP] K. K. SHARMA, Under Secy.

1647

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

Insurance Company Ltd. , in terminating the services of Sri Om Prakash Rai w.e.f. 25-2-2009 is justified ? What relief the workman concerned is entitled to and from which date ?

श्रम एवं रोजगार मंत्रालय नई दिल्ली , 20 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 507.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार आई सी आई सी आई प्रूडेंसियल लाइफ इन्श्यूरेंस कंपनी लिमिटेड 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 61/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

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 15-9-10, 18-11-2010 , and on 13-12-2010 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.

[सं. एल -17012/18/2009- आई आर ( एम ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND EMPLOYMENT

New Delhi , the 20th January, 2011

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 .

5. Sincethe claimant has not availed the opportunity grantedby the tribunal and also since he deliberately failed to filehis 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 and proof.

S.O. 507. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 61/2010) 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 ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-1-2011 .

[No. L- 17012/18/2009 - IR (M) ]

6. Accordingly reference is answered in affirmative in favour of the opposite party management and against the workman.

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

RAM PARKASH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली , 20 जनवरी, 2011

का. आ. 508. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, HJS, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM- LABOUR COURT, KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 61 of 2010

BETWEEN

Sri Om Prakash Rai ,

का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार मैसर्स इन्द्रप्रस्थ गैस लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , नई दिल्ली-1 के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 6/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Son of Sri Baikunth Rai , 64-T/5A, Sainik Colony, Sulemsari , Allahabad

And

[सं. एल-30012/13/2008- आई आर ( एम) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी TheManaging Director,

New Delhi , the 20th January, 2011 M/s. ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Limited, ICICI Profile Tower,

1089Appa Saheb Maratha Marg ,

Prabha Devi, Mumbai-400025

AWARD

1. Central Government, MoL, New Delhi, vide notification No. L - 17012 / 17/2009 - IR (M) dated 28-06-2010 has referred the following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal-

S.O. 508. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 6/2009) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Karkardooma Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indraprastha Gas Ltd. , and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 20-1-2011 .

[No. L-30012/ 13/2008 -IR (M)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer 2. Whether Sri Om Prakash Rai, Unit Manager in ICICI Prudential Life Insurance Company Ltd. , Jaunpur is a workman as defined under the I.D.Act, 1947 ? If so, whether the action of the management of M/s . ICICI Prudential Life 1648

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

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

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

I.D. No. 6/2009

Shri Vijay s /o Shri Masi Charan, C/ o IGI, Ltd. (CNG) Sharmik Sangh (Regd.) 118 , KishanGanj Market, Purana Rohtak Road, Kishan Ganj , New Delhi- 110007

Workman

Versus

pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation was given to him. He approached the union, who sent a demand notice on his behalf. Demand notice was not respondedto bythemanagement. The union approached the Conciliation Officer and filed a claim statement before him . The management filed its written statement, besides a response from a contractor too . He filed his rejoinder before the ConciliationOfficer. He claims that he is unemployed since the date of termination of his services . He seeks reinstatement in service with continuity and full back wages.

TheManager,

M/s . Indraprastha Gas Ltd. , IGL Bhawan, R. K. Puram, NewDelhi

AWARD

3. The management dispels his claim pleading that he was never employed by it at any point of time. There existed no relationship of employer and employee between the parties . It has been pleaded that the union had no authority to submit a demand notice and file a claim statement on behalf of the claimant . The management pleads that being a joint venture company of two public sector undertakings and Government of N.C.T. , Delhi , it has to follow the law of land . It projects that activities at C.N.G Station, Okhla More , were outsourced to an independent contractor, namely, M/s . Ajay Enterprises . The contractor informed that the claimant was never employed by him. When claimant was not an employee of the management, there was no question of payment ofwages or grant of legal benefits to him . There was no occasion for the management to terminate his services . Claim made by Shri Vijay, being devoid of merits , is liable to be dismiseed.

4. Claimant had examined himself in support ofhis claim. Shri P.R. Rajesh and V.C. Mishra were examined on behalfofthe management . No other witness was examined by either of the parties.

Indraprastha Gas Ltd. (in short the management) is a joint venture company ofGas Authority ofIndia Ltd. ,Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. ( both Public Sector Undertaking) and Government of N.C.T. Delhi . The management runs various C.N.G Stations . One ofthe C.N.G Station, being run by the management, is located at Okhla More, New Delhi , where all activities were outsourced to a contractor, namely,M/s . Ajay Enterprises . Shri Vijay claimed that he served the management at Okhla More , C.N.G Station from 18-1-2001 till 5-4-2006. On 23-9-2006 a demand notice was sent on his behalf by Indraprastha Gas Ltd. , (CNG) Shramik Sangh ( Regd . ) (hereinafter referred to as the union) alleging therein that his services were terminated by the management, in violation of the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) . When demand, so raised , was not conceded to , an industrial dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer. The management disputed the claim, pleading that Vijay was never employed by it. Since conciliation proceedings failed, the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L- 30012/ 13/2008- I.R. (M)-New Delhi 31-7-08 with the following terms .

5. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Prabhakar, authorised representative , advanced arguments on behalf ofthe claimant . Shri Anil Bhatt , authorised representative , raised his submissions on behalf of the management . Written submissions were also filed by Shri Bhatt . I have givenmy careful consideration to the arguments advanced at the bar and cautiously perused the record . My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows :-

"Whether the action of the management of Indraprastha Gas Ltd. , I.GL. Bhawan , R. K. Puram, New Delhi in terminating the services of Shri Vijay, Ex - Sweeper , w.e.f. 5-4-2006 is just , fair and legal ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? "

2. Claim statement was filed by Shri Vijay pleading therein that he served the management as Sweeper since 18-1-2001 with honesty and sincerity. His wages were Rs. 2750 P.M. Appointment letter , leaves , overtime wages , E.S.. benefits etc. were not given to him . He made a demand for those benefits , which irked the management. His signatures were obtained on blank papers , vouchers and on some written documents . Since he intended to serve the management, he had not made any complaint in that regard. His services were dispensed with on 5-4-2006 without any cause. His juniors were working there at that time. Termination of his services was violative of the provisions of section 25 - F of the Act, since no notice or

6. In affidavit Ex . WWI /A, claimant swears that he was serving the management as Sweeper at Okhla More C.N.G. Station since 18-1-2001 . He rendered his services with due diligence and honesty. His last drawn wages were Rs . 2750. Legal benefits such as appointment letter, casual leave, earned leave, overtime wages . ESI and Provident Fund facilities were not provided to him. The management took his signatures on blank papers , vouchers and on some written documents under coercion and pressure . His services were dispensed with on 5-4-2006, without notice pay in lieu thereof and retrenchment compensation.When his testimony was purified by ordeal ofcross examination he concedes that he never made any written complaint either to the management or to the authorities when ESI and Provident Fund facilities were not accorded to him . It was put to him that he was never appointed by the management and he never made any or 1649

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

some act or contract by which the parties recognized one another as master or servant .

application forjob . This question was repeated to him time and again but he opted not to give any answer. He projected that salary sheet alongwith Diwali gift Ex . WW1 /7 contain his name. Control room shift log books Ex . WW1 /8 and Ex. WW 1/9 show him as an employee of the management . He submitted his leave application dated 7-7-04, which is Ex . WW1/10.

7. Shri P.R. Rajesh unfolds in his affidavit Ex . MW1 / A that the claimant was never employed by the management . He highlights that CNG Station at Okhla Mor was outsourced to M/s Ajay Enterprises . When questioned the contractor told that the claimant was never employed by him also . He concludes that relationship of employer and employee never existed between the parties . Shri V. C. Mishra entered the witness box to prove his opinion to the effect that signatures on Ex.WW1 / 7 and Ex. WW1 /8 , in a column against Station Boy, were that of the claimant .

10. To show that relationship of master and servant was created between him and the management, the claimant lays emphasis on documents Ex. WW1 / 7 to Ex.WW1/ 10 . Therefore, these documents are to be scanned . Admittedly Ex .WW1 /7 happens to be a photo copy. Claimant projects that original ofthis document was given to him by Sanjay Singh with the instructions to destroy it . He got it photo copied and then destroyed its original . Out of these facts hewants to highlight that Shri Sanjay Singh permitted him todestroy original of Ex . WW1 /7 at a place ofhis choice. Theclaimant wants this Tribunal to believe that Shri Singh had notbothered to ascertain destruction of the document. In that situation it would be expected ofan ordinary prudent man that he would retain the original in his possession . A story has been projected by the claimant that after getting photo copy he destroyed the original , that too at a time and place ofhis choice. These facts are found to be farther fromtruth.

11. Can this Tribunal place reliance on Ex. WW1/7 Considering the conduct ofthe claimant, which has emerged over the record, various questions relating to genuineness and authenticity of the document and veracity of testimony ofthe claimant emerge . One can not discard a theory of fabrication ofthe document . Under these circumstances it would be highly unsafe to rely Ex.WWI/7 . Consequently document Ex . WWI/7 is discarded from consideration .

8. The management asserts that relationship of employer and employee between the parties never existed . When such relationship is in dispute. it is incumbent on the claimant to establish it by cogent evidence . The claimant asserts that he was employed by the management but no appointment letter was issued to him . He went on to unfold that salary sheet and Diwali Gift list . which is Ex . WW1/7, contain, his name which fact establishes existence of relationship of employer and employee between the parties . Control shift log books Ex. WW1 /8 and Ex. WW1/9 and his leave application Ex. WW1/ 10 give reaffirmation tothat fact, claims Shri Prabhakar . However, the management asserts that these documents are forged and fabricated one. To unearth the truth. It is expedient to appreciate rival submissions . When confronted that the claimant was never appointed by the management and he never applied for a job, the former opted to keep mum . Question was put to him time and again but eerie silence was observed by the claimant . It was expected of the claimant to assert that he applied for a job and was appointed by the management on a post of sweeper . His silence confirmed the proposition that he never applied for a job and there was no occasion forthe management to appoint him to the post of a Sweeper .

12. Ex . WW 1/8 and Ex. WW 1/9 are the documents on which the claimant takes last lier. These documents are Control Room Shift Log Books filled in by Prashant Gupta and Amit Dev respectively. Contents of these documents are in the hand ofthese two officers , except the name ofthe claimant written against column "Station Boy" . In that column the claimant had written his name in his own hand, which fact is apparent on comparison of his signatures appearing on various documents with these two documents . Shri V. C. Mishra also gives confirmation to these facts . It was not disputed on behalf of the claimant that he wrote his name in the column against " Station Boy" . The claimant projects that these two documents were also given to him by Shri Sanjay Singh for destruction . According to him he retained these two documents with him. When these documents are gauzed, in the light of circumstances in which an ordinary prudent man will act, it emerges that column " Station Boy " was left blank by Shri Prashant Gupta and Amit Dev . Anyhow, the claimant could lay his hands over these documents and he forged his name against column " Station Boy" with a view to project his claim. When someone commits forgery, with a view to propound a claim in his favour, in that situation the Tribunal is put to caution to scrutinize facts with more care and diligence. When facts are scrutinized with care and diligence, it emerges that name of the claimant was never written by Shift Incharge on these documents to project that claimant was working as a Station Boy at CNG Station, OkhlaMor, New Delhi. In case the claimant is permitted to 9. The relationship of employer and employee is constituted by a contract, express or implied between employer and employee . A contract of service is one in which a person undertakes to serve another and to obey his reasonable orders within the scope of the duty undertaken. A contract of employment may be inferred from the conduct which goes to show that such a contract was intended although never expressed and when there has, in fact , been employment of the kind usually performed by the employees . Any such inference, however, is open to rebuttal as by showing that the relation between the parties concerned was on a charitable footing or the parties were relations or partners or were directors or a limited companywhich employed no staff. While the employee . at the time, when his services were engaged need not have known the identity of his employer, there must have been 1650

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

author his name as a Station Boy in these two documents , then it will frustrate the ends ofjustice. Consequently, the modus operandi adopted by the claimant is discarded and these two documents are brushed aside from consideration ofhis claim.

13. Alleged leave application , copy of which is Ex WW1 /10 , is the last document which requires consideration . Ex. WW1 / 10 is the carbon copy of an application purported to have been written by the claimant . This application starts with the date at the top on right hand side. However , the claimant opted to erase the date so written by application of some chemical . This documents is addressed to Manager , IP.Gas Ltd. , 14, 15 Storey, Dr. Gopal Dass Building , 29, Barakhamba Road, Connaught Place, New Delhi - 1 . It is not addressed to Station Incharge, CNG Station Okhla Mor, New Delhi . It purported tohave been received by one Sunil Dutt on 7th July, 2004. Leaves from8-7-04 till 11-7-04 are claimed on account of illness . The claimant concedes that his Shift Incharge was Sanjay Singh and not Sunil Dutt . It has been projected on behalf of the management that no employee with the name of Sunil Dutt was ever on its roll . Claimant could not establish that Shri Sunil Dutt was an employee of the management, who allegedly received his leave application. Though Ex. WW1 /7 was discarded, being photo copy and a forged document, yet it would throw light on the proposition whether Shri Sunil Dutt was an employee ofthe management or not. Since this document has been projected by the claimant to substantiate his claim, he can not raise his eye brows against its user, as detailed above . When scanned minutely no employee with the name of Shri Sunil Dutt was there in the list. There are two persons namely, Sunil Kumar and Sunil in that list who are of the category to which the claimant allegedly belongs . None of them was of the category of anEngineer, to whom application Ex . WW1 /10 was allegedly presented by the claimant . Therefore , it is emerging over the record that there was no employee with the name ofSunil Dutt to whom leave application Ex .WWI/ 10was presented. Ex. WW1/10 is not found to be a genuine document . Consequently this document is also brushed aside from consideration ofhis claim .

14. Whendocuments referred above are discarded, ocular facts are available over the record to assess whether relationship of employer and employee was there between the parties . It is not a disputed fact that CNG Station Okhla Mon, New Delhi , was outsourced . by the management. List ofcasual employees of the management which are Ex.MW1 / 8have beenplaced over the record, in that list name ofthe claimant does not appear. Therefore, it is obvious that claimant was not engaged by the management . Maybe at some point of time his services were availed by the contractor, who might have destroyed that record . Under these circumstances it appears that the claimant might have worked at the said CNG Station in the capacity of an employee of a contractor . Ocular facts, unfolded by him nowhere establishes a claim to the effect that he was ever engagedbythe management to performjobs of a sweeper/

[PART II-SEC . 3 ( ii) ] Station Boy. Hence the claimant has not been able to establish relationship of employer and employee between theparties.

15. When the claimant failed to show relationship ofmaster and servant between the parties , in that situation the terms of reference becomes infructuous . When claimant is an employee of a contractor, in that situation the Central Government cannot be termed as appropriate Government for making a reference of the dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal .

16. Whether this Tribunal can proceed to adjudicate the issue as to whether termination of the services of the claimant by the contractor w.e.f. 5-4-2006 is legal and justified ? In relation to any industrial dispute concerning an industrial undertaking or establishment enumerated in clause (a) ( i) of section 2 of the Act, the Central Government is the appropriateGovernment. For the sake ofconvenience provisions of clause (a) ( i) of section 2 of the Act are extracted thus :

"(a) appropriate Government " means- (1), in relation to any industrial dispute concerning any industry carried on by or under the authority of the Central Government or by a railway company or concerning any such controlled industry as may be specified in this behalf by the Central Government or in relation to an industrial dispute concerning a Dock Labour Board established under section 5A of the Dock Workers ( Regulation of Employment) Act, 1948(9 of 1948 ) , or the Industrial Finance Corporation of India Limited formed and registered under the Companies Act, 1956 ( 1 of 1956) or the Employees' State Insurance Corporation established under Section 3 of the Employees' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) , or the Board of Trustees constituted under section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1948 (46 of 1948), or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards or Trustees Constituted under Section 3A of the Coal Mines Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act , 1948 (46 of 1948) , or the Central Board of Trustees and the State Boards of Trustees constituted under section 5A and section 5B , respectively, of the Employees ' Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 ( 19 of 1952) , or the Life Insurance Corporation of India established under Section 3 of the Life Insurance Corporation Act, 1956 ( 31 of 1956 ), or the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited registered under the 1651 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii)]

respect to the matters enumerated in the State List or the Concurrent List except the matters with respect to entries 1,2 and 18 ofthe State List and entries 64, 65 and 66 ofthat list, in so for they relate to the said entries 1,2 and 18. The Council ofMinisters shall be headed by the ChiefMinister to aid and advise the Lt. Governor in exercise ofhis functions in relation of the matters with respect to which the Legislative Assembly has power to make laws . In case difference ofopinion between Lt. Governor and his ministers onanymatter, the Lt. Governor shall refer it to the President fordecision and act according to the decision given thereon by the President and pending such decision the Lt. Governor is competent to take action in urgent matters . The Chief Minister shall be appointed by the President and Ministers shall be appointed by the President on the advise of the Chief Minister . Therefore, it is evident that though a Legislative Assembly is there in National Capital Territory ofDelhi, yet it is a union territory administered by the President through the Administrator appointed by him. Incase ofdifference of opinion between the Administrator and the Ministers , it is the decision of the President that prevails . Consequently the State Government merges with the Centre when Lt. Governor Administer the Union Territory or in case of difference of opinion the President decides the issue.

Companies Act, 1956 ( 1 of 1956) , or the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation established under Section 3 of theDeposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee CorporationAct, 1961 (47 of 1961 ) , or the Central Warehousing Corporation established under. section 3 of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (58 of 1962) , or the Unit Trust of India established under section 3 ofthe Unit Trust of IndiaAct, 1963 (52 of 1963), or the Food Corporation of India established under section 3 , or a Board of Management established for two or more contiguous States under section 16, of the Food Corporations Act, 1964(37 of 1964), or the Airports Authority of India constituted under section 3 of the Airports Authority of IndiaAct, 1994 (55 of 1994) , or a Regional Rural Bank established under section 3 of the Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (21 of 1976) , or the Export Credit and Guarantee Corporation Limited or the Industrial Reconstruction Bank of India Limited, the National Housing Bank established under section 3 of the National Housing BankAct, 1987 (53 of 1987) or an air transport service, or a banking or an insurance company, a mine, an oil field, a Cantonment Board, or a major port, the Central Government and

(ii) in relation to any other industrial dispute , the State Government;"

18. State Govemment has been defined in clause (60) ofSection 3 ofthe General Clauses Act , 1897 , in respect ofanything done or to be done after commencement of the Constitution (7th Amendment) Act, 1956 in a case of State, the Governor and in a Union Territory, the Central Government . Therefore , it is evident that for a Union Territory, no distinction has been made between the State and the Central Government . The President Administers the Union Territory, through an Administrator appointed by him, In case ofNational Capital Territory of Delhi, it is being administered by the President though the Lieutenant Governor. Though there is a Legislative Assembly and Council ofMinisters , Yet in case of difference of opinion between the Lieutenant Governor and Council of Ministers , thedecision of the President shall prevail, which fact make it clear that for the purpose of administration ofthe Union Territory, the Central and the State Government merges over certain matter.

19. High Court of Delhi was confronted with such a proposition in M. K. Jain ( 1981 Lab . I.C. 62) wherein it was laid as follows :

17. Service rendered to a contractor, would not accord status of appropriate Government on the Central Government . Who shall be the appropriate Government for the present dispute ? Answer has been provided in clause (a) ( ii ) of Section 2 of the Act, which contemplates that in relation to any other industrial dispute the State Government is the appropriate Government . However, this Tribunal is not oblivious of the proposition that union territory of Delhi enjoins a special status under the Constitution. Delhi is a Union Territory having some special provisions with respect to its administration . Article 239 of the Constitution speaks that every union territory shall be administered by the President acting, to such extent as he thinks fit, through an administrator to be appointed by him with such designation as he may specify. Article 239 AA makes special provisions with respect to Delhi , detailing therein that the union territory of Delhi shall be called the National Capital Territory of Delhi and the administrator thereof appointed in article 239 shall be designated as the Lieutenant Governor. There shall be Legislative Assembly, and provisions of article 324 to 327 and 329 shall apply in relation the Legislative Assembly of the National Capital Territory of Delhi as they apply in relation to a State. The Legislative Assembly shall have power to make laws for the whole or any part of the National Capital Territory with

"The award was sought to be voided, inter alia, on the ground that by virtue of the constitution and composition ofthe Corporation, Central Government was the only authority competent to make a reference of the dispute to the Industrial Court and that the reference by the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi was , therefore, in excess ofpowers . Even otherwise no exception could be taken to the order of reference, even if it be assumed that Central Government was the appropriate Government , In as much as the distinction between the Central and the State Government in relation to the Union Territory in our 410 GI/11-25 1652

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ]

officers.That lacunawas found to be ofpracticabledifficulty and provisions of Article 258 A were inserted in the Constitution. Thus it is evident that arena ofunion executive powers and the state executive powers are well defined.

constitutional framework is rendered illusory, Union Territory is administered by the President of India under Article 239 of the Constitution of India, acting to such extent as he thinks fit. Therefore the Administrator, to be appointed by him, in the case ofUnion Territory, there is an amalgamation of the constitutional classification of legislative and executive powers between the Centre and the States . According to Section 3 (60) of the General Clauses Act, the " Central Government" in relation to the administration of Union Territory means the Administrator acting within the scope of authority given to him under Article 239 of the Constitution of India and in terms of Section 3 ( 60 ) of the General Clauses Act, " State Government" as respects anything done or to be done in the Union Territory means the Central Government. In the case of Union Territory, therefore, the Central and State Governments merge and it is immaterial whether an order of reference is made by one or the other. This contention must, therefore, fail" .

22. Clause (8) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act defines the Central Government in relation to administration ofUnion Territory, the Administrator thereof actingwithin the scope ofauthority given to him underArticle 239 of the Constitution . Therefore, it is evident that Administrator ofGovernment ofN.C.T. Delhi has been defined to mean as Central Government to administer the Union Territory ofDelhi . Hence for the limited purposes , provided in the Constitution, executive functions ' of the Central Government can be entrusted to Government of a State or its Officers . The Central Government would not be termed as the StateGovernment, when those functions are being executed bythe StateGovernment or its officers . So executive power of the Union can be exercised, in certain matters by the State Government or its officers but in that situation too the Central Government would not be termed as the State Government. The special provisions referred above would not make the reference, made by the Central Government as the reference made byGovernment ofN.C.T. of Delhi .

20. Again in Mahavir [97 (2002) DLT 922 ] the High Court was confronted with the same proposition. Relying the precedent in M. K. Jain (supra) with profit it was ruled thatreference made by the Government of NCT of Delhi was not bad despite the fact that appropriate Government was the Central Government . Difference of State Government and Central Government goes to the brink of abolition when State Government has been defined as the Central Government by Clause (60) of Section 3 of the General Clauses Act and Delhi is being administered by the President through the Administrator appointed by him. Therefore, the aforesaid precedents make it clear that a status of union territory of Delhi can be termed as Central Government in certain matters .

23. There is other facet of the coin . This Tribunal was constituted vide notification No. A- 11020/33/75 -CLT dated 30-9-76. It was provided in the notification that the Tribunal has been constituted under the powers provided in sub -section ( 1) of sub section ( 2) of Section 7-A of the Act, with its headquarter at New Delhi . Another notification was issued on that very date empowering the Tribunal to adjudicate applications moved in sub -section (2) of Section 33-Cofthe Act, in relation to the workman employed in any ' industry' in the Union Territory of Delhi, in respect of which the Central Government is the appropriate Government. Therefore , the Tribunal has been empowered to adjudicate industrial disputes , in respect ofwhich Central Government is the appropriate Government. As pointed out above, the appropriate Government in this case is the StateGovernment . Under these circumstances this Tribunal cannot entertain the present dispute for adjudication, in respect of which appropriate Government is the State Government.

24. Since this Tribunal cannot invoke its jurisdiction to adjudicate the reference , hence the Tribunal refrains its hands from entering into the merits ofthe matter. The Central Government was not competent to make a reference ofthis dispute to this Tribunal . The parties should seek redressal atthe appropriate forum. With these observations an award is passed . It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 25-10-2010

21. Whether the Central Government can be termed as State Government for any purpose ? Article 53 of the Constitutionprovides that the executive power oftheUnion shall vest in the President and shall be exercised by him either directly or through officers subordinate to him in accordance with the Constitution. Article 73 defines extent of executive power of the Centre, that is , on matters which shallbe controlled and administered by the Central executive. It has been detailed therein that the executive power of the union shall extend-(a) to the matters with respect to which Parliament has power to make laws and (b) to the exercise of such rights , authority and jurisdiction as are exercisable by theGovernment of Indiaby virtue of any treaty or agreement . The extent ofthe State's executive power is set out inArticle 161 of the Constitution . Administrative relations between the union and the states is to be dealt in accordance with the provisions ofArticle 256, 257, 258, 258A, 260 and 261 of the Constitution. Article 258A was added by 7th Amendment Act, 1956 to make a matching provision to clause ( 1 ) ofArticle 258 ofthe Constitution. While exercising powers concontained in clause ( 1) ofArticle 258 , the President is empowered to entrust union functions to a State Government or its officers. Therewas no provisions enabling the Governor ofa Stateto entrust state functions to the Central Government or its

नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2011 का.आ. 509. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन आयल 1653 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

assess whether the order of his dismissal from service by the management of Corporation was legal andjustified.

कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड लिमिटेड के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 20/2001 ) को प्रकाशित करती है जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30012/15/2001- आई आर ( एम ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th January, 2011

3. The workman concerned had to face a departmental enquiry before order of his dismissal by the management Corporation with charges of giving false information and suppression of fact and also contracting another marriage while the wife is living without first obtaining the permission of the Corporation etc. None of the parties denied that these two points were entered in the list of misconduct in the Standing Orders of the management Corporation and since such allegations were made against the present worker, a domestic enquiry was initiated, enquiry was processed and subsequently on conclusion a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, confirming the charges levelled against him .

S.O. 509. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 20/ 2001) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation tothe management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , (Haldia Refinery) and their workmen, which was received by the Central Govemment on 20-1-2011 .

[No. L-30012/ 15/2001 - IR (M) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 20 of2001

Parties : Employers in relation to the mangement ofthe ChiefHumanResource Manager , IOC Ltd. (HR)

AND

4. In the statement of claim, the workman raised a plea challenging the validity of the said enquiry proceeding as vitiated, perverse and denying natural justice to him and this Tribunal treating the said plea as preliminary issue took up the said objection from the side of the workman against the domestic enquiry and the question alleging the validity of the enquiry was taken up by my learned predecessor. Due opportunity was extended to both the parties toplacetheir respective evidence as well as to argue inrespect oftheir ecases . Ultimately, this Tribunal by anorder dated 30-12-2005 held the said domestic enquiry as valid and it was held that no interference was called for in the saiddomestic enquiry and the validity was upheld. In the said order this Tribunal decided to hear the present reference on the point of adequacy of punishment as imposed upon the concerned workman . heir respective cas

Their workmen.

Present: Mr. Justice MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCE :

On behalf ofthe Management

: Mr. A. Chowdhury, Advocate with Mr. N. K. Mehta , Advocate and Mr. S. Sengupta , Advocate

: Mr. B. Trivedi, Advocate .

On behalf ofthe Workmen

Industry: Petroleum.

State: West Bengal

Dated: 21st December, 2010

AWARD

By Order No. L-30012/ 15 /2001 - IR ( M) dated 31-05- 2001 the Government of India, Ministry ofLabour in exercise of its powers under Section 10( 1 ) ( d) and (2A) of the Industrial Distputes Act, 1947 referred the following dispute tothis Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the action of the management of Haldia Refinery, Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. , in dismissing the services of Shri Bimalendu Maity, Operator is legal and justified ? If not, what relief the concerned workman is entitled to ?"

5. Since the management Corporation passed an order of dismissal of the workman concerned on the basis ofthe enquiry report, the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is subsequent addition to the provision of the said Act by Act 45 of 1971 ( w.e.f. 15thDecember, 1971 ) , this Tribunal has a scope to consider adequacy of punishment awarded to the present workman . By introduction of the said section in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the scope of this Tribunal was extended with the power to question the adequacy of punishment so inflicted upon the workman (only in case of order of dismissal) and gives this Tribunal a discretion to ascertain whether such order of dismissal was sufficient and justified and ifnot , Tribunal has been given with ample power under under Section 11A to set aside the said order of discharge ofdismissal by an award and either direct reinstatement of the workman concerned on same terms and conditions or to give such other relief including an award of lesser punishment in lieu of punishment by way of discharge or dismissal. In this context a reference can be made upon a decisionreported in 2008 (118) FLR400 (Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh v. Management of Usha Breco Ltd. , & Another) relied upon by the Ld. Advocate for the management . In this case the Hon'ble Apex Court has interpreted Section 11A of the Act by stating that the provision of the said section had brought a complete change in this behalf and according to the Hon'ble Court -

2. On the initiation by a dismissed workman of Haldia Refinery, Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Bimalendu Maity, Operator, the present reference has been made to 1654

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ] "..........This Court, despite insertion ofsection 11 -A, not only conferred jurisdiction on the Tribunal to alter the quantum of punishment imposed upon a workman, but also held that it can enter into the merit ofthe matter so far as determination of the proof of misconduct or otherwise on the part of the workman is concerned.

Two extreme views , viz. , that the entire law has been re-written and despite insertion of section 11 -A, the management neither could raise the legality orvalidityofthe Domestic Enquiry as a preliminary issue or request the Tribunal to allow it to adduce evidence before it even if no enquiry has been held or as to whether such a right can still be exercisedby the management came up for consideration in Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. ( supra) .

7. So, from the provision of Section 11 -A it is found that the legislation has given a jurisdiction to the Tribunal to interferewith the finding of the Enquiry Officer but in a restrictive way, to ascertain whether the punishment ordered against the defaulting workman was proportionate or otherwise . Question of fresh evidence at this stage has not been encouraged if the Tribunal already found in a preliminary issue that the Enquiry officer conducted the enquiry without any biasness , perversity or denial of any opportunityto the workman concerned in the line ofnatural justice. In this context again reference may be made to the decision inUsha Breco Mazdoor Sangh in 2008( 118) FLR 400(supra) wherein it was held by the Hon'ble Apex Court that ' in a case where the materials brought on record by the Enquiry Officer fall for re -appreciation by the Labour Court, it should be slow to interfere therewith. ' In more clearway the Hon'ble Court held:

6. Themanagement side alleged that the misconduct was doneby the workman by violating the provisions made in the Standing Orders where different acts have been enlisted in the Heading No. 19 (Acts and Omissions Constituting Misconduct) and the workman was charged with two of such violations as described in paragraph 24 and principally in paragraph 41. It is claimed from the side of the management that since the Standing Orders of the Corporation specifically provides acts as being the misconduct , the workman has committed such misconduct speciallythe act described in Serial No. 41 which is a major offenceby which the workman can be prosecuted in criminal court and such violation being proved in the domestic enquiry, the workman concerned cannot get any alternative relief besides the order of dismissal from service. In this context the Hon'ble Supreme Court also held in 2008(118) FLR400(Supra) :

" .....The Labour Court shall not interfere with the findings of the Enquiry Officer only because it is lawful to do so . It would not take recourse thereto only because another view is possible. Even assuming that, for all intent and purport the Labour Court acts as an appellate authority over the judgment of the Enquiry Officer , it would exercise appropriate restraint . It must bear in mind that the Enquiry Officer also acts a quasi -judicial body. Before it, parties are not only entitled to examine their respective witnesses , they can cross - examine the witnesses examined on behalf ofthe other side. They are free to adduce documentary evidence. The parties also the Enquiry Officer can also summon witnesses to determine the truth . The Enquiry Officer can call for even other records . It must indisputably comply with the basic principles of natural justice. "

8. At this stage there must be a pause from the side ofthe Tribunal to assess the submission from the side of the workman claiming the punishment as harsh on him since the charge against the workman concerned was.not proved atall .

" 24. The Management is not only required to scrupulously follow the procedures laid down therein but was otherwise bound to comply with the principles ofnaturaljustice. If a misconduct has been committed within the purview of the provisions of the Standing Orders , whether certified or Model, the workmen should be punished. The gravity of the offence, the impact the same would have on the other workmen as also the fact as to whether the same will have an adverse effect over the functioning of the industry are relevant considerations .

Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (supra) must be understood in the context in which it was rendered. Section 11 -A ofthe Act as interpreted by Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. (supra) must be applied at different states . Firstly, when the validity or legality ofthe domestic enquiries is in question; secondly, in the event, the issue is detemined in favour of the Management, no fresh evidence is required to be adduced by it whereas in the event it is determined in favour of the workmen, subject to the request which may be made by the Management in an appropriate stage, it will be permitted to adduce fresh evidence before the Labour Court. "

9. Mr. B. Trivedi , Ld. Advocate for the workman initiated his argument by referring an order dated 03-12-2007 passed by my learned predecessor wherein an application filed by the workman on 19-09-2006 was heard and disposed of. In the said application the workman concemed prayed for recalling the order dated 30-12-2005 passed by this Tribunal in relation to the preliminary issue on the validity of the enquiry. Mr. Trivedi submitted that though the application of the workman concerned was defeated in the said order, but this Tribunal held that since the order dated 30-12-2005 observed that the findings of theEnquiryOfficer do not appear to be prima facie perverse, theworkman concerned had the opportunity to show the said finding to be perverse for awarding punishment which has been imposed upon him since the words 'prima facie' was used in order dated 30-12-2005 in opining the order of Enquiry Officer not appearing as prima facie perverse . I myselfhave gone through the order dated 3-12-2007 wherein 1655

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

activities immediately before issue of chargesheet against him by the management . I have gone through the written statement ofclaim of the workman and though I find that in paragraph 10 of the said claim statement he has hinted about his trade union activities , but in going through his deposition before this Tribunal in course of the hearing of validity point, I do not find that even a word was whispered bythis workman as a witness which meant his trade union activities against the interest of the management concemed causing annoyance to the management and to cause his victimization through such chargesheet of bigamy among others .

11. In course of argument before me , Mr. Trivedi , Ld. Advocate for the workman relied upon some decisions among which one is a reported decision in 1981 - I -LLJ SC 327 wherein Mr. Trivedi relied upon the portion in the version of the Hon'ble Supreme Court :

".... an award without notice to a party, the award is nothing but a nullity. In such circumstances , the Tribunal has not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex parte award and direct the matter to be heard afresh."

this Tribunal held that the finding of this Tribunal in respect. of validity of the enquiry proceeding was in favour of the Enquiry Officer, and the Tribunal rejected the application for recalling of the said order of this Tribunal . But, unfortunately, there was an observation by this Tribunal that through this Tribunal has observed earlier that the domestic enquiry was not perverse and it was validly done, it was held by this Tribunal through my learned predecessor, still the workman can get an opportunity to challenge the point of perversity of the domestic enquiry. I regret to say such a view cannot stand since the order dated 30-12-2005 is very much clear about the validity of the domestic enquiry and the test allegation of perversity and denial of natural justice has been tested and the allegations has been negated . It is also surprising to me why the workman concerned remained silent for so many years till the hearing on adequacy of punishment is taken up to raise the said plea and did not prefer for a revision of the said order dated 30-12-2005 by going through a higher forum . The order of this Tribunal on 30-12-2005 is not ambiguous and it is clear and the absence ofperverseness in the mind of the Enquiry Officer and the validity of the enquiry proceeding was clear having no question . Though my learned predecessor in order dated 03-12-2007 has extended an opportunity to the workman to raise the question of perversity in the domestic enquiry again , I think, I am unable to extend any such opportunity to the workman concerned since the order dated 30-12-2005 has reached finality.

But, unfortunately, no such occasion arose in this reference at any point of time since the disposal of the question of validity ofthe domestic enquiry was done upon hearing both the sides and extending opportunities for adducing evidence both oral and documentary to both the parties and the said matter was disposed by a detailed order covering several pages with discussion of the submissions of both sides ' representative . Nowhere anything is found to show in the said order that it was ex parte in nature .

12. Mr. Trivedi also relied upon a decision reported in 2006- II - LLJ SC 772 and also AIR 1976 SC 98 andclaimed that the Labour Court has the power to Interfere with the punishment If there is an allegation of victimization, even if the enquiry was conducted fairly and properly and if it is found that the findings of the domestic enquiry were perverse. I think these two decisions acted against the interest of the workman concerned since the Hon'ble Court inthese two decisions . has clearly opined that victimization should not only be pleaded but is needed to be proved by the person who claims the same and also such person is to show why he calls the findings ofthe domestic enquiry as perverse. Though the workman was given with full opportunity to unfold his case in defence both in the domestic enquiry as well as in course of hearing on the question of validity of the domestic enquiry in this Tribunal, no such plea was taken on any occasion and perhaps this is for the first time the workman has raised the plea of victimization.

13. Mr. Trivedi also claimed that the finding of the Enquiry Officer in respect of allegation of the workman contacting second marriage while his first wife was living as perverse as the workman claimed that such finding was . based on heresay evidence and was not supported by any 10. Mr. Trivedi again raised a very peculiar argument alleging that the order dated 30-12-2005 in respect of the validity of the domestic enquiry was done in ex parte and as itwas so done, this Tribunal can set aside the said order only to give an opportunity to the workman concerned to show that the domestic enquiry was perverse since the charge made against the workman concerned has not been proved to show that the workman concerned has done a misconduct . He submitted that the workman concerned has a plea that the issue of chargesheet against him was a product of evil mind of the management by way of victimization for his trade union activities and he was not given with an opportunity to prove his such plea in the enquiry and so the subsequent order of dismissal thereupon by way of victimization , becomes liable to be set aside in view of the decision reported in 1973-1 - LLJ SC 278 (Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. case) . He further submitted that such an opportunity was not also extended to him during the hearing on the preliminary issue ofvalidity ofdomestic enquiry before this Tribunal . He termed the decision of this Tribunal on the question of validity of domestic enquiry was in the nature ofexparte order since such an opportunity was not extended to him and so the said order is to be set aside and at the time of hearing ofthe present reference under Section 11 -A, the Tribunal should extend an opportunity to the workman concerned to produce evidence in respect of the strained relation in between the management and himself over such trade union 1656

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011/MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART I-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] legal evidence and since the finding in the domestic enquiry was a perverse one, the subsequent punishment by the management to the workman with the order of dismissal should not stand and it should be set aside . It has further been argued by Mr. Trivedi before me that even if there is an allegation of second marriage by the workman concerned that marriage should be proved in the proper fashion as Evidence Act requires , by way of proving the act of Sampradan and Saptapadi and relied on some decision reported in AIR 1965 SC 1564 , AIR 1966 SC 614 andAIR 1971 SC 1153. On going through the said decisions it is found that these decisions were in matters where appellant was subjected to criminal charges under Section 494 I.P.C. , a penal offence against bigamy and in the said prosecution , the provisions of Evidence Act is strictly followed . In this occasion, one decision may be recalled as reported in 1982-1 - LLJ SC 46 (supra) wherein a Threejudges Bench of the Hon'bleApex Court led by Hon'ble Justice V.R. Krishna lyerheldthat:

"4. It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to heresay evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and creditability. It is true that departmental authorities and administrative Tribunals must be careful in evaluating such material and should not glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the Indian EvidenceAct . For this proposition it is not necessary to cite decisions nor test books , although we have taken through case law and other authorities by counsel on both sides . The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity, exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and observance of rules ofnatural justice. Of course , fair play is basis and if perversity or arbitrariness , bias or surrender of Independence ofjudgment vitiates the conclusions reached , such finding , even though of a domestic Tribunal, cannot be held good. "

Fromthe above decision it is revealed thatdomestic enquiry does not require to follow the provision of Indian Evidence Act in its strict principle, but it should be in such away that there may not be a miscarriage ofjustice . Even reliance ofthe domestic enquiry officer upon heresay has not been ruled out .

14. There is a plea from the side of the workman that the management has failed to produce proper evidence in course of domestic enquiry on the charge of second marriage by the workman during life time of his first wife . But in this context , it may be recalled that the domestic enquiry authority relied upon some evidence before preparation of its report. Among those, the Enquiry Officer relied upon theVoters ' List of Sutahata Voting Area wherein the name of the alleged married wife, Tapasi Maity was found to appear with identification as the wife of Bimalendu Maity and also the name of the concerned workman is

appearing there in the following serial . Further. the Enquiry Officer relied upon the declaration ofnomination given by theworkmarn concerned having three girls and identifying them as his daughters , though the workman subsequently alleged to have withdrawn the same calling the same as by way ofmistake. It is very strange conduct from the side of the workman and it is hard to believe that it was a mistake onhis part since at the initial stage of his joining the service under the management he has given a declaration stating the names of his dependants including his first wife and children from that marriage among others and in the subsequent nomination the names of the three girls as daughters of the workman concerned were of different names and therein the name of the first wife or any ofthe previous declared dependant daughters are not appearing. Theworkman has claimed that he has earned reputation in course ofhis working tenure and attended different training and workshop on the recommendation ofthe management and itis revealed that he is prudent man and such a mistake onhis part in the nomination form is not expected. It is a voluntary act on his part and when he felt that actuallyhe committed a mistake by disclosing offspring through second marriage in the official record, he tried to hush it up by way ofwithdrawal claiming the same as doneby way of mistake. The complaint application ofhis wife is also in the record of the domestic enquiry though the said first wife was not examined in course ofsuch domestic enquiry. But itdoes not go to help the workman as he himself did not take any effort to bring Bhakti Rani Maity alleged tobe the first wife of the workman, as his witness to prove that she is his only wife and he had no other wife . Perhaps it was not an easy task for the workman, Bimalendu Maity since the complaint of entering into the second marriage by him came from his said first wife, Smt. Bhakti Rani Maity and if Bimalendu would have produced her as a witness before theEnquiry Officer in his defence, perhaps he would have done an act like opening Pandora's Box and stuck by the sting in his peril . Further, in the domestic enquiry record it is also found that said Bhakti Rani Maity brought several criminal charges against Bimalendu Maity before Criminal Court among which she disclosed only one where she claimed for maintenance for herself and daughters . Acopy ofthe order ofthe Criminal Court in respect of maintenance case, though ending with withdrawal ofthe same on some terms , has been attached with the enquiry report . The daughters through first wife, Smt . Bhakti Rani Maity became grown up by the course of time and in course of the domestic enquiry the eldest one is found to be married . Iftheworkman, Bimalendu Maity was clear against bigamy charge he would have tried his fate through the oral evidence of his said daughters , but he did not. In other words the workman, Bimalendu Maity never tried to fan- out blames surrounding him with the charge ofbigamy and other defence he has taken in course of domestic enquiry. I have also gone through the finding of the Domestic Enquiry Officer and I find that the Enquiry Officer has scanned those evidence in his findings .

1657

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II-खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

misconduct unless condone by the employer and even ifa workman causes any misconduct not even listed in the Standing Order, he may become liable to appropriate action.

18. So , ifthe act done by the workman in the present reference finds a place in the list of misconduct in the Standing Order ofthe employer, he cannot escape from his liability to face action by the management in the regard, if the charge of such misconduct against him is proved through a domestic enquiry.

15. As already stated in the preceding paragraphs that in Clause 41 in Item 19 of the Standing Orders ofthe Corporation contracting another marriage while the wife/ husband is living without first obtaining permission ofthe Company notwithstanding such subsequent marriage being permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to her/him. The said act by any employee under the management Corporation amounts to misconduct as per their Standing Orders . The language of the said misconduct is almost tallying with the verbatim description ofSection 494 ofthe Indian Penal Code wherein it is stated "Whoever, having a husband or wife living , marries in any case inwhich such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife , shall be punished. ........" and the said Section has provided for punishment with imprisonment of either description for aterm which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine . Item 20 of the Standing Orders has the provision for " Penalties for misconduct" and therein sub- clause (viii ) of Clause 1 there is provision for dismissal without notice , if any workman is found guilty of misconduct on domestic enquiry upon a chargesheet .

16. Though in the preceding paragraphs discussions have been made in respect of the impact of provisions of the Standing Orders of the employer, repetition of the same is needed to recollect the said findings made by the Hon'ble Apex Court in 2008 ( 118 ) FLR 400 in Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh case in the following words:

19. Now comes the stage of appreciating about proportionity of the punishment of the workman in the present reference. Bimalendu Maity by way of dismissal fromthe service on the basis ofthe domestic enquiry report against him. It is no doubt that the dismissal is a major punishment since such a punishment causes financial disaster in the family of the workman concerned together with a blemish of dismissal for doing such a serious act which causes his dismissal in the eye of society as well as before the other employer where he will proceed seeking employment . But, as already referred, it is found that a charge ofbigamy, if proved before a Criminal Court calls the offender to undergo imprisonment upto seven years together with fine thereupon . The offence involving imprisonment upto seven years , no doubt creates the offence as a major one before the Criminal Court . Further, the commission of second marriage by an employee in particular causes financial hardship to a legally married wife, children through that marriage tie and also creates some social problem involving them . I do not find any avenue through which the workman concemed can be taken out for a lesser punishment by terming the misconduct he has done as a minor one .

"If a misconduct has been committed within the purview of the provisions of the Standing Order , whether certified or Model, the workmen should be punished . The gravity of the offence, the impact the same would have on the other workmen as also the fact as to whether the same will have an adverse effect over the functioning of the industry are relevant considerations . "

20. In my view the management Corporation has done no wrong in ordering dismissal of the present workman, Bimalendu Maity since the charge of allegation ofsecond marriage during the life time of the first marriage has been declared to have been proved in a domestic enquirywhich is personal activities ofthe management for keeping discipline in the area of employment provided the same was done without defeating the natural justice to the workman and without any mind ofvindictiveness .

21. In conclusion, I am of the view that by passing anorder of dismissal of the workman, Bimalendu Maity by the employer Corporation , no miscarriage of justice has been done and since the misconduct is treated as serious and major, a punishment of major nature was inflicted upon him and it does not need any interference in the present reference and it was passed by following the legal provision to that effect and it was justified one . An Award is passed accordingly in view of the above findings .

Dated, Kolkata, the21st December, 2010 .

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer 17. There is a proverb that "Which is not certain cannot be obligatory " or " de minimis non cura lex " or law does not take cognizance oftrifles . So to bind the workmen to a code of conduct, the codification of the said code of conduct was felt needed to be done well in advance so that aworkman on joining any organization should know what he should not do to protect himself from the act of misconduct . This code of misconduct is done in both ways of "dos and non - dos " . The code of misconduct explains that certain acts are to be done ignorance of which would amount to misconduct and also mainly not to do certain listed works in course of employment which will amount to misconduct. For this reason most of the employers ofthe workmen normally maintains Standing Orders codifying the misconduct amongst other matters in the Standing Orders . It is fact that the Standing Order is not exhaustive with the list of misconduct and there may be some misconduct/misconducts which are not listed in the list of misconducts in the Standing Orders , yet it will become 1658

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2011

"Whether the termination of 21 contract labour as list enclosed by I.O.C.( MD) Guwahati through Subin Das contractor working in the L.P.G.. plant at Guwahati Refinery with effect from 1-10-99 as a result ofcommittee report is justified? Ifnot, to what relief these workmen are entitled ? "

का.आ. 510.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का(14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन आयल कार्पोरेशन लिमिटेड , गुवाहाटी के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , गुवाहाटी के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 14 सी/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को20-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-30011/2/2002- आई आर ( एम ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th January, 2011

The record is put up to - day. The management of Oil India Corporation Limited files to -day the copy of order of Hon'ble High Court dated 22-6-2004 passed in 7086/2000 which shows that the Hon'ble High Court vide that order set aside and quashed the reference Notification No. L- 30011/2/2000- IR(M) dated 19-5-2000 issued bythe Central Government . Accordingly this reference case will not proceed any further and the issues referred by the stands dropped. Send the copies of this order to the government forpublication.

Given under my hand and seal on this the 30th December, 2010.

Md . S. HUSSAIN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2011

S.O. 510. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 14(c)/ 2000) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court, Guwahati now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on20-1-2011.

[No. L- 30011 /2/2002- IR (M) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

IN THE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL : GUWAHATI , ASSAM

का.आ. 511.- 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 , नागपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 204/2002) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/39/2002- आई आर ( बी-I ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी Present

New Delhi , the 20th January, 2011 : Md. S. Hussain, Presiding Officer , Industrial Tribunal, Guwahati , Guwahati- 1

In the matter of an Industrial Dispute between:

The Management of Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. , Guwahati

Versus

S.O. 511. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 204/ 2002) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofState Bank of India and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 19-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/39/2002-IR (B - 1) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer Theirworkman rep . by the General Secy. , Thikadari Shramik Union, Guwahati Refinery, Guwahati .

ANNEXURE

Date ofAward : 30-12-2010 AWARD

BEFORE SHRI.J.P.CHAND , PRESIDING OFFICER, CGIT-CUM- LABOUR COURT, NAGPUR

Case No. CGIT /NGP /204/2002

Date: 17-1-2011 TheGovt. of India, Ministry of Labour, New Delhiby a notification No.L- 30011/2/2000 - IR(M) dtd . 19-5-2000 referred an Industrial Dispute between the Management of Oil India Ltd. ,Guwahati and their workmen represented by the General Secy. ,Thikadari Shramik Union, Guwahati Refinery ,Guwahati on the following issue :

Party No.1 (1) The Asstt. General Manager, StateBank of India, Zonal Office, S.V. Patel Marg, Kingsway, Nagpur-440001.

1659 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

(ii) The Deputy General Manager, StateBank ofIndia, Zonal Office , S.V. Patel Marg , Kingsway, Nagpur-440001 .

Versus

The Secretary,

PartyNo.2 :

S.B.I. StaffUnion , NagpurModule, Zonal Office, C/o SBI Zonal Office, S.V. Patel Marg , Nagpur-440001.

AWARD

(Dated: 17th January, 2011 )

This is a reference made by the Central Government in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) for adjudication ofthe industrial dispute between the management ofState Bank of India and their workman , Shri L.P. Kate (here- in- afterreferred to as " the workman " ) under reference No.L- 12012/39/2002-IR(B - I) dated 28-06-2002, with the following schedule :-

"Whether the action of the management of the State Bank of India, Nagpur in bringing down the scale of pay of Shri L.P. Kate, Messenger, SBI, GrainMarket, Nagpur by 5 states vide order order ofthe disciplinary authority dated 2-12-2000 and the orders of the appellate authority dated 20-3-2001 is justified ? If not, what relief the said workman is entitled ?

proceedings and the documents already exhibited from the side ofthe management , but, the Inquiry Officer refusedto supply such copies and as such, it can be said that the enquiry was held against the principles of natural justice and the enquiry is vitiated and after completion ofenquiry, the Disciplinary Authority gave a show cause notice in which the punishment of stoppage of ten increments was proposed and the workman submitted his reply mentioning therein about the charges not to have been proved against him and the inquiry to be bad in law and prayed to exonerate him from the charges , but his representation was over looked and the harsh punishment of stoppage of ten increments was imposed upon him and such punishment was imposed without application of mind and being aggrieved by such punishment, the workman preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the Appellate Authority reduced the punishment and awarded punishment ofstoppage of five increments with cumulative effect and such punishment is also harsh and disproportionate to the charges . It is further pleaded on behalfofthe workman that the Enquiry Officer was biased and he failed to give reasonable opportunity to defend the case, as per the principles of natural justice and stale allegations were included in the charge sheet and as such the charge sheet was bad- in - law, and the charge sheet was inEnglish and as such workman was not able to understand the same and the enquiry was concluded in a hurry, within one month, without giving any adjournment to the defense, even though prayer was made for such adjournment and the enquiry was conducted in a novel and foreign method and the enquiry on 5-2-1999 was conducted ex - parte-parte and reasonable opportunity to cross -examination was not given and copy of the enquiry report was not made available to the workman . The workmanprayed for declaring the order of punishment as illegal and to pass necessary orders.

2. After receipt of the reference , the parties were noticed to file their respective Statement of Claim and Written Statement and in response to such notice, the workman filed his Statement of Claim through the union, namely, " State Bank of India Staff Union, MC " , whereas , the management ofthe State Bank of India ( " The 1st party" inshort) filed its Written Statement .

The 1st party has made two fold contentions in its Written statement for resisting the claim ofthe workman. The first contention raised is that the dispute is not an industrial dispute within the meaning of Section 2(k) ofthe I.D. Act and the same is an individual dispute, as there is no community of interest and without having any connectionwith other workmen. The other contention raised is that the union with ill intention has suppressed the relevant and material facts and has painted a distorted picture ofthe facts . It is further pleaded by the 1st party that while the workman was working as a messenger at StateBank ofIndia, Gandhi Grain Market Branch at Nagpur, committed serious and repeated acts of gross misconduct and he remained unautiorized absent for 444 days and was issued with memos by the Branch Manager from time to timeand on 28-08-1998, he crossed all the limits ofdiscipline and reported late at the Branch at 12.50 p.m. , instead ofthe prescribed time of12.30 p.m. , so the Branch Manager refused totake him on duties , but he forcibly signed the muster roll Inthe statement ofclaim, it is pleaded on behalf of the workman that the workman came to be appointed w.e.f. 8-5-1979 as a messenger in the State Bank of India and worked indifferent branches and while he was working in Gandhi Grain Market Branch at Nagpur, a charge sheet dated 30-10-1998 containing ten charges was served on him and theworkman submitted his reply to the said charge sheet, but the 1st party decided to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against him and the enquiry was conducted by one Shri Ghosh, OSMG - III and at the time of the commencement of the enquiry, the workman was being represented by another union, but, being dissatisfied with the manner of conducting the defence , the workman approached the present union for help and accordingly theunionauthorized, Shri Shyam Gulgulwar to defendthe caseoftheworkman and Shri Gulgulwar finding the enquiry to have already been started, asked for copies of the

410 GI/11-26 1660

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

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

management and the workman was given every opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry and the second show cause notice was issued to him along with the enquiry report and the workman submitted his reply and was also heard through his representative and having regard to the gross misconduct of the workman , the Bank has rightly passed the order of bringing down , the scale of pay of the workman by five stages .

4. The union filed rejoinder stating that the union was fully authorized by the workman to raise the dispute and the union is a registered union and is recognized by theBank .

5. It is necessary to mention here that from 22-3-2007 , neither the workman himself nor any union representative on behalf of the workman appeared in the case . Hence argument was heard ex -parte against the workman .

6. Perused the record . Though in the statement of claim, the workman has raised objection that the departmental inquiry was not conducted properly and by following the principles of natural justice , after perusal of the record including the documents ofthe inquiry, I find no force in the same. I t is found from the record that the workman had been informed clearly of the charges leveled against him and the witnesses were examined in presence of himself and his representative and he was given a fair chance to cross- examine the witnesses and he was also given chance to examine witnesses on his behalf and the Inquiry Officer has recorded his findings with reasons for the same. It is also found that the findings are based on evidence on record and not perverse. It is also found that the punishment of bringing down the scale of pay of the workman to five stages is justified, in view of the gross misconduct proved against him and the same is not shockingly disproportionate to the charges proved against him. Hence, I do not find any valid reason to interfere with the punishment imposed against the workman . Hence it is ordered.

ORDER

The action of the management of State Bank of India, Nagpur in bringing down the scale of pay of Shri L. P. Kate , Messenger, SBI Grain Market Branch , Nagpur by 5 stages vide order of the Disciplinary Authority dated 2-12-2000 and the orders of the Appellate Authority dated 20-3-2001 is justified and the workman is not entitled for any relief.

J. P. CHAND , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2011

and also made false entry in the same and shouted on the Branch Manager and uttered very obnoxious utterances and on 11-8-1998, 12-8-1998 and 13-8-1998, the workman left the branch much prior to the prescribed time of 8 p.m. , i.e. 6.30 p.m. , 6.30 p.m. and 6.45 p.m. respectively and committed fraud by putting false timings of departure in the Bank's records and he also committed other acts of gross misconducts ofnot performing his duties ofkeeping back all the ledgers /files /documents in respective cup boards , in spite of asking by superiors , availed advance of 10,000 on false grounds of alleged marriage of his sister and misutilised the amount , misutilising the staff loan, coming to the branch premises in highly drunken condition and creating scene in the branch premises , so , the 1st party issued the charge sheet inter - alia leveling 10 different charges against him, consisting of acts of subservient discipline, riotous behavior , unauthorized absence , disobedience to the reasonable orders of the higher ups and leaving the place of work without the prior permission jand misrepresentation to draw loan and in the enquiry, the workman was first represented by a senior office bearer, Shri Santosh Moryya and then by another senior office bearer, Shri S. T. Gulgulwar and the enquiry was held in five klifferent sittings and four witnesses were examined by the 1ª party and one witness was examined on behalf of the workman and after giving a fair opportunity to the workman, the Inquiry Officer submitted his report dated 24-3-1999 holding all the charges , except charges no . 7,8 and 9 (a) to have been proved and the Disciplinary Authority after considering the enquiry report and examination of the other materials on record , did not agree with the findings ofthe Inquiry Officer , so far the charge nos . 7,8 and 9(a) are concerned and concluded the said charges also to have been proved and issued show cause notice dated 10-7-1999, proposing the punishment of " dismissal without hotice" under Para 521 (5 ) ( a) of the Sastry Award and in response to the said show cause notice , the workman through his representative submitted his reply on 10-08-1999 and also availed the opportunity of personal hearing on 10-8-1999 and taking into consideration the show cause and the request of the workman to take a lenient view and to save his family from comingto the streets , the Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view and passed the order dated 2-12-2000, imposing the punishment ofbringing down the scale of pay of one stage for each charge, instead of dismissal without notice and on consideration of the appeal filed by the workman, the Appellate . Authority took a further lenient view and imposed the penalty of bringing down the scale of pay for five stages , instead of ten stages . It is also pleadedby the 1st party that the enquiry was held in compliance of the principles of natural justice and the workman was served with the charge sheet and he was ijepresentedby top level senior office bearer and the bank examined four witnesses and they were cross - examined by the workman and one witness was examined by the workman, who was also cross - examinedby the

का.आ. 512.- 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 1661 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

without complying Section 25F of I.D. Act is legal and justified? If not , to what relief above workman is entitled to ?"

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 18-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/19/2005- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

Now Delhi , the 20th January, 2011

S.O. 512. 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 1 , Dhanbad 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, received by the Central Government on 18-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 19/2005 - IR (B - 1) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

2. The case of the 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 Boyetc. on a monthly consolidated salary of Rs . 500. One Harendera 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 worekman to regularise his services as a Messenger 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.

ANNEXURE

BEFORETHE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO . 1 , DHANBAD

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.

In the matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1) (d) (2A) of I.D. Act.

Reference No. 83 of 2005

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India .

AND TheirWorkman .

Fresent: Shri H.M. Prasad, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers : Shri R.N. Ganguly, Advocate

Shri S.C. Gour , Advocate

Forthe Workmen

State:Bihar

Industry:Bank.

Dated, the 28-12-2010

AWARD

By orderNo. L- 12012/ 19/2005 - IR(B -1) dated 5-10-2005 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has , in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- seciton ( 1 ) and sub- section ( 2A) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

3. The case or the management is that the concerned person was never appointed by the employers at any point of time in any post whatsoever . It has been stated that in case of vacancy in any post under the employers , the same is filled up after adopting and observing the procedure and rules for 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 top a Canteen in most of their branches including the Surmerganj 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 of State Bank of India by any stretch of imagination. The person concerned was employed/engaged by the Local Implementation Committee atthe Surmerganj Branch ofState Bank of India and he was not an employee ofthe Bank, besides there is no sanctioned post of a 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 "Whether the action of the management of State Bank 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 of regularising 1662

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

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

the canteen in the Branch Bank . I do not know if the Local Implementation Committee used to engage 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 a appointed by the State Bank of India .

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders denying and admitting the contents of some of the paragraphers of each other's written statement.

5. The management has produced MW- 1 , Ramesh Chandra. The concerned workman has produced himself asWW- 1 .

Inthis respect the concerned workman referred AIR 2001 Supreme Court 526 in which Hon'ble Supreme Court laid Administrative Tribunals Act ( 13 of 1985) S.14- Government emplolyees Defence Services-Emplolyees in Unit -Run- Canteens - Are Govt. employees-CAT retains jurisdiction to entertain their applications treating them as Govt. employees , by itself if so facto entitle them to get all service benefits as is available to regular Govt . servants or eventheir counter part .

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 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 of Sec.25- F of the I.D. Act. It has also argued that one Harendra Singh , Permanent Messenger of the S.B.I. was placed under 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 .

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. :

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 or contractual obligation or obligation under Sastry Award on the Bank to run the canteen .

20. 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 regularising without complying Section 25 - F of I.D. Act is legal and justified and accordingly the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

In this respect the management's counsel argued thatthere is no relationship of employer - employee between the employers and the concerned person . The present 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( 0) of the 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 canteen which is run by Local Implementation Committee which is fully responsible for the said canteen , look after all affairs ofsuch canteen including appointment ofCanteen Boys and payment of wages to them , supervise the work, so he is the employee of the Local Implementation Committee and not the employee of the Bank .

H.M. SINGH , Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2011 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.

का.आ. 513.-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 39/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/187/95- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी 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 have not filed the application which I submitted before the BranchManager of the Bank for my engagement on daily wages basis . Local Implementation Committee used to run [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

New Delhi, the20th January, 2011

S.O. 513. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 39/97) 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 ofState Bank of India and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 18-1-2011 .

1663

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[No. L- 12012/ 187/95- IR (B -I) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, DHANBAD Inthe matter of a reference U/s . 10( 1)(d) of I.D. Act, 1947 Reference No. 39 of 1997

Parties : Employers in relation to the management ofState Bank of India, Patna .

AND Their Workmen.

Present: SHRI H.M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

APPEARANCES :

Forthe Employers : Shri K.N. Gupta, Advocate

Shri D.K. Jha, Advocate

Forthe Workmen

Industry :Bank .

State: Bihar

Dated, the 29-12-2010

AWARD

ByOrderNo. L- 12012/ 187/95 - IR(B- 1) dated 17-1-1997 the Central Government in the Ministry of Labour has, in exercise of the powers conferred by clause (d) of sub- section (1 ) of Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, referred the following dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank of India, Patna in terminating the services of Sh. Raju Kumar from the post ofSweeper is justified? Ifnot, to what reliefthe workman is entitled to ?" 2. The case of the concerned workman, in brief, is that he was employed in the State Bank of India as Sweeper onpart-timebasis from 1984 to 31-5-94 and he had put in a total of 887 days of working with some artificial breaks , such as , in the year 1984 to 1985-270 days , in the year 1986 to 1993 May-270 days and from 1-6-93 to 31-5-94- 347 days i.e. total 887 days . The Bank management in the course ofemployment adopted a technique of appointing/ engaging the workman on temporary part -time basis , though in fact he continued to work for full days and dispensing the services of the concerned workman for a short spell ofperiod and continued to pursue this technique duringthe tenure of employment ofthe concerned workman justtodebar him to complete 240 days ofcontinuous service in 12 calendar months . The concerned workman was engaged orally and terminated orally. He even against this technique had put in more than 240 days of continuous service in the year 1993-94 in 12 calendar months preceding the date oftermination with effect from 1-6-1994 . He was orally terminated from service w.e.f. 1-6-1994 when he was working as a Sweeper at the residence of Chief General Manager of the Bank at Raja Bazar Branch, Patna and he was granted certificate of working for a total period of 347 days by the General Manager signed by the Astt . General Manager , Mr.S.R.Bose . He was paid wages from the Bank for doing thejob ofSweeper in the residence of the General Manager through Bank's Cheque. Prior to his engagement atthe residence of the General Manager's residence at RajaBazar the concerned workman was paid wages through vouchers right from 1984. He was working on permanent vacantpost. He was terminated without any order in writing and without any notice , pay and retrenchment compensation w.e.f. 1-6-94. Before stoppage no seniority list was displayed as required under Rule 77 of the I.D. (Central) Rules , 1957. The Bank management after terminating the services of the concerned workman appointed a number of fresh hands but failed to give notice to the workman for his re-employment of retrenched workman as per Sec.25H ofthe I.D. Act . After termination ofservice the concerned workman represented before the management on 10-6-94 and 5-7-94 and sent lawyer's notice on 21-7-99 under registered post but without any effect. Ultimately an industrial dispute was raised on 13-9-94 before theA.L.C. (C) , Patna, which ended in failure . Thereafter the dispute has been referred to this Hon'ble Tribunal for adjudication.

It has been prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award in favour ofthe workman.

3. The case of the Management is that the services of Raju Kumar were not terminated by the management. It cameto an end automatically after expiry of a fixed contract peried.Aperson ceasing to work under such circumstances can not be said to have been terminated from service . It has been submitted that at the time or even prior to that when the concerned workman ceased to work, he was not discharging the duties of the Bank. He worked at the residence of an Executive of the Bank. He was not as such engaged in an Industry. The Bank on account of exigency ofwork in the establishment used to engage persons purely on temporary and casual daily rated basis so that the temporary need of work could be taken care of. Such engaged personhad no right to claim a regular appointment or to be absorbed permanently in the Bank services . The 1664

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011/MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

8. Document which has been filed by the concerned workman shows that he was engaged by the management from time to time and paid wages by Cheque as per Ext . W- 10 series and he worked in the residence of the General Manager. Certificates have been given by different officers of the management in favour of the concerned workman foremployment .

concerned workman was engaged at times as casual daily rated employee by the Bank. He was asked to work as and whenhis services were required by the Bank. But at no point oftime he was assured that he was engaged against a permanent existing vacancy and/or permanent basis and would be absorbed in regular cadre in future . Whenever he worked he knew that he was a casual worker. The concerned workman was engaged to work as sweeper at the residence ofGeneral Manager (Audit & Inspection ), Patna on part- time basis . The engagement of the concerned workman cameto anend after completion of 30 days automatically. It was not a case of termination of service . The name of the concerned workman was kept in panel and he was also entitled to be absorbed on regular basis in order of seniority . The management after preparation of the panel offered appointment in the regular cadre on seniority basis depending upon the vacancy available and/or as and when occured . The name of the concerned workman was in the panel and he was also offered appointment as and when his turn came but he refused to accept the same . He has no legal right to hold the post , as he was purely casual and daily rated employee and was appointed on term basis . The question of his reinstatement in service is neither permissible in law nor justified in the facts and circumstances mentioned above.

It has been prayed that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to pass an award holding that the concerned workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. Both the parties have filed their respective rejoinders admitting and denying the contents of some of the paragraphs of each other's written statement .

5. Management has produced MW- 1 , S.N. Sandhwal and the concerned workman has produced himself as WW- 1 (Raju Kumar) .

Documents have been marked on behalf of the management as Exts . M - 1 to M - 9 and documents have been marked on behalf of the concerned workman as Exts . W-1to W-13.

6. Main argument advanced on behalf of the concerned workman is that he has worked with the management since 1984 up to 1994 and has worked for more than 240 days in 12 calendar months but he has not been regularised and not given permanent appointment by the management.

Management's witness MW- 1 , S. N. Sandhwal , has stated in cross - examination that the concerned workman was engaged in the concerned Bank as part - time sweeper on casual basis from the year 1988 to 1994. In cross- examination the witness has stated the concerned workman has continued to work from 1988 to 1994. Ext. W- 6 shows that he was engaged in 1984. Certificates have been given bythe management as per Ext . W-7 and W- 8 for work and Ext. W- 9 shows that he (concerned workman) worked for 347 days form 1-6-93 to 31-5-94 . MW - 1 also admitted that the concerned workman was paid as per Ext . W- 10 for the period between 7-7-93 to 1-6-94 by the Bank, through cheques . MW- 1 again at page 5 admitted that as per Ext . W-2 an industrial dispute was raised by the concerned workman beforeA.L.C. ( C) sometime in the year 1997 and in this reply dated 10-10-94 submitted by the management before A.L.C. (C) it is mentioned that the concerned workman has been interviewed for permanent employment and would be offered employment in due course. In this respect the concerned workman submitted his letter to the Asstt. General Manager, S.B.I. dated 7-4-97 by which he mentioned that he was prepared to forego his back wages if he is reinstated in service , as per Ext . W- 11 . Even ifgiving undertaking by the concerned workman that he is prepared to forego his back wages the management has not reinstated him in service which is against labour practice by the management . Ext .W- 2 is letter dated 10-10-94 in which his name finds place in Bank's panel for employment. Ext . W- 3 is another letter by the management and Ext . W- 4 is absorption policy ofthe Bank under which the concemed workman was offered absorptionby the management . Ext .W- 6 is certificate by the Branch Manager, Patna, for his good conduct. Ext . W-7 is certificateby the management for his working. Exts.W- 8 and W- 9 are also same things by different Branch Manager ofthe Bank . Ext. W- 11 is letter by the concerned workman which is admitted by the management's witness and he has given this letter that he was offered employment only for six months for the post of messenger, though he was terminated from service from 1-1-94 and he wants that he be reinstated inservice from 1-1-1994.

7. The management's representative argued that the cornicerned workman was given appointment, but he refused .

9. The concerned referred (2009) I Supreme Court Cases ( L& S) 55 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court laid down-

The representative of the workman argued in this respect that he was given appointment for six months as temporary, though his name was found in suitable candidates appointed by the management . Where was vacancy but the appointed him temporarily for six months winch is illegal and against rules , so he had refused to join.

"Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Ss . 25 - F, 2( s ) and 25-B -Reinstatement/Back wages /Arrears - Part-time workman-Termination without complying with requirements of S. 25 -F - Entitlement of part- time 1665

भारत का राजपत्र फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/189/95

Presiding Officer: SHRI MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN

Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav,

PostNipania Block Bhatapara ,

Workman/Union

Distt.Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

Versus

TheChairman,

Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank,

.Management

Dayalbandh , Distt . Bilaspur

AWARD

enployee informed orally oftermination-Trial Court held respondent was not ' workman '-High court ordering reinstatement of workman with full back wages : holding workman was wrongly terminated ignoring the procedure for retrenchment under S.25 - F, matter of regularisation to be considered by employer-sustainability-Held, High Court's view is correct that the workman had been working virtually on a full - time basis till 5 p.m. and had worked continuously for more than 3 years- Question as to whether a part -time workman would be covered within the definition in S.2( s ) of the Act and whether he would be entitled to the benefit of continuous service under S. 25 - B and the benefit of S. 25 - F, answered in favour of the respondent workman."

Passed on this 4th day of January, 2011

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L- 12012/ 161/94 - IR ( B - III ) dated 30-10-95 has referred the following dispute for adjudication by this Tribunal :-

10. Considering the facts and circumstances I come to the conclusion that the action of the management of State Bank of India, Satna in terminating the services of Shri Raju Kumar from the post of Sweeper is not justified . Hence, he is entitled to be re- instated in service with 50% back wages with other benefits from the date of his termination i.e. 1-6-74 till his reinstatement end regularisation in permanent service. The management is directed to implement the award within 30 days from the date ofpublication of this Award .

This is my Award .

"Whether the action of the management of Bilaspur Raipur Ksehtriya Gramin Bank in relaiton to their Nipania Branch in terminating the services of Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav , Part-time daily rated sweeper-cum-waterman w.e.f. 1-7-1993 is lawful and justified? Ifnot to what relief the workman concerned is entitled to ?"

H. M. SINGH, Presiding Officer

नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2011

2. The case of the workman in short is that he was appointed orally on 6-5-88 as Messenger and worked till 11-10-92 when he was orally terminated from the service. Again he was appointed orally on 6-4-93 and worked till 7-11-93 and again he was terminated . It is stated that he was also working as a clerk . His termination was illegal and there was existing vacancy. It is submitted that the workman be reinstated with back wages .

का.आ. 514.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बिलासपुर रायपुर क्षेत्रीय ग्रामीण 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 189/95 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-12012/161 / 94- आई आर ( बी -1 ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 20th January, 2011

3. The management appeared and filed Written Statement in the reference case . The case of the management , inter alia , is that the workman was engaged as temporary part - time daily rated employee for cleaning the office premises . He worked from6-5-88 to 30-6-93 intermittently on exigency of work . He had not worked 240 days in a calendar year . The provision of Section 25 -F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( in short Act) is not applicable . He had worked 72 days in a calendar year . It is submitted that he is not entitled to any relief.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of both the parties , the following issues are formulated-

1. Whether the workman was part - time daily rated sweeper -cum- waterman ?

S.O.514 . In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No 189/95 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court, Jabalpur as shown in theAnnexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bilaspur Raipur Kshetriya Gramin Bank and their workmen, received by the Central Government on 17-1-2011 .

II . Whether the action of the management in terminating the services of the workman is justified and lawful?

[No. L- 12012/ 161/94- IR (B -I ) ] RAMESH SINGH , Desk Officer 1666

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART I-SEC . 3 (ii)] III. To what relief the workman is entitled?

management of Central Railway and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 17-1-2011 .

[No. L- 41012/255/95- IR (B -I) ] 5.After filing statement of claim, the workman did not file his evidence. As such the then Tribunal proceeded the reference, ex parte against the workman on 1-9-2005 .

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer 6. Issue No. I and II

ANNEXURE

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

No. CGIT/LC/R/73/97

Presiding Officer: SHRI MOHD . SHAKIR HASAN

ThePresident, Rashtriya Chaturth Shreni Rail Mazdoor Congress ( INTUC) , 4, Hirapura,

Nagra , Jhansi

..Workman/Union

Versus

TheDivisional Railway Manager ,

According to the management, the workman was engaged intermittently and had worked less than 240 days in a calendar year. The management has not examined any witness in the case . However the management has filed certain photocopies of vouchers which are marked as Exhibit M /L - A to M/I - K. These vouchers are admitted by the workman . These vouchers are filed to show that the workman was engaged as daily rated employee on exigency of work intermittently. These vouchers show that he had not worked 240 days in a calendar year specially twelve calendar months preceding the date of reference. It is clear that the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act is not applicable . Thus it is established that he was daily rated employee intermittently and the action of the management is justified. Accordingly both the issues are decided in favour of the management and against the workman.

Dy. Chief Engineer ( Construction) , Central Railway, Gwalior(MP) Central Railway, Jhansi

Management 7. Issue No. III

AWARD

Passed on this 5th dya of January, 2011 On the basis of the discussion made above, the workman is not entitled to any relief. The reference is accordingly answered.

1. The Government of India, Ministry of Labour vide its Notification No. L-41012/255/95 - IR( B - I) dated 5-3-97 has referred the following dispute for adjudication this Tribunal:-

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 of Labour and Employment as per rules .

"Whether the action of the management of Central Railway, Gwalior in terminating the services of Shri Pramod Kumar S/o Shri Ram Sahay w.e.f. 21-10-86 is justified? Ifnotto what reliefthe workman is entitled ?" MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2011

का.आ. 515.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मध्य रेलवे 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 73/97 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 17-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-41012/255/95 - आई आर ( बी- I ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 20th January, 2011

2. The case of the Union/ Workman in short is that the workman Shri Pramod Kumar was appointed as casual labour on 3-6-82 under I.O.W. (Construction ) , Jhansi and worked continuous and attained the temporary status . He worked till 20-10-86 under I.O.W. (construction) Guna when his service was terminated without any reason . The Union raised the issue for reinstatement with back wages and gave a call of strike on 1-10-95 . The workman was again re- employed as casual labour and worked till 20-10-96 under A.E.N. (C) , Guna and again he was terminated thereafter. It is alleged that no disciplinary action was taken by the management, no charge - sheet was given and no order of termination was served . He was in continuous service under the provision of Section 25 - B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short theAct) and his termination is amount to retrenchment . It is alleged that he was retrenched without complying the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act . His termination is illegal and he is entitled to be reinstated with fullbackwages .

S.O. 515. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award ( Ref. No 73/97) 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

3. The management appeared and filed reply of the statement of claim by way of written statement to contest 1667 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

the reference. The case of the management, inter alia, is that admittedly the workman was appointed and worked up to 20-10-1986 under I.O.W( C) , Guna. It is stated that temporary status is not given automatically on completion of120 days continuous service rather verified service card was also necessary for granting temporary status . It is stated that Service Book No. 260281 was not produced even after making demand and ,therefore the workman was terminated by the Asstt . Engineer (Construction) , Guna vide letter No. AGN/C/Guma/Labour/76 dated 20-10-1986 and the same was personally received by the workman. No departmental enquiry was necessary because the workman had not attained temporary status . The provision of the Act is simply denied by the management . It is submitted that the workman is not entitled to any relief.

4. On the basis of the pleadings of the parties , the following issues are framed-

I. Whether the workman had attained the temporary status by virtue of completion of continuous service of 120 days .

II. Whether the provision ofthe Act is applicable?

6. On the other hand, the management has also adduced oral and documentary evidence . The management witness Shri O.P. Saxena is Office Superintendent in the officeofDeputy Chief Engineer. He has admitted that the workmanwas appointed and worked up to 21-10-1986. He has proved Serial No. 128 of Page No. 68 of the L.T.I. Register. He has stated that it is maintained at the time of engagement of the workman. The said entry is marked as ExhibitM/3 . The said entry clearly shows that he worked as Jhansi from 3-6-82 to 3-6-85 . Thereafter he was transferred to Mathura. The said Register further shows that Service Book No. 260281 was issued to him by P.W.I, C.Railway, Mahaba. This register establishes the case of the workman thathe worked continuously and service card was issued. His evidence shows that he was terminated because Service Cardwas not produced by him . However this register proves thatService Card was issued. This witness has also proved the statement showing service particulars from 19-10-85 to 20-10-86. This is marked as Exhibit M/2 . This statement clearly shows that he had worked more than 360 days continuously. Thus it is clear that he had fulfilled the requirement to obtain temporary status . Accordingly this issue is decided in favour of the workman and against the management .

III . Whether the termination of the workman by themanagement w.e.f. 21-10-86 is justified?

7. Issue Nos . II and III

IV. To what relief, the workman is entitled?

5. Issue No. I

On the basis of discussion made above, it is clear that the workman had admittedly worked from 3-6-82 to 20-10-86. The documents adduced by the management and specially Exhibit M/2 shows that the workman had worked more than 240 days during a period of twelve calendar months preceding the date with reference. There is no evidence on the record to show that the management had complied the provision of section 25 - F ofthe Act rather during argument, the Learned Counsel for the management has admitted that no compliance in view of section 25 - F of theAct in the case is done by the management . There is no dispute that the provision of the Act is not applicable. As such it is evident that the termination without complying the provision of Section 25 - F of the Act is unjustified and illegal . Accordingly these issues are decided in favour of the workman and against the management . The management is directed to reinstate the workman from the date oftermination with full back wages . 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 of Labour and Employment as per rules .

MOHD. SHAKIR HASAN, Presiding Officer It is an admittedfact that the workman was appointed by the management and worked till 20-10-1986 . Now the question is as to whether the workman worked continuously or intermittently. The workman has adduced oral and documentary evidence . The workman has stated in his evidence that he was appointed on 18-6-81 at Mahaba under P.W.I. and was transferred to Jhansi and worked there from 3-6-82 for three and halfyears . From there he was transferred to Mathura . He has stated that he was further engaged from 19-10-95 to 20-10-96. Thereafter he was again terminated . He has stated that his service card was with the Jhansi workshop and certified copy of Service Card was deposited by him . His evidence shows that he worked continuously. The workman has filed a certificate which appears to have been issued by I.O.W(C) "G " Jhansi . This certificate is admitted by the management . This certificate shows that he was transferred from Mahoba to Jhansi and heworked there from 3-6-1982 to 3-6-1985 . Thereafter he was transferred to Mathura . This certificate further shows that Service Card No. 26028 was issued from Mohaba. There is nothing on record to show that there is no such service card and the said number of service card was issued to different person. This document corroborates the oral evidence of the workman . Moreover it is an admitted document.

410 GI /11-27 1668

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] नई दिल्ली, 20 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 516. 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, कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 46/2000 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/319/2000- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

2.Earlier this reference was dealt with by this Tribunal as the validity of domestic enquiry was questioned by the workmen union and a detail hearing on the same was made by this Tribunal and the validity point was disposed ofby anorder dated 1st January, 2008 by my learned predecessor holding the domestic enquiry as legal and valid and thereafter the present reference was posted for hearing the parties on the adequacy of punishment imposed upon the workman concerned by the management by way of removal from service on the basis ofthe report ofthe Enquiry Officer ofthe domestic enquiry.

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 20th January , 2011

S. O. 516. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award ( Ref. No.46/2000) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum -Labour Court, Kolkata as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India and their workman, received by the Central Government on 18-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/319/2000- IR(B-I) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

3.Onmy resuming charge of this Tribunal fresh notice was issued to the respective parties for causing their appearance and place their respective argument over the adequacy of punishment . Though no service report was received by the Tribunal in respect of the notice issued under registered post to the management Bank , but appearance on its behalf was made by the Learned Advocate representing the Bank on the date fixed for its appearance. Unfortunately, the workmen union did not respond to the said notice also sent under registered post to the office of the workmen union which was duly served upon the office bearer of the said union as per endorsement made thereto inthe acknowledgment card received back.

ANNEXURE CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL ATKOLKATA

Reference No. 46 of 2000

4. Having no way, the present hearing of argument on the adequacy of punishment was taken up in presence of the management Bank only as on repeated occasions the workmen union did not make any appearance even after two dates were deferred after service of the notice.

PARTIES: Employers in relation to the management of State Bank of India, Siliguri AND Theirworkmen

PRESENT: Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar, PresidingOfficer

APPEARANCE:

Onbehalf of the Management : Mr. G. Brahma . Advocate.

Onbehalf of the Workmen : None .

State: West Bengal

Industry: Banking

Dated: 12th January, 2011

AWARD

By Order No. L - 12012/ 319/ 2000- IR( B - I ) dated

7-11-2000 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 ofthe management of StateBank ofIndia in terminating the services of Shri Krishna Chandra Chowdhury,Assistant (C&A) w. e . f. 14-10-1998 by way of removing him from service is just, fair and reasonable ? If not, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled ?"

5. In course of his submission , Mr. G. Brahma , Ld . Advocate for the management submitted that the charge sheet upon which the domestic enquiry was started, conducted and concluded against the workman , was in respect of some grave misconduct on the part of the workman concerned as per memorandum of settlement dated 10th April, 2002 in between the management Bank and different workmen associations and unions . Mr. Brahma specially made stress upon the "gross misconduct" as stated in sub -clause ( d) and (j ) ofClause 5 ofthe said memorandum of settlement. Therein it has been stated in sub -clause (d) willful damage or attempt to cause damage to the property of the bank or any of its customers and sub - clause (j ) doing any act prejudicial to the interest of the bank or gross negligence or negligence involving or likely to involve the bank in serious loss . In the charge sheet specific allegations were made against the workman concerned that he had misappropriated the money deposited by difference customers in their respective accounts without crediting the said amount in the respective accounts and concerned ledger and putting the money in the custody of the Bank . He further submitted that the said act in the charge sheet against the workman is in the nature of gross misconduct as stated earlier in reference to sub-clause ( d) and (j ) of Clause 5 of the memorandum of settlement . In respect of punishment for 1669 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

court of appeal and by acting as a re-appreciating the evidence. "

suchgross misconduct in Clause 6 of the said memorandum ofsettlement , dismissal without notice has been prescribed among other provisions of punishment of removal from service, compulsory retirement, discharge from service etc. Inthe present case the workman concerned was removed from service by a letter of removal dated 26th September, 1998 issued by the Assistant General Manager, Region - I of the Zonal Office, Siliguri ofthe Bank and the said removal was made with superannuation benefit as would be due to theworkman concerned and without disqualification from future employment in terms of Paragraph 521 (5) (b ) ofSastry Award.

6. Mr. Brahma, Ld. Advocate for the management Bank referred the decision in AIR 1965 SC 917 (M/s . Hind Construction and Engineering Co. Ltd. v. Their workmen) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held :

"..... the award of punishment for misconduct under the Standing Orders , if any, is a matter for the management to decide and if there is anyjustification for punishment imposed the Tribunal should not interfere. The Tribunal is not required to consider the propriety or adequacy of the punishment or whether it is excessive or too severe : But where the punishment is shockingly disproportionate , regard being had to the particular conduct and the past record or is such, as no reasonable employer would ever impose in like circumstances , the punishment as itself showing victimization or unfair labour practice."

8. It is fact that the workman concerned or the authorized representative of the workmen union did not appear and showed reluctance on different dates by remaining absent persistently, for the ends ofjustice, the Tribunal should act in a neutral way to see whether actually any disproportionity was administered upon the workman concerned by the disciplinary authority on the basis ofthe report of the Enquiry Officer in a domestic enquiry. Admittedly the workman was served with a chargesheet giving different acts of misconduct and a domestic enquiry was done thereto by an Enquiry Officer appointed by the disciplinary authority and subsequently the Enquiry Officer, after conducting and concluding the enquiry proceeding submitted a report to the disciplinary authority against the workman concerned . Acting upon the said report, the disciplinary authority subsequently removed theworkman concerned from service after giving him an opportunity to be heard on the point of punishment. Though the workman concerned put objection against the validity of the domestic enquiry, as already discussed in the previous paragraph, this Tribunal made a preliminary hearing on such validity point and on conclusion ofhearing both the parties and consideration of their respective evidence, it was held by this Tribunal that the domestic enquiry was valid and legal . The said order ofthis Tribunal was not challenged by the workman before a superior authority and thereupon the said finding of this Tribunal become final on the validity point . As already observed, recapitulation ofthe evidence adduced by the parties before the Enquiry Officer is forbidden before this Tribunal as such a view has been given by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the referred decisions in the previous paragraph.

7. Inrespect of re- assessment ofthe evidence ofthe parties in respect of the allegations made by the management against the workman concerned, Mr. Brahma further relied upon another decision reported in 2006(6) Supreme 245 (State Bank of India & Ors . v. RameshDinkar Punde) In the said decision the Hon'ble Apex Court held :

"...... the Tribunal while exercising judicial reviewdo not act as an appellate authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and confined to correct errors of law or procedural error, if any, resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of principles of natural justice . Judicial review is not akin to adjudication on merit by re- appreciating the evidence as an Appellate Authority. "

The Hon'ble Court further held:

9. I have also perused the memorandum of settlement and provision therein in respect of gross misconduct in Clause 5 thereto and also the punishment prescribed in clause 6 ofthe said settlement . Though the Standing Orders of the Bank is not forthcoming the memorandum of settlement has been stated as the guiding principle of the relation in between the management Bank and its workmen, theprovision ofmemorandum of settlement arrived at on participation ofboth the sides , will act as a guiding principle and interference from the side of the Tribunal should not be made if there is no allegation of grave miscarriage of justice.

"It is impermissible for the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence which had been considered by the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority."

10. In the circumstances, I am of the view that the disciplinary authority of the management Bank made no mistake in awarding the punishment of removal of the workman concerned and I do not find any disproportionity or inadequacy in the said punishment .

It is further held by the Hon'ble Court:

11. Therefore, I find that the action ofthe management of State Bank of India in terminating the services of Shri Krishna Chandra Chowdhury, Assistant (C&A) with effect from 14-10-1998 by way ofremoving him from service is "Weare, therefore, clearly of the view that the High Court was erred both in law and on facts in interfering with the findings of the Inquiry Officer, the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority 1670

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

justified, fair and reasonable. In consequence the workman concerned is not entitled to any relief.

JUSTICE MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer Dated, Kolkata, 12th January, 2011 .

'नई दिल्ली, 21 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 517.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक ऑफ सौराष्ट्र के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय -2 , मुम्बई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 18/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 19-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12012/ 181/2006- आई आरं ( बी- I ) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 21st January, 2011 S. O. 517.- In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Governmenthereby publishes the Award (Ref. No.18/2007) oftheCentralGovernment Industrial Tribunal -cum - Labour Court-2, Mumbai as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management ofState Bank of Saurashtra and their workmen, receivedby the Central Government on 19-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 181 /2006- IR(B-I) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL

Tribunal No. 2, Mumbai

PRESENT

K. B. KATAKE, Presiding Officer REFERENCE NO . CGIT- 2/18 of 2007 EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF

STATE BANK OF SAURASHTRA NOW: STATE BANK OF INDIA TheDeputy General Manager StateBank of India, Zonal Office Jeevan Seva LIC Building Santacruz(W) Mumbai -400055 .

AND THEIR WORKMEN

TheVice President Nhava Sheva Port &

General Workers' Union PortTrust kamgar Sadan, 2nd floor

Nawab Tank Road, Mazgaon Mumbai -400010.

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

ForTheEmployer : Mr. M. G. Nadkarni , Advocate.

ForTheWorkman : Mr. J. H. Sawant, Representative.

Mumbai, dated the 21st December 2010 . AWARD

TheGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour & Employment by its Order No. L- 12012/ 181/2006- FR (B - 1) , dated 13-3-2007 in exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub - section ( 1) and sub-section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 have referred the following industrial dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication:

"Whether the demand of Smt . Sonabai Rejendra Ingale is justified in claiming permanency in the services of State Bank of Saurashtra? If so , then what relief the workman is entitled?"

2.The secondparty worker has filed her statment of claim at Ex- 5 .According to the second party worker, she was employed by first party w.e.f. 16-4-2000 as a Sweeper for cleaning and sweeping work in the branch of first party at Vashi . The first party used to pay wages for her work.All the documents in that respect are in possession of the first party. In addition to cleaning and sweeping work, the workman was also attending the work attached to the post of sub -ordinate staff ( full time Peon) from the year 2005 . The first party used to pay wages .

3.According to the second party, the first party, the ChiefManager, Atul Shah refused the second party to allow her to work. It was in contravention to Section 33 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 and in violation of principles ofnaturaljustice. The conciliation proceeding was moved. However during conciliation proceeding, the first party removed the second party and engaged some other worker . The conciliation proceeding failed and the matter was referred toGovernment of India, Ministry of Labour. The Ministry has sent the reference to this Tribunal to pass award..

4.The first partyfiled its written statement at Ex- 6 & 9. According to them, the second party has sought for permanency in the service which cannot be granted. The second party workman was a casual worker . According to them, second party workman was never appointed as full time Peon. She was a casual worker engaged for casual labour on daily wages and wages were paid to her . Therefore neither she can claim continuation of service, nor she can claim permanency, therefore the first party prays that the reference be rejected.

5.My Learned Predecessor has framed the following issues at Ex- 14.

Issues 1671

फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

भारत का राजपत्र :

[ भाग - खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

AND

(i)Whether the second party workman can be made permanent in the establishment of first party? The General Manger,

(ii) Ifyes , what relief second party is entitled to ? NERailway, Gorakhpur.

AWARD

(iii)What order?

1. Central Government, MoL , New Delhi vide notification no. L-41012/ 157/2003 - IR(B- 1 ) dated 26-09-03 has referredthe following dispute for adjudication to this tribunal.

2.Whether the action of the management of NE Railway, Gorakhpur in terminating the services of Sri Baldeo Prasadw.e.f. 16-07-89, is legal and justified ? If not what relief the workman is entitled?

3.Brieffacts are-

6.After framing ofthe issues , the reference was kept for filing list of documents and affidavit of the second party. However instead of leading evidence and filing affidavit, the learned advocate for the second party filed purshis at Ex- 17 and requested to dispose of the reference forwant ofprosecution. The other side i.e. the first party has no objection to dispose of the reference . As the second party does not want to pursue the case and filed purshis at Ex- 17, the reference deserves to be rejected . Thus I pass the following order:

ORDER

4. It is an admitted fact that the claimant Sri Baldeo Prasadwas engaged as a casual labour on 17-10-80 by NER Gorakhpur. It is also admitted fact that heworked for577days.

Reference stands rejected for want ofprosecution.

Date: 21-12-2010

K. B. KATAKE, PresidingOfficer

नईदिल्ली, 21 जनवरी, 2011

का. आ. 518.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार उत्तर पूर्व रेलवे के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , कानपुर के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 34/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

5. It is alleged that he had acquired a temporary status but opposite party had removed him on 16-7-89 without issuing any notice; therefore, it is a clear breach of the provisions ofI. D. Act . It is also stated that he had filed one ID Case No.71 of 96 along with other labours which was pending before CGIT Kanpur, but the learned P.O. without deciding the case returned the said dispute to the MoL NewDelhi . Thereafter he moved an application before MoL, New Delhi, wherein they permitted to raise the matter again then he again raised the matter, before the ALC and thereafter this matter was referred to this tribunal . It is stated that order passed by the management regarding his termination is illegal and he be reinstated with all consequential benefits .

[सं. एल-41012/157/2003- आई आर (बी- I ) ]

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 21st January, 2011

$ .O . 518. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 34/2003) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal , Kanpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of N E Railway and their workman, received by the Central Government on 20-1-2011.

[No. L-41012/ 157/2003 - IR(B- I)] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE SRI RAM PARKASH, PRESIDING OFFICER CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL;

KANPUR

Industrial Dispute No. 34 of2003

Sri Baldeo Prasad,

S/o Sri Jagmohan, Village & Post: Pagar Lalganj District Basti .

6. As stated above, opposite party admitted his engagement for the post of casual labour but stated that the work for which the claimant was engaged was not of permanent nature. He was engaged for a specific work and for a specific period till the continuation of conversion of meter gauge into the broad gauge which was not of a permanent nature. It is alleged by them that one month's pay ofRs.440.82 paisa. were paid to the claimant in lieu of notice. The payment was made through letter no.165/ PI (Construction) dated 1-5-82 which is being annexed as R.1. It is stated by them that this petition is not maintainable as the petitiorier's previous petition ID No. 71 of 96 has already been decided by this Tribunal . Petition is liable to be dismissed. The principle of estoppels and res -judicata are fully applicable. It is stated that opposite party. has neither violated the principle of natural justice nor adopted any unfair labour practice. Notice pay was paid to the claimant as per rule. It is stated that he was engaged on project work, on completion of project work the services oftheworkman came to an end automatically. The claimant was under the opposite party up to 15-5-82. On 1-7-89, the claimant was working under P.W.I Garara which now comes within East Central Railway Hazipur. It is also alleged that the claim petition is liable to be rejected.

1672

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

7. Both the parties have adduced documentary evidence in support of their claim .

8. Claimant has adduced himself in oral evidence as W.W.1 Sri Baldeo Prasad.

9.Opposite partyhas not adduced any oral evidence.

10.At the time of arguments none was present . Case being very old I perused the file thoroughly. My findings aregivenbelow-

11. The only short point is to be decided in this case is whether the claimant had worked for 240 days or more in a calendar year preceding the date of termination . It is alleged thathis date oftermination is 16-07-89. Now it is to be seen whether he had worked for 240 days in the preceding one year with effect from 16-07-89 . I have gone through the, evidence adduced by the claimant documentary as well as oral .Hehad stated on oath that he was engaged on 17-10-80 andworked till 15-05-82, thereafter he was again engaged on 16-2-85 and worked till 16-05-85 . He again stated that hewas again engaged on 08-04-89 till 16-07-89 but he stated that he worked under PWI Garahara . This is also the contention of the opposite party that the claimant had worked under PWI Gazhara which is not a party in this case. He has filed record ofservice of casual labour, which is on the file. I have gone through it. This also speaks like W.W.1 . Even if I take the statement and record on the face of it, even then right from 8-4/89 to 16-07-89 he had worked only for 100 days and neither for 120 days nor 240days .

12. It is also the contention of the opposite party when claimant was working under them, he was not working in a permanent nature of work, and the work was not of a permanent nature. He was engaged for a project work, when the project work was completed his services were not required, so there was no question of his termination from the service. It is also stated and they have filed one paper Annexure R- 1 along with written statement stating that they had given on month's pay Rs . 440.82 paisa on 15-5-82 to the claimant . Claimant has not filed any rejoinder against this.

13. Considering the facts burden lies on the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days or more in one calendar year preceding the date ofhis termination. But from the evidence he has not been able to prove this fact in his favour. I have gone through the file of I.D. 71 of96. Claimant is not entitledto seek any relief from this case also .

14. Therefore , the claim is decided against the claimant.

RAM PARKASH , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली , 24 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 519.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार इंडियन ओवरसीज बैंक के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ] औद्योगिक अधिकरण/श्रम न्यायालय , चेन्नई के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 15/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-12012/10/2010- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the24th January, 2011 S.O. 519. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.15/2010) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- Labour Court, Chennai now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Indian Overseas Bank and their workman , which was received by the Central Government on 18-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 10/2010- IR(B - II) ] RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer ANNEXURE BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL-CUM -LABOUR COURT CHENNAI

Thursday, the 13th January, 2011 Present : A.N. JANARDANAN PresidingOfficer INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE No. 15/2010 (Inthe matter of the dispute for adjudication under clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947( 14 of 1947) , between the Management of Indian Overseas Bank and their Workman)

BETWEEN

: 1stParty/Petitioner Sri S. B. Gunasekaran Vs.

2nd party/Respondent The Chairman and Managing : Director Indian Overseas Bank

763, Anna Salai

Chennai - 600002

APPEARANCE :

Forthe 1st Party/ Petitioner :

Forthe 2nd Party/ Management:

Sri G Mathivanan, Advocate M/s T.S. Gopalan & Co.,Advocates

AWARD

The Central Government, Ministry of Labour vide its OrderNo. L- 12012/ 10/2010- IR (B- II) dated 23-4-2010 referred the following Industrial Dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication.

1673

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

The schedule mentioned in that order is:

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

6. Petitioner being absent and set ex- parte no evidence is adduced.

"Whether the action of the management of Indian Overseas Bank in stopping the services of Sri S.B. Gunasekaran, Jewel Appraiser is legal and justified ? What reliefthe concerned workman is entitled to ?"

Points ( i) & ( ii )

Pleadings , perse,do not constitute evidence. Despite the contentions of the Respondent/Bank keenly denying the claims or allegations of the petitioner in order to succeed, ifhe is entitled to that, it is for him to place before this Tribunal sufficient materials by way of evidence to the satisfaction of the Court to substantiate his claim, which has not been done. Therefore , he is bound to fail . His cessation of services is only to be held just and legal .

2.After the receipt of Industrial Dispute, this Tribunal has numbered it as ID 15/2010 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 . When the case stood for further proceedings and enquiry from time to time the petitioner stood not represented or was also not present consistently. When the matter came up on 12-01-2011 the petitioner is set ex-parte.

7. The reference is answered accordingly.

3. Claim Statement contentions briefly read as follows:

(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

: None

Forthe 2nd Party/Management

Documents Marked:

Date

From the Management side:

Date

The petitioner was appointed Jewel Appraiser at the Regional Office of the Respondent at Coimbatore on 31-3-1984 . He worked throughout the year with time schedule as that of any other bank employee with retirement age fixed as 58 years by the bank . His job is permanent and he worked continuously exceeding 240 days in 1 year and 480 days in 2 calendar years without break. Through All Indian Overseas Bank Employees Union ofwhich he is a member demand was raised for confirming his post. With oblique motives he was denied work from 1-9-2006 without any reason or any show cause notice issued to him or followed by any domestic enquiry ignoring the principles ofnatural justice and labour laws . Legal notice sent to the Respondent was in vain answered with a bald- reply. ID was raised failing which the reference is made. Hence the claim for reinstatement with all benefits .

For the 1st Party/Petitioner From the Petitioner's side Ex. No. Description Nil Ex.No. Nil Description 4. Counter Statement contentions briefly are as follows:

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 520, औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार दिल्ली डेवलपमेंट ऑथोरिटी 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 37/2010 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल-42012/19/2007- आई आर ( डी.यू. ) ] रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi, the 24th January, 2011 The Jewel Appraisers are freelancers and they are not employees. The Supreme Court has held that Jewel Appraisers are not employees of the Respondent/Bank in the decision reported in 2006-2 - LLN - 511 . In the light of detection of spurious jewels appraised by the Jewel Appraiser in respect of Loan Account No. 120400084 disbursed on 3-2-2004 for Rs . 1.10 lakhs the petitioner thereafter was not assigned any work. Thus his engagement was stopped . The non -engagement of petitioner was for a valid reason not open to challenge . There is no qualification for enlisting a Jewel Appraiser . He is not subject to any supervision or control by the bank. He is free to carry on any avocation . There was no guaranteed payment of commission. He is not an employee of the bank . He is not entitled to any relief.

5. Points for consideration are :

(1) Whether the stopping of services of the petitioner as Jewel Appraiser is legal and justified?

S. O. 520. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the Award (Ref. No. 37/2010) ofthe 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 1674

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

the management of Delhi Development Authority and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on24-1-2011.

[No. L-42012/ 19/2007- IR(DU) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R. K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALNO.L, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI I.D. No 37/2010

Workman Shri Umesh Kumar C/ o Delhi Labour Union, Aggarwal Bhawan, G.T. Road, Tis Hazari , New Delhi- 110054.

Versus

The Chairman.

Delhi DevelopmentAuthority, Vikas Sadan, I. N.A Market ,

New Delhi .

.Management

AWARD

Shri Umesh Kumar forged a letter of appointment and joined as security guard on work- charged basis with Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as theAuthority) on 3-1-1985. Forgery, committed by him came to light and his services were dispensed with on 26-11-99. A post decisional enquiry was initiated and Umesh Kumar was called upon to submit alleged original letterofappointment . He tendered his resignation letter on 11-12-99 and opted not to participate iri the enquiry. Public notices were given to him by way of publication in "Times of India" on 27-4-2002 and "Navbharat Times " on 28-4- 2002. He did not turn up to produce original appointment letter before the authorities . On the other hand, he approached Delhi Labour Union (hereinafter referred to as the Union) for redressal of his grievances . The Union sent a notice of demand to the Authority on 25-6-04 , seeking reinstatement of Shri Umesh Kumar in service. When no response was received from the Authority, an industrial dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer . The Authority insisted for production of original letter of appointment. It resulted into failure of conciliation proceedings . When failure report was submitted to the appropriate Government, it took a decision to decline reference of the dispute to an adjudicatory authority, vide its order dated 27-11-07. Writ petition being WP(C) No.1430 of 2008 was filed before High Court of Delhi . While disposing of the said writ petition, High Court of Delhi commanded the appropriate Government to re- consider the matter and to take an appropriate decision for reference of dispute to an industrial adjudicator . In consideration of missives , so given, the appropriate Government referred the disputed to this Tribunal for adjudication, vide order No L-420 12/19/2007 -I R( DU) New Delhi , dated the 27-07-2010, with following terms ofreference:

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii) ] "Whether the action taken by the Executive Engineer ED-3 ofDelhi Development Authority, in terminating the services ofShri Umesh Kumar S/o Shri Dharam Pal, Ex - Security Guard on work charge w.e.f. November, 1999 is just, fair and legal ? If not, what reliefthe workman is entitled to and from whichdate?" 2. Claim statement was filed on behalf of the Union pleading that Shri Umesh Kumar was employed by the Authority as security guard on 1-1-85 . He served the Authority to entire satisfaction of his superiors . He has unblemished and uninterrupted record of service to his credit . His services were illegally terminated on 26-11-99. He has not committed any misconduct . No memo or charge- sheet was ever served upon him. No domestic enquiry was conducted against him . Though service of the claimant were dispensed with , yet his juniors were retained in service . Action of termination of his services is violative of provisions of section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) . The Authority has also violated the provisions of section 25 -G and 25 -H of the Act read with rules 76, 77 and 78 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules , 1957. Reinstatement in service with continuity, full back wages and other consequential benefits have been claimed for Shri Umesh Kumar.

3. Claim was demurred by the Authority pleading that the Umesh Kumar joined its services on forged and fabricated document . His appointment was void ab initio . When forgery came to light, his services were terminated w.e.f. 26-11-99 . On an enquiry on a complaint, so received , the claimant was called upon to tender his original appointment letter instead of producing his original appointment letter , he submitted his resignation on 11-12- 99. Thereafter he opted to abstain away from that enquiry. Public notices were given, by way ofpublication in "Times of India " and "Nav Bharat Times " . Despite publication of those notices , the claimant had not presented original appointment letter, on the basis of which he was appointed bytheAuthority. Since he sought appointment on the basis of forged document, no right ever accrued in his favour. His sèrvices were rightly terminated. No claim can be put forwarded for reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages , asserts the Authority.

4. On pleadings ofthe parties following issues were settled:

1. Whether the claimant obtained services of the Authority on the basis of forged document ?

2. As in terms of reference .

3. Relief.

5. In order to substantiate its stand the Authority brought Shri Mahesh Chand Singhal , Executive Engineer, inthe witness box . No other witness was examined by the Authority. Claimant opted not to adduce any evidence in thematter.

1675 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

6. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri Mohd. Farrukh, authorised representative, advanced arguments on behalf of the claimant . Ms. Raavi Birbal , authorised representative, raised her submissions on behalf of the Authority. 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. 1

unfolded by Shri Singhal, no letter with such particulars was ever issued in favour of any employee on 22-2-85. Consequently it is emerging over the record that letter Ex. MW1 /3 is a forged document . Various opportunities were given to the claimant to produce original letter of appointment, when post decisional enquiry was conducted. As unfolded by Shri Singhal , instead of presenting original letter ofappointment the claimant tendered his resignation on 11-12-99, which is Ex.MW1/8 Shri Singhal unfolds that Itwas so done bythe claimant, since he was apprehending criminal action against him . The claimant opted not to appear in the enquiry despite notice sent to him and public notices being published in " Times of India" and "Navbharat Times " which are Ex.MW1 / 14 and Ex . MW1 / 15 respectively. Consequently, it is evident that the claimant opted not to produce original letter of appointment, despite being called upon to do so .

7. Shri Mahesh Chand Singhal swears in his affidavit Ex.MW1 /A that the claimant managed to join duty with the Authority on 3-1-85 , with the help of forged and fabricated document. Claimant produced photo copy of appointment letter No. E.E.IH.D - XIV/DDA/ 824 dated 22nd ofFebruary, 85 which is Ex.MW 1/3 and managed to join his duties with theAuthority. He unfolds that as per record ofthe Authority three appointment letters were issued on 22-2-85 , which bearNo.166, 167 and 168. No such letter was issued bearing No.824, as detailed in Ex.MW1/3 . He declares that muster roll employees are taken on work- charged basis by the Authority, by issuance ofoffice orders The claimant never worked on muster roll with the Authority for a period of240 days . Amuster roll employee has to put in at least 240days continuous service each in two consecutive years for being eligible for appointment on work- charged basis . Claimant never fulfilled qualification for appointment on work- charged basis and obtained service on the basis of forged document . During the course of his cross examination, he announces that no advertisement is given in a newspaper when security guard is employed on muster roll . No appointment letter is issued to a muster roll security guard. He projects that the Authority does not employ work- chargol employee by direct recruitment.

10. What were the reasons which persuaded the claimant not to produce original letter of appointment ? As unfolded by Shri Singhal, copy of letter of appointment produced by him was forged one . The Authority conducted an enquiry and the claimant apprehended a criminal action against him . He took a decision to tender his resignation and abstain from appearing before the authorities , when called upon to present his original appointment letter. These circumstances . besides the conduct exhibited by the claimant, highlight that letter Ex MW1/3 is a forged one . Apprehending criminal action against him , the claimant opted to abstain away from the enquiry. Therefore, these events depict that a genuine appointment letter was not in existence. No genuine document was in possession of the claimant, to produce it before the authorities . These circumstances persuaded him to remain away from the enquiry. Since no original letter of appointment was in existence, he was not in a position to produce such a document before the authorities . Considering testimony of Shri Singhal in entirety and conduct of the claimant in abstaining from enquiry proceedings as well as adjudicatory proceedings before this Tribunal . I am constrained to comment that Ex . MW1 /3 is a fabricated document. Claimant obtained services with the Authority on the basis of that forged document . Issue is , therefore, answered in favour of the Authority and against the claimant.

Issue No. 2

8. When facts presented by Shri Mahesh Chander Singhal are appreciated , it came to light that the claimant has not completed 240 days service with the Authority as muster roll employee . The Authority employs muster roll employees on work-charged basis , when they complete at least 240 days continuous service in two consecutive years and possess educational and other qualifications , besides passing required test . There is no denial of the fact that the claimant had not rendered 240 days continuous service with the Authority as a muster roll employee . The claimant could not dispel that for being eligible for appointment as work- charged security guard he was to render 240 days continuous service in two consecutive years . It is evident that no such service was rendered by the claimant for being appointed as work-charged security guard .

11. Claimant has not completed 240 days of continuous service as a muster roll employee with the Authority, announced Shri Singhal . For being eligible for appointment as work- charged employee , the claimant was obliged to render 240 days continuous service in two consecutive years on muster roll . No required service was rendered by the claimant, for being eligible for appointment aswork- charged security guard . He obtained employment with the Authority on the basis of forged document . viz Ex.MW1 /3 . He was not at all eligible but obtained job by 9. Out of facts unfolded by Shri Singhal it emerge that on 22-2-85 three appointment letters were issued by theAuthority being No. 166, 167 and 168. An appointment letter was issued in favour of one Tula Ram being No.EE/ HD/ IX/ DDA/ 8214 on18-12-85 . Ex.MW1 / 3 bears No.F.13 ( 119)/85 /HD - XIX/DDA/ 824 dated 22-2-85 . As

410 GI /11-28 1676

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 / MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] playing fraud on the authorities . One who is not eligible for appointment and obtains service by fraud, does not acquire a right to the post .

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 saidjudgement therein. With great respect, it appears tous that the last ofthe directions clearly runs counter to the constitutional scheme of employment recognized in the earlier part of the decision. Really, itcannot 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." 12. An employee who obtains employment by way of fraud can not claim protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. Article 311 of the Constitution provides safeguard to civil servants . It places two restrictions on prerogative of dismissal at pleasure, these are ( 1 ) that persons employed in civil capacities under the Union or State shall not be dismissed or removed by an authority subordinate to thatby which they were appointed , and (2) no such person shall be dismissed or removed or reduced in rank except after an enquiry as provided in clause (2) . Provisions of the Article 311 (2) can be available where dismissal,. removal or reduction in rank is brought to be inflicted by way ofpunishment and not otherwise. In other words , the mandatory provisions would apply where removal , dismissal or reduction in rank is for some reason personal to the officer, example gratia, when he is guilty of misconduct or is lacking inability or capacity or will to discharge his duties as he should do . In Purshotam Lal Dhingra (AIR 1958 SC 36) the Apex Court laid down twin tests for determination if the dismissal etc. is by way of punishment ( 1 ) whether the servant has a right to the post or the rank , or (2) whether he has been visited with evil consequences .

15. In P.Chandra Shekhara Rao and Others (2006 (7) SCC 488 ] 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 ofstatutory 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 ] 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.

13. A servant has a right to a post or a rank either under the terms of the contract of employment, express or Implied , or under the rules governing conditions of his service . In Paryag Das Seth ( AIR 1968 All . 279) the appellant was promoted to a post by mistake . When mistake was detected , it was corrected . It was ruled therein that the appellant was having no right on the post to which he was promoted

14. 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 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:

16. At the cost of repetition it is detailed that the claimant obtained employment with the Authority on the basis of a forged document ,. which is Ex.MW1 /3 . Since employment was obtained by him by fraudulent means , he had acquired no right to the post . Employment of the claimant, on the basis of a forged document . does not clothe him with a right to the post of security guard in work- charged establishment . Consequently 151 condition as detailed inPurshotam Lal Dhingra's case does not emerge in the present controversy. The Authority had not proceeded to impose any punishment on the claimant, on account of reasons personal to him. The Authority has not proceeded to visit the claimant with consequences , on account of any misconduct. On the other hand mistake committed in giving appointment to the claimant on the strength of the forged document was corrected . Therefore, the second standard as highlighted in Purshotam Lal Dhingra's case is also not applicable to the present controversy. Action of the Authority is just, fair and legal .

17. In view of the reasons detailed above the Authority was justified in terminating the services of Shri Umesh Kumar w.e.f. 26-11-99 . Action of the Authority is fair, just and answers all standards of legality. Issue, is , therefore, answered in favour of the Authority and against the claimant .

"With respect , why should the State be allowedto 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 persistent transgression of the rules ofregular recruitment . The direction to make permanent-the distinction between regularization and making permanent, was not emphasized here can only encourage the State, the modal employer, to flout its own rules and would 1677 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

On behalf of the

:Capt.Mukteshwar Singh. Chief Relief.

Executive ofthe Company.

Management

Onbehalf of the

:Mr. AmitabhaBanerjee , General

Secretary oftheworkmen union.

Workmen

Industry: Port

State: West Bengal .

Dated: 22nd December, 2010.

AWARD

18. The claimant managed to get employment with theAuthorityby playing fraud. He used a forged document Ex.MW1/3 and joined services with the Authority on 3-1-85 . When fraud came to light the Authority was constrained to dispensed with his services . Such an employee does not acquire any rightto post . He is not entitled for any relief. His claim is liable to be discarded, being devoid of merits . Thus claim presented by the Union/ Umesh Kumar , is brushed aside . An award is passed, accordingly. It be sent to the appropriate government for publication.

Dr. R.K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

ByOrder No.L-32011/6/2008- IR(B- II) dated 16-2-2009 theGovernment 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:

Dated: 3-12-2010

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2011

"Whether the action of the Managing Director of M/s . Kamal Mookherjee & Co. (Shipping ) Pvt . Limited, in terminating Sri Binod Chandra Das from the service ofthe company w.e.f. 11-12-2006 is legal and justified? What relief the workman is entitled for?"

का. आ. 521 ,-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार मैं. कमल मुखर्जी एंड कं. शिपिंग ) प्रा. लि. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय, कोलकाता के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 04/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 18-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -32011/6/2008- आई आर ( बी- II ) ]

2.Onbeing called today, Mr. Banerjee, the authorized. representative of the workmen union has submitted that an application has been filed today stating about the expiry of the workman concerned and on his expiry, the claim does not survive and for that reason the union does not want to proceed in the present reference . The union has prayed for 'No Dispute Award' accordingly.

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 24th January, 2011

3. In the given circumstance, let the present refurence be treated as having no industrial dispute in view of the above submission from the side of the workmen union as contained in the application filed today on behalf of the Calcutta Port & Dock Workmen Union and a ' No Dispute Award' is passed.

Justice MANIK MOHAN SARKAR, Presiding Officer Dated , Kolkata,

The 22nd December, 2010

S. O. 521. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.04/2009) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Kolkata now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of M/ s Kamal Mookherjee & CO. (Shipping ) Pvt . Ltd. and their workman , received by the Central Government on 18-1-2011 .

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2011

[No. L- 32011 /6/2008- IR(B - II) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AT KOLKATA

Reference No. 04 of 2009 ,

का. आ. 522.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार बी.एस.एन. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 308/2004) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

Parties: Employers in relation to the management of M/s . Kamal Mookherjee & (Shipping ) Pvt. Ltd.

[सं. एल-40012/79/2004- आई आर (डीयू) ] AND

रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी Theirworkmen

New Delhi , the 24th January, 2011 Present: Mr. Justice Manik Mohan Sarkar,

PresidingOfficer

S. O. 522. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central APPEARANCE :

1678

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 308/ 2004) ofthe Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court No. I , Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure , in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of BSNL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 24-1-2011 .

[No. L- 40012/79/2004- IR(DU)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

Court for regularization ofhis services . During the pendency ofthis writ petition, the service of workman were orally terminated . This faet was brought to the notice of Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana was kind enough to direct the management to provide with the termination letter to the workmanbut same was not provided with to the workman. As the services of the workman were terminated, Hon'ble the High Court also disposed off the writ petition with libertyto the workman to raise the industrial dispute before the appropriate Court or Forum.

BEFORE SHRI GYANENDRA KUMARSHARMA, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRAL GOVT. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM- LABOUR COURT- I, CHANDIGARH

Case I. D No. 308/2004

Shri Surinder Pal S/o Shri Shiv Dayal , R/o Plot No. G-4, Opp. #No. 3335 , Rajpura Town

...Applicant

Itis also the contention of the workman that he has worked for more than 240 days in every calendar year including the preceding year from the date of his termination. No notice or one month wages in lieu of notice and terminal dues were paid before the termination of his services . This makes his termination bad, void and illegal being against the provisions of the Act. The workman has requested for reinstatement to the service, along with all benefits .

Versus

TheGeneral Manager. BSNL - Telecopm, Patiala- 147001 .

...Respondent

APPEARANCES

Forthe Workman

: Shri R.C. Chaudhary

: Shri Anish Babbar

For the Management

AWARD

The management appeared and opposed the claim ofthe workman by filing written statement . It is contended by the management that there has been no employer and employee relationship between the workman and the management as the services ofthe workman were provided with to the management through a contractor . Rest of the facts regarding the filing of writ petition and the order passed by High Court are admitted. This fact is also denied that service of the workman were terminated because of the writ petition filed by the workman.

Passed on : 4-11-2010

Government of India vide notification no .

Both of the parties were affrorded the opportunity for adducing evidence. Affidavits were filed by both ofthe parties and witnesses were cross - examined Management has not filed any document . The workman has filed certain documents which were marked as exhibits according to law.

L-40012/ 79/ 2004- IR( DU) , dated 10-11-2004 by exercising its powers under Section 10 ofthe Industrial Disputes Act, (the Act in short) has referred the following industrial dispute for adjudication to this Tribunal :-

"Whether the action of the management of Telecom (BSNL) in terminating the services of Shri Surinder PalEx-T- Man w.e.f. 10-5-2002 without complying with the provisions of the ID Act is just and legal ? Ifnot, to what relief the concerned workman is entitled and from which date?"

I have heard the parties at length and perused entire materials on record . Recently Central Government through theMinistry of Law and Justice has adopted a litigation policy particularly for the litigation pending adjudication in any Court /Tribunal instituted by or against the Government departments . It is the administrative mandate of the litigation policy that there should be no litigation by the government department just for litigating . This - industrial dispute is against the litigation policy adopted by the Central Government . This industrial dispute was contested by the Central Government, Department of Telecommunication just for sake of litigating by raising false and fabricated pleas barred by the Central Government litigation policy. The Central Government litigation policy barred theGovernment departments to raise the technical , false and fabricated pleas . Every plea taken by the telecommunication department is fabricated in this industrial dispute.

After receiving the reference parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings . The case of the workman in nut shell is that he was appointed as Telegraph Messenger on daily wages /casual labour w.e.f. 16-8-1996 . He was getting Rs . 50 per day as wages . He has worked with the management of telecommunication from August 1997 to 2001 without any break . Under the provisions of circular letter no . 269-94/98 - STN- II, dated 29-9-2000, issued hythe Department of Telegram Service, Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi regarding the regularization of service ofcausal worker, hepreferred a writ petition before Hon 'ble the High 1679

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/मांघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

There may be arguments that litigation policy has been adopted recently and this industrial dispute is pending adjudication since 2004. The Central Government litigation policy might have been adopted at the later stage but non- existence of such policy does not give any right to the management to raise false and fabricated pleas . It amounts to fraud with the judicial proceedings .

Before discussing , other facts and evidence , I am as such producing the abstract of appointment letter given bythe management to the workman .

The appointment letter reads as under:-

DEPARTMENT OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS

Telecommunication , Rajpura have been filed by the workman . As stated earlier, it is not only the technical denial but the fraud with the judicial proceedings that a person was lawfully appointed by the management and has relations with the management was denied by it on the pretext that his services were provided with through contractor. I am unable to understand that original documents are lying with the management but the managemient on the false plea has failed to file the same deliberately to prevent the workman for exercising his lawful claim under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act . For all purposes , it is also the unlawful labour practice committedbythe Management .

Memo No. 8-13/PT/38

Officeofthe Officer Incharge,

Telegraph Office, Officer Incharge, Telegraph Office,

Rajpura- 140401

Rajpura

Dated: Rajpura:

16-8-1996

Where there is great socio - economic disparity between the parties , the Court or Tribunal should be sensitized enough to protect the interest of the deprived, so that other party may not prevail over the will of the deprived. The facts mentioned above have proved it that workman was socially and economically deprived class and the management was in a position to dominate the will and wish of the workman . The management has used his authority and has done every act to prevail over the wish and will over the workman.

Shri Surinder Pal son of Shri Shiv Dayal is hereby appointed as T- Man Office Incharge , Rajpura w.e.f. 16-8-1996, @Rs . 33 per day and casual per net rate were fixed vide T.D.M. P.A. , Memo No. E- 16/Patiala, dated 16-8-1996.

The appointment is purely on temporary basis and his service are liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reason

Copyto:-

1. The T.D.M.PA.

2. Shri Surinder Pal S/o Shri Shiv Dayal

Sd/-

Officer Incharge

To file awrit petition for regularization ofthe services under the provisions of any circular letter issued by the department is a right of the workman . He has exercising that right . It is well proved that services of the workman wereterminated by the management orally on receiving, the notice on the writ petition. This also proves how a Central Government department, who is considered to be a role model employer, has acted against the workman. Even afterthe direction ofHon'ble the High Court of Punjab & Haryana no written termination order was given to the workman.. It is the socio-economic conditions of the workman that he could not approach Hon'ble the High Court for contempt of Hon'ble the High Court for non- providing the written termination order.

Telegraph Office,

Rajpura-140401

As stated earlier, there are several documents filed by the workman to prove how and when the work was taken by the management from the workman and how was hedeputed to a particular work ?At the cost of the repetition, I am unable to understand that original documents are not lyingwith the management. The witness ofthe management Shri Mahavir Singh S/ o Shri Makhan Lal , DE Legal BSNL , Patiala on 29-7-2010 deposed on oath that he is deposing on the basis of the records as he was not posted at the Rajpura during the period in question .

He has deposed on oath that services ofthe workman were taken through some contractor. The Tribunal asked the witness of the management about the documents from where he came to know that services were taken through contractor. The workman was not present in person on that day and on above account cross - examination was deferredand witness was directed to come with the records.

The management denied that workman was appointed on causal basis or as daily waged worker and raised the false pleas without any proof that the services ofthe workman were provided with through a contractor. When management was asked to file the documents relating to the contractor, the witness of the management stated that no such documents are traceable . The workman has filed as more as 40 documents to prove the administrative control over him. He was appointed by the management of Telecommunication , Rajpura . He was under the administrative control of the management of telecommunication and certainly he was paid the wages by the management of telecommunication because the documents relating to attendance of the entire period marked in the office of the management of 1680

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

The cross - examination was again recorded on 31-7-2010. The witness of the management Mahavir Singh again stated on , oath that no record is available with the management . I am unable to understand if no record is available with the management how the witness came to know that services of the workman were taken by the management through some contractor. Entire Court file was available to the witness to see the documents which the workman has filed . I am unable to believe that original of these documents are not lying with the management . The management has deliberately withheld to file the documents and the withess has given the false evidence before the Court regarding the nature of services of the workman . The fact that the witness of the management, Shri Mahavir Singh, has deposed falsely on oath has been proved beyonddoubt . This Tribunal as per the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act is having the powers of the Civil Court for taking action for deposing falsely on oath . It is within the preview of this Tribunal to file the complaint in the Court of appropriate criminal jurisdiction for giving false evidence on oath . The management is guilty of committing fraud with the judicial proceedings , whereas Shri Mahavir Singh is guilty for giving false evidencebefore this Tribunal on oath as stated above .

Irrespective of the powers conferred on this Tribunal by the provisions of the I.D. Act, 1947, for lodging a complaint against any witness for deposing falsely on oath , it is hereby made clear that proceedings of this Tribunal runs on the basis of justice, equity and good conscious . The phrase justice, equity and good conscious gives and confers powers on this Tribunal to lodge such complaint. This Tribunal is not only responsible for adjudication of cases but is accountable to the public at large and act of witness deposing falsely on oath should not be tolerated. Ifit is tolerated, it will amount to facilitate the witness deposing falsely on oath which will bejudicial mis - conduct against the accountability of the court toward the public at large.

No action can be taken by this Tribunal before publication of award, hence, the appropriate lawful action shall be taken by the Tribunal against the witness Shri Mahavir Singh after publication of the award by the Central Government in the Official Gazette . This action is required to ensure that Judicial Forum should keep judicial conscious , keen, open, receptive and flexible . It should not permit any party to commit fraud with the judicial proceedings .

As stated above the workman has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the date of his termination . His services were terminated without any notice or one month wages in lieu of the notice and without payment of retrenchment compensation . The termination was illegal and void abinitio being against the provisions oftheAct . Moreover , the termination of the services also

[PART II-SBC. 3 (ii)] amount to unlawful labour practice because the samewere terminated on account of writ petition preferred by the workmanbeforeHon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court for regularization ofhis services .

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the only remedy in this case is the reinstatement of the workman on the same position he was working at the timeof termination. He will also be entitled for backwages (subject to the enhanced rates ) and other benefits which have been available to him, if had been in service.

Considering the conduct of the management , I am also of the view that workman is also entitled for the entire cost which he has incurred as litigation expenses . This case is pending adjudication since 2004. His services were terminated in the year 2002. The workman is running from pillar to post from last 8 years . Accordingly, he will be entitled for the cost ofRs . 20,000 which he has incurred as litigation expenses .Accordingly, this reference is answered as follows: -

(1) The witness of the management Shri Mahavir Singh is guilty for giving false evidence on oath before this Tribunal . In the body of the award it has been established and proved that he has given false evidence before this Tribunal deliberately. Accordingly, lawful action for giving false evidence on oath shall be taken against the witness Shri Mahavir Singh after publication of award in the Official Gazette of the Central Government .

(2) For the reasons shown in the body ofthe award the termination of the workman from the services was illegal and void abinitio . The management is directed to reinstate the services ofthe workman within one month from the date of publication of award . For the reasons mentioned on in the body ofthe award, the management is also directed to pay all the back wages ( on enhanced rates) with all the consequential benefits which the workman would have entitled if had been in services within one month from the date ofpublication ofthe award.

(3) For the reasons mentioned in the body of the award and considering the conduct of the management the workman is also entitled for the cost of Rs . 20,000 which he has incurred as litigation expenses . The management is further directed to pay the cost within one month from the date of publication of the award.

Let Central Governmentbe approached for publication of award, and thereafter file be place before the Tribunal for appropriate orders .

GK. SHARMA , Presiding Officer 1681

भारत का राजपत्र: फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3( ii) ]

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 24 जनवरी , 2011-

Passed on 27-12-10

This award shall dispose off four industrial disputes areas follows :

IDNo. 84 of 2007: Avadh Naresh PandeyVs. PGIMER: Reference No. L-42012/53 /2007 - IR (DU) dated 22nd of October2007.

का.आ. 523.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार पी जी आई एम ई आर के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच, अमुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकारण नं. 1 , चण्डीगढ़ के पंचाट ( संदर्भ संख्या 84 , 85 , 86 तथा 87 ऑफ 2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 24-01-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/52 से 55 तक/2007- आई आर (डीयू) ] रमेश सिंह, डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether Shri Avadh Naresh Pandey is a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act? if yes , whether the action of the management of PGIMER, Chandigarh, in terminating his services w.e.f. 13-6-2006 is legal and jusitified ? Ifnot, towhat reliefthe workman is entitled to ?"

New Delhi, the 24th January, 2011

IDNo. 85 of 2007 : Hem Lata Vs. PGIMER:

Reference No. L -42012/52/2007 -IR( DU) dated 22nd of October2007 .

S.O. 523. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Hidustrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No.84, 85 , 86& 87 of 2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum -Labour Court - No.1, Chandigarh as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the emplayers in relation to the management of PGIMER and their workman, which was received by the Central Govemment on 24-01-2011 .

"Whether Ms. Hem Lata is a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act ? If yes , whether the action ofthe management of PGIMER, Chandigarh, in terminating her services w.e.f. 13-6- 2006 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to?"

[No. .L -42012/ 52 to 55/2007 - IR (DU) ]

IDNo. 86 of 2007 : Ms. Neeru Moudgil Vs. PGIMER:

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer Reference No.L - 42012/54/2007- IR ( DU) dated 22nd of October 2007.

ANNEXURE

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

"Whether Ms. Neeru Moudgil is a workman under the provisions ofthe Industrial Disputes Act ? Ifyes , whether the action of the management of PGIMER, Chandigarh, in terminating her services w.e.f. 13-6-2006 is legal and justified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

Cases No. ID 84, 85, 86 & 87 of2007.

IDNo. 87 of 2007: Vikas Kapoor Vs. PGIMER:

1. Avadh Naresh Pandey, House No. 1138 , Sector 29- В, Chandigarh.

Reference No.L - 42012/ 55 /2007 - IR (DU) dated 22nd of October2007.

2. Ms. Hem Lata, Resident of House No. 350 , Sector- 17. Panchkulla,

3. Ms. Neeru Moudgil, House No. 3156, Sector - 27 D Chandigarh

"Whether Shri Vikas Kapoor is a workman under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act ? If yes , whether the action of the management of PGIMER , Chandigarh, in terminating his services w.e.f. 13-6-2006 is legal and justified? Ifnot, to what relief the workman is entitled to ?"

4. Vikas Kapoor, House No. 2261 , Sector- 66 , Mohali- Punjab

APPLICANTS

VERSUS

Common questions of law and facts are involved in all the four industrial disputes , hence, for ends ofjustice all these industrial disputes are hereby adjudicated and answered by this award.

1. Director, P.GI. M.E.R. , Sector- 12, Chandigarh

Respondent

APPEARANCES

For the workmen:

Shri Ranjan Lohan

These references have been referred by the Central Govt. U/s10p of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as Act . ) regarding the termination of four research fellows (non - medical) by the management of PGIMER. After receiving the reference, parties were informed. Parties appeared and filed their respective pleadings .

Shri N.K. Zakhmi

Forthe management :

1682

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011/MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii ) ]

Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, their services were extended and on vacation of the stay order, their services were terminated because neither the scheme was available nor there were sufficient funds to carry over the scheme .

Bothoftheparties were afforded the opportunity of adducing evidence. Documentary evidence was filed by both of the parties at their own and as directed by this Tribunal . Oral eviderice was also recorded.

I have heard the parties and their learned counsel at lenght. Learned counsel for the workman has stressed on the security ofjob of each research fellow who have served the department for 10 years plus and have become over aged for serving somewhere else . Learned counsel for the workman has relied upon the following case laws .

1. V.L. Chandra & others Vs. All India Institute ofMedical Sciences and others ( 1990) 3 S.C. Cases 38 .

2. Dr. V.P. Chaturvedi and ors . Vs. UOIJT 1991 (3 ) SC 525

3. S.M. Nilakarand others Vs. Telecom District Manager, Karnataka (2003) 4 SCC 27 .

On the other hand, learned counsel for the management has challenged the very workman capacity of each claimant as given in the provisions of the Act . On merits , learned counsel for the management has argued that there has been no master and servant relationship between the workman and the management because their services were taken on contractual basis . Learned counsel for the management has also relied upon the following case laws :

Case of each workman in nut shall is that they were appointed by the management of PGIMER as research fellows vide appointment letter dated 9-12-1994 after all lawful formalities relating to their valid appointments. There was no complaint against any workman regarding work and conduct . Their services were terminated in the end of March 2004.All the four workmen along with other workmen challenged theorder oftermination before the Hon'ble High Court ofPunjab & Haryana . Hon'ble High Court ofPunjab &Haryana was kind enough to stay the termination order. During meantime, the management of PGI initiated the proceedings of regularisation of the workmen . Hence , on oral undertaking, the writ petition was withdrawn and accordingly dismissed. After dismissal of the writ petition, the management of PGI , terminated the service of each workman . Theworkman again approached the Hon'ble High Court but Hon'ble High Court dismissed the writ petition with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. It is also contended by each workman that no doubt appointment was given on year to year basis but every workman continued to work even without appointment letter up to June/July in the next financial year . Every workman has completed 240 days of work in the preceding year from the dateoftheir termination. No notice , one month pay in lieu ofnotice and retrenchment compensation was paid to them before termination of their services . Their termination was unfair labour practice because even after availability of work, their services were terminated. They were given the work year toyear on perennial nature of work . The workman have sought the protection of guide lines as given by the Hon'bleApex Court in the case ofV.P. Chaturvedi & others Vs. UOI JT 1991 (3 ) SC 525 in which security of employment and improving conditions of service of research fellows have been thoroughly discussed.

1. Management of Chem Crown India Ltd. Madras Vs. Presiding Officer, I Addl . Labour Court Madras and another 2000- II LLJ 152 .

2. S.K. Maini Vs. M/s . Carona Sahu Co. Ltd. and others 1994(3) SCT312

3. Narmada Building Material (P) Ltd. Vs. Devassy & Another 1999 - LLJI 156 .

Onthe basis ofthe above facts , every workman has prayed for setting aside the termination order and reinstating them in the service with all the benefits . Every workman has further requested for an order to create substantial postofresearch fellows in PGI reseach scholar cadre formed in the year 1993 and further more to pass a suitable order for regularisation of the their services .

4. M.P.S. R.T.C. & Others Vs. Chakrapan Singh Dhakarh and another 2002 LLR436 .

5. State of Rajasthan Vs. Rameshwar Lal Gahlot 1996 ( 1) LLJ (SC) 888.

6. Om Bir Singh Vs. The management ofM/s . Partap Steel Ltd. Faridabad 1997 (1 ) SCT 818 .

I have gone through all the case laws filed and relied uponby the parties and entire materials on record .

I have dictated the oral evidence to my personal assistant on dais , so , it is not proper to reproduce each and every sentence of the evidence adduced by the parties . I am perusing the entire oral and documentary evidence and accordingly guiding my judicial conscience to dictate this award as per evidence and as per the ratio ofthe judgments The management appeared and contested the claim by filing written statement . As a preliminary objection, the management has challenged the workman capacity on the ground that considering the nature of work discharged by each claimant, no one falls under the definition of workman givenin theAct. It is further contended by the management that each workman was appointed for a year only on a contractual basis . His contract expired at the end of every financial year and for next financial year fresh contract under fresh scheme was executed . According to the nature of services rendered by each workman , no one is entitled. for the protection under any provisions of the Act . The management decided to discontinue with the services of the workman in March 2004 but due to stay granted by the 1683 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

relied by the parties . First ofall, it is to made clear whether the petitioner are workmen as per the definition of workman given in the Act . There are two criterias to determine the work and capacity of the claimants . The criterias are supervisory nature of work and the same in managerial capacity. The work discharged by each workman has been mentioned in para No. 5 ofthe claim petition.

believable that no funds were available to the management ofPGI for conducting research . Initially the management did not bother to file documents but when certain documents were asked by the workman under Right of Information Act, the same were provided. During cross- examination of the management's witness , this Tribunal also directed the management to file certain documents . Onpersual of all the documents and the oral evidence, I am ofthe firm view that research scheme were available to the management and there had been no shortage of funds for conducting research.

Onperusal ofthe pleadings and claim petition, I am of the view that none of the petitioner was working in management capacity nor in supervisory capacity. They were working under the supervision of the Head of Departments of PGI, a senior doctor. They were just doing the clerical work like collection of data, analysing of data as per guidelines given by their superiors and informations to the supervisors were given as per guidelines on the topic of research. Thus every petitioner is workman as per the definition given in the Act.

Before any discussion on the other matters which are important for answering these references , it will be proper to focus on the nature of work conducted by the management of PGIMER. The prime object to establish the institute was to conduct research in the medical science for better health condition of human beings . The principle object ofthe management of PGIMER is to conduct research on medical, bio medical and paramedical science and on other related subjects . On the basis of research conducted by the PGI , the benefits of research are given to the public by treating them. Recent example is the preparation ofbile fortreatment of diabetic patient and technique of transplant ofheart . It was the result of wonderful research conducted by the PGI MER. A new system of injecting insulin was researched and implemented thereafter for the benefits of diabetic patients . My conscience is not allowing me to go beyond this to prevent me derailing from the scope of references . But one thing is clear that primary object of the PGI is to conduct research and to provide the treatment to public at large based on such research. While research is conducted, research fellows are the integral part of the research . This observation that research fellows are the integral part of conducting research finds favour with the decision of the PGIMER for constituting a permanent research cadre in the year 1993 in which the research fellows were the integral part of the research schemes .

Surprisingly, in spite of constituting PGI research scholar cadre in the year 1993 , without bothering to its own decision to establish such cadre , the appointment letters were given on yearly basis . It was w.e.f. Ist April of each financial year to 31st of March , appointment letters were issued. Surprisingly, without even issuing the appointment letters in the next financial year on 1stApril , every workman continued to work up to June/July and appointment letters for the next financial year was retrospectively given w.e.f. 1st April . This fact in very much admitted by the witness of the management during cross- examination and by the learned counsel for the management during arguments . The main contention of learned counsel for the management has been the master and servant relationship between the management and the workman . As perlearned counsel for the management each workman rendered the service on contract basis . To ensure the master and servant relationship , Hon'ble the Apex Court has given guidelines in the case of Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others Vs. National Union Water Workers and others AIR 2001 Supreme Court 3527 ( 1) and thereafter in the case of GM, ONGC Shilcher Vs. ONGC Contractual Workers Union reported in 2008 LLR 801. In both of the judicial pronouncements , Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the critierias under which workman cannot be considered to be in the service of the management directly. If ratio ofthe above mentioned judgments are applied in these reference, it is clear that no workman was appointed through contractor. Their services were not outsourced by any one and there was no contractor between the workman and the management of the respondent PGI . Moreover, they were under the direct supervision ofHead of Departments ,who occasioned to be the head of research scheme as well . They were the employees of the PGI and no third person waspresent in between the workman and the management . So, there existed master servant relationship between the workman and the management ofthe PGI .

Everyworkman was lawfully initially appointed. The name ofevery workman was sponsored by the employment exchange. Interview was conducted by the competent board(selection committee) .After selection each workman was medically examined to confirm his suitability for conducting research as research fellows and antecedents of every workman were also verified by the police authorities .

Inmy views , ifthe work is of perennial nature and on lawful appointed any person is discharging his duty very well, appointment cannot be split in so many parts . As same nature of work was available and it is still available withthe management and the appointments of all research fellows were given on yearly basis , it is nothing but unfair labourpractice to prevent the workman to lawfully exercising Asstated earlier, the research is the main object of the management of PGIMER, so it cannot be said that management was short of research schemes . It is also not

410GI/11-29 1684

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

prevent the workman to claim their lawful rights against the management of PGI under the provisions of theAct.

the rights given under the provisions of the Act and to avoid law full duties imposed upon the management by the Act. Hon'ble the Apex Court in 2006 AIR SCW 2979, Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. Vs. Mamni , in para No. 9 of the judgment has held as under:

"The respondent was appointed from time to time. Her services used to be terminated on expiry of 89 days on regular basis . However, it is noticed that she used to be appointed after a gap of one or two days upon completion of each term. Such as action on the part of the appellant cannot be said to be bona fide . The High Court rejected the contention raised on behalf of the appellant herein stating:

All the workman are working in the research projects now so called conducted by a 3rd agency, so there has been no pecuniary loss to any ofthe workman but to consider the job security and the lenght of service every workman has servedwith themanagement, I am ofthe view that termination order of each workman should be quashed and they should beconsidered as research fellows working in the PGI directly. Any act of the management which is directly related to the workman are also likely to be quashed. Accordingly the reducing or deleting the cadre of research fellows from the PGI research scholar cadre is also illegal and accordingly quashed being unfair labour practice . The cadre should remain the same as it was at the time ofcreating the cadre .As stated earlier, research fellow is an intergral part of research andno research can be conducted properly and purposively without the enthusiastic services of research fellows . In Dr. V.P. Chutervedi and others Vs. UOI , the Hon'ble Apex Court has shown concern of job security of such scholars but the order ofappointment issued in that case was on consensus.

It is not possible for us to accept the aforsaid plea raised at the hands of the management on account ofthe fact that the factual position, which has not beendisputed, reveals that the respondent -workman was repeatedly engaged on 89 days basis . It is , therefore, clear that the intention ofthe management was not to engage the respondent workman for a specified period, as alleged , but was to defeat the rights available to him under Section 25- F oftheAct. The aforesaid practice at the hands ofthe petitioner- management to employ the workman repeatedly after a national break, clearly falls within the ambit and scope ofunfair labour practice. "

So , on the basis ofjudgment given by the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Tribunal has no authority to direct the management to regularise the services of each workman as research fellows . Regularization of services is within the discretion of the management . But considering the job security concept and longevity of services rendered by every workman and also considering the conduct of the management dealing with these research fellows , the termination order and the order reducing/deleting the cadre vacancies of research fellows from PGI Research Scholar cadre 1993 are hereby quashed. Every workman shall be deemed and considering to be in the services ofthe PGI in the capacity as advised by legal wing of the management i.e. temporary employee . This Tribunal is hopeful that management of PGI will be generous in dealing with the regularisation of services of each workman in the same manner as dealt with the other employees in PGI research scholar cadre . Accordingly, all the four references are answered. Central Govt . be informed . Files be consigned .

Chandigarh.

GK. SHARMA , Presiding Officer नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 524.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय 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 98/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-01-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

The result of the above dicussion is that giving appointment ofyearly basis to a initially lawful appointed person in spite of availability of work was unfair practice . The result will be that every workman shall br considered to be in service regularly and these several appointment shall be considered as one and workman as appointed temporarily. No notice, one month pay in lieu ofnotice and retrenchment compensation was given to any of the workman. Even the management of PGI has not bothered for the legal advice given by the legal wing of the management . The legal advice given by the legal wing of the management was that every workman was to be considered as the temporary employee and their services couldnotbe terminated in casual manner. Accordingly, the appointments on yearly basis , being unfair labour practice, termination of the services of every workman was illegal and void being against the provisions of the Act. One more fact has been broughtto the notice of this Tribunal thatPGI is not conducting research and research work has been given to a 3rd agency. It has also brought to the notice of this Tribunal that for research this third agency is headed by the head of department , who occasioned to be the senior doctor of the PGI . The staff is same which was previously available prior to so called out sourcing the research . It is just an eye wash because in spite of conducting research directly research are being conducted in the name of 3rd agency by the same person , same staff even in the same premises of the PGI . It is also an act to

[सं. एल-42012/191/2002- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी 1685 [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

New Delhi , the 25th January, 2011

S.O. 524. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 98/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court , Nagpuras shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and their workmen , received by the Central Government on 25-1-2011 .

3.The petitioner filed the statement of claim stating that he was appointed on the vacant post of peon on 15-12-1989 by the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Badhiyatola , P.O. Dongargarh , but his services was terminated orally on 4-2-1997 and he was working from 7.30 AM to 5.30 PM and the management without following the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, terminated his service . The petitioner had prayed to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages .

[No. L- 42012/ 191/2002- IR ( CM- II) ]

D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR

No. 98/2003

DIARY

प्रगति

दिनांक प्रदर्श सं.

Date

Progress

Exhibit No.

Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu ,

Petitioner/:

Party No. 1

52/ 11-1-2011

C/o Sh. Balabir Khanuja, Advocate Gandhi Chowki , Dist. Rajnandgaon , Chattisgarh (M.P. )

Versus

The Principal ,

Respondent/ :

PartyNo. 2

4.Themanagement filed the written statement stating that the petitioner was engaged for a period of 89 days at the first instance by letter of engagement dated 14-12-1989 on daily wages as a Chowkidar and after expiry ofthe period of engagement , the service of the petitioner was discontinued and after some days , he was again engaged atregular interval , as and when the work was available on daily wages and the petitioner was well aware of the fact that his engagement was temporary and daily wages basis and the petitioner did not work for a period of240 days in any calendar year and the petitioner had challenged his disengagement from service, before the Hon'ble High Court ofJabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, with the prayer for quashing the order dated 4-2-1997 , whereby his services were discontinued and the Hon'ble Court directed that, " if the posts are available under the school , the same be advertised and the petitioner be allowed to apply for the post and the case of the petitioner shall be considered for the posts and the age bar will not be regarded as an ineligibility and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya , Badhiyatola, Po . Dongargarh , Dist. Rajnandgaon , Chattisgarh

(Μ.Ρ.).

AWARD

(Dated: 11th January, 2011)

This order arises out of the petition filed by the management for dismissal of the reference .

2. The facts necessary for disposal of the application, filed by the management can be stated as follows:

5. The case of the management in the petition filed for dismissal of the reference is that the issue which has beenraised by the petitioner in this reference has already been decided by the Hon'ble High Court , Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh and the petitioner suppressed such facts in the reference and also his affidavit and the management has pleaded about the filing of the case by the petitioner , in the written statement filed by them and as the issue has already been decided by the Hon'ble Court , this reference is to be answered in negative .

6. The petitioner filed his objection stating that the management is engaging other persons on daily wages instead of engaging him (petitioner) and after his termination, one Shri Chotelal Koal was engaged on 30-9-2001 and after that on 25-6-2006 , one casual labourer was engaged on daily wages in the post of Chowkidar .

In exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub -section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2 (A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) ( " the Act " in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and their workmen, Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu for adjudication as per letter No. L- 42012/ 191 /2002 - IR ( CM - II ) dated 17-2-2003, with the following schedule: ---

It is necessary to mentioned here that in the objection also the petitioner has not whispered in a single word about for filing ofWrit before the Hon'ble Court .

7. Perused the record including the claim petition , wirtten statement , re -joinder and so also the copies of the writ petition No. 605 of 97, filed by the present petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court of Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh and writ petition No. 4277 of 95 filed by "Whether the termination of service of Sh. Vijay Kumar Sahu , Ex -daily rated employee of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dongargarh, Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G) w.e.f. 4-2-1997 by the Principal , Navodaya Vidyalaya is legal andjustified ? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled to ? " 1686

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II- SEC . 3 (ii) ]

the management of WCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 25-1-2011 .

[No. L- 22012/ 129/ 2000- IR (CM - II ) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL , NAGPUR . No. 315/2000 DIARY

Date Exhibit No. Progress

56/

12-1-2011

Shri Jeevanlal . From the copies of the writ petitions , it is found that the present petitioner had filed the writ praying for issuance of appropriate writ/direction directing the respondents i.e. the Director, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, the Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and the Principal , Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Dongargarh to regularize his service and pay him regular pay scale and the Hon'ble High Court, while deciding the writ petitions , dissallowed the prayers of the petitioner and passed the order that , " if the posts are available under the school ( if the posts are available under the school , the same to be advertised and the petitioner to be allowed to apply for the posts) . Shri Namdeo submitted steps are being taken to fill up the posts , the case of the petitioners shall be considered for the posts and the age bar will not be regarded as incligibility" .

The petitioner , None also appears onbehalf of the petitioner. The notice sent to party no . 2(3) is back after present service . Hence service is held to the sufficient .

Itis found from the record and the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court ofJabalpur that the issue involved in the present reference has already been considered and decided by the Hon'ble Court . So, it is not permissible for this Tribunal to consider the reference and to give any findings . Therefore , the reference on that ground is liable to be rejected . Hence , it is ordered .

Inspite or sufficent service petitioner has not appeared. It appears that petitioner is not interest to proceed with the case . Hence the case is closed and posted for award to 12-1-2011.

ORDER

Petitioner/Party No.1

The application filed by the management is allowed and the reference is rejected .

The General Secretary , Bhartiya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh ( BMS ) , PO: Parasia, Distt . Chhindwara, Chhindwara .

Versus

In view of rejection of the reference , there is no need for consideration of the petition filed by the petitioner on 17-11-2006 , the same being infructuous .

Respondents / : PartyNo. 2

Send the order to the Central Government for notification .

The Manager , Damua Colliery, Western Coalfields Ltd. PO: Damua, Dist . Chhindwara ( MP) , Chhindwara.

J. P. CHAND, Presiding Officer

AWARD

नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी , 2011

(Dated: 12th January, 2011 ) का.आ. 525.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं डब्ल्यू. सी. एल. 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 315/2000) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

In exercise of the powers conferred by clause ( d) of sub- section ( 1 ) and sub- section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short) , the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of the Manager, Damua Colliery, WCL and their workman , Smt . Rama Shankar through union for adjudication, as per letter No. L- 22012/ 129/2000 - IR (CM - II) dated 8 /21-11-2000, with the following schedule:-

[सं. एल-22012/129/2000- आई आर ( सीएम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 25th January, 2011

" Whether the action of the management of Damua Colliery of WCL , PO: Damua , Distt . Chhindwara (MP) in notpromoting Smt . Rama Shankar , General Mazdoor to Clerk Grade- III from 15-12-87 and Clerk Gr. -II from 28-2-96 is justified ? If not , to what relief she is entitled?"

2. On receipt of the reference , the workman , Smt . Rama Shankar (here- in - after referred as " the workman" ) S.O. 525. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 315/ 2000 ) 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 1687

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

नई दिल्ली, 25 जनवरी, 2011

(corrected name has been mentioned as " Smt. Rama Shankar" in the statement of claim) and the management ofDamua Colliery of WCL, Chhindwara were noticedto file their respective statement ofclaim and written statement, in response to which, the workman through union filed her statement of claim, whereas , the management filed their written statement .

का.आ. 526.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम, 1947 (1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एवं जवाहर नवोदय विद्यालय 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 99/2003 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 25-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-42012/190/2002- आई आर (सी एम- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव, डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 25th January, 2011 3. The union, Bhartiya Koyala Khadan Mazdoor Sangh filed the statement of claim on behalf of the workman, pleading inter- alia that the workman was appointed as General Mazdoor Cat . I vide office order dated 20/24-1-1986 issued by the Personnel Manager, Kanhan Area and she was deputed to work as Registration Clerk at Damua Colliery Dispensary from the very date ofher joining in duties and she worked there from 1986 to March, 1995 as a Clerk and the union requested the management to appoint her as a Clerk, but the management refused to concede to the demand on 10-2-1999 and as such, the union raised the causeofthe workman. The union has prayed for promoting her as Clerk Grade- II .

S.O. 526. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. 99/2003 ) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal - cum- Labour Court , Nagpur as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and their workmen , which was received by the Central Government on 25-1-2011 .

[No. L- 42012/ 190/2002- IR (CM- II) ] D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NAGPUR No. 99/2003

4. The management has filed its written statement and pleaded that the claim of the union is baseless and the workman had never worked as Registration Clerk and promotion in Clerical Grade can only be done with the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee, who has to consider the case of the eligible candidates for promotioneither on seniority -cum- merit basis or merit -cum- seniority basis , as spelled in the cadre scheme and promotion cannot be given to any employee at the whims and fancies of the union and as such, the workman is not entitled for promotion as a Clerk.

DIARY

Date Exhibit No. Progress

Call on 11-1-2011 for orders .

11-1-2011

52/ The hearing of petition filed by the workman before 17-11-2006 will be taken up after passing or orders on the petition before 13-6-2006, if necessary.

Petitioner/: PartyNo. 1

Shri Jeevan Lal Yadav, Vill . & P.O. Dhara, Tehsil - Dongargarh , Distt . Rajnandgaon , Chittisgarh (M.P. ).

Versus

5. It is necessary to mention here that after filing of the written statement by the management, both the parties remained absent till 29-3-2010 , so the case was closed and was posted for passing award by my predecessor in office . However, as no award was passed by him, the case was reponed after my joining on 6-8-2010 and notices were issued to the parties . In response to the notice , the management appeared through its representative . The representative of the management filed an application of the workman, in which it has been mentioned that the dispute has already been resolved between the parties amicably. The management had also endorsed on the same said application praying to drop the case . However, as the workınan was not present, direction was given for her appearance in person before the Tribunal on 4-1-2011 . In spite of such direction , as the workman did not appear, the case was closed for award .

Respondents/ :The Principal,

PartyNo. 2 Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya , Badhiyatola, Po . Dongargarh , Dist. Rajnandgaon, Chattishgarh (Μ.Ρ.) .

6. It appears from the record that there is already a settlement between the parties and the workman is not interested to proceed with the case. Hence, in this case , it is necessary to pass an order ofno award . Hence, it is ordered:

AWARD

ORDER

(Dated: 11th January, 2011 ) The case may be treated as " No Award" .

J.P. CHAND , Presiding Officer 1688-

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] This order arises out of the petition filed by the management , for dismissal of the reference .

2.The facts necessary for disposal of the application, filed by the management can be stated as follows:

reference and also his affidavit and the management has pleaded about the filing of the case by the petitioner, in the written statement filed by them and as the issue has already beendecided by the Hon'ble Court , this reference is to be answered in negative.

6. The petitioner filed his objection stating that the management is engaging other persons on daily wages instead of engaging him (petitioner ) and after his termination, one Shri Nanda Kishore was engaged on the same day and after that on 25-8-2006, one Shri Amar Singh was engaged on daily wages in the post of Laboratory Assistant .

In exercise ofthe powers conferred by clause (d) of sub - section ( 1 ) and sub - section 2(A) of Section 10 of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947) ( " the Act " in short), the Central Government has referred the industrial dispute between the employers , in relation to the management of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya and their workman, Shri Jeewan LalYadav for adjudication as per letterNo.L-42012/ 190/2002 - IR(CM- II) dated 17-2-2003 , with the following schedule :-

It is necessaryto mentioned here that in the objection also thepetitioner has not whispered in a single word about for filing ofWrit before the Hon'ble Court .

"Whether the termination of service of Sh . Jeevan Lal Yadev, Ex-daily rated employee of Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya , Dongargarh , Dist . Rajnandgaon (C.G. ) w.e.f. 10-7-1999 by the Principal, Navodaya Vidyalaya is legal and justified? If not, to whatrelief the workman is entitled to ?"

3. The petitioner filed the statement of claim stating that he was appointed as a peon on 14-12-1989 by the management of Jawahar Navodya Vidyalaya, Badhiyatola, PO. Dongargarh, but his service was terminated orally on 10-7-1999 and he was working from 7.30 AM to 5.30 PM and the management without following the provisions of Section 25 - F of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947, terminated his service . The petitioner had prayed to reinstate him in service with continuity and full back wages .

7. Perused the record including the claim petition, written statement re -joinder and so also the copies of the writ petition No. 4277 of 95, filed by the present petitioner before the Hon'ble High Court of Jabalpur , Madhya Pradesh and writ petitions No. 605 of 97 filed by Shri Vijay Kumar,. From the copies ofthe writ petitioner , it is found that the present petitioner had filed the writ praying for issuance of appropriate writ /direction directing the respondents i.e. the Director, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, the Deputy Director, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti and the Principal , Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya , Dongargarh to regularize his service and pay him regular pay scale and theHon'ble High Court, while deciding the writ petitions , disallowed the prayers of the petitioner and passed the order that, " ifthe posts are available under the school ( if the posts are available under the school, the same to be advertised and the petitioner to be allowed to apply for the posts) . Shri Namdeo submitted steps are being taken to fill up the posts , the case of the petitoners shall be considered for the posts and the age bar will not be regarded as ineligibility" .

Itis found from the record and the orders passed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jabalpur that the issue involved in the present reference has already been considered and decidedby the Hon'ble Court . So it is not permissible for this Tribunal to consider the reference and to give any findings . Therefore , the reference on that ground is liable tobe rejected . Hence, it is ordered:

ORDER

The application filed by the management is allowed and the reference is rejected .

4.The management filed the written statement stating thatthe petitioner was engaged for a period of 89 days at the first instance by letter of engagement dated 14-12-1989 on daily wages as a Mesh worker and after expiry of the period of engagement, the service of the petitioner was discontinued and after some days , he was again engaged atregular interval, as and when the work was available on daily wages and the petitioner was well aware of the fact that his engagement was temporary and daily wages basis and the petitioner did not work for a period of 240 days in any calendar year and the petitioner had challenged his disengagement from service, before the Hon'ble High Court ofJabalpur, Madhya Pradesh, with the prayer for quashing the order dated 10-7-1999 , whereby his services were discontinued and the Hon'ble Court directed that, " if the posts are available under the school , the same be advertised and the petitioner be allowed to apply for the post and the case of the petitioner shall be considered for the posts and the age bar will not be regarded as an ineligibility " and as such, the petitioner is not entitled for any relief.

Inview ofrejection of the reference, there is no need for consideration of the petition filed by the petitioner on 17-11-2006, the same being infructuous .

Send the order to the Central Government for notification.

J.P. CHAND, Presiding Officer 1689

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

नई दिल्ली , 29 अक्तूबर , 2010

का.आ. 527. औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 (1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार बैंक ऑफ बड़ौदा 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 22/2009 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-10-2010 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

[सं. एल -12011/18/2008- आईआर ( बी- II ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 29th October, 2010

S.O. 527. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947 ( 14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 22/2009) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court- 1, New Delhi now as shown in the Annexure in the industrial dispute between the employers in relation to the management of Bank of Baroda and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-10-2010.

[No. L- 12011/18/2008 - IR (B- II) ]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE DR. R.K. YADAV, PRESIDING OFFICER, CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL NO.1, KARKARDOOMA COURTS COMPLEX, DELHI

I.D.No.22/2009

The General Secretary,

... Workman

BOB Employees Union, 4824/24, Ansari Road, Daryaganj , Delhi . -110002

Versus

The D.GM. , DCR - I ,

Bank ofBaroda,

was arrived at on 18-3-2008 , wherein it was agreed that canteenboysystem stands abolished forthwith and casual/ temporary peons and sweepers shall be absorbed in bank's service, subject to conditions contained in clause 3 of the settlement, in three phases . Casual /temporary peons and sweepers were required to fulfill eligibility criteria with respect to age and qualifications as on first date of engagement by the bank, ought to be medically fit for recruitment, absorption was to take place with prospective effect, sweepers were to be absorbed in first stage of full time/part time wages viz . 1/3rd, one half, three fourth and full time respectively, casual/temporary persons working as peon who had earlier worked as full/part time sweepers were to be absorbed as sweeper - cum- peon . No arrear of wages , seniority or other benefit was to accrue to them on their absorption , their deployment was to be at sole discretion of the bank, depending upon requirement within the state. Their seniority was to be reckoned in respective cadre from the date of their absorption, which was to be made subject to their good conduct and verification of antecedents and all such employees or their unions were to withdraw all cases pending before any forum, judicial authority, tribunal or court of law. It was further agreed that Government guidelines with regard to reservation of posts for S.C. , ST and O.B.C. categories shall be applicable. Such employees were to submit undertakings individually in the format, as annexed with the settlement. Settlement was not to apply to any person engaged on casual /temporary basis after25th of July 2007, or who has not completed 240 days in a period of consecutive 12 months preceding 23rd of July, 2007. For cogent reasons bank was empowered to extend/defer process of absorption beyond time limit prescribed in the settlement, for a maximum period of 90 days . Persons , absorbed under the settlement, were not to be eligible for promotion to clerical cadre for a period of five years from the date of their absorptions . Save and except tripartite settlement dated 20-2-2008 , the settlement was to supersede all provisions , understanding , agreements , settlement, practices and the union was debarred from making any demand in respect of matters covered under the settlement. Both parties agreed to submit implementation report within 30 days of the phase-wise time limit prescribed in the settlement with objections thereto , ifany, failing which it was to be construed that the terms of the settlement have been fully implemented.

2. InDelhi, Bank of Baroda ( in short the bank) has its

...Management

Regional Office, DCR- 1 , Bank ofBaroda Building, 16-Parliament Street, New Delhi

AWARD

Zonal Office, and two Regional offices , besides various branches . Here in Delhi Zone the bank had engaged various temporary sweepers , in its 35 branches . Though various vacant posts of sweepers were there in those branches of the bank, yet process of absorption of those temporary sweepers was not started by the bank . Bank of Baroda Employees Union (hereinafter referred to as the claimant union) raised a dispute before the Conciliation Officer seeking directions for the bank to take steps to fill up vacant Anindustrial dispute was raised byAll India Bank of Baroda Employees Federation , Mumbai on 28-1-2008 against the management of Bank of Baroda, Mumbai, in respect of absorption ofcasual/temporary persons working aspeons and sweepers and requested Deputy ChiefLabour Commissioner (Central), Mumbai, to intervene in the matter. During the course of conciliation proceedings a settlement 1690

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

sometimes in fictitious names . They are not allowed to mark their attendance in muster roll , maintained by the branches ofthebank. The bank is thus exploiting temporary sweepers.

posts by way of appointment of permanent sweepers . In conciliation proceedings , the bank maintained a stand that it has approached the Government to seek permission for redruitment of staff, which approval is awaited . During conciliation proceedings , the bank resorted to engage temporary sweeper and continued those already engaged as temporary sweepers , for an indefinite period. It resulted in failure of conciliation proceedings . On submission of failure report by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government under sub-section (4) of Section 12 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( in short the Act) , the appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication , vide order No. L - 12011/ 18/2008- IR( B - II) , New Delhi , dated 30-7-2008 , with the following terms :

"Whether the action of the management of Bank of Baroda in keeping temporary sweepers (as per list enclosed) continuously without regularizing their services isjust, fair and legal ? If not to what reliefthe workmen concerned are entitled to and from which date?

5. The claimant union projects that conditions of service of bank employees are governed by Sastri Award, Desai Award and Bipartite Settlements , to which the bank is a party. Standing orders are applicable to the bank, which is required to record particulars of employees , his date of entry in bank, name of post and the amount of salary paid to him, besides issuance of an appointment letter . As per clause 20.8 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 19-10-66 , a temporary workman may be appointed to fill a permanent vacancy, provided such appointment shall not exceed a period of three months , during which period bank shall make arrangement to fill up the vacancy permanently. Bank may appoint an employee on casual or badli or temporary basis to meet sudden exigency of the work. But such appointments shall not continue for a longer period. To continue an employee as badli or casual or temporary for an indefinite period amounts to unfair labour practice, which practice has been depricated by the Apex Court In H.D. Singh, [ 1986( 1 ) L.L.J. 127] . The bank does not maintain record of temporary sweepers employed in its various branches in Delhi . Temporary sweeper have completed more than 240 days of service and are entitled for regular employment in the bank . Ad - hoc appointments in the bank are governed by statutory rules and regulations . Employment to sub- staff cadre should be made through Employment Exchange by notifying vacancies . The bank had not followed such procedure while engaging sweepers against permanent vacancies on temporary basis for indefinite period .

3.A list ofeighteen temporary sweepers was annexed with the reference by the appropriate Government wherein names of S /Shri Sita Ram, Mrs. Poonam, Sita, Hans Raj , Mahesh Chand , Roop Chand , Satish Chand , Vijay, Dinesh Kumar, Tapon Kumar, Satish Kumar, Sanjay, Saroj , Anita , Baby, Kishan , Sandeep and Reshma were mentioned . In that list branch offices , where the aforesaid persons were employed, besides their monthly wages, were detailed. A note was also appended to that list , detailing therein that the union asserted that vacancies were existing from many ycars and aforesaid employees have competed 240 days of service , requiring a permanent status .

6. Enlisting names of temporary sweepers , the claimant union projects that they were engaged in various branches of the bank against permanent posts . All of them have completed 240 days of service and are entitled for regularization of their services as permanent sweeper( s) . Claimant union present that the bank had entered into a tripartite settlement on 18th of March , 2008, in the matter of absorption of casual/ temporary peons and sweepers in bank . It details that in the said settlement the bank agreed to absorb temporary sweepers in the service of the bank in three phases , subject to fulfilling eligibility criteria as on the date of their first engagement in the bank . Their engagement was to be prospective and they as well as their unions were saddled with an obligation to withdraw all pending cases before the Conciliation Officer ( s ) or the adjudicating Authorities .

7. The claimant union unfolds that service of Smt . Baby has been regularized by the bank in 2008 , under phase one oftripartite settlement, referred above. Smt . Sita Devi , Smt . Saroj , Shri Mehar Chand and Shri Vijay, who have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year 4. Claim statement was filed by the claimant union pleading therein that during past several years vacancies ofpermanent sweepers have occurred in various branches of the bank in Delhi , on account of promotion , retirement sought by permanent sweepers or retirement on superannuation . The bank had not taken necessary steps to fill vacant posts by way of recruitment of permanent sweepers . The claimant union has been taking up the issue of appointment of sweeper in 35 branches of the bank in Delhi . When no positive response was received from the bank , the claimant union has raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer with a prayer to direct the bank to take necessary steps to fill up vacant posts by way ofappointment of permanent sweeper . The bank maintained a stand that permission from the Central Government is sought for recruitment of staff, which is still awaited . During pendency of the conciliation proceedings , the bank engaged temporary sweeper and continued them for indefinite period . The branch manager( s ) extracts full day jdb from those sweepers but pay wages in terms of Bipartite Settlements . Their wages are paid through vouchers and 1691 भारत का राजपत्रे फरवरी 19, 2011/माष 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

answered, for terms of reference are utterly vague and unspecific. Persons , whose cases are subject matter ,

cannot be considered for absorption in the services ofthe bank, since it has not been mentioned as to what was their date of birth and eligibility at the time of their first engagement in the bank. The referopee have become infructuous , by virtue of terms of Bipartite Settlement, referred toby the claimant union .

between 1-1-91 and 29th ofFebruary, 1996 and were working with the bank till the date of settlement, have not been considered for regularization in second phase. Services of Smt . Sita Devi, Smt . Poonam, Shri Mehar Chand, Shri Roop Chand, Shri Vijay and Anita were done away by the bank, during the pendency ofthe dispute before this Tribunal, in violation ofthe provisions of section 33 ofthe Act . Contract labours have been employed in their place, which act amounts to violation of section 10 of Contract Labour (Regulation andAbolition) Act, 1970 ( in short the Contract LabourAct) . The bank is an instrumentality of the state and expectedto honour contents of the settlement, referred above. It has been claimed that an order may be passed regularizing services of Shri Sita Ram, Smt . Poonam, Smt . Sita, Shri Hans Raj , Shri Mehar Chand, Shri Roop Chand , Shri Satish Chand, Shri Vijay, Shri Dinesh Kumar, Shri Tapan Kumar, Shri Satish Kumar , Shri Sanjay, Smt. Saroj , Smt . Anita, Shri Kishan, Shri Sandeep and Smt . Reshma as permanent sweepers with retrospective effects , besides payment of arrears of their salary and other consequential benefits .

9.The bank pleads that the claim statement, filed by the claimant union, is neither in compliance of the government directives nor in conformity with rule 10-B- of Industrial Disputes (Central ) Rules , 1957 (in short the Rules) . It has not been disputed that vacancies ofsweepers have occurred in the bank. However, it is pleaded that determination for filling up ofthose vacancies is exclusive function of the bank and the courts have no competence and jurisdiction to issue writs , order or direction to the ermployer to recruit or appoint any person or absorb , regularize, confirm or promote employees on a post in violation of service rules or constitutional provisions contained in Article 14-16 of the Constitution . It has been pleaded that Shastri Award, Desai Award and Bipartite Settlements contain service conditions for permanent award staff or temporary employees and not for casual employees like the persons mentioned in the schedule to the reference, who were engaged to do job work on daily wage basis . Bipartite Settlements prior to 1st of August, 1979 , are not applicable to the bank . It has further beenpleaded that on completion of 240 days of service persons ,whosenames are detailed in the schedule, would not get any right to claim regularization or permanent status in the service of the bank. Any daily wager, casual or temporary sweeper, who possess eligibility norms , stipulated under the said settlement can be considered for absorption in bank's service . They cannot be ordered to be regularized as claimed by the claimant union. It has been disputed that the hank has no right to outsource sweeping job or to invite persons for carrying out such jobs . The bank being the state, an instrumentality of Government of India, is committed to obey provisions and pronouncements of law by the courts . Bank had not violated any provision of the Contract Labour Aet . It has been disputed that the bank is guilty of unfair labour practice.Aclaim has been made that the order of reference is invalid and bad in law. This Tribunal may declare that it lacks necessary jurisdiction to answer terms of reference and the persons named in the schedule are not entitledto relief sought by the claimant union .

10. To substantiate the claim Shri Dinesh Kumar (WW1) , Shri Vijay Kumar, (WW2 ) , Smt . Sita Devi (WW3 ) and Shri C.S. Dahia (WW4) tendered their affidavits as evidence . They were cross - examined at length on behalf ofthe bank . Shri K.C.Hans , (MW1 ) tendered his affidavit as evidence on behalf of the bank . He was cross - examined 8. Claim was demurred by the bank asserting that the appropriate Government had made the reference in a mechanical manner , under an assumption that there existed employer and employee relationship between the parties . It has been pleaded that no such relationship ever existed, since neither the persons , whose name appear in the list annexed with the reference, ever applied for appointment in thebank nor they were called by the bank for recruitment process nor their names were sponsored by the employment exchange for employment with the bank. None ofthem was employed by the bank in accordance with the extant rules . Therefore , no industrial dispute was in existence, which could be referred for adjudication . The bankpleads that words " absorption " and "regularization" have different implications and consequences . Word "regularization " connotes and is calculated to condone any procedural irregularities in the process of making appointment and meant to cure only such irregularities which are attributable to methodology followed in making appointments . Hence regularization cannot and does not relate to permanence on a post . When there is no appointment in accordance with extant rules or if an appointment is in infraction of statutory rules , that illegality cannot be rectified or regularized . Rectification or regularization of an act is possible within the province of the authority, but there has been some non compliance with the procedure or mode and manner which does not go to root of appointment . Regularization, therefore , cannot be a mode of recruitment, at the cost of setting at naught recruitment rules , through back door entry . The claimant union has not pointed out any procedural irregularity in case(s) of the persons mentioned in the list, since none of them was appointed in the bank. The order of reference, which speaks of regularization of the services of persons mentioned in the list, is invalid and incapable of being

410Gl/11-30 1692

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 ( ii)] at length on behalf ofthe claimant union . No other witness was examined by either of the parties .

fairness andjusticiability of the act of keeping temporary sweepers in service continuously, and ( ii ) to answer legality, fairness and justiciability of non regularization of their services .

11. Arguments were heard at the bar. Shri C.S. Dahia, General Secretary of the claimant union, advanced arguments in favour ofthe claim, so made. Shri T. C. Gupta, authorised representative, advanced arguments on behalf ofthe bank. 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. My findings on issues involved in the controversy are as follows:

14. For making a feference for adjudication to this Tribunal, ambit of powers of the appropriate Government, as enacted in sub- section ( 1 ) of section 10 of the Act, needs consideration: Before adverting to that exercise, one should not be oblivious of the purpose for which the Act was enacted by the legislature. The scheme of theAct shows that it aitis at settlement of all industrial disputes arising between capital and labour by peaceful methods and through the machinery of conciliation , arbitration and if necessary By compulsory adjtidication . The object of theAct is to protect workhian against victimization by the employer and ensure termination of industrial dispute in a peaceful manier. The Act, however, does not provide for ahy set of social and economic principles for adjustment of conflicting interests . Such norms have been evolved and devised by industrial adjudication , keeping in view the social and economic conditions , the needs of the workmen, the requirement of the industry, social justice, relative interests of the parties and common good. These norms have given rights to the industrial employees what may be called industrial tights, as such tights may not be available at common law. Disputes as to the conditions of employment can be resolved by resorting to a technique known as collective bargaining . This tool is resortedto between an employer or group of employers and a bona fide labour union. Policy behind this is to protectworkmen as a class against unfair labour practices . What impartsto the dispute of a workman the character of an " industrial dispute" is that it affects the right of the workman as a class. But by way of extension of definition of industrial dispute, by insertion of section 2A of the Act , the dispute ofan individual workman connected with or arising out of his discharge, dismissal ; retrenchment or otherwise termination of his service by his employer has been brought within the ambit of the Act .

12.At the outset Shri Gupta argued that terms of reference, as framed by appropriate Government and referred for adjudication to this Tribunal, were neither a cause nor a lis between the parties . The appropriate Government grossly erred as to the meaning of the terms " absorption in service" or "regularization ofservice ", since no regularization is permissible in executive power of judicial fiat, in contravention of statutory rules . He urged that the persons, whose names are annexed with the schedule, have not entered services of the bank in consonance with the extant rules and, therefore , none of them have a right to be regularized in service. He agitates . that regularization is possible of an act, if there has been some non compliance with the procedure or manner in making appointment , not going to the root of the appointment . Regularisation cannot be a mode of recruitment, in defiance of rules . According to him, the appropriate Government has assumed that the persons , whose names are detailed in annexure to the schedule, were employed by the bank, in whose employment there have been procedural irregularity and as such terms of reference were worded as to " whether the action of the bank in keeping temporary sweepers continuously without regularization oftheir signatures is just, fair and legal ". He agitates that their employment was neither in consonance with recruitment rules nor there has been any procedural irregularity which could be corrected, hence reference is bad and this Tribunal lacks jurisdiction in entertaining it for adjudication. Contra to it Shri Dahia agitates that the terms of reference are clear and specific without any ambiguity in form or extent of the question . He argued that submissions advanced by Shri Gupta may be discarded.

13.As projected above, the appropriate Government referred a question to this Tribunal projecting whether action of the bank in keeping temporary sweeper continuously without regularization of the services is just fair and legal. This question consists of two limbs , viz . (i ) whether act of keeping temporary sweepers continuously in service is just, fair and legal ? and (ii) whether their continuance without regularization of their services is just, fair and legal ? Therefore, order of reference has two pronged propositions , namely, ( i) to ascertain the legality,

15. For adjudication of industrial disputes the appropriate Government is empowered to constitute Labour Courts , Industrial Tribunals and National Tribunals . Sub- section ( 1 ) of Section 7 of the Act empowers the appropriate Government to constitute one or more Labour Courts for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act. Sub - section. ( 1 ) of Section 7A of the Act empowers the appropriate Government to constitute one or more Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes relating to any matter, whether specified in the Second Schedule or the Third Schedule and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act . In the same manner sub - section ( 1 ) of section 7B of the Act empowers 1693 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ⅱ) ]

and his employees may not continue to remain disturbed and the dispute may be resolved through a judicial process as speedly as possible .

the Central Government to constitute one or more National Industrial Tribunal for adjudication of industrial disputes which , in the opinion of the Central Government, involve questions of national importance or are of such a nature that industrial establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be interested in , or affected by, such disputes . Therefore , the aforesaid provisions make it clear that Labour Courts are constituted for adjudication of disputes relating to any matter specified in the Second Schedule appended to the Act and for performing such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act . An Industrial Tribunal can adjudicate any dispute relating to any matter whether specified in the Second Schedule or Third Schedule appended to the Act and such other functions as may be assigned to them under the Act . National Tribunal can be constituted to adjudicate an industrial dispute involving questions of national importance or of such a nature in which industrial establishments situated in more than one State are likely to be interested in or affected by such disputes.

18. In Ram Avtar Sharma [ 1985 ( II) LLJ 187 ] the Apex Court reiterated the same proposition of law . It was observed that while exercising power to or of making a reference under sub - section ( 1 ) of Section 10 of the Act, the appropriate Government performs an administrative act and not judicial or quasi judicial act. However, for making a reference of the dispute for adjudication, the appropriate Government has to satisfy itself about existence of an industrial dispute or record its satisfaction that an industrial dispute is apprehended . For formation of the necessary opinion, the appropriate Government must also be satisfied that a person whose dispute is being referred for adjudication is a "workman" . From the material placed before it, the appropriate Government rules an' administrative decision whether there exist an existing or apprehended industrial dispute . Adequacy or sufficiency ofmaterial , on which the opinion was formed , is beyond the pale ofjudicial scrutiny. When appropriate Government makes a reference of an industrial dispute for adjudication, it does not decide any question of fact or law. When once the Government is satisfied as to existence or apprehension ofan industrial dispute , it acquires jurisdiction to refer the dispute for adjudication.

16. For referring an industrial dispute for adjudication the appropriate Government should satisfy itself, on the facts and circumstances brought to its notice, for its subjective opinion that an industrial dispute exists or is apprehended. The factual existence of a dispute or its apprehension and expediency of making a reference are matters entirely for the Government to decide . An order making a reference is an administrative act and the fact that the Government has to form an opinion as to the factual existence of an industrial dispute as a preliminary step to the discharge of its function does not make it any the less administrative in character. The adequacy or sufficiency of material on which opinion was formed is beyond the pale ofjudicial scrutiny.

17. Sub- section ( 1) of Section 10 of the Act contemplates that "where the appropriate Government is of opinion that any industrial dispute exists or is apprehended , it may at any time, by order in writing refer the dispute .. ." which makes function of the appropriate Government to make a reference as an administrative decision . The Apex Court in Western India Match Company [1970 (2) L.L.J 256 ] ruled that the power conferred 'on the appropriate Government is an administrative act and formation of opinion as to factual existence of an industrial dispute as a preliminary step to discharge its function does not make it any the less administrative in character. The observation made by the court are extracted thus :-

19. Here in the case the bank nowhere pleads that there was no adequate or sufficient material with the appropriate Government to form an opinion about existence or apprehension of an industrial dispute . It is not the case ofthe bank that the claimant union had not placed all facts before the appropriate Governmentto the effect that the persons whose names are detailed in schedule to the reference were not workmen or there was no difference or dispute between the employer and them which was connected with their employment or non employment or terms of employment or with their conditions of labour . No whisper of fact has been made to assert that the bank is not an industry within the meaning of clause (j ) of Section 2 of the Act. Therefore, these facts make it clear that there was sufficient material available with the appropriate Government for form an opinion about existence of an industrial dispute between the bank and the claimant union who had adapted the case of the persons whose names appear in the schedule to the reference . On formation of an opinion as to the existence ofthe industrial dispute the appropriate Government was not to perform any judicial or quasi judicial act . It has to perform an administrative act of making reference ofthe dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication . Therefore, it is evident that the Government has rightly exercised its jurisdiction available to it under clause (d) of sub - section (1) ofSection 10 of theAct.

20. Can formation of opinion by the apppropriate Government as to existence of the industrial dispute be "Itwas so held presumably because the Government cannot go into the merits of the dispute, its function being only to refer such a dispute for adjudication so that the industrial relations between the employer 1694

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

undertaken. A contract of employment may be inferred from the conduct which goes to show that such a contract was intended although never expressed and when there has , in fact , been employment of the kind usually performed by the employees . Any such inference , however, is open to rebuttal as by showing that the relationbetween the parties concerned was on a charitable footing or the parties were relations or partners or were directors of a limited company which employed no staff. While the employee, at the time, when his services were engaged, need not have known the identity of his employer , there must have been some act or contract by which the parties recognized one another as master or servant .

termed as dishonest ? As emerge out of the pleadings claimant union has espoused the cause of persons , who were serving as temporary sweepers with the bank since long. Their engagement on casual basis has not been disputed by the bank . It was only urged that their engagement was dehors the rules . Bank thinks that the appropriate Government ought to have considered that proposition and then would have declined the reference, on the ground that being engaged in violation of the rules , the claimant union was not in a position to show existence of relationship of employer and employee between temporary sweepers and the bank. This exercise would have resulted into discharge ofjudicial/ quasi judicial functions , which never vested in the appropriate Government. As far as formation of the opinion is concerned as to existence of industrial dispute between the parties , the bank adopts a posture ofsilence. Contention advanced by Shri Gupta that the appropriate Government ought to have taken into account factum ofengagement of temporary sweepers being dehors the rules and then decline the reference is unfounded , since he wants to put the appropriate Government to a padestral of adjudicating authority. No such power was available to the appropriate Government to adjudicate the fact as to whether there was relationship of employer and employee between the parties . It is a dispute, which is to be adjudicatedbythe Tribunal , being incidental to the question referred. Hence contention of the management that the appropriate Government failed to consider the aforesaid proposition and referred the dispute in the mechanical manner is unfounded . The same is , therefore , brushed aside.

23. In affidavit Ex. WW1/A Dinesh Kumar swears that he joined Bareli Corporation Bank Ltd. on 25th of March, 91 as a part time sweeper. Bareli Corporation Bank was merged with Bank ofBaroda in 1999. All workmen of erstwhile Bareli Corporation Bank were absorbed in the services of Bank of Baroda . Thus he has been in service ofthe bank from last 18 years . He went on to depose that now the bank is paying him i /3rd of scale wages , but not allowing him to mark his attendance. No appointment letter has been issued to him. When his testimony was purified, by an ordeal of cross examination, he unfolded that as on date he was getting his wages at Rs . 3200 PM. The bank opted not to refute facts testified by Dinesh Kumar, to the effect that he was in its employment since merger ofBareli CorporationBank with Bank ofBaroda . On the other hand Shri K. C. Hans admits that Dinesh Kumar and Reshma are still working with the bank .

24. Vijay Kumar swears in his affidavit Ex. WW2/ A that he was engaged as a part time temporary sweeper by Bank ofBaroda in November, 1997. He was removed from service by the Bank in August , 2008 , without service of any notice orpay in lieu thereof. Shri K. C. Hans concedes thatVijay Kumar worked with the bank from November, 97, tillAugust, 2008. Smt. Sita Devi projects in her affidavit Ex. WW 3 /A that shejoined Connaught Circus , New Delhi branch of the bank as part time sweeper on 1-12-96. Her services were disengaged in August, 2008, without giving her any notice or pay in lieu thereof. She concedes that no appointment letter was issued to her by the bank . However, bank failed to dispel her claim that she served it as part time sweeper from December , 96 till August, 2008. Shri C. S. Dahia projects in his testimony that Smt . Sita worked with the bank from 1-12-96 till August, 2008.

21. As unfolded by the claimant union in the claim statement, persons whose names are mentioned in schedule to the terms ofreference were kept by the bank as temporary sweepers for a very long period. Their engagement as temporary sweepers has not been a disputed fact . It was claimed by the bank that they were engaged dehors recruitment rules . Therefore, case projected by the parties is that persons , whose names are detailed in schedule to the terms of reference, were working with the bank as temporary /casual sweepers . The bank asserts that their engagement as temporary/ casual sweepers nowhere creates relationship of employer and employee between the parties and since their engagement was violative of the recruitment rules , their services cannot be regularized contra to it the claimant union projects that keeping them as temporary sweepers continuously is violative of the scheme of the Act and the bank is under an obligation to regularise their services , in accordance with the scheme provided in settlement dated 18-3-2008 .

22. The relationship of employer and employee is constituted by a contract, express or implied between employer and employee . A contract of service is one in which a person undertakes to serve another and to obey -his reasonable orders within the scope of the duty

25. Shri C. S. Dahia swears in his affidavit Ex. WW 4/A that Shri Sita Ram was working with the bank since 2ndApril, 2000. Smt. Poonam was working with the bank since 7-7-06 , Sita has worked from 1-12-96 till August, 2008, Hans Raj worked from 4-4-2000 till July, 2008.Mehar Chand hadworked from January, 2004 to July, 2008. Roop Chand is working since May, 1997. Suresh Chand is working since April , 2004 , Vijay worked with the Bank 1695

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघः 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

27. Section 33 of the Act bars alteration in conditions ofservice "prejudicial" to the workman concerned in the dispute and punishment of discharge or dismissal when either is connected with pendentelite industrial dispute "save with the permission of the authorities before whom the proceedings is pending" or where the discharge or dismissal is for any misconduct not connected with the pendentelite industrial dispute without the " approval of such authority" . Prohibition contained in Section 33 ofthe Act is two fold. On one hand, they are designed to protect the workman concerned during the course of industrial conciliation, arbitration and adjudication, against employers harrasment and victimization, on account of their having raised the industrial dispute or their continuing the pending proceedings and on the other , they seek to maintain status quo byprescribing management's conduct which maygive rise to "fresh dispute" which further exacerbate the already strained relations between employer and the workman . Where industrial disputes are pendentelite before an authority mentioned in the section , it was thought necessary that such disputes should be conciliated or adjudicatedupon by the authority in a peaceful atmosphere, undisturbed by any subsequent causes for bitterness or unpleasantness . To achieve this object, a ban has been imposed upon the employer exercising his common law, statutory or contractual right to terminate the services ofhis employees according to contract or the provisions of law governing such service. The ordinary right of the employer to alter the terms ofhis employees ' services to their prejudice or to terminate their services under the general law governing contract of employment, has been banned subject to certain conditions . This ban, therefore , is designed to restrict the interference ofthe general rights and liabilities ofthe parties under the ordinary law within the limits truly necessary for accomplishing the object of those provisions . Anxietyto know about ban on the right of the employer, persuades me to reproduce the provisions of section 33 of the Act thus:

from November, 1997 till August, 2008. Dinesh Kumar is working with the bank since 25-3-1991, Satish Kumar has been working from April, 2004, Sanjay is working from November, 2000, Saroj is working from March, 98 , Anita worked from 1999 to May, 2008 , Kishan worked from January, 2004 till October, 2008 , Sandeep worked from September, 2006 to August , 2008, and Reshma is working since 1999. Baby is working with the bank, whose services have been regularized and Tapan Kumar left service ofthe Bank and joined some other job . When Shri Dahia was subjected to cross examination no efforts were made by the bank to dispel facts regarding engagement of the aforesaid persons as part time sweepers . However , it was projected that Smt. Sita, Hans Raj , Mehar Chand, Vijay, Tapan Kumar, Anita, Kishan and Sandeep were not in the services ofthe bank , which proposition was not disputed. But Shri Dahia asserts that their services were dispensed with , except Tapan Kumar , without giving any notice or pay in lieu thereof. In his testimony Shri K.C. Hans concedes that Dinesh Kumar was engaged as a temporary sweeper since 25-3-91 , who is still serving the Bank. Smt. Reshma is still serving the bank, projects Shri Hans . He unfolds that service of Smt . Baby has been regularized. Therefore, out of facts projected by Shri Dinesh Kumar, Vijay Kumar, Smt . Sita Devi, Shri C.S. Dahia and K.C. Hans it emerge over the record that the claimants were engaged as part time sweepers by the bank. In its written statement , the bank does not dispute that the claimants were engaged as part time sweeper ( s) . However, it projects that none of them were eligible to be regularized in service, as sought by the claimant union . Therefore, it is evident that the bank engaged aforesaid climants as part time sweepers at different occasions and in different branches . Engagement of the climants as part time sweeper established relationship of employer and employee between them on one hand and bank on the other. It does not lie in the mouth of the bank to agitate that no relationship of employer and employee ever existed between the parties . Contention so raised by Shri Gupta is brushed aside .

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

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

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

26. As projected by Shri Dahia in his testimony Smt . Sita , Hans Raj , Mehar Chand, Vijay, Anita, Kishan and Sandeep were disengaged by the bank, without any notice or pay in lieu thereof and payment of retrenchment compensation. He highlights that services of Smt . Sita were disengaged in August , 2008 , that of Hans Raj were disengaged in July , 2008 , services of Vijay and Sandeep were disengaged in August, 2008. Services ofKishan were disengaged in October , 2008 and services of Smt . Anita were disengaged in May, 2008. As emerge out of the reference order, the Conciliation Officer submitted his failure report dated 11-3-2008 before appropriate Government as contemplated by sub- section 4 of Section. 12 of the Act . The appropriate Government referred the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication on 30-7-2008 .

1696

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)]

the manner in which the workmen may be chosen and recognized as protected workmen .

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

(2) During the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute, the employer may, in accordance with standing orders applicable to a workman concerned in such dispute or, where there are no such standing orders , in accordance with the terms of the contract, whether express or implied, between him and the workman-

(a) alter, in regard to any matter not connected with the dispute, the conditions of service applicable to that workman/ immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or

(5) Where an employer makes an application to a conciliation officer , Board , an arbitrator , a Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal under the proviso to sub- section (2) for approval of the action taken by him, the authority concerned shall , without delay, hear such application and pass , within a period of three months from the date ofreceipt of such application, such order in relation thereto as it deems fit . Provided that where any such authority considers it necessary or expedient sg to do , it may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, extend such period by such further period as it may think fit . Provided further that no proceedings before any such authority shall lapse merely on the ground that any period specified in this sub -section had expired without such proceedings being completed.

(b) for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, discharge or punish, whether by dismissal or otherwise, that workman:

Provided that no such workman shall be discharged or dismissed, unless he has been paid wages for one month and an application has been made by the employer to the authority before which the proceeding is pending for approval of the action taken by the employer .

(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2) , no employer shall , during the pendency of any such proceeding in respect of an industrial dispute , take any action against any protected workman, concerned in such dispute-

(a) by altering, to the prejudice of such protected workman, the conditions of service applicable to him immediately before the commencement of such proceeding; or

(b) by discharging or punishing, whether any dismissal or otherwise , such protected workman,

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

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

28.As noted above sub - sections ( 1 ) and (2) are designed for different purposes since sub -section (1 ) applies to the proposition when the employer wants to alter service conditions of the workman to his prejudice in regard to any matter connected with the dispute or for any misconduct connected with the dispute , in that situation he is obliged to seek prior permission in writing of the authority before whom the dispute is pending and in a case where the employer wants to alter service conditions ofa workman in regard to a matter not connected with the dispute or for any misconduct not connected with the dispute, in that situation he is obliged to seek approval of the order under sub - section (2) of the aforesaid section . When an employer violates the provisions of sub -section (1) or sub- section (2) of Section 33 of the Act, an instant remedy is provided to the workman by the provisions of Section 33A oftheAct. In other words , where an employer has contravened the provisions of Section 33 , the aggrieved workman has been given the option to make a complaint in writing, to the authority before whom an industrial dispute is pending, with which the aggrieved workman is concerned . The complaint of such contravention can be made not to the adjudicating authorities , but to the conciliatory authority also . If a complaint is made to a conciliatory authority, viz . a ConciliationOfficer or a Board of Conciliation, clause (a ) of Section 33A of the act authorizes a Conciliation Officer ortheBoard to take such complaint into account in bringing about a settlement of the complained dispute. The Conciliation Officer or the Board is not empowered to adjudicate upon the dispute, which is the area of adjudicatory authorities . When a complaint is made to adjucdicatory authority viz . Arbitrator Labour Court , Tribunal or National Tribunal, it will adjudicate won the dispute as if it is a dispute referred to or pending before it. In the alternative the workman may approach the appropriate Government under clause (d) of sub- section (4) In every establishment, the number of workmen to be recognised as protected workmen for the purposes ofsub - section (3) shall be one per cent of the total number ofworkmen employed therein subject to a minimum number offive protected workmen and a maximum number of one hundred protected workmen and for the aforesaid purpose, the appropriate Government may make rules providing for the distribution of such protected workmen among various trade unions , if any, connected with the establishment and [ भाग II-खण्ड 3( ii) ]

1697- भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

(1) of Section 10 of the Act seeking a reference of the dispute to a Tribunal for adjudication.

Government is not available, the Tribunal cannot conclude as to on which date conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have been concluded . However, it would be taken to mean that the conciliation proceedings came to an end on 11-3-2008 , on that very date, the failure report is presumed to have been received by the appropriate Government. Clause(c) of sub - section ( 2) of Section 20 of theAct is not applicable to the case, since reference was not made during pendency ofthe conciliation proceedings . The appropriate Government considered the said failure report and made reference of the dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication on 30-7-2008 . Therefore, on that date this tribunal is deemed to have been seized of the industrial dispute for the purpose of adjudication.

31. As projected by Shri Dahia, services of Smt . Anita were done away by the bank in May, 2008. Evidently inMay, 2008 the appropriate Government was considering the said failure report to form an opinion about existence of anindustrial dispute and making a reference ofthat dispute to this Tribunal for adjudication. No conciliation proceedings were pending before the Conciliation Officer in May, 2008. This tribunal was not seized of the dispute onthat date. Therefore, it is evident that when services of Smt. Anita were dispensed with, provisions of Section 33 oftheAct were not in operation. It cannot be said that the management violated provisions of the said section when services ofAnita were done away.

29. It hias to be seen as to whether there was any contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of theAct . Neither Dinesh Kumar nor Vijay Kumar nor Smt . Sita Devi nor Shri C.S. Dahia opted to testify any fact as to when a dispute was raised before the Conciliation Officer , when the bank had not opted to regularize their services . No evidence worth name was adduced as to when the conciliation proceedings came to an end. Out of the reference order, it came to light that failure report dated 11-3-2008 was submitted by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government . Section 20 of the Act makes provision in respect of commencement and conclusion of proceedings before the Conciliation Officer . Sub- section (1) ofthe said section contemplates as to when conciliation proceedings commences before a Conciliation Officer in a public utility service. The 1st limb of sub - section ( 1 ) speaks that a conciliation proceeding shall commence on the date onwhich a notice of strike or lock out , under Section 22 is received by the Conciliation Officer. The second limb of the said sub- section provides that proceedings before a Board shall commence when a reference under sub - section (1) of Section 10 is made by the appropriate Government , whether the dispute relates io public utility service or a nonpublic utility service Sub- section (2) of the said section details points of time on which conciliation proceedings before a Conciliation Officer or a Board shall be deemed to have been concluded, which are enumerated thus :

1. In case a settlement is arrived at, whether before a Conciliation Officer or the Board the date on which memorandum of settlement is signed by the parties to the dispute.

2. In case no settlement is arrived at :

(a) the date on which the report of the Conciliation Officer is received by the appropriate Government or (b) the date on which report of the Board is published under section 17,

3. In case, during the pendency of the conciliation proceedings , the dispute is referred for adjudication the date of reference would be date of the conclusion of the conciliation proceedings .

32. As unfolded by Shri Dahia, services of Shri Hans Raj and Mehar Chand were dispensed with in July, 2008 . No date is mentioned .Ambiguous testimony of Shri Dahia onthat issue nowhere lead this Tribunal on the proposition whether Hans Raj and Mehar Chand served the bank till lastdate ofthat month . The Tribunal has to presume a date onwhich their services were dispensed with . Taking into account all facts and circumstances , I presume that service of Hans Raj and Mehar Chand were dispensed with on 31stof July, 2008 , the last date of the month . Smt . Sita was made to go by the bank in August, 2008. Same was the case with Vijay Kumar whose services were done away in August , 2008. Ashok Kumar also lost his job in August, 2008. Kishan was shown door ofhis house by the Bank in October, 2008. On 31st of July, 2008 and thereafter this Tribunal was seized of the adjudication. Consequently it is evident that action of the bank in dispensing with the services ofthe aforesaid claimants on 31st of July, 2008, in August, 2008 and October, 2008 is violative ofthe provisions ofSection 33 of theAct .

33. Employees , whose services were dispensed with by the bank in contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of the Act , are aggrieved by that action . Since contravention of the provisions of Section 33 of theAct, during pendency of adjudication process has come over the record, now occasion arises for this Tribunal to embark upon articulation of facts in that regard. Since services of 30.At the cost ofrepetition, it is said that no evidence was brought over the record as to when the failure report was sent by the Conciliation Officer to the appropriate Government for consideration . However, failure report was recordedby the Conciliation Officer on 11-3-2008 . It is not the date when failure report was recorded but it is the date when failure report was actually received by the appropriateGovernment on which conciliation proceedings shall be deemed to have been concluded . When the date on which failure report was received by the appropriate THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011/MAGHA 30, 1932

1698

the aforesaid claimants were dispensed with by the bank, during pendency of the dispute for adjudication before this Tribunal in regard to the matter connected with the dispute, the bank was required to move an application for approval of its action as provided by the provisions of Section33- (2) (a) ofthe Act. Admittedly no such application for approval was moved by the bank. Since the dispute was pending before this Tribunal for adjudication at the time of contravention of Section 33 of the Act, the bank was under an obligation to make payment of one months notice wages and file application of approval of its action, as a part of the same transaction. No such payment of notice wages is alleged to have been made nor an application was moved by the bank.

34. What is the effect of non- moving an application for approval ? Such proposition was taken note of by the Apex Court in, Jaipur Zila Sehkari Bhoomi Vikas Bank(AIR 2002 S.C. 643) wherein it was held that it would be clear caseofcontravention ofthe proviso to Section 33 (2) (b ) of theAct. It would be expedient to reproduce the law laid in the above precedent, which are extractedthus:

"The proviso to Section 33 (2)(b) , as can be seen from its very unambiguous and clear language, is mandatory. This apart from the object of Section 33 and in the context of the proviso to Section 33 (2) (b ) , it is obvious that the conditions contained in the said proviso are to be essentially complied with. Further any employer who contravenes the provisions ofSection 33 invites a punishment under S.31 ( 1) with imprisonment for a term which mayextend to six months or with fine which may extend to Rs.1000 or with both. This penal provision is again a pointer of the mandatory nature of the proviso to comply with the conditions stated therein . To put it in other way, the said conditions being mandatory, are to be satisfied if an order of discharge or dismissal passed under Section 33 (2) (b) is to be operative, if an employer desires to take benefit of the said provision for passing an order of discharge or dismissal of an employee , he has also to take the burden ofdischarging the statutory obligation placed onhim in the said proviso . Taking a contrary view that an order ofdischarge or dismissal passed by an employer in contravention of the mandatory conditions contained in the proviso does not render such an order inoperative or void, defeats the very purpose ofthe proviso and it becomes meaningless . It is well settled rule of interpretation that no part of statute shall be construed as unnecessary or superfluous . The proviso cannot be diluted or disobeyed by an employer. He can not disobey the mandatory provision and then say that the order of discharge or dismissal made in contravention of Section 33 (2)(b) is not void or in operative.He cannot

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] be permitted to take advantage of his ownwrong . The interpretation of statute must be such that it should advance the legislative intent and serve the purpose for which it is made rather than to frustrate it . The proviso to Section 33 (2)(b) affords protection to a workman to safeguard his interest and it is a shield against victimization and unfair labour practice by the employer during the pendency of industrial dispute when the relationship between them are already strained . An employer cannot be permitted touse the provision of Section 33 (2)(b ) to ease out a workman without complying with the conditions contained in the said proviso for any alleged misconduct said to be unconnected with the already pending industrial dispute. The protection afforded to a workman under the said provision cannot be taken away. If it is to be held that an order of discharged of dismissal passed by the employer without complying with the requirements of the said proviso is not void or inoperative, the employer maywith impunity discharge or dismiss a workman." 35. The Apex Court dealt with the situation of the withdrawal of such approval application or not making an application in the following manner:

"The view that when no application is made or the one made is withdrawn , there is no order of refusal of such application on merit and as such the order of dismissal or discharge does not become void or inoperative unless such an order is set aside under Section 33A, cannot be accepted . In our view, not making an application under Section 33 (2) (b) seeking approval or withdrawing an application once made before any order is made thereon, is a clear case of contraventionofthe proviso to Section 33 (2) (b) . An employer who does not make an application under Section 33 (2) (b) or withdraws that one made, cannot be rewarded by relieving him of the statutory obligation created on him to make such an application. If it is so done, he will be happier or more comfortable than an employer who obeys the command of law and makes an application inviting scrutiny of the authority in the matter of granting approval of the action taken by him, Adherence to and obedience of law should be obvious and necessary in a system governed by rule of law. An employer by design can avoid to make an application after dismissing or discharging an employee or file it and withdraw before any order is passed on it , on its merits , to take aposition that such order is not inoperative or till it is set aside under Section 33A notwithstanding the contravention of Section 33 ( 2 ) (b ) proviso , driving the employee to have recourse to one or more proceeding by making a complaint under Section 33A or to raise another industrial dispute or to make a 1699 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माष 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

appointment goes to the root of the matter. Therefore, claim projected by the claimant union cannot be answered in their favour , concludes Shri Gupta.

complaint under Section 31 ( 1) . Such an approach destroys the protection specifically and expressly given to an employee under the said proviso as against possible victimization, unfair labour practice or harassment because of pendency of industrial dispute so that an employee can be saved from hardship ofunemployment . '

39. To answer the proposition raised by Shri Gupta, it is expedient to know the procedure , following which a part time employee may be employed. Shastry Award gives classification of employees . Para 508 of the Award. commands that employees shall be classified as : (a) permanent employees , (b) probationers , (c) temporary employees , (d) part time employees . Part time employee 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".

36. It is evident that action of the bank in dispensing with the services of Shri Hans Raj , Mehar Chand, Vijay, Smt. Sita Devi, Ashok Kumar and Kishan is void ab initio, since their services were done away by the bank in contravention of the provisions of Section 33-2 ( a) ofthe Act. Hence, Shri Hans Raj , Mehar Chand, Vijay, Ashok Kumar, Smt . Sita and Kishan are deemed to be in the services ofthe bank.

40. Paragraph 493 of Shastry 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 merits 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 be satisfactory. The award nowhere provides as to how a part time employee would be recruited.

41. Desai Award directs that a minimum of 1/3rd of theappropriate rate ofpay and allowances should be given topart 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 would be recruited by the bank(s).

37. Dinesh and Reshma are still working with the bank, while services of Smt . Baby had been regularized . No evidence has come over the record to the effect that services of Sita Ram, Smt. Poonam and Sanjay have been dispensed with by the Bank. Shri C. S. Dahia deposes that they are still working as part time sweeper( s ) with the bank. His testimony on that count was not dispelled, when he faced ordeal ofcross examination. On the other hand, Shri Hans deposed that Roop Chand, Satish Kumar, Satish Chand and Saroj are no more working with the bank. It is unfortunate that neither of the parties unfold the date(s ) when services of the aforesaid sweepers were dispensed with. However, it cannot be taken to mean that their services were disengaged either during pendency of the conciliation proceedings or during pendency ofthe dispute before this Tribunal for adjudication . Therefore, it is held that Roop Chand, Satish Chand, Satish Kumar and Saroj are no more in service of the bank and their case for regularization absorption in service cannot be considered. However, Shri Sita Ram, Smt. Poonam and Sanjay are the employee(s ) in respect ofwhom the bank could not assert that they are not in its services . Consequently it would be considered whether they are eligible for absorption in the services of the bank.

42.First Bipartite 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 ofparagraph 5.191 ofthe Desai Award, part time workman shall be entitled to graduated incremental pay scales relating to their working hours 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 12 per week.

(b) Part time workmen who are members of subordinate staff shall (subject to clause 20.5) be paid- iftheir normal working hours per week are:

38. Now I would proceed to adjudicate the proposition as to whether act of keeping temporary sweepers continuously in service is just, fair and legal . Assailing the claim, the bank projects that since claimants were engaged dehors recruitment rules , they cannot agitate for regularization of their services. Shri Gupta had argued that word "regularisation " connotes and is calculated to condone any procedural irregularity in the process of making appointment and meant to cure only such irregularities which are attributable to methodology followed inmaking appointments . According to him regularization cannot and does not relate to permanance on a post. When appointment of claimants were in infraction of statutory rules that illegality cannot be rectified or regularized, argued Shri Gupta . Non compliance with the rules , in the matter of

410 GI/11-31 1700

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011/MAGHA 30 , 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii)] 1) Upto 3 hours at banks discretion.

atbanks discretion but minimum Rs.15 P.M.

(2) More than three hours but less than sixhours

September, 98. It was further agreed that subject to bank recruitment rules , if any, part time employees in the subordinate cadre will be given a préference for filling full time vacancies in the same cadre, other things being equal .

(3) 6 hours to 13 hours

1/3rd of the scale wages with proportionate annual incre- ment.

45. 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:

(4) More than 13 hours to 19 hours

Subordinate Staff

1/2 of the scale wages with proportionate annual incre- ment.

Iftheir normal total working hours per week are:

Upto 3 hours

3/4th of the scale wages with proportionate annual increment .

(5) More than 19 hours to 29 hours

at bank's discretion with a minimum ofRs . 60 p.m.

More than 3 hours

(6) Beyond 29 hours Full scalewages .

atbank's discretion but with a minimum of Rs . 175 p.m..

6 hours to 13 hours One third of the scale wages with proportionate annual increment.

More than 13 hours to 19 hours

43. 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 !-

Onehalfof the scale wages with proportionate annual increment.

More than 19 hours to 29 hours

Three fourth of the scale wages withproportionate annual increment.

Beyond 29 hours Full scale wages .

(a) Part time workman other than those belonging to the subordinate staff shall be paid 1 /3rd ofthe scale wages and shall be entitled to 1 /3rd of the annual increment, payable under the settlement to full time workman provided that the total working hours of such part timework shall not exceed 12hrs per week.

Scale wages' are defined to mean basic pay, city compensatory allowance ( as Clause 6), if any, special/house rent/other allowance, if any, and dearness allowance payable under this Settlement to full time workmen .

(b) Part time workmen who are members of subordinate staff shall be paid if their normal total working hours porweek are:

( Up to three hours atbank's discretion.

atbank discretion but with a

minimum of Rs . 25 P.M.

( 2 ) More than three hour out less thanx hours

Part- time employees not drawing scale wages shall beeligible for only fixed monthly payment made to themby the bank. Other part -time employe drawing scale wages shall get only such benefits as are specifically provided hereunder:-

(7) 6 hours to 13 hours

1/3rd of the scale wages with proportionate annual increment.

(a) Permanent part -time employees drawing scale wages are eligible for leave, medical aid and uniforms .

14) More than 13 hrs to 1/2 of the scale wages with 19 homs

proportionate annual increment .

(b) Permanent part- time employees drawing scale wages are eligible . for Provident Fund with effect from 1-9-1978 .

3/4th of the scale wages with proportionate annual increment .

More than 19 hours to 29 hours

(6) Beyond 29 hours Full scale wages .

(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 pér 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 frorn 1-4-89 .

44. 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 P.M. w.e.f. 1st of [ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii) ]

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 / माघ 30 , 1932

1701 46. In Supplementary Settlement dated 28th Nov. , 1997, it was agreed that part time employees who are members of the subordinate staff and whiose normal total working hours per week are as given below shall be paid consolidated wages :

whether the bank(s ) are bound to follow some guidelines for recruitment of part - time employee( s) . In that bid , the Tribunal could lay its hands on guidelines formulated by Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division ) , Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India , New Delhi , Relevant extract of those guidelines provides as follows:

1. Part- Time Employees

Subordinate Staff

(1) Recruitment to subordinate staff should be on a local basis .

In partial modification of. Clause 18 ( 1 ) of Memorandum of Settlement dated 10th April, 1989 , part- time employees who are members ofthe subordinate staff, whose normal total working hours per week are as given below, shall be paid consolidated wages:

(ii) The maximum age for sub - staff is to be fixed at 25 with suitable relaxation for SC/ST candidates .

(a) From 1-11-1992 to31-10-1994

=Rs.130p.m.

=Rs . 375 p . m.

Upto 3 hours More than 3 hours but less than 6 hours

(iii) Candidates having middle school as the minimum educational qualification should be considered for appointment as sub- staff.

(b) From 1.11.1994

Rs . 150 p.m.

Upto 3 hours More than 3 hours

but less than 6 hours

=Rs .440 p.m.

(iv) Applications sponsoredby the Employment Exchanges and such other applications that the bank may receive directly could form the basis for selection as sub- staff.

47. 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:

(v) While no written test is normally necessary for selection of sub - staff, the bank may devise a procedure to ascertain the candidates ability to read andwrite. Interview should be the main process for selection.

"20. Part Time Employees :

(vi) As the procedure for selection of sub - staff through Employment Exchange is relatively simple, long waiting lists should not be prepared.

(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 normal working hours per week are as given below shall be paid consolidatou wages as under

(a) Upto 3 hours atbank's discretion with a minimum ofRs.450p.m.

(b) More than 3 hours but less than 6 hrs : atbank's discretion with a minimum of Rs . 740 p.m.

(ii) In partial modification of Clause 18.2 of the Bipartite Settlement dated 10thApril, 1989, with effect from 1stNovember, 1999, part time employees drawing scalewages shall also be eligible for reimbursement ofhospitalisation expenses on pro - rata basis .

49. Except the guidelines detailed above , ne recruitment procedure in respect of part time employee ( s ) could reach my hands . Question for consideration comes as towhether recruitment of a part time employee would be subjected to the Employment Exchange ( Compulsory Notification of Vacancies ) Act , 1959. ( in short the Employment ExchangeAct) . 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, probationers 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 may by notification in the Official Gazette declare to be unskilled this work .

48. Except the amount of wages payable to a part- time employee, in none of the awards and settlements , referred above, mode or method of recruitment of a part- time employee(s ) was ever provided for. Shri Gupta has not been able to place recruitment rules for recruitment of part-time sweepers , which are being followed by the bank. There is a candid admission by the bank that no recruitment rules are there for recruitment of part- time sweeper(s) . Left in lurch, the Tribunal had to make efforts to ascertain as to

50. Section 3 oftheEmployment Exchange Act makes it clear that the said Act , does not apply in relationto vacancies ( a) in any employment in agricultural including horticulture in any establishment in private section 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 [PART II-SEC. 3 (ii) ] 1702

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011/MAGHA 30, 1932

precedents do not come in the way of the claimants .Here in the case, the claimants were engaged as part time sweepers as per exigency, locally. Their engagement is not found to be violative of guidelines , issued by the Govt . of India. It is not a disputed fact that the claimants were engaged by the bank from the vicinity, where the branch was located in which work existed . Therefore, no irregularity, in making their engagement as part time sweeper(s ) , has been highlighted or emerged Consequently, it is evident that act of keeping claimants as part time sweepers continuously is in violation of the settlement referred above. This Tribunal cannot conclude that such an act of the bank is just, fair and legal . Consequentlythe first proposition, as detailed in preceding sections , is answered in favour of the claimant union and against the bank.

53. Next proposition, which would be addressed to, is as to whether continuance of the claimants without regularization of their services is just, fair and legal ? It is not adisputed fact that claimants are in service of the bank since long . The Tribunal cannot be oblivious to the proposition as to whether engagement of claimants was in consonance with the recruitment rules or its was violative ofthe policy of recruitment in Government job . It has also to be take into account as to whether the casual workman was satisfying the legitimate criteria for recruitment to the post, when he was initially engaged for it . In case claimants do not come up to the expectation provided in the recruitment rules and entered in the job through backdoor in that situation this Tribunal may refuse to accord status and privilege of permanent employee(s ) to them, being violative ofpubliepolicy ofrecruitment.

less than three months . (d) in any employment to do unskilled office work. (e) in another employment connected with the staffofParliament . Therefore, it is evident that for recruitment ofa sweeper, not to talk ofa 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 bankto 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 emplyment exchange. For a work, duration ofwhich is less than 3 hours a week, a candidate would not get his náme 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 ofpart time sweeper discretion vests with 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 sweerper (s ) can be engaged by the bank in its respective branches , as per exigencies . When bank makes engagement ofpart 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 claimants were engaged dehors the rules . In such a situation contention of Shri Gupta, to the effect that the claimants were engaged in violation of rules and are not entitled for regularization of their services , is unfounded.

51. Settlement dated 18-3-2008 makes provision for absorption for casual /temporary peon ( s ) and sweeper (s ) inservice ofthe bank in three phases , subject to conditions contained in clause 3 of the said settlement. Sweeper(s ) are required to fulfil eligibility criteria with respect to age and qualification as on first date of their engagement by the bank, ought to be medically fit for recruitment and their absorption is to take place with prospective effect. They were to be absorbed in first stage of full time/part time wages viz . 1 /3rd, one half, 3 /4th and full time respectively. Therefore, it is evident that settlement dated 18-3-2008 speaks of absorption oftemporary sweeper(s ) in the service ofthe bank.

54. As held above , claimants entered the job in consonance of guidelines laid by the Govt. of India. Continuance ofclaimants as temporary for long time would amount to unfair labour practice, which cannot be permitted to be adapted by the Tribunal as held by Apex Court in H. D. Singh (supra) . Therefore, it is evident that continuance of the claimants as part time sweeper for a long period cannot be permitted. Even otherwise settlement dated 18-3-08 is binding on the bank, who cannot flout it . Consequently a duty is cast on the bank to consider case(s) ofthe claimants for absorption in bank service, in pursuance of the settlement referred above . It emerges that continuance of the claimants for a longer period without their absorption in bank's service is neither just nor fair nor legal . The second proposition is , thus, answered in favour ofthe claimant union and against the bank.

55. Absorption/regularization of then service ofthe claimant has to be done in pursuance of the settlement dated 18-3-2008 . Claimants are required to fulfil eligibility criteriawithrespect of age , qualification on the first date of their engagement by the bank, besides being medically fit for recruitment. Consequently the bank is commanded to 52. Whether claimant's service (s) can be regularized by the bank by way of absorption in accordance with the settlement referred above ? Admittedly the Apex Court in R.N.Nanjundappa [ 1972 ( 1 ) LLJ 565 ] , S.C. Pandey [2006 (2) SCC 716] and A. Uma Rani [2004 (7) SCC 112] had ruled that regularization connotes and is calculated to condone any procedural irregularity in making appointment and mean to correct only such irregularity which are attributable to methodology followed in making appointments . But these 1703 भारत का राजपत्र : फ़रवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii ) ]

V/s

TheAssistant General Manager (III) StateBank ofBikaner & Jaipur Zonal Office, C- 54, Sarojini Nagar, Jaipur.

AWARD

Dated: 11-1-2011

ascertain eligibility of the claimants in respect of their age and qualification , as on the first date of their engagement bythe bank, besides their being medically fit for recruitment, inpursuance of the settlement referred above . In case the claimants , except Roop Chand, Tapan Kumar, Satish Kumar, Satish Chand and Saroj , are found eligibile the bank shall absorb them in service with prospective effect, in first stage offull time/part time wages viz . 1/3 , one half, 3 /4th and full time respectively. An award is , accordingly, passed. It be sent to the appropriate Government for publication.

Dr. R. K. YADAV, Presiding Officer

Dated: 16-9-2010

1. The Central Government in exercise ofthe 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: -

नई दिल्ली, 21 जनवरी , 2011

का. आ. 528-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार स्टेट बैंक आफ बीकानेर एण्ड जयपुर 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 19/09 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 20-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल -12012/136/2008- आई आर ( बी-1 ) ]

रमेश सिंह , डेस्क अधिकारी

"Whether the action of the management of State Bank ofBikaner & Jaipur through Assistant General Manager ( III ) , Zonal Office, Jaipur in dismissing services of Shri Dharam Singh Dhankad , Head Cashier from 7-8-2004 on the basis of conviction of CBI Court without conducting any departmental enquiry, is just and fair ? Whether awarding punishment against the same charge of reducing his pay by 2 stages and thereafter dismissing his services on the basis of the decision of CBI Court against the same charges , is also justified ? If not, what relief the workman is entitled to and from which date?"

New Delhi , the 21st January, 2011

S.O. 528. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Government hereby publishes the award (Ref. No. 19/09) 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 State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 20-1-2011 .

[No. L- 12012/ 136/2008 - IR (B-I)]

RAMESH SINGH, Desk Officer

2. Pursuant to the receipt of reference order, the registered notices were issued to both the parties . On perusal of the record , it appears that on 22-2-10 Shri R.C. Jain appeared on behalf of the workman and sought time for filing claim and authority letter . On 14-6-10, he informed about the death of the workman and on 5-10-10 he sought time for filing authority letter on behalf ofthe legal representative of the deceased workman, but on subsequent dates i.e. 6-12-10 and 21-12-10, none appeared on behalf ofthe workman, legal representatives . Learned representative on behalf ofthe bank has submitted an application stating therein that the workman had died on 11-4-10.

ANNEXURE

CENTRALGOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURT, JAIPUR

Present: N. K. Purohit, Presiding Officer

I.D. No. 19/09

Reference No. L- 12012/ 136/2008- IR (B - I)

Dated:6-4-2009

3. The sub- section 8 of Section - 10 envisages that no proceedings pending before the Tribunal shall lapse merely by reason of the death of any of the parties to the dispute being a workman. But in present matter, claim statement has not been filed on behalf of the legal representative of the deceased workman and there is no material on record to adjudicate the reference under consideration on merits . Under these circumstances , "No Claim Award " is passed in this matter. The reference under adjudication is answered accordingly.

Shri Dharam Singh Dhankad

4. Award as above .

N. K. PUROHIT, Presiding Officer S/ o Shri Parasram Dhankad C-122, Raunagar, Vijay Mandir Road, Alwar(Rajasthan) 1704

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

APPEARANCES:

नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2011

Forthe Petitioner :

M/s . A. Sarojana K. and

For the Respondent:

Vasudeva Reddy, Advocates M/ s . P.A.V.V.S. Sarma & Vijayalaxmi Panguluri , Advocates

AWARD

का.आ. 529.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. 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 , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( एल.सी. संख्या 1 $ 3/2006 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था ।

This petition under Sec.2 A (2) of the I.D. Act , 1947 has been filed by Sri Inumula Rajkumar, ex - badli filler to set aside the termination order dated 15-6-2005 and to reinstate the Petitioner workman with full back wages .

[सं. एल-22013 /1/2011- आई आर ( सी- II ) ] डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 529. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947 ) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (L.C.No. 153/2006) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal- cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 27-1-2011.

[No. L- 22013/ 1/2011 - IR(C- II) ] D. S. S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM - LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD

2. It is alleged by the Petitioner that he was appointed as badli filler on 1-3-1988 and later he was promoted as coal filler in the year 1995. He was regular to his duties till 2003. During that period the Petitioner suffered with illness and other family problems . He took treatment in company's hospital and various private hospitals . A charge sheet dated 17-1-2005 was issued alleging that the Petitioner has worked for 90 days during 2004 which amount to misconduct under company's Standing Orders No.25.25 . The Petitioner has submitted his explanation on 22-2-2005 but the Respondents were not satisfied and ordered for departmental enquiry. The Enquiry Officer conducted the enquiry with pre- determined notion . The enquiry was not valid in nature . The Enquiry Officer submitted his report . On the basis of enquiry report a show cause notice dated 26-3-2005 was issued to the Petitioner against which Petitioner submitted his reply on 17-5-2005, without considering the submission made by the Petitioner Present: - Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer

Dated the 27th day of December, 2010 INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 153/2006 Between:

hewas dismissed from service w.e.f. 25-6-2005 vide office order dated 15-6-2005 . The Petitioner was absent due to ill-health and the same was stated by the Petitioner before the Enquiry Officer, no challenge was made from the side of the management as such , the submission made by the Petitioner would have been deemed to bo Enquiry Officer has not orrect but the considered the submission made Sri Inumula Rajkumar, S/o Komaraiah, C/o Smt. A. Sarojana, Advocate , Flat No.G7, Ground Floor Kajeshwari , Galyaut Sadan, Opp: Badruka Jr. College For Girls , Kachiguda, Hyderabad.

.... Petitioner

AND

bythe عسر retutioner workman, Enquiry Officer submitted his enquiry report with a predetermined notion as such , the order passed on such enquiry report is bad and deserves to be quashed . Proper opportunity was not given to the Petitioner in the enquiry proceeding . Dismissal order based on that enquiry is illegal , arbitrary and is liable to be treated as bad in law. Hence , it is prayed that the impugned order be quashed and the Respondent be directed to reinstate the Petitioner with back wages and all consequential benefits .

1. The General Manager , M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Mandamarri , Adilabad District .

2.The Superintendent ofMines , M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , KK- 5 A Incline, Mandamarri , Adilabad District .

....Respondents

3. Management has submitted his reply alleging therein that Petitioner remained absent for the year 2004 but for 90 days which hampered the working of the company, the absence of the Petitioner was without any sufficient cause which is grave misconduct within the Standing Orders 25.25 of the company and dismissal is not bad in the light of the case law reported in 1996 ( 1 ) SCC 1705 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

[भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

302 State of U.P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh . admitted that domestic enquiry was conducted and Petitioner participated in the domestic enquiry. On the basis ofthe report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dismissal order has been passed against the Petitioner which is under challenge . In this case this tribunal has to consider,

(1 ) Whether the absence of Petitioner during the year 2004 was for any sufficient and reasonable cause or not and the report of Enquiry Officer is based on evidence or not?

(2) Whether the punishment imposed upon, the Petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committed bythe Petitioner?

Petitioner's contention that he was not afforded proper opportunity is incorrect . Due notices were given to the Petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceeding . The notice was acknowledged by the Petitioner and he participated in the enquiry proceeding. Petitioner did not availed the assistance of co - worker though he was given the opportunity to take the help of a co- worker . Petitioner did not produce any sickness proof, thus he failed to produce any documentary evidence before the Enquiry Officer. During the years 1999 to 2003 and in 2005 (Upto 25-6-2005) also the Petitioner was not regular to his duties and he has put in 112, 126, 116, 80, 79 and 36 musters respectively in the years 1999 to 2003 and in 2005 (Upto 25-6-2005) . This prove that the Petitioner was not sincere to his work . He intentionally absented himself without any reason or cause. The Petitioner though cited ill health as the cause of his absenteeism , he did not specify the disease with which he was suffering and did not substantiate the same with valid documentary evidence. The company has provided medical facilities by establishing hospitals , the Petitioner did not reported to the company hospital for his sickness thus , his submission that he was absent due to ill- health is unfounded, Enquiry Officer has given his finding on the material placed before him by the management and no fault can be find in the enquiry report , it is based on evidence and Petitioner's dismissal order is not disproportionate to the misconduct committed by him since Petitioner was not regular to his duties company has dismissed him which is neither illegal nor invalid.

4. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support of their claims . Petitioner has filed xerox copies of enquiry proceeding, enquiry report and original dismissal order dated 15-6-2005 . However, the Respondent has filed charge sheet , acknowledgement of charge sheet , explanation submitted by the Petitioner, notice of enquiry, entire domestic enquiry proceedings , show cause notice issued to him , his explanation against show cause notice and dismissal order .

8. Point No.1: The Petitioner has submitted that he was sick due to which he remained absent during the year 2004 and put in 90 musters during the year 2004. His statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer, during course of the enquiry he stated that he worked for 90 days and remained absent for the rest of days in 2004 due to health problems , but has not been able to provide any single document before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate his allegations . In his reply dated 22-2-2005 he wrote that he was not keeping good health due to which he could not attend to his duties regularly. As against this , the management has produced Sri V. Samba Murthy, Pit Office Assistant and Sri Md. Raza Ali, Paysheet Clerk to prove that Petitioner remained absent without any leave or without any intimation during the year 2004 from January to December. Since absence of the Petitioner was admitted by the Petitioner himself it was the sole duty of the Petitioner to prove that his absence was due to any cogent reason or sufficient cause. Petitioner was not able to prove that his absence during the year 2004 was due to sufficient reason . Though he stated that he was absent due to ill- health but he is not able to provide any evidence or proof in support of his illness or treatment for ill -health . Even if itispresumed that Petitioner remained absent due to the ill-health why he did not inform his superiors regarding the same has not been explained by the Petitioner. Thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer that Petitioner's absence during the year 2004 was without any sufficient reason or valid cause is based on evidence and reasoning and no fault can be find in the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer.

5. Coming to the point of the legality and validity of domestic enquiry conducted by the management it is pertinent to mention that Learned Counsel for the Petitioner moved memo dated 6-7-2009 conceding the validity and legality of the domestic enquiry as such, the domestic enquiry was held to be legal and valid.

6. I have gone through the claim petition, counter statement and documents filed by the parties and written arguments filed by both the parties .

9. This tribunal is also of the opinion that the Petitioner remained absent without any intimation to his employer during the year 2004 his absence was without any reasonable or sufficient cause and thereby the Petitioner has committed misconduct mentioned in para 25.25 of the Standing Orders of the company. Point No. 1 is decided accordingly.

10. Point No. 2 : So far as the question ofpunishment is concerned the Petitioner has not been able to justify his absence during the year 2004, he has voluntarily admitted before the Enquiry Officer that he remained 7. It is admitted fact that the Petitioner has put in only 90 musters during the year 2004 for which a charge sheet dated 17-1-2005 was issued to the Petitioner against which the Petitioner filed his explanation stating therein that he remained absent because of ill - health. It is also 1706

[PART II-SEC. 3 (ii)] THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण/ श्रम न्यायालय , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( एल.सी. संख्या 109/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है , जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

[सं. एल-22013/1/2011- आई आर( सी- II ) ]

डी. एस. एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi, the 27th January, 2011

S.O. 530. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ( 14 of 1947), the Central Governmenthereby publishes the award (L.C.No. 109/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal /Labour Court, Hyderabad now as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workmen, which was received by the Central Government on 27-1-2011.

absent during 2004 and could attend only 90 musters though the Respondent management has stated in the counter statement that Petitioner remained absent during the year 1999 to 2003 and in 2005 also which was not mentioned in the charge sheet . However, this fact was not brought before the Enquiry Officer also . As such, the previous absence can not be taken into consideration but the absence in the year 2004 is surely a grave misconduct andmanagement has not committed any mistake in passing the punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner's family is starving due to dismissal of the Petitioner against which Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of the family members , the Petitioner was a unwilling worker who has not cared to perform his duties with sincerity as such, the punishment was proper and interference is not required in this case.

[No. L- 22013/1/2011 - IR (C- II) ]

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO , Desk Officer

ANNEXURE

BEFORE THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL- CUM -LABOUR COURTAT HYDERABAD

Present: - Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer 11. I agree with the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent and I am also of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate and Petitioner is not a deserving person for any lenient view to be taken in favour ofthe Petitioner . The Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of his family members , no interference is required in the matter of the punishment . Point No.2 is decided accordingly.

Dated the 13th day ofDecember, 2010

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C.No. 109/2007

Between:

SriMettu Samba Murthy,

12. From the above discussion, this tribunal is ofthe considered opinion that the claim petition is unfounded, no interference is required in this case. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed. Hence, this award .

S/o Mallaiah,

C/o Sri S. Bhagawanth Rao ,

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Advocate & Notary,

Near 84B Court,

Peddapally,

Dictatedto Smt . P. Phani Gowri , Personal Assistant transcribed by her corrected by me on this the 27th day of December, 2010.

Dist.Karimnagar.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

.... Petitioner

AND

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

1.The General Manager,

M/ s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , NIL

RamagundamArea II ,

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

Godavarikhani ,

NIL

Dist.Karimnagar.

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

2.Managing Director (Adm) , M/s. Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Kothagudem,

Dist. Khammam.

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

....Respondents नई दिल्ली, 27 जनवरी , 2011

APPEARANCES :

For the Petitioner:

Sri S. Bhagawanthrao ,

Advocate

For the Respondent : Authorised representative का. आ. 530.- औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा17 के अनुसरण में , केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , 1707

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011 /माघ 30 , 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

ANNEXURE

AWARD

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

Present: - Shri Ved Prakash Gaur, Presiding Officer

Dated the 27th day ofDecember, 2010

This petition under Sec.2 A (2) ofthe I.D. Act , 1947 was filed by Sri Mettu Samba Murthy againt the management of M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. to set aside the dismissal order of Respondent dated 24-11-1998 and to reinstate him in the service with full back wages and other attendant benefits .

INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE L.C. No. 73/2007

Between:

Sri Kesaboina Gattaiah ,

S/o Illaiah ,

C/o Sri S. Bhagawanth Rao,

2. Case is fixed for filing of Vakalat, counter and documents of Respondent . On 13-12-2010 both parties called absent. Hence, petition is dismissed in absence of parties . Therefore, a ' Nil ' Award is passed in absence of parties concerned .

Award passed accordingly. Transmit.

Advocate & Notary , Near Sub- Court Buildings ,

Post: Peddapally,

Dist: Karimnagar

..... Petitioner Dictated to Sri J. Vijaya Sarathi, LDC transcribed by him corrected by me on this the 13th day of December, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, Presiding Officer

AND

Appendix of evidence

1.The Superintendent ofMines ,

M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. ,

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

Somagudem.

NIL

2. TheGeneral Manager,

Witnesses examined for the Respondent

M/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. ,

NIL

Mandamarri Area,

Post:Mandamarri ,

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Adilabad District.

Documents marked for the Respondent

NIL

3.Managing Director (Administration) , M/s.Singareni Collieries Company Ltd. , Kothagudem,

नई दिल्ली , 27 जनवरी , 2011

District: Khamman.

....Respondents

Appearances:

For the Petitioner:

Sri S. Bhagawanth Rao , Advocate

Forthe Respondent: M/ s . P. A. V. V. S. Sarma & Vijaya Laxmi Panguluri , Advocates

का.आ. 531.-औद्योगिक विवाद अधिनियम , 1947 ( 1947 का 14 ) की धारा 17 के अनुसरण में, केन्द्रीय सरकार एस. सी. सी. एल. के प्रबंधतंत्र के संबद्ध नियोजकों और उनके कर्मकारों के बीच , अनुबंध में निर्दिष्ट औद्योगिक विवाद में केन्द्रीय सरकार औद्योगिक अधिकरण , हैदराबाद के पंचाट ( एल.सी. संख्या 73/2007 ) को प्रकाशित करती है, जो केन्द्रीय सरकार को 27-1-2011 को प्राप्त हुआ था।

AWARD

[सं. एल-22013 /1 /2011- आई आर ( सी- II ) ]

डी.एस.एस. श्रीनिवास राव , डेस्क अधिकारी

New Delhi , the 27th January, 2011

This petition under Sec . 2A(2) ofthe I. D. Act, 1947 has been filed by Sri Kesaboina Gattaiah, Ex. Coal filler challenging the dismissal order dated 30-1-1998 passed bythe management ofM/s . Singareni Collieries Company Ltd., and to reinstate him with back wages and all attendant benefits .

S.O. 531. In pursuance of Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (14 of 1947) , the Central Government hereby publishes the award (L.C.No. 73/2007) of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal -cum- Labour Court , Hyderabad as shown in the Annexure in the Industrial Dispute between the employers in relation to the management of SCCL and their workman, which was received by the Central Government on 27-1-2011 .

[No. L- 22013/1/2011 - IR (C- II) ]

2. Petitioner submitted that he was appointed at Somagudem 1 incline as badli filler on 20-12-1985 . The management has accepted VRS of the father of Petitioner and consequent upon his father's voluntary retirement he was given employment . He has discharged his services to the fullest satisfaction of the superiors till his dismissal . He was issued with a charge sheet in the year 1996 with the following charge:

D.S.S. SRINIVASA RAO, Desk Officer.

4109711-32 1708

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ] "Habitual late attendance without leave or without sufficient cause amounts to misconduct U/s 25:25 of Standing Orders of company. "

explanation of Petitioner to the charge sheet, enquiry proceedings , enquiry report , letter forwarding enquiry proceeding and enquiry report to Petitioner, dismissal order, paper notification .

3. Though the Petitioner has submitted explanation to the charge sheet, disciplinary proceedings were initiated in 1997 and he was dismissed from service on 30-1-1998. He was not provided with the documents and enquiry was a formal enquiry. Hence, he prayed this court to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner into service with continuity of service and other attendant benefits .

7. Coming to the point of the legality and validity of domestic enquiry conducted by the management it is pertinent to mention that as the Petitioner has not challenged the legality of the domestic enquiry, case is fixed for arguments under Sec.11A of the Industrial Disputes Act , 1947. Though , Learned Counsel for the Petitioner moved memo dated 7-7-2009 to reopen the case, he did not turn up for later dates and also not pressing the memo hence, in absence ofworkman his argument is closed and heard argument of Respondent .

8. It appeard that Petitioner is not interested to proceed with the case. However , I have gone through the claim statement, counter statement, documents of the both parties and arguments of the Respondent.

9. It is admitted fact that the Petitioner has put in only six musters during the year 1996 for which a charge sheet dated 12-8-1997 was issued to the Petitioner against which the Petitioner filed his explanation stating therein that he remained absent because of ill- health. It is also admitted that domestic enquiry was conducted and Petitioner participated in the domestic enquiry. On the basis of the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer dismissal order has been passed against the Petitioner which is under challenge. In this case this tribunal has to consider,

4. Respondent has filed counter statement stating therein that the matter of the Petitioner has been referred by Government of India , Ministry of Labour and employment to this tribunal which has been registered as I. D. No.91 of 2006 in which case Petitioner has not submitted his claim statement and later he filed the present petition under Sec.2A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. That the Petitioner was initially appointed in Respondent's company on 20-12-1985 and got regularized from 30-3-1989 . During the year 1996he has put in 6 musters only, hence, a charge sheet dated 12-8-1997 was issued to the Petitioner for his absenteeism in the year 1996. It is further submitted that Petitioner has submitted his explanation accepting his mistake . He was dismissed from service after conducting a detailed domestic enquiry following the principles of natural justice. It is submitted thatPetitioner got absented without sanctioned leave and unable to produce evidence in support of his ill - health . He was anunderground employee and expected to put in 190. musters every year. He has put in 108, 87, 196, 58 , 21 , 6 and 5days from the year 1991 to 1997 respectively.

(1) Whether the absence of Petitioner during the year 1996 was for any sufficient and reasonable cause or not and the report of Enquiry Officer is based on evidence or not ?

(2) Whether the punishment imposed upon the Petitioner is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the Petitioner ?

5. It is further submitted that Petitioner remained absent for the year 1996 but for 6 days which hampered the working of the company , the absence of the Petitioner was without any sufficient cause which is grave misconduct within the Standing Orders 25.25 of the company and dismissal is not bad in the light of the case law reported in 1996 ( 1 ) SCC 302 State of U. P. and others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh . Petitioner's contention that he was not afforded proper opportunity is incorrect. Due notices were given to the Petitioner to participate in the enquiry proceeding . The notice was acknowledged by the Petitioner and he participated in the enquiry proceeding. Petitioner did not availed the assistance of co-worker though he was given the opportunity to take the help of a co -worker. Petitioner did not produce any sickness proof, thus he failed to produce any documentary evidence before the Enquiry Officer. The petition be dismissed as devoid ofmerits.

10. Point No.1 : The Petitioner has submitted that he was sick due to which he remained absent during the year 1996 and put in 6 musters during the year 1996. His statement was recorded by the Enquiry Officer , during course of the enquiry he stated that he worked for 6 days and remained absent for the rest of days in 1996 due to health problems , but has not been able to provide any single document before the Enquiry Officer to substantiate his allegations . In his reply dated 9-10-1997 he wrote that he was not keeping good health due to which he could not attend to his duties regularly. As against this , the management has produced Sri. M. Suryanarayana Rao , Office Superintendent and Sri N. Nageshwara Rao , Paysheet Clerk to prove that Petitioner remained absent without any leave or without any intimation during the year 1996 from January to December. Since absence ofthe Petitioner was admitted by the Petitioner himself it was the sole duty of the Petitioner to prove that his absence 6. Parties were directed to produce evidence in support of their claims . Petitioner has filed copy of representation dated 6-12-2006, dismissal order, enquiry notices and empanelment list of badlies containing his name at Sl.No.6 . Respondent, has filed charge sheet , 1709 भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19, 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

no interference is required in this case. Petitioner is not entitled for any relief, petition deserves to be dismissed and it is dismissed . Hence, this award.

Award passed accordingly. Transmit .

Dictatedto Smt. P. Phani Gowri, Personal Assistant transcribed by her correctedby me on this the 27th day of December, 2010.

VED PRAKASH GAUR, PresidingOfficer

Appendix of evidence

Witnesses examined for the Petitioner

NIL

was due to any cogent reason or sufficient cause. Petitioner was not able to prove that his absence during the year 1996 was due to sufficient reason . Though he stated that he was absent due to ill -health but he is not able to provide any evidence or proof in suport ofhis illness or treatment for ill-health. Even ifit is presumed that Petitioner remained absent due to the ill-health why he did not inform his superiors regarding the same has not been explained by the Petitioner. Thus , the finding of the Enquiry Officer thatPetitioner's absence during the year 1996 was based on evidence and reasoning and no fault can be find in the finding arrived at by the Enquiry Officer.

Witnesses examined for the Respondent NIL

Documents marked for the Petitioner

NIL

Documents marked for the Respondent NIL

11. This tribunal is also of the opinion that the Petitioner remained absent without any intimation to his employer during the year 1996 his absence was without any reasonable or sufficient cause and thereby the Petitioner has committed misconduct mentioned in para 25.25 of the Standing Orders of the company. Point No.1 is decided accordingly.

नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 532. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का34 ) की धारा 1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 मार्च , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त की हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा -77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

जिला

तहसील

हदबस्त संख्या

क्रमांक गाँव का नाम

कपूरथला

फंगवाड़ा

पलाही

कपूरथला

फगवाड़ा

102

2 नंगल

शहीद

बंगा

खोतरां

भगत सिंह नगर

[सं. एस-38013/10/2011- एस एस-1 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव 12. Point No.2: So far as the question of punishment is concerned thef Prtitioner has not been able to justify his absence during the year 1996, he has voluntarily admited before the Enquiry Officer that he remained absent during 1996 and could attend only 06 musters though the Respondent management has stated in the counter statement that Petitioner remained absent during the year 1991 to 1995 and in 1997 also which was not mentioned in the charge sheet. However, this fact was not brought before the Enquiry Officer also. As such, the previous absence cannot be taken into consideration but the absence in the year 1996 is surely a grave misconduct and management has not committed any mistake in passing the punishment of dismissal against the Petitioner. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that the Petitioner's family is starving due to dismissal of the Petitioner against which Learned Counsel for the Respondent has argued that Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation ofthe family members , the Petitioner was a unwilling worker.who has not cared to perform his duties with sincerity as such, thepunishment was proper and interference is not required in this case .

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2011 13. I agree with the argument of the Learned Counsel for the Respondent and I am also of the considered opinion that the punishment imposed on the Petitioner is neither excessive nor disproportionate and Petitioner is not a deserving person for any lenient view to be taken in favour of the Petitioner. The Petitioner himself is responsible for the starvation of his family members , no interference is required in the matter of the punishment . PointNo.2 is decided accordingly.

S.Q. 532. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State InsuranceAct, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 whichhave already been brought into force) and Chapter VandVI (except Sub- Section (i) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely :-

14. From the above discussion, this tribunal is of the considered opinion that the clam petition is unfounded,

410GI/11-33 1710

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011/MAGHA 30, 1932

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

Sl . No.

Name of theVillage

HadBast No.

1. Plahi

Phagwara Kapurthala

102

Nangal

Phagwara Kapurthala

3. Khotran

Banga

करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्‌द्वारा 01 मार्च , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77, 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

Shahid Bhagat Singh Nagar

क्रमांक गाँव का नाम हदबस्त संख्या तहसील जिला [No.S-38013/10/2011 - S S - I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

1. पंगोली

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

351 पठानकोट गुरदासपुर

2. कियारी

350 पठानकोट गुरदासपुर

376

सियून्टी

पठानकोट गुरदासपुर

[सं. एस-38013 / 12/2011 - एस एस-1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi, the 1st February, 2011 का.आ. 533,-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34) की धारा 1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा 01 मार्च, 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है, जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44) व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्यके निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:-

S.O. 534. In exercise of the powers conferred by क्रमांक गाँव का नाम हदबस्त संख्या तहसील जिला

1. भोखरा

-160 गुनियाना बठिण्डा

गिलपट्टी

बठिण्डा बठिण्डा

[सं. एस-38013/11/2011 - एस एस 1 ]

एस. डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 ( 34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- VandVI ( except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force)ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely :-

Tehsil District

Sl . Name of No. theVillage

Had Bast No.

351

Pathankot

1. Pangoli

Gurdaspur

Kiari 2.

350. Pathankot Gurdaspur

3. Siunti

376 Pathankot Gurdaspur S.O. 533. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3) of Section 1 of the Employees ' State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter V and VI (except Sub -Section ( i) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State ofPunjab namely :-

[No.S- 38013/12/2011 - SS - I] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

Tehsil District

No. Sl .

theVillage Name of

No. Had Bast

नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2011

1. Bhokra

160 Goniana Bathinda

2. Gill Patti

Bathinda Bathinda

[No. S - 38013/ 11 /2011 - SS - I] S, D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 534.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 की धारा 1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग

का.आ. 535. कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप - धारा (3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 मार्च , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व.45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77, 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

1711

भारत का राजपत्र : फ़रवरी 19 , 2011/माघ ३0, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 ( ii ) ]

तहसील जिला

हदबस्त संख्या

क्रमांक गाँव का नाम

124 फिल्लौर जालंधर 1.

गन्ना

जालंधर

137

फिल्लौर

बचोवाल

फिल्लौर जालंधर

238

3. गोहावर

[सं. एस-38013/13/2011 - एस. एस. 1]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 535. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March , 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI (except Sub- Section (1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely :

District

Tehsil

Name of the Village

HadBast No.

Sl. No.

Jallandhar

124 Phillaur

Gunna

Jallandhar

137

Phillaur

2. Bachowal

Jallandhar

238 Phillaur

Gohawar

[No. S-38013/13/2011 - S . S. I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 536.- कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा -1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 मार्च, 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो. पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

तहसील

जिला हदबस्त संख्या

क्रमांक गाँव का नाम

139 फतेहगढ़

फतेहगढ़ साहिब

साहिब

शमशेर नगर

110

फतेहगढ

फतेहगढ साहिब

साहिब

[सं. एस-38013/14/2011 - एस. एस. 1 ] एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 536. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State InsuranceAct, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter- V and VI ( except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely :-

Tehsil District HadBast No.

Sl. No. Name of the Village

139

Fatehgarh Sahib

Fatehgarh Sahib Shamsher Nagar

110

Fatehgarh Sahib

[No. S - 38013/14/2011 - S. S. I] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 537.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा-1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 मार्च, 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिधाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध. पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

तहसील

हदबस्त संख्या

जिला क्रमांक गाँव का नाम

मलोट

157

छापियांवाली

मुक्तसर

[सं. एस-38013/15/2011 - एस. एस. 1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 537. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the CentralGovernment hereby appoints the 1st March , 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI ( except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely : --

District

Tehsil

Name of

Sl .

Had-Bast No.

No. theVillage

Malout Mukatsar 1. Chhapianwali 157

[No. S-38013/ 15/2011- S, S .I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy 1712

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19, 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 538.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्द्वारा 1 मार्च, 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 ( 44) व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात् :

तहसील जिला

हदबस्त संख्या

क्रमांक गाँव का नाम

पटियाला

107

चमारहेरी

पटियाला

2. चौड़ा

पटियाला

106

पटियाला

3 . धरेरीजट्टां

[सं. एस-38013/16/2011 - एस. एस. 1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011 S.O. 538.- In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March , 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter- Vand VI (except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely :-

District HadBast Tehsil

Sl . Name of

No.

No. the Village

Patiala

Patiala Chamarheri 107

Patiala

2. Choura

Patiala

Patiala Dhereri Jattan 106

[No. S -38013 /16/2011 - S . S. I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 539.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 मार्च , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धांरा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात् :

[PART II- SEC. 3 (ii) ]

तहसील जिला

हदबस्त संख्या

क्रमांक गाँव का नाम

मोहाली 1.

डेरा बस्सी

महम्दपुर

मोथावाली

डेरा बस्सी मोहाली

डेरा बस्सी मोहाली 3. महीवाला

डेरा बस्सी मोहाली महीवाला

220

डेरा बस्सी मोहाली 5. मलकपुर

[सं. एस-38013/17/2011- एस. एस. 1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 539. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 whichhave already been brought into force) and Chapter- Vand VI ( except Sub- Section (1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely :-

District HadBast

Sl . Name of

Tehsil

No.

No. theVillage

Mohali

Dera Bassi

Mehmadpur

Mohali

Dera Bassi

2. Mothawali 38

Mohali Mahiwala 57

Dera Bassi

Mohali 4. Mahiwala 05

Dera Bassi

220

Mohali 5.

DeraBassi

Malakpur

[No. S - 38013/17/2011 - S . S. I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 540.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की. धारा 1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 मार्च, 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

क्रमांक गाँव का नाम

उप. तहसील जिला

हदबस्त संख्या

मोरिण्डा रूपनगर

248

मरहोली

[सं. एस-38013/18/2011 - एस. एस. 1 ] एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव 1713

भारत का राजपत्र : फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30, 1932

[ भाग II- खण्ड 3 (ii) ]

District

Tehsil

HadBast

Name of

Sl.

NewDelhi , the 1st February, 2011

No.

the Village

No.

Kumbra

Fatehgarh Sahib

Mandi Gobindgarh

Fatehgarh Sahib

Mandi Gobindgarh

2. MajriMishri 03 Walli

3. Jandiali

Fatehgarh Sahib

[No. S -38013 /19/2011 - SS- I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy, S.O. 540. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub - section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees , State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March , 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter- VandVI ( except Sub- Section ( 1) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) ofthe saidAct shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely :-

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

Sub -Tehsil District

Had Bast No.

का.आ. 542.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 Sl . Name of the Village

No.

Morinda Rupnagar

248

Marholi

[No. S-38013/18/2011 - SS- I] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 मार्च , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

जिला

तहसील

हदबस्त संख्या

क्रमांक गाँव का नाम

पटियाला

राजपुरा

1. गाजीपुर

पटियाला

264

राजपुरा

2. फरीदपुर

[सं. एस-38013/20/2011 -एस एस-1 ] का.आ. 541.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का34 ) की धारा 1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 मार्च, 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44) व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप - धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव

जिला

तहसील

हदबस्त संख्या

गाँव का नाम

क्रमांक

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

फतेहगढ़

मण्डीगोविंद

1. कुम्बड़ा

साहिब

गढ़

मण्डीगोविंद फतेहगढ़

माजरी मिश्रीवाली

साहिब

गढ़

फतेहगढ़

जंडियाली

साहिब

फतेहगढ़ साहिब

[सं. एस-38013/19/2011 - एस. एस., -1 ]

S.O. 542. In exercise of the powers conferredby sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees , State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 whichhave already been brought into force) and Chapter- Vand VI ( except Sub- Section (1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) ofthe saidAct shall come intoforce in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely :

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

District

Tehsil

HadBast

Sl . Name of

No.

New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

No. the Village

Patiala

Rajpura

1. Gazipur

Patiala

264 Rajpura

2. Faridpur

[No. S-38013/20/2011 -SS -I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली , । फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 543.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 ( 1948 का34 ) की धारा 1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग S.O. 541. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employees State Insurance Act, 1948 (34 of 1948 ) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force ) and Chapter- VandVI ( except Sub - Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the saidAct shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely :-

1714

THE GAZETTE OF INDIA : FEBRUARY 19 , 2011 /MAGHA 30, 1932

[PART II-SEC . 3 (ii) ]

(2)

(1)

(3)

(4) (5)

अमलोह

बदीनपुर

फतेहगढ़ साहिब -

शाहपुर

अमलोह फतेहगढ़ साहिब करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 मार्च , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और ( धारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

324

कोड़ी

खन्ना लुधियाना क्रमांक गाँव का नाम

जिला

हदबस्त संख्या तहसील

229

खन्ना

मोहनपुर

लुधियाना 339

मलेरकोटला संगरुर

बहादुरगढ़

[सं. एस-38013/22/2011- एसएस -1 ] [सं. एस -38013/ 21/2011 - एस एस-1 ] एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011 New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 544. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section 1 of the Employee's State InsuranceAct, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March , 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- Vand VI ( except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely :---

S.O. 543. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section ( 3 ) of Section I of the Employees State InsuranceAct , 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints, the 1st March, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV (except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- VandVI (except Sub- Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78 , 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State off Punjab namely:-

District

Tehsil Tehsil District

Name of

Had Bast No.

SI . Name of No. theVillage

Had Bast No.

No. theVage

14- Amloh

1. Majri Kishnewali

Bahadurgarh 339

Sangrur

Malerkotla

Fatehgarh Sahib

2. Khumnna

Amloh [No. S-38013/ 21 /2011 -SS -I ] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

Fatehgarh Sahib नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी 2011

10 Amloh

3. Kahanpur

Fatehgarh Sahib

08 Amloh

4. Badeenpur

Fatehgarh Sahib

5. Shahpur

Amloh 、 Fatehgarh Sahib

6. Kauri

324

Khanna

229

Khanna

Ludhiana Ludhiana

7. Mohanpur

का.आ. 544.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम , 1948 (1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 मार्च , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 (धारा -76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्

क्रमांक गाँव का नाम

[No. S - 38013 /22/2011 - SS - I] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

जिला

हदबस्ता संख्या तहसील

(1 )

(2)

(3)

(4)

नई दिल्ली , 1 फरवरी , 2011

(5)

1 .

माजरी किश्नेवाली

अमलोह फतेहगढ़ साहिब

अमलोह

1.2

खुमंणा

फतेहगढ़

साहिब

काहनपुर

अमलोह

का.आ. 545.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा । की उप - धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए, केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 1 मार्च , 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 (44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय -5 और 6 ( धारा -76 की उप- धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81

फतेहगढ़ साहिब [ भाग II - खण्ड 3( ii ) ]

भारत का राजपत्र :

के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात्:

क्र. गाँव का नाम

जिला

उप-तहसील

हदबस्त संख्या

1. सियालवामाजरी 147 सियालवामाजरी मोहाली

[सं. एस-38013/08/2011 - एसएस -1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st February , 2011

S.O. 545. In exercise of the powers conferred by sub- section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employee's State InsuranceAct, 1948 ( 34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March, 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 which have already been brought into force) and Chapter- V and VI ( except Sub-Section ( 1 ) of Section 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) of the said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely:-

Sl. Name of

District

Sub- Tehsil

Had Bast No.

No. theVillage

1 .

147

Syalwamazri

Syalwamazri Mohali

[No. S- 38013/08/2011 -SS - I]

S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

नई दिल्ली, 1 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 546.-कर्मचारी राज्य बीमा अधिनियम, 1948 ( 1948 का 34 ) की धारा 1 की उप- धारा ( 3 ) द्वारा प्रदत्त शक्तियों का प्रयोग करते हुए , केन्द्रीय सरकार एतद्वारा 01 मार्च, 2011 को उस तारीख के रूप में नियत करती है , जिसको उक्त अधिनियम के अध्याय 4 ( 44 व 45 धारा के सिवाय जो पहले से प्रवृत्त हो चुकी है ) अध्याय 5 और 6 ( धारा 76 की उप धारा ( 1 ) और धारा 77 , 78 , 79 और 81 के सिवाय जो पहले ही प्रवृत्त की जा चुकी है ) के उपबंध पंजाब राज्य के निम्नलिखित क्षेत्रों में प्रवृत्त होंगे , अर्थात् :

क्र. गाँव का नाम

तहसील जिला

हदबस्त संख्या

(3)

(1) (2)

(4)

(5)

जालंधर- II288

जालंधर 1. भगवानपुर

264

जालंधर- II जालंधर 2. लोहारां

370

जालंधर

जालंधर- II

3. करतारपुर

325

जालंधर- II जालंधर 4. सूरा

326

जालंधर- II

5. सरायखास

जालंधर

1715

फरवरी 19 , 2011/माघ 30 , 1932

(1 ) (2)

(3)

(4)

(5)

391

जालंधर

जालंधर-

6. विश्रामपुर

327

जालंधर 7. कहलवां

जालंधर- II

[सं. एस-38013/09/2011 - एसएस-1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर, अवर सचिव New Delhi , the 1st February, 2011

S.O. 546. In exercise of the powers con ferred by sub-section (3 ) of Section 1 of the Employee's State InsuranceAct, 1948 (34 of 1948) the Central Government hereby appoints the 1st March , 2011 as the date on which the provisions of Chapter IV ( except Sections 44 and 45 whichhave already been brought into fofce) andChapter- VandVI ( except Sub - Section (1) ofSection 76 and Sections 77, 78, 79 and 81 which have already been brought into force) ofthe said Act shall come into force in the following areas in the State of Punjab namely :---

Tehsil

District HadBast No.

Sl. Nameof No. theVillage

288 Jallandhar - II Jallandhar Bhagwanpur

2. Loharan

264

Jallandhar

Jallandhar- II

370

Jalandhar

Jallandhar- II

Kartarpur

325

Jallandhar 4. Sura

Jallandhar - II

326

Jallandhar 5. Sarai Khas

Jallandhar - II

391

Jallandhar

Jallandhar- II

6. Bishrampur

327

7. Kahlwan

Jallandhar - II Jallandhar

[No. S-38013/09/2011 -SS-I] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

शुद्धिपत्र

नई दिल्ली, 4 फरवरी , 2011

का.आ. 547. इस मंत्रालय की सम संख्यक अधिसूचना दिनांक 13-9-2010 ( का.आ. 2473 ) जो कि भारत का राजपत्र भाग- II खण्ड 3 , उप- खण्ड ( ii ) में दिनांक 26-9-2010 को पृष्ठ 6862पर प्रकाशित हुई है , में शब्द " पतालयम " को " पंतलायनी" के रूप में पढ़ा जाए ।

[सं. एस-38013/34/2010- एसएस-1 ]

एस.डी. जेवियर , अवर सचिव CORRIGENDUM

New Delhi , the4th February, 2011

S.O. 547. In this Ministry's notification of even number dated 13th September, 2010 (S. O. no . 2473) , published in the Gazette of India No. 40, Part - II , Section-3 , Sub- Sec. ( ii ) dated 26-09-2010 , at page number 6862, the words " Pathalayam" may be read as " Panthalayani "

[No. S- 38013/34/2010 - SS - I] S. D. XAVIER, Under Secy.

Printed by the Manager, Government of India Press , Ring Road, Mayapuri , New Delhi - 110064 and Published by the Controller of Publications , Delhi - 110054.